Harold James9 said:Why on earth are we so certain that this topic belongs specifically under Philosophy? In my humble opinion, wouldn't it be much more appropriate to move it over to the student corner or perhaps the Literature section instead?🙂
That isn't a bad suggestion at all! If we were to rearrange things just a little bit—perhaps moving the topic back to Philosophy? And what if we reassigned steelridge58 to the student corner instead? Wouldn't that be a wonderful way to let her democratic spirit and tolerance truly shine? After all, as Jacob Thompson76 pointed out, she simply doesn't have the necessary expertise for the Philosophy section, does she? Is it possible that moderation on the Philosophy Forum has become dangerously discriminatory toward highly intelligent minorities?
Well, look here, my colleague Kenneth Peterson5, sometimes things truly have to be pushed to the absolute point of absurdity just to ensure the message actually reaches the ears of those who refuse to listen. This initial report in my two-year tenure on Reddit serves merely as an expressive tool to highlight the sheer absurdity of this situation. In fact, it is quite simply all I have left—my sense of humor, as ridiculous as that may sound.😢 Miracles, unfortunately, are not within my power; I cannot grant sight to the blind or hearing to the deaf.
hiddenhound3 said:That tells us quite a lot, actually. The last time you checked the user counts was during a weekend tied to Christmas, which hardly constitutes a statistically sound sample. People were away on vacation, spending time with their families, and attending to various obligations; in truth, it would have been more concerning if forum activity had spiked during that period.
As of Monday morning, there were 12 members active in Psychology, 4 in Philosophy, and 6 in Spirituality. One cannot overlook the fact that Philosophy and Spirituality are separate subforums, which naturally results in lower individual member counts. Furthermore, the number of people truly engaged in studying philosophy is significantly smaller than those seeking help in the Psychology section, making such direct comparisons somewhat absurd.
Regarding the Spirituality section, the situation is evolving. People are learning, we have a new moderator providing much-needed assistance, and the aggressive agitators who used to cause trouble there have vanished. Consequently, we are persevering, and it appears that everyone is finding the environment quite pleasant.🙂
I am filing a formal complaint regarding this post due to trolling and discriminatory content. It contains veiled aggression toward participants who are being treated as unwelcome simply because their unique perspectives create a dynamic that the user florine labels as "unrest." The implication that certain participants are somehow problematic—without any actual explanation of how they cause "unrest"—makes it clear that this post is nothing more than trolling.
Isn't this exactly where the issue lies? This kind of intolerance and failure to understand diversity is the core of the problem!
I kindly request that florine be sanctioned for this post. Otherwise, by allowing this behavior to pass without consequence, aren't we essentially encouraging the spread of discrimination and intolerance?
I greet and wholeheartedly support this excellent, constructive proposal! It is truly heartening to see such an earnest effort to finally move things forward regarding the frustrations expressed by our community members.
If we implement this, users would no longer have cause to complain about the chosen moderators, as they would be selecting them themselves! Wouldn't that create a wonderful system of mutual accountability? We could have a true two-way evaluation where users assess moderator performance, while moderators simultaneously oversee the community's health. Up until now, however, the dynamic has been quite lopsided—on one side, you have a single moderator, and on the other, a multitude of dissatisfied users who, due to poor moderation, inevitably lose their passion for participating and migrate to other forums.
By adopting this approach, we would effectively eliminate one-sided communication and that outdated, "caste-like" hierarchy between moderators and users. But perhaps the most beautiful outcome of all is this: it would foster a sense of individual responsibility that eventually scales up to society at large. People would begin to realize they actually have the power to shape the spaces they inhabit. After all, don't we all know that you reap exactly what you sow?
Look, we’ve always operated on the assumption that a high-quality forum user makes a great moderator, but that is COMPLETELY wrong. Still, damn it, what else do we have? There isn't any other standard for picking moderators—not just regarding Politics, but anywhere. If there’s some other paradigm out there that actually yields better results, let's lay it out and try applying it...
Thanks, I knew someone would eventually show up with a solid suggestion. I'll take a look... we'll discuss it... 🙂
@Sarah Wilson95: Just because you post in the Politics section doesn't mean the rest of this Reddit isn't just as high quality. Sports journalists are basically just tabloid hacks stealing content from the sports subreddits... Living... On the "let's gossip a bit" segment, Ana Ugarković brings up the exact same stuff people complain about here in her shows (just a few examples that come to mind). And one more thing: my coworker at work mentioned on Tuesday that she read something on Reddit... 😉 I have absolutely no doubts about just how much power this Reddit holds... 😉
Of course there is: a professional. I mean, someone detached, highly skilled, specifically trained for moderation, and who focuses solely on that task without being an active participant in the very debates they are moderating. Is that too much to ask? Given its current state, this Forum will likely function this way for maybe another five or six years. During that window, new generations will arrive, and due to various attention span issues, they won't have the patience to wait for change or attempt to implement it themselves; instead, they will promptly migrate to wherever things are offered faster, better, and more efficiently. Anyone who fails to adapt to these emerging conditions in a massive, monolithic manner will simply fail. Politics is merely a symptom of what follows if nothing changes.
Sean Cruz said:Well, this is absolutely unbelievable.
Why was Florine banned?
Is this just meant to be a warning to the rest of us to pipe down before we face the same fate? Can someone please explain why the Spirituality moderator bans anyone who dares to disagree with his takes on the Komaj region?
They won't, because clearly, nobody cares. Back in the day, she did things at Microsoft that were arguably even worse, yet she was only given the role because someone thought it would be a funny little joke. Just look at the state of this forum! Perhaps when people start jumping ship and viewership plummets due to the declining quality, then—and only then—might someone finally ask these questions. Otherwise, no. Who truly cares about discrimination, fear-mongering, lack of sophistication, or sheer mediocrity? When our entire country feels like it's heading in that direction, why on earth should we expect anything better from an online forum?
nimblemaker30 said:And honestly, the show just keeps rolling along, staying every bit as gripping and unpredictable as ever.
It’s been quite an eventful week, hasn't it? Kenneth Peterson5, our misunderstood heroine, has started to quietly fade into the background after that rather dramatic outburst where she insisted the local government was entirely to blame because the circus was packing up and leaving our little town.
Then there's Douglas, the local prodigal son and resident pothead; apparently, his usual stash wasn't cutting it anymore because he hit something much stronger, and since his cannabis high clearly wasn't enough to keep him level, he went on a late-night rampage the night before last. He absolutely trashed the front page and opened about a dozen different threads just to hysterically scream at everyone that they were idiots, though by morning, all the evidence of his little spree had vanished. It was painfully obvious he was spiraling because he started talking complete nonsense... which, predictably, resulted in him getting banned.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, this figure named Hunter emerged from the coop, trying to oust the director by calling for a total paradise revolt. Since Hunter is some unknown entity, everyone was immediately suspicious of where they came from and what their real angle was, but it turns out the director isn't holding onto power as weakly as one might think. He’s managed to win over the top writers and the most talented women, he's got me acting as his bodyguard, and he even has the backing of the former moderator—that controversial yet fair guy, Nobody—along with the highly respected and discreet former moderator, Maleficent.
This whole thing really ruffled the feathers of the old guard, and then, as if on cue, a whole new cast of characters entered the fray in this ongoing series: Mr. Clerk, a certain Greg, Urd, and a few others—all complete strangers, shrouded in mystery and seemingly harboring some pretty strange intentions. You can't help but wonder if we're actually looking at a bunch of clones.
Beyond that, you have to ask yourself, why all this hiding behind new handles? It seems pretty clear they’re just too embarrassed to face the music using their original names. Meanwhile, the old wizards have gone silent; nobody seems to care anymore that if they weren't so obsessed with the philosophy that I shouldn't be rubbing elbows with veteran Doug on the front page, they'd have fallen completely off the map by now.
So, ladies and gentlemen, it is truly my pleasure to play along with all of you...
I sincerely hope the drama continues and that the next chapter is at least just as wild as this one.
How charming, yet unfortunately, how tragic. It looks like nothing more than a chaotic feast over remains. 😢
The issue here, mistyfox812, is that it seems you haven't quite grasped what I've been saying—even though I have pointed it out several times now!Perhaps I should find a more appropriate term than "abuse" to get my point across. As far as I am concerned, this discussion ends right here, because there truly isn't anything left to say.
steelridge58 said:The issue here is actually you. You’re the one out there slandering people, throwing insults around, and constantly obstructing everything the Philosophy Forum moderator tries to do just to push some niche agendas that probably only exist in your own head. Honestly, you really ought to take a moment to sit back and reflect on that. Just think about yourself for once.
I simply cannot agree with this statement. I suspect that Kenneth Peterson5, much like color, Soul sister, ja_sanja, hollowtinker18, and Batman... are all merely reacting to the blatant injustice present in this thread, as well as the sheer inability—which isn't anyone's fault, really—and the lack of expertise required from the moderator to actually lead this discussion. To properly engage with certain members here, such as Percival or George (who have unfortunately moved on due to these misunderstandings), one requires a certain breadth of perspective that is currently missing; and that is precisely the point being made! Can you see that, or not? I truly don't know, though it would be wonderful if you could, because then this entire problem would vanish, wouldn't it? Furthermore, isn't it quite strange that you haven't even questioned the core issue when it has been pointed out so clearly? Instead, you speak of communication that is impossible unless both parties are willing, or at least capable, to meet halfway.
Jonathan Brooks8 said:We really need to make this personal, Benjamin Long from Denver... the issue isn't the "approach" itself, but rather the person doing the approaching. In other words, it isn't that the "Philosophy" subforum has an inherent problem; rather, in this specific instance, we are looking at your own expectations of what Philosophy should be... which means the problem lies with your expectations—that is, you.
🙏 🙏 🙏 Isn't it interesting how Stalin used to tell everyone who disagreed with him that *they* were the ones with the problem, right before they were sent against the wall? Boom, boom, boom! 😁 Still, can we really deny his philosophical depth? We certainly couldn't, especially since we might not even exist without it! ☕
Doesn't this just reinforce everything I have already stated several times? It brings us right back to square one, and we could just spin in circles until the end of time! But honestly, I simply don't have the energy for that, as I have much more productive things to attend to:
Benjamin Long said:@ steelridge58, you claim that philosophy wasn't an issue—or rather, that philosophy itself didn't face any issues—but I simply cannot agree! I firmly believe that philosophy faced, and continues to face, the exact problem I outlined in my previous post. Let me reiterate: the core issue with this philosophy is its overly aestheticized and formalistic approach to thought (which, quite frankly, is why the Alim was moved). The whole point of philosophical thought isn't to be pleasant, beautiful, symmetrical, harmonious, or "cute." Such notions were surpassed and dismantled long ago by various avant-garde and neo-avant-garde movements, yet it seems they still linger around here. That is precisely why I think it is a wonderful thing that spirituality (whatever its nature may be) has been relocated right there. If it is even remotely possible, it might just shatter that forced, old-fashioned, primitive, and overly polished concept currently present in philosophy.
May you all enjoy the cuteness and harmony! Warmest regards and pleasantsounds.
steelridge58 said:The issue was strictly centered around suggestions; the reality is that those suggestions were handled exactly the way I described above. As for the idea that a decision was reached without the authors' consent, well, that's simply because we couldn't reach a consensus on a single one of those proposals. Regarding the part where you quoted me in your last post while asking about moving the thread, I think that actually answers your question about what the problem was quite clearly. The content itself wasn't the issue; rather, the discussion led to a suggestion that the thread would better suit Spirituality or magic and mysticism (which was just a suggestion, mind you), but once it came time to actually pick one of those paths, there just wasn't any willingness to even have that conversation.
How can we say the content wasn't the problem if:
steelridge58 said:The issue was strictly centered around suggestions; the reality is that those suggestions were handled exactly the way I described above. As for the idea that a decision was reached without the authors' consent, well, that's simply because we couldn't reach a consensus on a single one of those proposals. Regarding the part where you quoted me in your last post while asking about moving the thread, I think that actually answers your question about what the problem was quite clearly. The content itself wasn't the issue; rather, the discussion led to a suggestion that the thread would better suit Spirituality or magic and mysticism (which was just a suggestion, mind you), but once it came time to actually pick one of those paths, there just wasn't any willingness to even have that conversation.
Wasn't it precisely because of the content that the suggestion arose? And if no agreement was ever reached on the proposal, why was that specific decision made? Why wasn't everything just left as it was? Why did a mere "suggestion" turn into a final decision? If it truly was just a suggestion and it wasn't accepted, then nothing should have changed! Or am I perhaps fundamentally misunderstanding the definition of the word "suggestion"?
casualtiger2 said:Well, here I go again—getting heated, judging, and being biased. 🙂 I've never been a fan of people using multiple accounts (honestly, I don't really get the point), but hey, I won't stop you. Maybe you just prefer those other handles—so when you feel like I'm not feeling you, you can just—I don't know—switch profiles. 😉
Actually, we're saying the exact same thing. I *am* trying to stay objective. Maybe our definitions of "objective" just don't line up? 😬 I like who I like, and I'm not out here trashing anyone else.
😂 I just don't want Comet to be annoyed with me, plain and simple! 😂
casualtiger2 said:@ steeleagle13 and Helel, last warning regarding off-topic posts—I really don't want to spend my entire evening cleaning up after you two.
@ Enchantress - thanks 🙂
@ Donna 😂
@ normall - look, I’m gonna have to ask you to change that avatar. Violence just doesn't fit the vibe we're going for here—and before you jump in asking why we can't include violence, let's start with ourselves; if we change, maybe the world around us will follow suit.
I’m a fan of public polls, and most of mine will stay that way. We’re all hiding behind nicknames here, anyway—and honestly, if someone is too afraid to stand by their opinion even behind a screen, what are they even doing in a community focused on spirituality?
@ Benjamin Long, I still maintain you have no business critiquing the state of the philosophy or spirituality forums—especially not the moderators, who have put in thousands of times more work to make these spaces decent. If I'm wrong, please, enlighten me with your actual contributions to those boards (you know, specific threads you started or solid essays/debates you led).
@ I agree with steelridge58 that nobody actually asked the philosophers if they wanted spirituality shoved into their space. On the flip side, in that poll with the massive turnout, the spiritual crowd voted for independence—which is what I think would be best—but that was basically ignored. At the end of the day, I couldn't care less where the spirituality section is "physically" located. As long as it’s one click away, it’s fine. What matters is who is writing the content and how they do it.
Up until a few months ago, philosophy was my gold standard—the perfect forum, perfectly moderated. Good people, good conversations—even when things got heated. Spirituality was pretty much okay, too. steelridge58, remind me again what the actual issue was with the old spirituality board (aside from the lack of a permanent moderator)? Then the "yellows" showed up and chased off the "reds." One guy with a mission ended up pulling a few others down with him; one argument led to another, and before long, nobody knew who was running the show. Unfortunately, that same guy—using the exact same tactics—came back to shake things up in philosophy, too (exactly what Alexis seems to be rooting for). Threads became personal, petty, non-philosophical, and just plain mundane. It kind of wrecked the philosophy board. In my opinion, the spirituality forum was torn apart out of the best intentions. When everything moved, topics were shuffled and "sold off." Things that naturally belonged together were scattered across the internet.
That’s just my take on how things went down, and I might be wrong. But regardless, it’s in the past. Here we are now—the spiritual folks over at spirituality, the thinkers at philosophy, and all of us together with two goals: to learn something and have a good time. So, it’s on all of us to make sure this place stays decent for everyone.
Now, casualtiger2, there is absolutely no need to get worked up! I am actually posting here under my lesser-known handle just to see how you would judge the situation without such biases. It is just as much of a prejudice to lump me in with that "trio" who think they are simply "the wrong people in the wrong place."
@steelridge58, I truly appreciate your hard work and everything you have written, but your response still fails to provide a clear answer to a very straightforward question. This is particularly true because, as you claim, the group intended to address the matter through "suggestions rather than a decision"—yet a decision was clearly made! If a decision is reached without the consent of the authors, then we aren't talking about a suggestion anymore; we are talking about a decision whose reasoning remains entirely opaque. Why specifically were certain segments of that controversial thread deemed problematic? Simply stating that the moderators didn't act "unilaterally or arbitrarily" doesn't actually explain anything regarding the specific content that caused the dispute. So, I ask you: what exactly was so contentious about that thread that it made it suitable for Spirituality, yet unfit for Philosophy?
steelridge58 said:I definitely see the issue with the philosophy side of things, mainly because it's become the primary area where I find myself getting tangled up in all the back-and-forth bickering and mediated arguments. I’ve been watching the pulse of these philosophy threads as someone deeply embedded in them, and I've noticed a real shift in how people approach certain topics; they’ve increasingly turned into battlegrounds for petty disputes rather than meaningful discussion, which has created a massive hurdle for genuine communication and basic tolerance. It really comes down to whether people are willing to be a little harder on themselves and actually embrace open dialogue—something that, quite frankly, would make communicating with the moderators a whole lot easier if everyone just showed a little more openness or a willingness to actually talk things through. At the end of the day, you just can't have healthy communication unless every single person involved is genuinely committed to sitting down and trying to resolve an issue in a way that actually works for everyone.
Precisely! And if that isn't the case, then we must ask ourselves this:
Benjamin Long said:@ steelridge58, you claim that philosophy wasn't an issue—or rather, that philosophy itself didn't face any issues—but I simply cannot agree! I firmly believe that philosophy faced, and continues to face, the exact problem I outlined in my previous post. Let me reiterate: the core issue with this philosophy is its overly aestheticized and formalistic approach to thought (which, quite frankly, is why the Alim was moved). The whole point of philosophical thought isn't to be pleasant, beautiful, symmetrical, harmonious, or "cute." Such notions were surpassed and dismantled long ago by various avant-garde and neo-avant-garde movements, yet it seems they still linger around here. That is precisely why I think it is a wonderful thing that spirituality (whatever its nature may be) has been relocated right there. If it is even remotely possible, it might just shatter that forced, old-fashioned, primitive, and overly polished concept currently present in philosophy.
...so why on earth is Alim's topic posted under Spirituality instead of Philosophy?
steelridge58, I am afraid there has been a misunder ndstanding between us. I am not shifting the focus from spirituality to philosophy; rather, I am highlighting the issue regarding the Philosophy PDF. It has become significantly more prominent than the connection to spirituality—which I actually view as a positive development, since it has amplified the symptoms pointing toward the flaw in the Philosophy PDF. However, you seem to be diverting attention away from that specific issue! Does this mean you haven't noticed the problem, are you choosing to ignore it, are you simply avoiding the hassle of dealing with it, or perhaps I am the one who is mistaken?
@ steelridge58, you claim that philosophy wasn't an issue—or rather, that philosophy itself didn't face any issues—but I simply cannot agree! I firmly believe that philosophy faced, and continues to face, the exact problem I outlined in my previous post. Let me reiterate: the core issue with this philosophy is its overly aestheticized and formalistic approach to thought (which, quite frankly, is why the Alim was moved). The whole point of philosophical thought isn't to be pleasant, beautiful, symmetrical, harmonious, or "cute." Such notions were surpassed and dismantled long ago by various avant-garde and neo-avant-garde movements, yet it seems they still linger around here. That is precisely why I think it is a wonderful thing that spirituality (whatever its nature may be) has been relocated right there. If it is even remotely possible, it might just shatter that forced, old-fashioned, primitive, and overly polished concept currently present in philosophy.
Though it pains me to admit it, I find myself in general agreement with Donna and Enchantress this time around. ☕ Furthermore, I believe it would be highly beneficial for Philosophy if Spirituality were integrated into its ranks. Such a move would effectively break the monotony of those limited, overly simplistic approaches—specifically those leaning too heavily on aesthetic "sublime" concepts—and disrupt the current clan-like mentalities.
@ volver, who exactly do you consider to be the "landlord" over at Philosophy?
casualtiger2 said:Enky, the best I can do for you right now is leave your take on Comer right here on this thread—that way everyone can draw their own conclusions. Honestly, dragging people behind your back and spreading lies by acting like pedophilia is just standard practice in Comer is incredibly low. You didn't cite a single source for such a heavy accusation. As for everything else you have regarding this subject, please take it to the appropriate thread—the one Mandragora specifically moved from Philosophy and Mysticism—instead of us all chasing each other around the forum.
I never claimed that someone who hasn't posted here is any less spiritually advanced. And I'm not blaming the newer users. As for the "old guard"? That’s a bit of a cliché that every forum freak deals with—but then again, some of them actually used to be excellent (even if they don't show it on the forum anymore). If Parsifal, Nemruth, Dragonfly, Lame Deer, Enchantress, Fish, Belki, Baphomet, Mano, Fazlija, Jivan Mukta, Jimmy Jazz, Witch, Crazy Person, Slavko, Planinar, and several other names I can't recall right now became active again—paired with support from the newer crowd—this forum would be paradise. 😁 But I guess even in spirituality, you get "burnout." Especially on forums like this one.
I agree—the insults and ego trips are an embarrassment to a spiritual forum... and I'm working on fixing that (even if some people keep throwing wrenches in my gears). I don't have anything against cliques, as long as they aren't used to disrupt how the forum runs.
Look, I value my biases. Like I said before, they'll remain a constant part of my moderation—subjective objectivity, essentially—and a preference for those who actually try to make this forum high-quality through their writing. And like I mentioned, that favor is fluid; you have to earn it.
Take Alexis, for example. Since joining on July 11th, she hasn't started a single spiritual thread (just one about digital photography and one complaint about moderation). I don't recall a single meaningful contribution from her regarding spirituality, either. And now she wants to come in and fix the "wrong" Mississippi on the Philosophy and Spirituality board? And I'm supposed to answer to her? It's funny how her entire body of work lately has just been supporting Enky in criticizing n&n, myself, and the whole administration. Not to mention the tone she uses while doing it. So, feel free to think I'm biased when it comes to her. 😍 That doesn't mean it's set in stone forever, though.
Benjamin Long is merely a mirror reflecting your own actions. Whether they posted under a handle that opened two threads or twenty, or whether they used a name you happen to loathe or adore—these are simply preconceptions you are building in your mind based on incomplete information; they are nothing more than products of your imagination. There are far too many people being trampled here under the guise of "love and peace," fueled by bias, favoritism, and not to mention the sheer amount of prejudice—which I can clearly see through the way you draw these conclusions, hinting at your own exclusivity. I noticed that in Alimo's moderation thread, you were already wielding your moderator's baton, threatening that things would "go to the scrap heap if..." which also reveals your sensitivity toward what was written there. Wouldn't one who holds the gavel (and possesses the knowledge and sensitivity to understand?) instantly discard anything that doesn't fit their specific concepts? Is that your idea of "unconditional love" and love in general?