Complaint about the philosophy moderator

I realize moderators are just regular people. However, one would expect a certain level of decorum on the philosophy subforum—not this narrow-minded arrogance displayed by "steelridge58."
Who actually blocked me from starting a thread titled: "The Greatest Books by History's Most Influential Thinkers?"
And my post:

I couldn't find a thread like that, and besides, that isn't even the same subject matter.

Essentially, list a maximum of three books per thinker. Quality over quantity matters here. For instance, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche...

Leave out today's trendy fools whom nobody will remember in a few years.

Even after an appeal, she refuses to allow the topic.
Heaven forbid someone discovers a brilliant book by a true genius. It’s much better if we all stay ignorant and just stare at idiots on TV.👎

Not to mention being all stuck-up and arrogant, just like that moderator "steelridge58."

I actually have to disagree with that take on steelridge58. From what I've seen, she’s actually really kind, helpful in keeping things on track, and always tries to nudge people toward having actual, productive conversations... she does a fantastic job. Honestly, she's one of the best moderators on this Forum. 👍

John Roberts4 said:I can't say I agree with that description of steelridge58. In my experience, she's polite, keeps things on track, and actually encourages productive debate. She does her job exceptionally well. Honestly, steelridge58 is one of the most competent moderators on this Forum. 👍

I disagree. steelridge58 is a pretty subpar moderator, mostly because she doesn't even understand the topics she moderates 🙄

Jacob Thompson76 said:I have to disagree. steelridge58 is a pretty subpar moderator—mostly because she doesn't even understand the subject matter she’s modding 🙄

Isn't there some unwritten rule that if you've only put out 32 posts—this one included—and most of them are just a bunch of emojis, you don't really get a say in judging how a moderator like steelridge58 does her job?! 😠👎
PS
Calling her "stubborn" and "arrogant" says everything we need to know. Honestly, she deserves a warning

casualtiger2 said:Isn't there some unspoken rule that people who have barely scraped together 32 posts—most of which are just a string of emojis—don't get to sit in judgment of a moderator like steelridge58?! 😠👎
PS
Calling her "stubborn" and "arrogant" tells you everything you need to know. That deserves a ban, plain and simple.

No, there is no such rule. Honestly, it’s pathetic that you, as a moderator, aren't even aware of that. If we actually had competent moderators who could grasp the fact that an emoji shouldn't dominate two whole sentences, they’d probably have way more than 32 posts by now. 😛

PS. Since we're handing out bans, I’d suggest doing the same for casualtiger2. He’s just spamming this thread with off-topic nonsense. Thanks!

Noah Johnson63 said:Look, I totally get that moderators are just regular people, but when we're talking about the Philosophy subforum, I really feel there should be a certain standard maintained, rather than having someone acting all shut down and arrogant like the moderator "steelridge58."
Who’s actually blocking me from starting a thread titled: "The Best Books by the Greatest Thinkers of All Time?"

Even after I politely asked, she still won't let the topic go live.
God forbid anyone actually discovers a brilliant book written by some genius; it's probably better if we all just stay ignorant and keep staring at idiots on TV instead.👎

It’s actually pretty straightforward: your TS was just poorly constructed, so I moved it to the most relevant existing topic because I didn't want to leave it floating aimlessly in Philosophy just because someone thinks they can post whatever random thought comes to mind and call it a valid discussion. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need moderators or any established guidelines for starting threads, which I'll share here:

Starting a Thread

• The opening post needs to be high-quality, well-argued, and clearly distinguishes personal opinion from direct quotes.
• If you quote any text, you absolutely must provide the source and a link if one exists; otherwise, a moderator has the right to delete the post or the entire thread.
• An introductory post cannot contain provocations.
• Low-quality threads will be deleted.

So, the bottom line is that I didn't delete your low-quality thread; I simply merged it into a related topic, and if you truly want to start your own discussion again, just put a little more effort into crafting a quality TS and you won't have any trouble keeping it in Philosophy.

Also, regarding those insults you threw my way—which are clearly about your own behavior rather than mine—you're more than welcome to apply those descriptions to yourself as a member of this Forum; once you manage to reach a decent "level" of conduct and drop the arrogance, you won't find yourself needing to file complaints in the Philosophy section anymore.

The post is straightforward, high-quality, precise, and concise. That is exactly how things ought to be handled in a philosophy forum.
If you’re looking for mindless nonsense, go check out CNN, Fox News, or some political rag.

This is arguably the largest Forum out there. A definitive reading list featuring the greatest geniuses should have been established the moment this place launched—yet here we are, seven years late, facing unexpected pushback regarding its creation.
It’s honestly embarrassing for the Forum and for those opposing it.

casualtiger2 said:Is there not some unspoken rule stating that those who have contributed a mere 32 posts—this one included—mostly consisting of nothing but emojis, should not be in any position to critique the performance of a moderator like steelridge58?! 😠👎
P.S.
The decision to label her as "stubborn" and "arrogant" speaks volumes about the speaker's own character. It practically begs for a formal warning!

This sounds like the commentary of a seasoned forum veteran possessing a rather distinct alter ego.

However, to avoid drifting entirely off-topic, I feel compelled to state that the complaints regarding steelridge58 are utterly without merit; it is rare to encounter someone who puts such immense effort into their PDFs while remaining consistently tolerant and diplomatic.

Noah Johnson63 said:This might be the largest online Forum in America. A list of books by the greatest geniuses should have been created the moment this site launched. Now, after a seven-year delay, we're finally trying to do it, and people are pushing back.
It's an embarrassment to the Forum and to those opposing it.

I don't understand why there is so much anger toward the Forum and the moderator of Philosophy.😕

How can you be certain that specific topic belongs in Philosophy? In my opinion, it would fit better under the student corner or Literature.🙂

Don't blame others for your own lack of understanding or for being exclusionary. It isn't right, and it only creates unnecessary tension.🙂

🙂🙂🙂

hiddenhound3 said:This sounds like someone who’s been on this Forum far too long and has developed a whole second personality to cope.

Look, I don't want to go completely off-topic here, but those complaints about steelridge58 are totally baseless. It’s rare to find someone who puts that much effort into their PDFs—plus, they're actually tolerant and diplomatic.

Nobody is questioning whether they're tolerant or diplomatic; the issue is that they simply aren't competent. But then again, that seems to be the common thread among most moderators on this Forum.🤷

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?

steelridge58 said:It’s pretty straightforward—your TS (opening post) was just low-quality. I moved it to the closest relevant thread because I wasn't about to let it sit solo in Philosophy just because someone thinks they can post whatever random garbage they want and call it enough to stay in the Philosophy section.

In my humble opinion, only a totally "censored" moderator from the Philosophy section could whip up a sentence this convoluted and poorly written.

Definitely give it a read; it's some top-tier entertainment.

@Papa Smurf,
I love the idea, really, but even I gotta admit the way you set up that opening post was kind of a mess.

(And look, this "censored" thing isn't a big deal—we still love our girl steelridge58, even if she's acting a little "censored" 🤣)

Amy Stewart said:It’s a decent suggestion if you rearrange things slightly. Move the topic back to Philosophy and move the moderator over to the student corner PDF. That way her democratic nature and tolerance can actually shine, because as Jacob Thompson76 pointed out, she simply isn't qualified for Philosophy.
The moderation in Philosophy is unfairly discriminating against highly intelligent minorities.

I have no interest in discussing competence by whining about competence.

As for this "highly intelligent minority," they can use the Miscellaneous PDF if I'm not mistaken, or the Complaints and Grievances PDF if they just want to grumble.🙂

🙂 🙂 🙂

Harold James9 said:Why are you so certain this topic belongs in Philosophy? In my view—if I may be so bold—it would be better suited for the student corner or perhaps Literature.🙂

Stop blaming others for your own lack of comprehension and your blatant exclusivity—as if your precious topic belongs here and nowhere else! It’s quite improper and serves only to create unnecessary tension.🙂

🙂🙂🙂

What exactly should kids know about recommending books by the world's greatest geniuses? That responsibility should fall to those who are older, more experienced, and actually well-read—people you won't find in the student corner or the Literature section. Go start a thread there about "Which picture books should I read?" instead.

Stay out of this since you clearly have no clue what's going on. Go play with your toy cars.

Noah Johnson63 said:What could kids possibly know about recommending books by the world's greatest geniuses? That’s a job for older, more experienced people who have actually read them. You won't find those types of experts on a middle schooler's subreddit or even a literature forum. Go stick to threads about "Which picture books should I read."

Don't butt in if you clearly don't get it. Go play with your toy cars instead.

You seem to have a pretty low opinion of students (based on who you know, I assume). 😢

Use some common sense to figure out where to host the topic you care so much about.
If you don't like my suggestion, come up with a better one. Arguing with me isn't going to help. 🙂

🙂🙂🙂

Harold James9 said:Regarding this "high-intelligence minority" concept: if I am not mistaken, they have the "Miscellaneous" PDF at their disposal, and for any complaining, they can refer to the "Appeals and Grievances" PDF.🙂

🙂🙂🙂

They’ve practically built their entire foundation on this PDF. Now they just need to move over to Miscellaneous and everything will be set. 😁
I just finished reading a particular post, and I find it quite relevant to include here.

Some people take criticism personally. I find it equally offensive when the line between absolute conviction and utter stupidity becomes so blurred that it can no longer be dismissed as mere coincidence.

The right to express an opinion does not grant anyone the right to have that opinion treated with seriousness. Such "arguments" should be mocked out of the discussion rather than wasting time on someone else's misplaced self-confidence.

steelridge58 👍

Kate Fisher73 said:It is my firm belief that only a censored moderator of the Philosophy section could possibly construct a sentence this convoluted and poorly written.

By all means, give it a read; it is quite entertaining material.

You know how we say back in my neck of the woods: 'a bad tailor finds fault with every single thread.'
That little thought keeps buzzing in my ear every time I run into you and your relentless obsession with those PDF complaint forms. 🙂

Why is it that every single time someone starts a thread about a real, specific issue, the whole thing just devolves into cheerleading? 🙄It’s like Papa Smurf opens a thread to tackle a legitimate problem, and suddenly everyone’s acting like they’ve been personally insulted. Why do some people feel the need to jump in and defend a moderator's persona or their work when that wasn't even what the post was about in the first place? 🙄

hiddenhound3 said:You know how we say back home: "A bad tailor finds fault with every thread."
That little voice keeps buzzing in my ear every time I run into you and those obsessive gripes you have about the PDF filing system. 🙂

Since you're clearly here to spam the board, I gotta ask... where are you even from?