@Joe I don't disagree with the SOUND of what you're saying. Yes, of course, it's common-sense that off-topic questions should be closed.

I simply find it amazing, truly amazing, that you think "off-topic" is an unambiguous qualifier in the context of philosophy.

I simply want clear rules. It seems particularly important given that we're in a context, philosophy, where reconsidering and reinterpreting truths and rules beyond the "common sense" is so common.

Clear, unimpeachable rules, or no rules. While I understand that casual consensus on the meaning of the rules works for other SE sites, this isn't like other SE sites where there's a specific, unambiguous topic being hosted. Philosophy is hardly specific or unambiguous.

When I've suggested that we simply never close questions, while some have agreed with me, I generally receive frustrated dismissive responses. But no one has addressed my core assumption, which is that upvotes and downvotes would sufficiently promote the "good" questions and demote the "bad" ones; that votes would fluidly moderate the community such that the voted state of questions reflected the will of the community at all times without need for (what have been so far ambiguous) rules.

I understand, what I'm saying just pisses you all off because you just know, deep down in your hearts, what the SE platform is all about, and we must respect it. And we must respect the lessons learned by our primitive forebears, the sites that have more specific topics and have tried such a policy and failed.

But, really, such alarmist responses to my suggestion worry me; do you all think that voting wouldn't, somehow, reflect the opinion of the community sufficiently? Or are you just afraid that the community that would result isn't the one you'd want to be a part in, so you're fighting to create a community that caters to you, even if you're not the majority?

Maybe, maybe, the right thing to do, would be to invite any POLITICAL philosophers that are a part of our beta, to weigh in on how this should all work. I don't know.

@JosephSpiros i'm very sorry you feel others have been frustrated and dismissive of you

we very much want everyone to participate

i'm just confused that you think you know "what SE is about"...

No, no

Sorry, the rhetoric doesn't translate :)

..when you want to do away with closing questions. i'll be honest, i don't think your suggestion has much merit.

I'm saying that I annoy and irritate some people because THEY think they know what SE is about, and THEY think we should respect it.

Sorry for the confusion there. :)

I see SE as a mere platform, a piece of software (it probably helps that I write software for a living), and too many people make the mistake of assuming that a piece of software, the structure, should define the content or use of it.

There are simple rules, and there is no rule that says we MUST use every feature it provides.

you're missing the point

you won't let go of this issue and you won't participate constructively

please participate constructively in the meta and chat discussions about site direction if you want to have a real influence on moderation guidelines

sorry, i'm not trying to sound frustrated :) we really do want your help and support here

we can definitely talk about this, at length and your leisure

Okay, you're right, but you're not. I accept that you want help and support, but I don't think you understand.

we just have to figure out what's on or off topic before we can address whether or not we'll close stuff

I wouldn't be saying this unless I thought it WAS constructive.

I wouldn't be saying this unless I thought it WAS relevant.

I'm not dismissing it.

I'm sorry that you, and others, communicate in a style that is apparently conflicting with how I communicate, and I'll be happy to try and understand how it's not relevant or constructive. But when I make these points, and only vague responses are presented, I'm not exactly convinced of the relevancy of your position either.

You're not giving me, and what I'm saying, the benefit of the doubt. Which reflects quite well the attitude I'm seeing in the moderation of the site as a whole.

look, i'm not trying to be rude, but even the mods informed you it wasn't constructive at the time. and for that matter, this isn't constructive either. let's take it up again on meta if you're still concerned.

You are being somewhat rude, but it's okay. I'm not suggesting anything be decided here, I'm simply discussing and clarifying, or attempting to.

If you care to read it, that's fine, and if you don't, that's fine too.

read what?

But if you reply to me, it's a bit odd for you to be frustrated or impatient when I reply to you. :)

What I'm saying here!

There's no scheduled meeting, this is a chat room.

I'm just saying things, and so are you, but I'm not the one jockeying for power. I'm not trying to definitively state anything, I'm being passive. :)

i don't have time to go into this, as it's basically unproductive. i am just encouraging you, thoughtfully, to drop this for the time being.

i'm sorry if you feel dismissed. this isn't personal. i hope you come to understand.

Oh, I don't take it personally.

we should and do need to address the question of on/off topic and site definition

I appreciate your suggestions.

why not participate in that?

Because my cart is your horse and your horse is my cart.

Or, erm

Yeah, well, you can figure that out.

:)

well, cheers -- we do need to address this issue, so i think we should. i would really encourage you to formulate your thoughts as a meta question (if you have already please let me know)

It's coming together. I'm interested to see if Jon's answer to "Thoughts for our moderation policy?" takes us anywhere useful.

I'm sure things will calm down and resolve. I suppose I feel it is my duty to disrupt what otherwise seems to be the consensus of a minority in the construction of the site. Not destructively, but considerately. I will keep presenting alternative views as I can, to ensure that things don't happen too... passionately.

I do apologize for irritating you, or anyone else.

It's a role to be taken.

out of curiousity, what do you think of this question? philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/357/…

I think it's a question I'd vote down if I wasn't in the mood to answer it, but it is certainly a question with a philosophically-informed answer (albeit a simple one).

I think it makes sense for answers to potentially point out the flaws in the question. Obviously the flaw is that it's circular.

I think it makes sense for answers to potentially point out the flaws in the question. Obviously the flaw is that it's circular.

Ugh, what the hell was that. Sorry, everything but chat.stackexchange.com was being unreliable.

The answer selected for that question is certainly related to philosophy. And that's why I think it's fine. I'm glad that answer got in, and was selected, before the mob closed it.

I think it is very important for people (A) to go the extra mile to understand others (B), and what they (B) mean, and offer them (B) constructive options that, if they (A) were correct in their (A) understanding of their (B) needs, would satisfy them (B). (I am so, so sorry.)

While it was a flawed question, the answer definitely seems like it could've answered the question. And, it seemingly satisfied the person asking, as they selected it!

This chat exists! Take that, kitty!

actually, the title would be more ironic in French.

chat and cat are the same word. :-)

I can't make it later tonight. I think you will see this when you start the discussion. I have some input though and will feel free to leave it here.

This should be reopened. The circularity is easy to edit out and the question refers to widely heard (especially among Brights) popular philosophers whose logical flaws are worth discussing even if you consider them ass-old.

I think we should vote (in meta) on prototypes of question types (the ones Chuck proposed), so the definitions become sharper.

I also think the dismissal of the above question is evidence that there exists a danger that actual philosophical debate (in this case: springerlink.com/content/c286020j12256197 or, obviously, Sam Harris) is dismissed as "Hard to see how this is A) relevant to philosophy" (quote Cody) because they don't fall in the realm of knowledge of those who vote to close.

Thanks @Ruben I wanted to address this question as well!

Afternoon/evening, all...

Who's present?

hey @Joe

So, is this chat happening, or not?

No one seems to be here except me and @Ami

indeed

Anyone else present?

Then let's make some fast decisions! ;-)

I trust Joe

Ok - consensus: change Philosophy to a Q&A site on Cheese? Star for yes, flag for no

quotationspage.com/quote/23552.html

@Shog9 So tempted

Well, I think we actually did come to some pretty robust decisions last time despite everything

@Ami purrrrrfect

We will need to think about moderation policy, but I think @Chuck's definition work for me -- serious philosophically-minded questions that invite quality responses, but they don't necessarily need to be "canon"

Let me know if you have any more thoughts @Ami, and thanks for making the time

no problem

I think we should start thinking about ways to publicize this site...blogs, philosophy forums, etc.

visitors are as important as a moderation policy

@Ami certainly agreed

There was a time I was active on philosophy forums but I haven't had the patience for that in a while.

hello

hey @chuck

I'm just about to leave

OK - so this is not happening is it? Did I miss anything?

the meeting didn't really happen

not much

OK I see - lots of frustration by the looks of it

Well, I guess we'll declare this meeting adjourned, then.