Executioner moderating the philosophy section

I honestly can’t wrap my head around why a moderator would hand out warnings just for pointing out that someone is derailing a thread. Take the discussion Emergence and the Creator Problem/Chance for instance; I simply pointed out that two users were just trolling aimlessly, and my post was wiped instantly. To make matters worse, I actually got flagged for being insulting just because I called them "maniacs."

Now, look, if I had been the one penalized while the moderator actually stepped in to deal with those posts, I wouldn't be complaining, but instead, those trolls stay up even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. A few more posts from these "maniacs" trickled in before William Gonzalez3 finally decided to hand out warnings—and that was only after several days of trolling and specifically targeting later posts rather than when the disruption actually started.

Then there’s the thread Which is the only non-material phenomenon that cannot be doubted where hiddenpuma75 keeps dropping these kinds of posts just to provoke people for no reason at all: I reported one such post after noticing once again that the moderator wasn't doing their job, only for the post to be deleted without any penalty—since these warnings are apparently just meant for flagging derailment. It feels like there are several threads that have been arbitrarily moved to different sections because the moderator lacks a grasp on philosophy and just shoves everything under psychology. There was this one thread regarding suicide; he likely assumed that meant it fell under the umbrella of psychology. Perhaps it does, but that should be a philosophical stance requiring actual argumentation rather than just forcing an opinion by moving the entire thread. Is it even necessary to mention the philosophers from antiquity through to the modern era who have grappled with this question? I mean, most people have probably read Camus, though I suppose William Gonzalez3 might be the exception.

.

blue bird said:For heaven's sake, where did my post go?

The whole thing explains why S. decided to run that thought experiment in the first place. Honestly, what's wrong with you guys?

.

moonfool said:My post just vanished too. Honestly, it was one of the best things I’ve ever written on here. Has everyone lost their minds?

moonfool said:My post vanished too. It was honestly one of the best things I've ever written here. Has everyone lost their minds?

No, they haven't lost it!

Consciousness is the Aleph!😲

It's actually the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, carrying a numerical value of 111.
(In Jewish tradition, every letter has a numeric equivalent, which they use to derive spiritual insights through the practice of gematria.)

But ALEPH has layers; one of its meanings perfectly describes the role of a moderator.😲

- You absolutely have to read Borges’ short story "The Aleph"—it might just provide the key you're searching for.

- Dive into the mysteries of the Kabbalah, though telling you that is a bit like me suggesting you start studying advanced mathematics. Fascinating, but endless.

- The ALEPH is also that tiny sphere capable of reflecting the entire universe—a single point of total perception.
Think of it as a nexus where all other points in our universe converge; by looking into it, you can simultaneously witness the beautiful complexity of everything that exists.

---
So, in a way, a part of the Aleph is found in the function of a moderator.
They are often driven by ambition, because as the sage Alim suggested,
ambition is the primary requirement.

However, that very ambition eventually becomes a liability when it starts interfering with the natural flow of the forum.

A moderator can turn from an asset into an obstacle for both the community and the platform itself.

And since the Admin is arguably even more problematic than the moderators, I suppose we should prepare to strike back using chaos magic and the placebo effect—all strictly in accordance with Bell's theorem on nonlocality.

To me, being a moderator feels completely absurd.
It cheapens the dignity of actual work and fosters this amateurish mindset.

The owner of this site makes all the money while people deal with their own psychological issues
(think adolescent ambitions, a need for self-importance, and a craving to control others)

...all while doing this job for free.😲

And man, if only they actually did a good job at it.

Most of the time, it’s just them picking on the regular users.

I don't know if you've noticed, but most of them—like 8 out of 10 moderators
are actually poor writers here on this forum.

Or to put it another way,

the absolute best writers on this entire platform are NOT the moderators.😉

-------
I’ve seen cases where moderators barely even post on "their" forums.

Some have only ever opened one or two threads.

--
Everyone knows they aren't doing a great job.

---
A perfect analogy just popped into my head.

In the world of film and art, those who fail to paint, compose, or act well
end up becoming what we call "critics" of other people's work and success.
It seems to me that most of these moderators share that exact same mentality.

Basically, it's like saying, "Well, if I can't write well, I might as well force my way into being a moderator."
---

My goal in this thread is to analyze the psychological profile of a moderator, so please don't move this or bury it in the psychology section.

--
Please notice how this topic was immediately removed from the psychology section😂 even though that's where I originally intended to start it.

Just look at how much it bothers the Emperor when someone points out he's naked.😉

Notice how the moderators don't act with any principle; they just delete, obstruct, remove, or censor anything that bruises their tiny egos.

ironmarlin1 said:Plus, he’s moved a bunch of threads over to other subforums because his grasp on philosophy is pretty weak—he just dumps everything into psychology instead. There was this one thread about suicide, for instance. He probably thought he was being clever by implying it’s strictly a psychological issue. I mean, maybe, but that’s his own philosophical stance he needs to actually argue for, not just force on everyone by moving the whole discussion. And honestly, does anyone even need to bring up the philosophers from ancient times all the way to now who tackled the subject? (I assume everyone's read Camus, except for William Gonzalez3).

Look, ironmarlin1, since I’m the one who actually started that suicide thread you're whining about, let me set the record straight:

That thread had a super straightforward opening post designed to let anyone jump in and share their thoughts. Sure, it started in the Philosophy section, so it had that "philosophical vibe" initially, but as the days went by, the conversation drifted heavily toward psychology. Because of that, William Gonzalez3 moved it over to Psychology, which was totally fair, and that's where the talk continued.
Later on, I actually asked the Psychology mods to move it over to Alternative or Spirituality, because the whole thing started veering into reincarnation territory.

As for how William Gonzalez3 handles things,
I don't know if there's a better moderator on this entire site, and I don't hang out in every single subforum, but from what I've seen, William Gonzalez3 is an incredibly sharp, tolerant, and fair moderator.

If you honestly believe that the ramblings found in that thread about "The one intangible phenomenon we can't doubt" and the trolling regarding emergence by those two users constitutes anything resembling intelligence, then I am truly stunned. When I pointed out that he was clearly just trolling, he hadn't actually accomplished anything—other than handing me a ☕. It’s the exact same story now with hiddenpuma75. Regarding that discussion on suicide, I have to disagree with the consensus because I know I felt compelled to weigh in, only to find the next day that the thread had been wiped, and frankly, it had nothing to do with psychology (unless, of course, one is completely unacquainted with both philosophy and psychology). Regardless, I presented several clear instances of poor moderation, yet you chose to say absolutely nothing about them. It is a mistake to conflate the vibes of some random chat room—which I suspect is where that user spends all their time—with actual moderation. Philosophy is a world away from the mindless chatter of a dive bar chat room, and this certainly isn't the venue to be grading a moderator's skills.

I find myself compelled to join the chorus of criticism directed at our moderator, William Gonzalez3. Just a few weeks back, he handed out a 500-point penalty—which is essentially a ban—all over some absolute nonsense. It took the Admin quite some time to go in and fix that mess and bring it down to a 45 🤣 controversial post
Today, however, I was hit with a zero-point penalty—just a warning, mind you—simply because I was answering a fellow user's question about why Shami was banned:

Dennis Rogers6 said:It was for hate speech. Here is the link
God preserve me from the state of American culture, misplaced heroism, and the way things are moderated on this philosophy board 😬

Hmm...
Look, since you got that "controversial" warning on my thread, I’m gonna need you to chill out with those kinds of posts here. Seriously—they don't actually follow the point of the topic at all. They feel more like random chatroom chatter or stuff you should just be sending in a private DM instead.

Hey, what's up? Catch you guys in the threads.

Kate Fisher73 said:Regarding how William Gonzalez3 handles things around here,
I honestly can't say if there's anyone else running this forum better than him—I don't spend my whole day reading through every single rulebook and policy manual, but from what I've gathered, William Gonzalez3 is just an incredibly sharp, patient, and fair moderator.

😂👎 well, why don't you just take him home then 👎

Kate Fisher73 said:Well,
Since you received a "controversial" warning on "my" thread, I'd kindly ask you not to post things like that here anymore, because they don't really fit the subject matter of any specific topic; they feel more like chatty banter or stuff meant for private messages.

Best, talk soon

So we're calling it "your thread" now? Has it really come to this, where there's "my" topic and "your" topic? Look, honey, you have to realize that an online forum is basically just a digital version of a public square or an agora.
If you were standing out in the middle of Times Square and someone joined a conversation, would you actually turn to them and claim the discussion was "yours"? 🙄
I haven't seen this kind of nerve in a long time. 👎

vividhawk48 said:"your topic"? honestly, have we really descended to the point where we distinguish between "my" topic and "your" topic? don't you realize, kiddo, that this forum is essentially just a digital version of a public square, an agora, or a town hall?
would you actually walk up to someone joining a conversation in a physical plaza and tell them, "hey, this is my discussion"? 🙄
i haven't seen this kind of audacity in quite some time. 👎

I couldn't agree more. There is simply no such thing as ownership over a discussion thread. Besides, I am well aware—unlike Kate Fisher73—that there used to be far more competent moderators in the philosophy section. It used to be handled by Nobody and Nothing, but that’s all water under the bridge now because certain cliques formed against them until they finally walked away. And as for William Gonzalez3, well, he is who he is. He hands out warnings daily, but purely for the sake of performative flair. It’s much like giving a bureaucrat permission to operate entirely outside the law; one warning just triggers another, which does absolutely nothing to actually improve the quality of the debate. On top of that, there is this constant shuffling of threads, as if Zeus himself might strike us down if a post stays put when it sits somewhere between philosophy and, say, the "social sciences." The issue is that he fails to distinguish between a post seeking a deep explanation and one merely looking for affirmation or negation; consequently, everything gets dumped into the descriptive "social sciences" bucket, even when topics are clearly intended to be explored from an ethical perspective rather than just providing a clinical description of a phenomenon.

It is genuinely infuriating when you feel forced to double-check every single post just to ensure you haven't been hit with an unfounded warning for "insulting" someone. It feels less like being on a forum and more like standing in the presence of some authoritarian officer in a public square. If we want a real example of how users are being mistreated here, look no further than what Dennis Rogers6 went through. What is your take on that specific situation, Kate Fisher73? Would you call the response intelligent, tolerant, or fair?

William Gonzalez3 said:look, I'm worried I'll be stuck moderating for years because you can't seem to file a complaint properly.

yeah, you will.😢

😬