14 upvotes, 3 direct replies (showing 3)
I sincerely disagree with the use of banning. I think one of the things to remember about this sub is how it gets used rather than how it should get used. In the best of all possible worlds--according to this sub's own logic rather than the best of all possible rule sets--this would be an exchange of good questions and academically oriented responses. However, much of the time the questions being posed are so broad as to require standing a bit to close to the flames of what calls for a ban to either get a discussion going or make it appear that we haven't simply ignored someone who asked a question.
Moreover, we should remember that this is a thread for practicing philosophy as much as it is explaining it. By that I mean that the act of explaining what one knows to another requires one to relearn what they know. I often times look up essays and dates whenever responding to someone to check out the details I either never learned or have forgotten. What I mean to say by this understanding of how this thread operates is that we may end up doing a disservice to those trying to participate in the discussion. We may accidentally turn someone off to philosophy when this sub bans them and essentially calls them dumb on the subject--or forces a dumbness onto to them. I find this community a much better resource for practicing the ways I unfold ideas than /r/philosophy as it never appears to be a kind place. There be monsters.
This is all not to mention that some of the most interesting and enlightening posts in this sub tend to be those that have a nest 15 comments deep. They usually stem from an under-experienced redditor who puts forward a common misconception, alternative argument, or ideologically-laden worldview. The back and forth, much like a Platonic dialogue, is a bit longer than a condensed response, but I learn much more from it since my ability to imagine strong counter-arguments to every claim often gets weary as the years trudge on.
Here's the upshot: If you are qualified to answer, you should comment and request flair. Poor comments posted by those without flair will be removed with prejudice.
While I think that most of the submitters here are or were once involved in academia, I've only rarely been shocked by which tag belongs to which comments as the manner of engagement and the use of listing resources tends to reflect this quite obviously. So, then, why mandate flair? I, for one, would qualify for flair, but I prefer not to as I hope that my comments are taken at the level of their argument/demonstration rather than the color of my user name; it also simply reveals more personal information about me that otherwise might be more difficult for others to find out.
Not to mention that we're essentially giving cover to those with flair (it seems like you're saying that flaired users get more chances to answer improperly). I feel like I get your argument. Those willing to share more about themselves have more invested in this community than those that don't, and with that gesture the community is in debt. But I think that, as it stands, there tend to be fewer than twenty responses to any given thread (half of which are usually response nests) and so why demand from us that we have to give away personal information to get protection from a drunken comment we leave that simply isn't up to snuff? If it isn't that way now, I don't feel like it should become like that, especially since the problem seems so miniscule in nature. If we think of ourselves as philosophers, I think we should trust ourselves capable of democratically judging the content. The joke comments are usually downvoted into a Kantian minority, attached with a decent counter argument, and obviously for entertainment. Of course, sometimes the joke comments raise a valid point, and banning them because it isn't 'proper' stifles the wide-variety of discussions and discussion methods that this subreddit has come to be really good at.
I, frankly, also get bored or intimidated by long detailed responses. Irony. Oh no. Anyways, sometimes the quick off-the-cuff responses are more suited to the needs of the questioner. If someone says it's their first time and someone writes a 3 page essay, with bibliography, it can actually be to the detriment of the questioner... it takes a while to get used to the idea that philosophy is long and requires patience... no need to scare anyone off on that matter. Not everyone identifies themselves as a novice, so having a multiplicity of styles of comments allows OP to find an answer that matches his level of understanding of philosophy.
At no point should a comment begin, "Well, I don't know much about academic philosophy but...."
I often use this phrase in many ways. I think I understand your meaning in context. Sometimes, when no one has answered in several hours, these types of comments appear and often spark discussion. Either by engaging OP to follow up, or even for them to disagree or clarify their original question.
I'll leave my TL;DR at the bottom, but the main point I have to say is that this feels like we're in the middle of a voter ID issue and I have to say that the arguments feel the same. Those who have nothing to hide get your flair, and those who are interested in philosophy but not necessarily rigid academic philosophy are going to wind up banned for not conforming to a set of rules that favor academic philosophers at the expense of de-legitimatizing them.
TL;DR: 1) Banning diminishes the variety of ways of discussing any given question.
2. Giving an answer on this subreddit is as useful a practice for learning about philosophy as getting an answer is... those just starting out, or in their first few years of training, don't have a magical ability to answer questions with the ease of a professor, and they won't get any better unless they practice.
3. The weaker comments appear, currently, to be democratically dealt with anyways.
4. Mandating flair is a violation of privacy and an unfair standard for enforcing what appears to be a two-strike system. Anyone who peruses this sub under the influence knows that sometimes their comments can't be held against them in anything other than argument or individual memories.
5. This clearly represents a bias towards academic philosophy. Those who have trained differently will respond differently, and they get fewer chances to explain why their approach may be more valid on a given subject than citing sources and intellectual histories.
6)Long responses aren't always the best responses as different questioners have personally specific needs and not everyone always identifies themselves as a novice.
7. Sometimes I feel like answering a question in a non-academic way, for one of any number of reasons including but not limited to: making sure a question at least gets some recognition of attention, providing a rhetorical response in order to draw out a contradiction, engaging in friendly banter, trying to make it appear that I'm a human rather than a philosophy-robot, etc.
TL;DR the TL;DR: I choose not to have flair. I love commenting and reading things in this thread. My responses in this subreddit make up a meaningful percentage of who this Username is to me and others. I see you saying that the ban hammer is coming and I feel like I won't be able to treat this subreddit with the ease in which I normally do. I don't want to have to be worried about getting banned when I all I want to do is philosophical discussion with some nice people who already self-regulate the small community quite well.
Comment by TychoCelchuuu at 03/09/2013 at 16:04 UTC
22 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This may be overly sanguine about the value of answer from people who don't know what they are talking about. You're the one who didn't know who Philippa Foot was and therefore disagreed with my assertions about a modern Aristotelian perspective on the death penalty[1]. You ended up at +4 and I ended up at -1. If I were the person who posted the question, with no way to adjudicate between the two flair-less nobodies, I guess I'd go with your comment.
But, your comment wasn't so great. You later posted that if you had known what you were talking about you would have just agreed with me in the first place. So I think I can see why /u/drinka40tonight would want to keep answers like "I don't know what the fuck, but..." off the sub. I understand your points about the value of unknowing answers, but I think you're stacking the deck if you only look at the times when those lead to interesting conversations and ignore the times when they lead to legitimately bad answers to someone's question. If I had to choose between giving up conversations between people who didn't ask the original question or giving up good answers to the original question, I think I'd rather have /r/askphilosophy be a place that gives people good answers rather than a circlejerk for philosophers to argue with each other without having to visit /r/philosophy.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 03/09/2013 at 16:40 UTC*
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I can't respond to everything, but here are a couple points.
The flair is designed so that those who ask questions can have some degree of confidence in the answers they receive. The flair indicates that you are receiving an answer from someone who has some background in the field.
As I see it, flaired users are given slightly more leeway because they, presumably, want to be continuous contributing members of this community. In such cases, a mistake here and there can be over-looked. Of course, it happens that flaired users can also give terrible answers, in which case they lose their flair.
The flair, by no means, is meant to identify users. It's fairly easy to remain anonymous while indicating broadly where one's interests in philosophy lie. No one is asking users for a CV before they get flair. You request flair, you get it. If your answers indicate a profound discrepancy from your claimed flair, then you lose it.
As to your points 2, 6 and 7: As I tried to reiterate, we want people to answer questions who have some knowledge of the relevant issues. Your answer does not have to be in the form of a full-length paper. As you note, different questions require different answers. Sometimes all that is needed is a link to the SEP. Sometimes, it's just identifying an author, or pointing out a logical mistake. Sometimes it's engaging in a back-and-forth with the OP. Sometimes it's asking for clarification. There is not some algorithm for answering questions. But there are answers that are clearly bad. Here are a few recent one's that have been removed:
Remember that many people. Most people. Me included. Are parrots. We see and hear someone use a certain narrative as not defence or assurance, but rather an answer to a certain question. Depending on what sticks more than other stuff is rapidly sent to the frontal lobe for being put to good use. Naaah, I kid. Maybe people aren't ready to meet themselves yet. Who knows? There are so many aspects to include in any given question that there aren't enough time or resources to properly answer them. Well that's my philosophy on such matters, anyhow. The first bit doesn't make much sense to me. Are you asking people what makes life worth living and expecting their view on meaning of life? I wouldn't expect people to list the great Mazlows pyramid of needs for that question, though it might seem appropriate. I'd say the economy is what makes life worth living.
As to 3: This is usually true, but not always. Moreover, I see it as setting a tone for the subreddit. Much in the same way that askhistorians sets a tone for the type of answers it wants, askphilosophy wants to set a similar tone.
As to 5: this is true, but unavoidable, and it's not clear to me we'd want to avoid this. More general sorts of discussions belong in r/philosophy. We want to reserve askphilosophy for answers from knowledgeable folks.
Comment by proud_tobe_grey at 03/09/2013 at 16:10 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
And remember, once you get flair, you get to be slapped by the mods for speculating on matters not within your area of expertise. A great reason not to get flair.
I think some people take this sub way too seriously, and imagine a crisis where there is none. Almost every question gets at least one reasonably sophisticated answer. So what's the problem?
I'd also add that if someone posing a question can't figure out which answers are useful to them, and which are garbage, well maybe that person isn't up to engaging with philosophy in the first place.