Low forum participation due to low tolerance and warnings

[Jebus]

Your (Brimstonesalad) only authority is banning people from a forum you've already made largely inactive because your low tolerance for dissension.

Forum participation is growing.
Only one person (I believe) has been banned since the forum began.

[carnap]

Forum participation is growing.
Only one person (I believe) has been banned since the forum began.

Participation on the forum is low and that is because only one point of view is tolerated. The forum is not just intolerant of non-vegans, its not even tolerant of the various views vegans hold. A quick search of the forum reveals that people are routinely threaten with "warnings" and then stop posting.

[Jebus]

Participation on the forum is low and that is because only one point of view is tolerated. The forum is not just intolerant of non-vegans, its not even tolerant of the various views vegans hold. A quick search of the forum reveals that people are routinely threaten with "warnings" and then stop posting.

Participation is low because the forum is relatively new and targets a very small niche. Post frequency is however increasing which is the important part.

Anyway, what's your point? Should we change the rules? If so, which one do you disagree with? Or do you agree with all the rules but think that we shouldn't enforce them?

[carnap]

Participation is low because the forum is relatively new and targets a very small niche. Post frequency is however increasing which is the important part.
Anyway, what's your point? Should we change the rules? If so, which one do you disagree with? Or do you agree with all the rules but think that we shouldn't enforce them?

The age of the forum isn't the issue its 4+ years old. But you're right it does target a very small niche, namely, vegans that hold very particular points of view which was my point.

Whether the rules should be changed depends on your goal, if your goal is to create an echo-chamber of like minded people then the current rules are fine. If the goal is to create a forum to discuss philosophical issues related to the use of animals than the rules need to be changed. Having a rule that pretends a moderator can determine what is and isn't a sensible argument makes no sense, that is just pitting one person's judgement against another. Rules need to be based on more objective criteria otherwise people get removed or harassed for arbitrary reasons. Interestingly there is no rule against insulting here despite insults being counter-productive to philosophic discourse.

Protected spaces are common these days but counter-productive to philosophy and overall rational debate.

[Jebus]

Participation is low because the forum is relatively new and targets a very small niche. Post frequency is however increasing which is the important part.
Anyway, what's your point? Should we change the rules? If so, which one do you disagree with? Or do you agree with all the rules but think that we shouldn't enforce them?

The age of the forum isn't the issue its 4+ years old. But you're right it does target a very small niche, namely, vegans that hold very particular points of view which was my point.

Whether the rules should be changed depends on your goal, if your goal is to create an echo-chamber of like minded people then the current rules are fine. If the goal is to create a forum to discuss philosophical issues related to the use of animals than the rules need to be changed. Having a rule that pretends a moderator can determine what is and isn't a sensible argument makes no sense, that is just pitting one person's judgement against another. Rules need to be based on more objective criteria otherwise people get removed or harassed for arbitrary reasons. Interestingly there is no rule against insulting here despite insults being counter-productive to philosophic discourse.

Protected spaces are common these days but counter-productive to philosophy and overall rational debate.

Let me rephrase the question (in an attempt to finally get a clear response from you): If you were in charge of this forum would you make any changes to the current rules? If yes, what changes would you recommend? If no, would you make any attempts to limit posts that do not respect the current rules?

[carnap]

Let me rephrase the question (in an attempt to finally get a clear response from you): If you were in charge of this forum would you make any changes to the current rules? If yes, what changes would you recommend? If no, would you make any attempts to limit posts that do not respect the current rules?

As I said in my previous comment, the structure and matter moderation hinges on what you're trying to achieve. There is no way to generically answer this question and one has to assume something about the goals. So, to say it again, if one assumes the goal is open philosophic discourse about animal ethics than you cannot have a vague rule about following "logic". This implies that there is someone that can without bias evaluate the logic of every argument and comment given on the forum which isn't possible. The predictable result (based on human psychology) of such a rule is to alienate those with differing points of view. Let's look at the key rule in question here:

"This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it"

There are multiple issues with this rule. Its one thing to limit spam and people that refuse to address anything and another thing entirely to insist that people submit to a particular point view because its favored by the group. Secondly people aren't disagreeing about "basic logic", they are disagreeing about complex arguments so once again this is an area where one is expected to submit to a particular point of view because its seen as the "logical one" by the group. So as I said, rules need to be rooted in objective and clear criteria, for example changing the above rule to:

"This is a discussion forum and members are expected to address others arguments to the best of their ability. Members should treat each other with respect and avoid insults and other harassment that distracts from reasonable discourse"

[brimstoneSalad]

@carnap
Contrary to your claim, what is or isn't logical is pretty objective.
If you present a valid syllogism (provided it isn't merely circular) you will encounter no argument save the soundness of the premises.

If you want to make an empirical argument, you just need to provide some solid evidence instead of speculation.

It really should be that simple.

In terms of arguments that are neither logical nor empirically supported (ones that stand merely on speculation) then yes the prevailing view here (and we tend to follow professional and scientific consensus where it applies as you should know) is the default and holds a privileged position of not needing to be defended while persistent assertion of its negation is frowned upon.

Unfortunately, the majority of your anti-vegan arguments fall into that last category, and your anti-morality arguments are very vague and miss the point/are straw man arguments that don't actually address the issues being discussed.
A shouting match of opinions and speculation (or worse, straw men) is not a high quality discussion, and it's not something that benefits the forum. In terms of naive post count and quantity over quality sure, but that's not necessarily what we're after. I would rather less conversation that's higher quality than more than is lower quality. Signal to noise ratio would be a better description of what we want here than bulk activity.

If you don't want to be reprimanded then I would recommend you work on presenting more rigorous logically valid arguments, and more hard empirical evidence and less speculation.
We don't want an echo chamber, if we did then all anti-vegans would be banned on sight. We WANT to see arguments against veganism, but we don't want to see the same ones over and over again from the same people. We want to see new or better arguments that deserve to be addressed.

Your accusations of this being some kind of echo chamber are pretty absurd, like you've never seen a forum before. This place is remarkably free-speech and very few people have ever been banned.

"This is a discussion forum and members are expected to address others arguments to the best of their ability.

That's far more subjective. People either have an unlimited defense of not being able to do better, or we have to make a subjective call and say they're lying and ban them.

Members should treat each other with respect and avoid insults and other harassment that distracts from reasonable discourse"

That's even worse. What's harassment? What's distracting?
And even what's an insult? I've seen forums that ban overt insults, and you jut get increasingly veiled and snarky implicit insults. Arguably banning overt insults contributes more to creative writing by encouraging people to hide insults in clever ways and trigger people while flying under the radar, but this isn't a creative writing forum. And doing that creates a much stronger bias against the prevailing opinions of the forum as moderators interpret edge cases based on the arguments being presented; the anti-vegan will be interpreted to be paying an insult where the vegan would not be. The result is an echo chamber as people are unfairly persecuted.

Would you like to be banned for implying vegans are irrational (an insult) while vegans are allowed to call you a murderer as a factual statement (not an insult)? Because that's what that looks like.

As it stands, only people who make bad arguments are persecuted, and that's fine: bad arguments don't contribute much to the discussion environment but instead leech time and attention away from more interesting arguments.

Make better arguments.

[carnap]

Contrary to your claim, what is or isn't logical is pretty objective.
If you present a valid syllogism (provided it isn't merely circular) you will encounter no argument save the soundness of the premises.

You've missed the point entirely. Logic itself is objective but people are not. The vast majority of arguments people make cannot be given as syllogism, a syllogism is a very specific form of argument.

Formalizing a complex argument in natural language is a difficult process that has many points of failure since natural language is far more subtle and expressive. Formalization can be a useful process because it forces one clarify key concepts but that process as well can be long and drawn out.

The only thing "simple" here is your understanding of logic, the reality is complex.

Unfortunately, the majority of your anti-vegan arguments fall into that last category, and your anti-morality arguments are very vague and miss the point/are straw man arguments that don't actually address the issues being discussed.

Except I provide arguments and/or empirical evidence for everything I clam. In contrast many vegan members here do not, they make baseless claims and refuse to provide evidence. That includes yourself.

Its very obvious that the standard here isn't a logical one but an ideological one. You shun not only non-vegans but also vegans that don't fit into your ideological mold.

Your accusations of this being some kind of echo chamber are pretty absurd, like you've never seen a forum before. This place is remarkably free-speech and very few people have ever been banned.

Forums as a whole tend to result in echo-chambers because the moderators/active members tend to shun people with differing views and the "rules" will be used to bully and/or remove people. You think its "absurd" because you're the ring-leader, try talking to the various people that have left the forum or been banned.

That's even worse. What's harassment? What's distracting?
And even what's an insult? I've seen forums that ban overt insults, and you jut get increasingly veiled and snarky implicit insults.

Both of those terms have relatively clear definitions but my rule was intended to be a brief example. Those key concepts would have to be clarified. Whether an insult is overt or implicit doesn't matter, insulting is largely obvious when it occurs.

The point is that the rules should be as basic as possible, the more one tries to regulate behavior in a forum the more likely it will turn into an echo-chamber. Trying to regulate what is and isn't a good argument is impossible to execute as people cannot evaluate arguments without bias.

When you say "make good argument" what that really means is that "make arguments I understand and find convincing". You shouldn't be surprised that most people don't care about that.

[brimstoneSalad]

You've missed the point entirely. Logic itself is objective but people are not.

You missed the point: that's why we have tools like syllogisms.

The vast majority of arguments people make cannot be given as syllogism

Unsubstantiated claim. Of course they can not be converted into syllogisms if they are bad arguments, or too vague to parse.
But any sound complex argument can probably be broken down into a number of syllogisms which work together to form a whole argument.

Formalizing a complex argument in natural language is a difficult process that has many points of failure since natural language is far more subtle and expressive.

Then stop being so "subtle and expressive". This is a place for logical discourse, not for you to weasel out of defending your claims because everything is just so subjective.

Formalization can be a useful process because it forces one clarify key concepts but that process as well can be long and drawn out.

Obviously. Stop being lazy.

If you're going to make a "subtle and expressive" argument in natural language, expect it to be interpreted subjectively; IF it is interpreted as not valid, then you will be warned not to make it again.

Can you just not read?

Contrary to your claim, what is or isn't logical is pretty objective.
If you present a valid syllogism (provided it isn't merely circular) you will encounter no argument save the soundness of the premises.

If you don't want to be subject to interpretation, then MAKE BETTER ARGUMENTS.

The only thing "simple" here is your understanding of logic, the reality is complex.

You don't seem to understand how logic works at all, otherwise you'd appreciate the value in making clearer formal arguments in a context like this where you're complaining about your "subtle and expressive" natural language arguments being misunderstood or misinterpreted.

If you are capable of making syllogistic arguments: make them.
If you are unable or unwilling, then stop complaining and just follow the rules when you're asked to desist in an annoying argument that we understand to be invalid due to the vagueness with which you have chosen to present it. If you won't either make better arguments or drop the arguments you aren't willing to improve then you will be banned for violating rule #1. Not complicated.

Except I provide arguments and/or empirical evidence for everything I clam.

A bad logically invalid argument doesn't qualify.
Personal assertions of incredulity and misrepresenting studies doesn't qualify as evidence either.

In contrast many vegan members here do not, they make baseless claims and refuse to provide evidence.

There's a different standard for the null hypothesis here. A person making the claim that the Earth is an oblate spheroid does not shoulder the same obligation to defend it as the claim that the Earth is flat. That's more of a matter of pragmatism; it's not that the claim can not be defended, but it's a waste of time. The other side needs to provide evidence to show it's a claim that has enough merit to address.

Its very obvious that the standard here isn't a logical one but an ideological one. You shun not only non-vegans but also vegans that don't fit into your ideological mold.

Only a few people have ever been banned here. Mostly vegans. That should be evidence that it's not an issue of vegan ideology; banning is typically a result of spamming.
If you don't want to be subjected to a judgement call on that front and you think your arguments are sound, then provide more formal arguments. Should be a relatively simple matter if you're competent and have good arguments.

You think its "absurd" because you're the ring-leader, try talking to the various people that have left the forum or been banned.

It's inevitable that an online group will tend to attract like-minded people, but there's obviously been a lot of argument and disagreement here.

@Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Can you please ask Dizzy if he thinks this is an echo chamber?

Both of those terms have relatively clear definitions

No they don't, they have highly subjective definitions.

Whether an insult is overt or implicit doesn't matter, insulting is largely obvious when it occurs.

If you believe that, you're an idiot.
Go visit a forum where insulting is forbidden, there's a spectrum of subtlety to implicit insults that makes it impossible to make an objective determination. That's made even more complicated where people are arguing ethics, including personal ethics, and where "you're a murderer" could be a valid argument or an insult. It has a chilling effect on arguments.

If you want, I can put it to a vote among the mods. I don't think we have a serious problem with insults here, most people arguing on the internet need to have pretty thick skin.

Trying to regulate what is and isn't a good argument is impossible to execute as people cannot evaluate arguments without bias.

I'm perfectly capable of evaluating whether a syllogism is valid or not without bias.
If you are worried about people judging your arguments, make them more clear as syllogisms.

You're welcome to stay if you follow the forum rules, I think you know very well when you're violating them.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

@Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Can you please ask Dizzy if he thinks this is an echo chamber?

I haven't been in contact with Dizzy for quite some time now but I'm sure he'd agree with me that this isn't an echo chamber.