I think you are awesome Creative but this request strikes me as a little unreasonable.I don't really see the mods having the time to function as the "fact police".Seems kind of time consuming.And what would be the "punishment" for "unsubstantiated facts"?People catching suspensions for posting "alternative science" and "alternate philosphy" out of the mainstream? That just doesn't seem workable to me. A lot of this is a matter of perspective, and what if two people disagree and both can cite sources for what they say? We would have to have a mod with a PHD in philosophy to sort something like that out. Its too subjective.Of course, it's not my decision........just giving my "two cents".

Creative, as to your post following mine, we are all learning..we will all be learning, until the day we are laid to rest. Life is a learning experience, and people come from all walks of life. Please know, that my post was not meant to belittle you in any way. We have a website to run here..We can't just shut people down, simply because they cannot prove the legitimacy of their belief system.

Lee makes a good point, above..."you would need a mod, with a PHD" Personally, i think we have enough moderation on the boards. I would like to see a little less..in short, i would prefer, to lean towards a little less site moderation, and a little more self moderation.

Rules are a good thing, they keep things civil..but you can have too many, and we will lose members, i'm not at all for that.

What grounds a claim is the very heart of philosophical discourse.

My expectations of a forum labeled 'philosophy and science' are different on a social networking site than they would be on a university site.

I view all forums here through the eyes of friendly conversation and getting to know one another. I suspect that was the point with the creation of this site called 'Mingle'.

Hard core philosophical debate is found in many places in 'cyberland' and on every university campus in the world - I have been involved in that and it is wonderful! I just think it is a little unrealistic to demand that here. Not that people aren't capable but it can be intimidating and further inhibit people from participating in discussions.

Too many rules stifle creativity. One of the techniques that Edward De Bono uses is to introduce something outside of the topic to encourage lateral or parallel thinking.

In teaching people 'how' to think effectively, he uses a model called the 6 thinking hats ...

White Hat: Facts and Information
Red Hat: Feelings and Emotion
Black Hat: Critical Judgment
Yellow Hat: Positive Judgment
Green Hat: Alternatives and Learning
Blue Hat: The Big Picture


We must wear all hats in a discussion - just not at the same time. Critical analysis is only one piece of a truly productive discussion that leaves participants feeling valued, participatory and involved in the real exploration of a topic.

I'd rather not see more rules ... but if there were some, who has the knowledge, time and energy to enforce them?

Just my thoughts ....

Be that as it may, however, forced guidelines within free and civil discussion, is just not on the menu here. I'm sorry, but the site can't shoulder such an inhibition. The detriment, far outweighs the usefulness.

A fair analogy....

Driving to the store, a Patrolman follows, (every time you drive)..I do not want people to think the admins or mods are "breathing down their neck" I want a sense of freedom here on the forums. We already have rules, i cannot see the usefulness of this particular suggestion.

The answer on this one is no, we will vote it down,

Respectfully,
Mark

What exactly are you trying to get at Micheal?

Can you point to specific claims that people have made on these forums that you feel are "ungrounded".

Moreover, wouldn't that just come down to your personal opinion versus theirs?

Unless you could prove that your view is absolutely correct and the other person is absolutely wrong how could you even apply any forum 'rule' like that anyway?

Wouldn't the other person be just as correct to suggest that your view is the one that is "ungrounded".

Who would be the one to decide which view is more "grounded"?

Creative, if you feel like someone is flaming your threads or going off topic you could always report them to the mods.There are rules for dealing with that.But you may need to keep in mind that these forums are mainly here for friendly discussion.No sense in taking it so seriousI dont think anyone is going to win the Nobel Prize for some amazing philosophical breakthrough on here This is a dating and social site not a university term paper.You could just ignore someone whom you feel has not substantiated their claims and not respond to them,or report them if you feel its a major problem.

Subjective monkeys thinking thoughts
reflecting in a mirror
suggesting that a change in rules
wouldn't make things any clearer

The mod says no and so does S1ow
and Dan says no one knows
Invisible remains unseen
with thoughts that have no clothes

Undecided postulates
ungrounded crazy claims
transforming pure philosophy
into empty worthless games

If only we could make a rule
that would resolve our every thought
that rule itself would finally be
the solution to our plot

Without even having been given a specific suggestion, it is already certain to be 'voted down', regardless of the positive consequences which would surely follow from the implemention of a well thought out guideline or set thereof?



It seems that there is a common theme in thought equating the suggestion of constructive rules/guidelines with negativity. That is the epitome of preconception and presupposition. I see it quite differently...

A rule can and could encourage and facilitate the ability to explore philosophy in a philosophical manner. Is not that what it is about? If that can be thought of as being restrictive or negative to some, then surely the non-existence of such a guideline would be a restriction to the very subject itself, and those who care enough to make a deliberate attempt to develop discourse through a philosophical construct, could it not?

I am thinking of a baseball game where no one has to run the bases in order. That highlights the significance concerning substantiation and/or groundlessness in philosophical discourse.

Are there not specific rules for other forums, which apply to those forums in particular, because of the nature of the forum itself? I am just a little shocked here, to be honest. The non-existence of guidelines allows the deformation of the subject itself, and this has been witnessed on several occasions. It can be avoided.

How is allowing a member to denounce the relevance and/or importance of philosophy good for a philosophy forum? How can it be? What is benefitted from that? How is that kind of allowance considered to be better than guidelines which would ensure the philosophical discourse in a philosophy forum?

It is not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'...

""""i think we have enough moderation on the boards.""""

i must agree ya even got that guy that gives the mods crap on occasion (even if it is all in fun



hey markecephus

Since you're the one who is suggesting this do you have a specific rule (or guideline) in mind?

What would it say precisely?

How would you word it?

I'd be interested in seeing what you have in mind even if it isn't officially accepted. You could always start your own threads out by offering your guidelines to the participants in your threads. There isn't any rule against doing that. You couldn't force them to follow it, but at least you could refer to it if you felt they were getting too far removed from philosophy as you see it.

That way it won't need to be forced on the entire forum.

I see no reason why you couldn't do that. I've seen people do similar things in the OP. Most people will respect that if you clarify what you want in the OP.

If you write it up concise enough, you could just tack it onto all your OPs.

It is our best determination,

after admin review, we will not add such a rule. The forums will remain open, and the views of others, will be allowed and under protection of our guidelines, will be allowed.

in short, request denied.

Mingle2 shall remain open and receptive of all posts, provided the posts are within the parameters of the forum rules, not withstanding the rules posted for the sex/dating forums, Rate my profile, new members, or the help forums.

We will leave it at that. This topic is closed, we simply will not impose more rules on our members, simply because of their beliefs. We do hope you understand.

From admin, and the forum moderators,

Be well, this topic is locked.