-----------------------------

In a Nutshell:

-----------------------------

Members of the Philosophy Group employ more sensible methods to ‘disagreement’ between people than, for example, Mathematics groups - because it's a forum based in the art of open discussion and on all issues. Observing simple, basic use of ‘NET-IQUETTE’ rules assists in curbing the possibility of personal clashes, flood of long posts, irrelevant posts, or a copyright violation.

The basic idea is that Group Administrators do some moderation. Of course moderators are somehow involved into discussions, but no-one providing free online forums can employ neutral moderators.

Moderation in online forums should generally be sensible; freedom of speech is one of the basic cultural ideas of the internet. Nevertheless, there are the ResearchGate terms that disallow copyright and other infringements and the general "netiquette".

(a) neutral moderation is not a service provided by RG

(b) there are AT LEAST these rules to be observed:

- freedom of speech.

- respect for copyright content (and no legal infringement)

- respect for "netiquette" RFC 1855 and in particular the NetNews section (http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html) .

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A note from an RG Advisor on Moderation/issues:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

“ResearchGate is an open network it aims at serious researchers, but we cannot really tell what and who is "serious" enough and don't want to exclude hobby researchers from using ResearchGate.

It's up to the members of such subcommunity to find ways to deal with that. ResearchGate does offer many possibilities: you can make a group closed, so members can only join with approval of a group admin. Also, you can set up a clear shape for what should be discussed here and what should not, and people that disregard the given shape repeatedly can be suspended (temporarily or permanently) from a group.

ResearchGate even offers the (unique, as far as I can see) possibility to link groups, so you could set up different groups for different issues or audiences and link them in order to create a philosophy network, where everyone can find a place where he is welcome.”

~ Dennis Jlussi

Leibniz Universität Hannover

- Apr 6, 2009 2:50 pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Structural, Functional and Behavioural Guidelines Regarding Appropriate Behaviour:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STRUCTURAL:

~ Give a shape, a contour, boundaries, limits to a subject, a topic, hence a limit to discourse *thematic* choices. For example, if someone comes in the Theology group and talks about stomach diseases, a Group Admin or Topic Author would be in his right to ask the contributor to move his discussion to the appropriate group/thread. ~

1. In the absence of any appointed Moderator, the Topic Author automatically accepts responsibility for the management of his/her topic, ensuring that netiquette rules are followed and the topic stays ‘on track’.

_____________________________________________________

FUNCTIONAL:

~ Gives constraints to the discourse, they style and shape the rhetoric and argumentative structure of the debate, they rhythm the expression; hence they limit the *rhetoric and stylistic* discourse choices. ~

2. Posting articles or sending messages to a group whose point of view is offensive to you simply to tell them they are offensive is not acceptable.

3. You may use copyright material with courteous quoting and relevant extracts as short as possible. We recommend an ‘academic research approach’, i.e. refer to a public web article by simply placing a link, and quoting relevant extracts that illustrate an argument or an analysis.

a) In Philosophy method, simply making use of a definition is not an argument, nor should it be mistaken for one. If Joe Bloggs quotes, he should exploit his quotation (showing how the quote supports his arguments or arguing against it, drawing out the lines he wants to follow etc.)

4. Diffusing heated debates that have difficulty in concluding:

a) everyone observes the simple netiquette

b) Make use of elections/poll on issues rising out of the debate

5. The use of Polls:

a) Any member can initiate a Poll

b) Polls can be used for qualitative and quantitative data, as long as the items do not infringe any Netiquette rules

______________________________________________________

BEHAVIOURAL:

~ Within the thematic, rhetoric and stylistic constraints, how do we use our freedom degree? Behavioural rules can be moral, ethic or just simply *conventions*. They don't just establish a norm, they Netiquette (respect, no flames, follow the topic), Grice rules (informativity, for example), Terms of use (copyright) - these rules give a limit to a person's activity. ~

6. Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond to incendiary material.

a) If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to the list or the group. If you are debating a point on which the group might have some interest, you may summarize for them later.

-----------------------------------------------

Special Consideration:

-----------------------------------------------

- Philosophy Group has numerous contributors and non-contributors who are not avid followers of Philosophy as a discipline but may share the passion. Introduction of rules must not be too rigid in that it automatically excludes educational value [and entertainment value] for such a group of observers.

- It’s important not to ban familiar, poetic or metaphoric styles, as they give insight – even if these styles are not logical or rational, they provide good sense of a problematic. Between the perception and the iteration, there is a process made of thoughts, imagination, lyrical, metaphoric and poetic, associated with intuitions, reasoning structures, that progressively leads to shape the surface expression of a sentence. Stylistic and rhetoric choices just make you say "best regards" instead of "ciao", or "the problem is NP complete” instead of “it's difficult, dude!".

- As regards Behavioural Guidelines: What gives behavioural rules in Philo Group, is not a law, but the academic context. It is not a legal, nor a moral issue, but an ‘etiquette’ issue. Personal attacks have to be avoided (or precisely explained and reciprocally argued).

...and Items still for consideration:

1. What constitutes a ‘majority’ in polls?

2. WHO can moderate WHOM?

3. What happens with people abstaining from Poll votes? What do their votes count as?

4. What do you want from the phil group?

5. If there are rules and no moderators, who will be in charge to ensure the rules are respected? And when someone doesn’t respect them?

6. What IS Philo and what is Philo NOT?

7. Maybe we should distinguish, in what we call rules, what kind of rules are *structural*, which ones are *functional*, and which ones are *behavioural*?

8. What if self-moderation is not practiced by someone?

- just forget about it?

- simply recall that personal categorization has to be argued/justified and not blindly reproached.

- use the "edit button" or "delete button"?

- kick out of the group?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As each question is answered, I will include it in the Guidelines list under the appropriate category (Structure, Function or Behaviour). Of course, as more questions are raised they will be included in this list.

_____________________________________________________________________________

"It’s important not to ban familiar, poetic or metaphoric styles, as they give insight".

Insight into what?

While there's no question of "banning", I'd say that we certainly shouldn't encourage such stuff. This is a RESEARCH ORIENTED SITE, not a sounding board for sub-adolescent musing. I still can't understand why we have such problems - are other groups similarly polluted with arrogant amateurs?

Thanks Tristan. :)

David: I agree on the musing...within limits. It's frankly not up to us anyway...people who can 'keep up' with conversation flow - amateur or not - earn the right to have their say. There's a very real possibility of chaos management anyway: when the flow is not easy to follow, an amateur won't find it worth his time to follow and continue. This is an open forum...I mentioned previously that we deal with 'knowledge' and we're justified in setting up behavioural guidelines. But that's all it is...guidelines. We manage the knowledge here, not the people. We can't stop anyone making an ass of himself...if he so chooses...UNLESS it's clear he wants to make an ass of someone else...then he's outta here! Besides, 'amateur' is a refreshing POV - adds a kind of balance, no?

I'll update the suggestions this weekend...

Jaime

I agree. I'm a member of several groups I've never even visited again... surely, the philosophy group "belongs" to those who invest the most (and who - already - are almost all superadmins).

Anyway, since the last Flame War, things have calmed down... once again, I suggest that the best policy is to get on with a bit of work !!!

David:

Work - I second that.

BUT, Philosophy group doesn't 'belong' to anyone. We have just *earned the rights* to manage it.

Dear Jaime:

As a result we don't have the right to 'give' anyone 2 or 3 months to prove anything. They prove interest on their own accord or not. I DO agree with your suggestion on points 1 & 3 - thanks.

Note the scare quotes.

*I* think that whenever a post is not relevant the nastiest thing we can do is to let me comment on it...

mm i don't like this militarism against irrelevant posts. it seems that few posts will actually be deemed relevant. plus i want to have the right to be nasty to david too.

Be as nasty as you like. God will recognise His own...

And by the way, I found your comment to be highly irrelevant.

You appeal to God? or is that self-reference?

i expected you would :)

Both; or neither - it depends on one's belief system.

ditto

the both one i can understand. the neither one i don't.

Nor do I. But who said I was constrained by rationality?

Deleting posts? Positive and negative posts? Worthiness? Nastiness? Godliness?

~ Who lives in a pineapple under the sea???

david. good point, though the discussion on that is in another thread.

natasha, what does the expression about the pineapple and the sea mean? or is it another example of irrationalism? though of course that would go for all metaphorical uses of language, in which case i suppose the charge of irrationalism does not apply

Spongebob Squarepants (2007), "Fishosophical Investigations", University of Bikini Bottom Press

huh? should i google that?

I would if I were you - if your supervisor finds out you don't know it, you're dead!

mm dread to think what might come out

Think of your supervisor as a kind of Plankton...

To return to the topic : I also suggest that we set up a compulsory (sticky) "Spongebob" Thread in which we have to pick Spongebob characters as sock puppets. I think I must be Squidward... or perhaps King Neptune (arrogant, balding)

I must say that Haris' enthusiastic innocence DOES make me think of Spongebob Squarepants himself... and Tristan as Patrick? Natasha has, of course, Sandy Cheeks...

(that last wasn't a suggested sock puppet, just a bit of gossip)

*haris goes out of the room to play with sock puppets, having noticed some hint of sexual innuendo*

Oooh, you are AWFUL!!!

[David hits Haris with a flower]

that last event was a bit camp (a shade of homophobia presents itself somewhere in haris' brain, and then disappears again)

Really - young people nowadays are SO easily shocked! [David pouts prettily]

pouts? care to explain?

Ok, Ladies and Gents

Public notice No. 2 (dunno what No.1 was):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please submit your comments/answers regarding changes/deletions/additions to the:

1. Guidelines

2. Questions still to be considered

***Submissions are to be received by midnight on 7 May 2009.***

Of course, any additions thereafter will be for further discussion and agreement, but I'm sure we have some good solid basics for guidleines already.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post your responses in ONE post, to this thread (neat paragraphs please) and quote the related heading (i.e. 'Guidelines' and 'Questions') with your text. I would appreciate some simple English (if at ALL possible) minus inuendos (for now at least) so I am able to update/edit the guidelines as efficiently as possible.

Thereafter, I will place it on a Sticky Thread on the Philosophy Group Main Page as well as upload it as an Adobe document.

Thank you for your attention

SandyCheeks

"I would appreciate some simple English (if at ALL possible) minus inuendos"

Can't be done, Old Thing. Sorry.

Either it's a PoHoMoroni neo joysprick liberally larded with lovingly interleaved jargon (longing lingers of lone loons laughing? Strangeness, yes; but charm - thrice gullible, tagged & bound for Lionstown; (all of a shiver) yes but gone, dolour - must we; embark

shanty shanty shanty

ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

A

sleep

And anyway, is it MY fault that you should inspire me to the basest of innuendo? What did you expect - Shakespeare?

My mistress' eyes are nothing like an immense body of hydrogen in fusion ;

The abandoned calcareous cells secreted by marine polyps reflect far more light in the 625–740 nm waveband than do her lips;

If and only if snow be white, why then snow is white...

No, as I said, it can't be done... but I can do Kenneth Williams to a T.

Now, stop messing about...

[Falls off chair, laughing!]

PS: your 'shanty' posts...a 'Master-Yoda-meets-Andy-Warhol'...a sludgy mix of sabre-light and lens.

Anything is possible Tristan.

or is that

Possibilities are anything?

Are you casting aspersions, Young Tristan? (David coughs darkly)

"I will maintain," said he, "that I *do* talk nonsense; and secondly, I will maintain that I do not talk nonsense upon principle, or with any view to profit, but solely and simply, said he, solely and simply, -- solely and simply (repeating it three times over), because I am drunk with opium; and *that* daily."

~Thomas de Quincey, "Confessions of an English Opium Eater"

Even my life is a literary pastiche, it would seem...

...simply because words ARE the opium, dear Man.

St Ludwig, ora pro nobis!

[Here follows a Remarkable and Unique Demonstration of Philosophical, Literary, and Comedic Legerdemain offered Humbly for Your Delight, Divertissement, and Delectation

…and of course Henry the Horse dances a Waltz!!]

***

On a semi-serious note: you *could* take my recent postings on this board as my 'comment' on the debate. I second Tristan's call for free speech.

To recap on recent events. We had an unfortunate "flame war" recently (**ouston, we have a problem); but this was actually resolved by a coalition of those who consider the philosophy group serves some purpose.

That there *was* a coalition is itself an excellent sign of the anarcho-individualist spirit that informs much of hardcore web culture (a culture that Tristan and I share to a degree, though Tristan has far greater experience). We have no need of "rules of debate" – the community will react to defend certain common principles without need of any formal expression of "The Rules". Sheesh, Brethren and Sistren, we're supposed to be, or be aspiring to being, bloody soddin' PHILOSOPHERS, aren't we??? If WE can't comport ourselves in terms of the Ideal Anarchist Community of Free Individuals, then who can? Obama X. Bush, Gordon Bennett and Nicolas Bonaparte, perhaps?

I said above that we hold that the group serves some purpose. Yet none of us would have the same understanding of what this "purpose" is. Evidently, Natasha's, or Tristan's, or my, input reflect what we expect in terms of 'output'. I think Tristan, for example, needs a place where he can allow himself to speculate freely on certain 'philosophical' aspects or implications of his main research orientations; the expected return being the possibility of bouncing ideas off people with different research skills – in other words, people with as great a familiarity with technical philosophy as he has with his own area of specialisation (excuse-moi si je te caricature, cher Maître!). Other people's expected return is perhaps less easy to identify – but in each case, there IS a real return, and in most cases that return has some academic or professional component. For Haris, perhaps it gives him a bit of fun practice (I hope it's something like that), but Haris is SERIOUS about philosophy, whatever the criticisms he might have of both its dogma and its self-perceived role… I think we provide a window of REAL sanity for Natasha (the lunatics have taken over the asylum), I can't say any more… and for myself, well. Shall we say that I enjoy myself IMMENSELY; that I can do a little bit of teaching (that isn't arrogance – I'm a trained teacher, and a trained philosopher…); that I can play with ideas that I wouldn't otherwise have reason to discuss; and that it can lead to real philosophical collaboration on concrete projects.

OK, so we mess about – Playtime on Parnassus. Play is an essential part of any creative process – if it ain't FUN, why bother? Otherwise, it's just deadly grey work, and sucks the very soul out of life. I make a general apology for my sometimes tedious flippancy; but it DOES express a very important application of my philosophical outlook: as I tend to determinism, rather than Free Will, I find something rather absurd in our earnest human belief (which I, of course, share) that we can somehow "make a difference". Such a belief frequently gives rise to a kind of deep and irresolvable melancholic pessimism – the very spirit of Werther and 'philosophick romanticism' of the laudanum-and-gloom kind (I don't know about you, but I've never liked opiates that much. On that, at least St Timothy Leary was correct…).

On the other hand, you can look at the seriousness with which we pursue our various activities – the tormented, brain-heated discussions on whether we can really realise a really perfect real world in reality (for real!) or whether we should accept on his say-so the Swami Bendabanana's Patent Nostrum (composed to a secret recipe from fourteen herbs and spices – you can taste that zingy Quantum!) – and see the whole shebang as fundamentally absurd.

Here we are, a bunch of over-evolved chimpanzees trying to crack open the 'sense' of the Universe with linguistic tools that are the lineal descendant of cries made to tell the monkeys in the next tree where the ripe fruit was… we huddle around the fires of our limited intellects and tell ourselves stories in which the circle of firelight illuminates the Absolute Form of the World (this is, I suppose, Anti-Platonism). It is, when you look at it, already absurd enough (monkey see, monkey do!), but when you take the further step of asking whether our apparently Free Will is not rather an epiphenomenon, it becomes downright ludicrous.

We English already have an "intuitive account" of the 'appropriate philosophical response' to such a situation: "you've got to laugh, or else you'd cry". Tormented Romantic Despair isn't really my cup of tea – I've always been one for taking things to their logical conclusion from the start, and the logical conclusion of Romanticism is suicide (or André Breton, which is much the same). The alternative is to celebrate the absurdity. A very "English" disease?

And now for something completely different…

Natasha – a further comment on the "there is no explanation; Faith must be your guide" discussion:

In traditional Catholic doctrine (before the "Galileo Affair"), the believer was obliged to follow Reason in all things, insofar as Reason tended to reaffirm the foundations of Faith. Heresy was, primarily, contrary to *Reason* rather than to Faith; it was Reason perverted to ends contrary to Faith, and therefore False Reason, a sophism which seems sound but which leads subtly into error. "The Truth is known beforehand: all we can say either conforms to the Truth, and resounds to the Greater Glory of God; or contradicts the Truth, and must be burned out" (this is a free translation of a Dominican sermon of the fourteenth century): once False Reason had led a person to doubt the foundations of his Faith (which are Given, and cannot sanely be questioned), the doubt must be burned out in a symbolic "Act of Faith".

We live in a material world; symbolic acts must have a physical manifestation (we are most metaphorical monkeys!). It's easy enough, I think, to see how the inherent notion of "Sacrifice" underlying Christian and Catholic thought on the one hand, and the need for a person who had been led into error to "reaffirm" his Faith on the other hand, came together in the notion of "auto de fé" as practised under the Spanish Inquisition.

The *physical* burning of heretics was the symbol taken to its most grisly metaphorical conclusion. The heretic had, by the perverted misuse of his God-given (and God-like) Reason, erred in doubting the foundations of his Faith. In this, he had rejected Christ's Sacrifice, which is the sole necessary and sufficient condition for Faith. In rejecting Christ's Sacrifice, he rejected the act of atonement which the Sacrifice represents; therefore, he must himself atone for the sin of rejecting Christ's Atonement. He could, admittedly, make symbolic atonement "of his own Free Will": publicly recanting, performing penance: though thereafter he might be imprisoned, his life would be spared. But if he refuses to recant, stubbornly and in the face of all True Reason (which flows, as I have remarked, from the Truth that is already known), then the symbolic act of atonement must find some other physical expression.

As Christ's Atonement was effected by His Crucifixion, it surely follows that the soul of the heretic can be cleansed by enacting a similar atonement on *his* body. The mind, clouded by False Reason, might cling proudly to its error, but this is the manifestation of a sickness of the soul. The true enemy is False Reason, which comes not from Man, but from an older and far wilier Opponent. This False Reason contradicts the Truth that is Already Known, and must – as our Dominican would have it – be "burned out". How better to effect a symbolic re-enactment of Christ's Atonement than by sacrificing the body by fire to ensure the health of the soul?

***

This shows how smiling friendly Nuns singing "Dominique Nique Nique" and gently explaining to trusting six-year-olds that "some things can't be explained" can lead inexorably to the kinds of act which most testify against the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. It's a bit like The Sound Of Music, save that the nuns are all paid-up members of the Party…

[Hirst wonders whether anyone will get it]

Lovely David

Without trying to sound too cock-sure (which IS rather impossible) at the start of this debate I expected us to eventually decide AGAINST the list of rules we produced thus far. The entire 'excercise' may have *appeared* futile but in fact is an excellent example of classic people dynamics. It was a fabulous excercise in our inherent ability to sort out what is 'real' and what is 'reasonable'. Of course, the value of 'The Recent Flame War' was fabulous in that it highlighted the importance of Language as well as Creative Imagination [which of course tickled our need to establish some kind of guidelines in behaviour - LESS in need for decisions, and MORE because of need to control].

There were trials and eliminations by criticism which have contributed hugely to the progress of Philo Group (yes, it has progressed). There is more a move now from hostile criticism, toward friendly-hostile co-operation; I assume we expect to focus less on competition and more on finding 'The Truth'.

'The Rules' as it were, have in fact been absorbed already. So, there may not be a need to display it per se', although it would be a good thing to have it handy for purely analysing the discourse that took place.

As for reflecting on each of our 'purpose' and personal motivations - I have been largely mum on this since my start for 2 reasons: I naturally apply an analytical and systems thinking approach to any discourse which helps me keep focused on 'real' and 'reasonable'. And secondly, I have huge respect for the qualified contributions of members, so it's in my nature to award respect by observing, which implies I TRY not to spew forth any tripe...I respect you all far too much. Of course, there are items I am passionate about and come hell or high water (or even David) I will partake in those threads, which thankfully seems to be most of what is in Philo anyway. I have been an avid, serious follower of Philosophy for at least eight years now, which, strangely enough was sparked by questioning Roman Catholic belief systems years ago. Philosophy is evident as an underlying rythm in my personal work; so as regards 'outputs' - I may not be actively searching for The Truth, but I am certainly researching it.

If I reflect on what I appreciate from the, um, bunch of 'lunatics' (yes, I deliberately but enviously exclude myself), then I would have to say: David, for your colourful, aesthetically-pleasing, boundarylessness guidance which borders on becoming its own religious ridiculousness, evoking questionable rites (and that you're a bloody cheeky bugger); Haris, for your angst-filled candor, who, in a dangerously delicious way, makes me oscilate between feeling safe and feeling tested (and you're a cheeky bugger with a conscience); Tristan, for your unlimited grail of knowledge which is dissolved only by your use of a rythmic language that is as expressive as it is jaw-droppingly informative (and you're *becoming* a cheeky bugger); silent members, for your constant silent bicker reminding me that we 'have a responsibility' in 'The Truth'.

*David puffs clouds of scented smoke towards the screen*

Who, me?

Xanthippe has two rivals - Sophia and Mary-Jane. The former is regularly doused with the cold contents of the Pisspot of Common Sense; and cakes of the other she tramples underfoot.

Philosophy has so few models for love stories - it's either Socrates, or Abelard and Heloise - and I'm rather to attached to my orchids.

***

OF COURSE, the popular image of philosophers sitting around smoking hashish cigars and pontificating on the meaning of, like, the Universe and, you know, like Life and stuff, well it's just like... er

What was I saying?

Public Notice No. 3:

-----------------------------

2 Days to go before 'The Rules' are discarded too.

Thank you for your attention:

~ The ?~

(I'll let you know once I've followed the thread 'Who Am I' to it's logical conclusion)

Yeah, "the" - as in "there is exactly one x such that x is F"

Russell gave it as "there is an x such that x is F and such that for any y, if y is F, then y = x", which obviously draws on the identity of indiscernables...

Public Notice:

---------------------------------------

This thread now serves as reference for the purpose of following discourse on issues of moderation and related polls. The end result of such deliberation: Rules are NOT implemented and neither is moderation. But the value of the process has been absorbed by users and readers and benefits the quality of future interactions as lessons well-learnt. :-).

Dear Jean-Luc

Oh dear...no need to be upset! You'll find a host of witty interactions between members and for all things Philosophy. There is no 'profile' demanded here. We may have a 'preference'... but no demands - other than serious attempts at keeping up and a good grasp of expressing oneself clearly. Even a degree of 'indifference' is tolerated :). Welcome.

Regards

Natasha

#H1-130. Completed reading this thread (3 pages). I marked Likes also. But my opinion is, I if inappropriate, and it is decided so, please me be advised vide email (and barred adding-comment), that will enable an honorable exit. I think this should apply to all, no need for argumentation since people should not any way violate public space (some body has to decide, no other way,need not be over-philosophical in the face of offense/obscurity).

Now, I aw aware further postings to this thread may not be required, but any way as is my usual, I list my gleanings from reading this thread. Only to summarise the best ideas as interests me, not else.

1. David Hirst, 0502091902.

I am reminded of: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/new_literary_history/toc/nlh.40.1.html

2. Natasha van Rooyen, 0502091120 And secondly, I have huge respect for the qualified contributions of members, so it's in my nature to award respect by observing, which implies I TRY not to spew forth any tripe...I respect you all far too much. Of course, there are items I am passionate about and come hell or high water (or even David) I will partake in those threads, which thankfully seems to be most of what is in Philo anyway. >> Philosophy is evident as an underlying rythm in my personal work; so as regards 'outputs' - I may not be actively searching for The Truth, but I am certainly researching it.>>

3. Carlos Silva, 0610090413