Some Concerns

Ahoy Garden,

Recently, I've been contacted by several Gardeners who have worries that the comment threads are being frequently hijacked, and are increasingly antagonistic.  Being relatively new to this whole 'administrator' thing, I consulted with the cabal that secretly controls the Garden in the hopes of reaching a solution.  We wanted a solution that (1) preserves the Garden's philosophical integrity, and (2) continues the Garden's tradition of open participation.  Ideally, there is no tension between (1) and (2).  However, as a good number of people have pointed out to me, many comment threads have been hijacked and dominated by a small number of individuals.  Imagine, for example, that there was a post exploring the differences between Robert Kane and Laura Ekstrom's event-causal theories of libertarianism.  The comment thread of such a post is not an appropriate venue for me to dismiss libertarianism, or call it incoherent, or criticize all the other participants in the discussion simply because they have failed to see the light (i.e., compatibilism).  So when you post a comment, remember: comments are for advancing a particular discssion; they should not be viewed primarily as opportunities for expressing your pet philosophical theory.

I feel a bit funny telling y'all this, but we really want the Garden to flourish.  Unfortunately, if things don't improve significantly, we might be forced to take more drastic measures--specifically, moderating comments.  However, I sincerely hope that it will not come to that.  But again, if things don't change quickly and dramatically, then we will have to institute some new policies here at the Garden.

And while I'm doing administrative stuff, I'd like to encourage all the Gardeners who haven't posted in a while to work up a post.  I'm sure y'all are working on a lot of interesting stuff, have some good ideas, and have free time--either because it's summer or because your university has given you an unpaid vacation.  Whatever the reason, I'm sure people will be excited to see posts by someone other than Justin Coates.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, etc., feel free to contact me (my email address can be found in the ABOUT section of the blog).  Hopefully this will be all I ever have to say about this matter.

P.S. Why can't the National League win the All Star game?

Comments

[George Ortega]

Justin,

I just want to comment that Internet threads often tangent into matters that may not directly apply to the original posts, but are nevertheless relevant to the topic. It is, of course, your prerogative regarding how constrained or not you wish the dialogues to be.

[brandon w.]

Here, here! Thanks for sharing this, Justin.

[Eddy Nahmias]

George, what you say is true, but one of the nice features of the Garden is that it is not like lots of other blogs. People usually do (and I think should try to) keep their posts both relevant to the original post and relatively short (longer, off-topic discussions should be taken offline with email exchanges between the relevant parties). The problem is that lengthy exchanges that lose the point of the original thread lead readers to stop reading or contributing to that thread, since they don't have time to keep up with what has been said or left unsaid.

Justin's point was that he does not want to have to make it *his* prerogative to constrain anything--i.e., moderate comments--rather, he wants people to constrain themselves. And he is not alone in wanting that.

[Dan Speak]

Good points, Justin. I appreciate both your appeal to our sense of moderation and blogging propriety, on the one hand, and the challenge to the wider Garden community to make a bit more of a contribution, on the other. A little something for all of us who care about the Garden's continued flourishing.

[Al Mele]

I've noticed that I've come to agree with Eddy about more matters with the passage of time. This is a case in point. I hasten to add, however, that I remain officially agnostic about compatibilism and I regard that position as much healthier than Eddy's neurotic compatibilism.

[Al Mele]

I have to admit that I agree with Dan too. But I didn't want to express agreement with two philosophers in a single post. That way too radical for a moderate guy like me.

[John Fischer]

Thanks very much for this post, Justin. As a card-carrying and not-so-secret member of the "cabal", I commend your moderation and sensitivity in expressing the concerns, which I also share.

A great thing about the Garden has been its--well--freedom, and we want to protect that. But we also want to be a high-quality and focussed locus of discussion.

If the voluntary self-monitoring doesn't work, or only works selectively, I will work with Justin to formulate and implement some more draconian policies. We don't want to have to do that, so please try to keep your comments as tightly focussed on the relevant issues as possible, and as concise as possible. The point of the threads is discussion, not self-advertisement.

(I say this as someone whose last contribution to the interesting post by Grant Rozeboom was an advertisement for my new book... !!)

PLEASE take Justin's post seriously!

[Mark Smeltzer]

Justin,

For the record, I would be perfectly fine having the comments moderated. I would welcome it in fact. For starters, it would allow me a chance to put in requests not to post my more grammatically challenged submissions.

My only concern with going that route is that it potentially puts time pressure on whomever has the responsibility of moderating. That said, I doubt you would have a hard time recruiting several trustworthy volunteers to assist with the moderating efforts in order to keep the conversations flowing smoothly.

I'll support the-powers-that-be regardless and do my part to stay on topic :)

[Dan Speak]

The only other thing I've ever said that Al has agreed with is, "I think it is time for a smoking break."

[Kip]

As someone who has not shied away from divergent topics or long comments (and is not sure that either of those are so undesirable), I just want to share a couple of comments:

1. Whatever the rules at the GFP are, I'm happy to follow them. I've been in love with this blog since Tom Clark first introduced it to me ("Kip, did you know that there's an entire blog dedicated to these things that you never shut up about?").

2. I'm not sure that long comments are undesirable. Certainly they have their cons, but so do short comments. The issues we discuss here do not lend themselves to short/quick replies.

3. I suspect that the "concerns" might have more to do with close mindedness, snarkiness, and sweeping attacks on another's general viewpoint - and not so much concerns about comments being too long or off topic. But I could be wrong about this.

[Alan]

I'm completely with Justin on this one. The blog format does give too much over to the impulsive response because we are not face-to-face, and we all need to be more thoughtful about that. We should remember that at least one famous case resulted in suicide due to unfettered criticism--we should try to imagine our adversary in argument in front of us, human, full-blooded, and potentially fragile.

BTW--our own Cheese-head Prince Fielder did his best!!

[Kevin Timpe]

I'm with Justin, Al, Dan, Eddy, Alan, Brandon, and John say here.

[George Ortega]

Gentlemen,

I've enjoyed the debate, but I have to agree with Kip that much of the ado seems about what I write rather than how I write.

I can understand that an individual or a group may feel attacked when cherished beliefs appear at jeopardy of being exposed as false, and perhaps also as more harmful than helpful.

You are free to disagree with this assessment, in a manner of speaking, of course. As I mentioned in one of my comments recently, however, I have a strong passion for the question that will not at all yield to timid approaches.

So, for my good as well as for the good of those whom I have apparently provoked, I'll pursue the passion through avenues that are more appreciative of my content and direct style.

I do find solace in the understanding that neither Garden members nor I are actually in charge of what's going on here. Such an understanding helps me maintain a spirit of fraternity. Nonetheless, the universe has decreed that this be my last Garden post.

No hard feelings, just hard determinism : )

[Andrei Buckareff]

I appreciate and agree with the majority sentiments expressed. And I apologize for any ways I may have recently fouled up the air, so to speak.

As for actually posting something. I'll post something again in the future. But I'm still too worried about getting my theory of action right to start posting on free will. I'm still worrying about action-individuation (I know, that is so 1970s).

[Eddy Nahmias]

Leiter lists the Garden as one of the top-ten philosophy blogs (link below). I think he's right. But I think it's a good reminder that we need to have some more action here (as Justin suggested in this post), especially from the people Leiter says are blogging here in his description of the Garden: "Professional philosophers explore classic questions about the nature of free will and moral responsibility."

http://www.blogs.com/topten/top-10-philosophy-blogs/