Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
The question: Does life in this world matter or not?
I recommend having a definitive, affirmative answer to this question. Otherwise, life will incrementally divorce itself from you without you even realizing it — you’ll just blend in with the rest of the walking dead among us.
The person who affirms life in this way has no reason to entertain the simulation idea.
All lives matter.
But uncertainty exists at a quantum level, and biological factors influence decision making, the ability to recognize and act on virtue despite personal cost demonstrates an emergent form of free will, where moral agency is real and meaningful.
If you want to make the case free will, operating within the framework of the universe is pre planned, you'd be making an argurment with far less scientific substance than the later - or maybe im completely mis interpreting what your saying.
Truth is our orienting mechanism. In one direction is rational truth. In another direction is “the good”.
Should we point ourselves toward rational truth or toward the good?
Once you realize that you should orient yourself toward the good above all, then you should associate truth with goodness (rather than rational truth).
But uncertainty exists at a quantum level, and biological factors influence decision making, the ability to recognize and act on virtue despite personal cost demonstrates an emergent form of free will, where moral agency is real and meaningful.
If you want to make the case free will, operating within the framework of the universe is pre planned, you'd be making an argurment with far less scientific substance than the later - or maybe im completely mis interpreting what your saying.
There is a personal cost of not acting on virtue as well. Not sure this is anyhting to do with free will.
But uncertainty exists at a quantum level, and biological factors influence decision making, the ability to recognize and act on virtue despite personal cost demonstrates an emergent form of free will, where moral agency is real and meaningful.
If you want to make the case free will, operating within the framework of the universe is pre planned, you'd be making an argurment with far less scientific substance than the later - or maybe im completely mis interpreting what your saying.
Quantum uncertainty leading to free will is grasping at straws. Randomness means things are not determined, but it doesn't mean you get to decide.
For "God" sake can we get back to just moderation talk?
The ability to act on "virtue" against your interests is possible because in the ancestral environment "virtue" was adaptive.
Awareness is also not free will, but I think physics is a long way from saying anything about consciousness and if you're thinking about stuff like Schrodinger's cat, that's making something out of "observer" that isn't really there.
