-13

I have lost all confidence in the judgement of diamond moderator Joseph Weissman. I just don't think he is doing a good job. Cody Gray, the other diamond, dislikes me just as much as Joseph Weissman, but he hasn't act in such capricious abusive ways.

Joseph Weissman just closed another question of mine here which was at +2, answered, and dead. Closing a positively voted question with positively voted answers is generally considered an abuse of power, as is closing a question and answers before they can be seen, deleting meta-questions, and banning a user for no reason, all of which Weissman has done.

I don't want to have a person who is not an active member of the community closing questions because he wants to protect nietzsche from honest criticism. We have discussed the racism question, whether it is ok, and I have gotten a reasonable seal of approval on it.

I want the question reopened. I will ask for Joseph Weissman to no longer be a diamond mod on this site. These are two independent issues.

  • 2
    I'm sorry to have upset you, really. But I'm just wondering if you're not projecting a bit here at this point. Just in passing, here's part of my comment when I closed this question: "[t]his is simply not about Nietzsche; it's about the fact that your question is a rant, that it's a blog post masquerading as an honest and innocent question. Closing pending a more neutral formulation of the concern." (emphasis added) – Joseph Weissman Apr 26 '12 at 2:26
  • 6
    The question you linked that has been closed is not really a question, it is a rant. You don't really want an answer to that question; you've already made up your mind about it. Hence, you've asked the question in bad faith. – Robert Harvey Apr 26 '12 at 3:16
  • 11
    I almost feel unloved - I suppose I don't intervene enough to merit my own diamond rant? – davidlowryduda Apr 26 '12 at 3:35
  • 3
    Claiming that the question in question has been "thoroughly vetted by the community [and] declared fine" based on the number of upvotes is a bit disingenuous. I implore you to recall that many of those upvotes (including, in fact, my own) came after I edited the question to take on a decidedly more constructive character. Lots of people probably have not revisited the question to "adjust" their votes after you rolled back my edits. Moreover, a net score of +2 doesn't really count as "thoroughly vetted" or "declared fine". – Cody Gray Apr 26 '12 at 4:13
  • 4
    Get on it @mixedmath! As for this question, I'm more borderline but ultimately concur with the decision to close it. I did not close it myself because I saw it as an improvement over others (mile-long rants) you have posted, and some members of the community at least seemed to be ok with it. But this whole debate is pointless because you know exactly what you need to do to get it reopened — rewrite it in a more neutral way. If you want to get your views across, this is what you're going to have to do; it's not really a huge sacrifice asking you to be nice to people when you say things, is it? – stoicfury Apr 26 '12 at 4:18
  • 6
    Wow, you really have no clue how the Stack Exchange network works, do you? – casperOne Apr 26 '12 at 12:16
  • 4
    Not sure if trolling or just plain dumb. – Tablemaker Apr 26 '12 at 12:49
  • 6
    @RonMaimon Sorry to say, but Stack Exchange operates in a number of ways that are counter to how you believe it should behave. What you do as a result of that is up to you. – casperOne Apr 26 '12 at 14:22
  • 13
    Call me naïve, but I suspect that the folks over at the Physics.SE site are not asking leading questions about Feynman being a racist. – Robert Harvey Apr 26 '12 at 16:34
  • 7
    @Joseph is doing a great job as moderator and has since the site started. (Needless to say: -1.) – Jon Ericson Apr 26 '12 at 19:17
  • 4
    The asking of which is absolutely, unequivocally and unambiguously a mis-application and abuse of the Stack Exchange platform. – Robert Harvey Apr 27 '12 at 6:19
  • 6
    @Ron: So remove the biased portions of your question from your question, and allow people to answer it, without giving the impression that you've already made a presumptive answer in your question. If you want to field your own opinion (assuming you can keep it from being a rant), self-answer your own question. Again, questions which are already answered by the poster in the question are not questions at all; they are blog posts. You can stand up your own blog for that purpose. – Robert Harvey Apr 27 '12 at 18:26
  • 3
    As an aside, I actually like some of your writing; I find it thought-provoking. It's too bad you can't seem to find the right place to put it. – Robert Harvey Apr 27 '12 at 18:38
  • 6
    To reiterate: if you are answering your own question, put that material in an answer, not in the question. As long as you are not personally attacking someone else, posting rants or going off-topic, you can pretty much put whatever you want in an answer. You would do well to learn a bit more about Stack Exchange; it doesn't work like other online forums. Respect the format, and it will respect you. – Robert Harvey Apr 27 '12 at 18:47
  • 5
    You can toss up all the straw men you want; my answer will still be the same. – Robert Harvey Apr 28 '12 at 4:34
15

Y'know, there's nothing wrong with strong opinions. But I've seen your posts, and I think you're going about this the wrong way.

Your user account profiles are a perfect place to put your personal philosophies, and I see that you have done that in spades. Good for you. To do the same thing in question and answers? Totally inappropriate and unacceptable.

If you doubt this, consider this hypothetical scenario (for illustrative purposes only; I apologize in advance if I offend anyone).

You are at home having dinner, and you hear a knock at your front door. You open the door, and a man in a suit is standing there holding a Bible. He asks you if Jesus Christ is your personal savior, and then asks if he can come into your home to discuss it with you. Before you decide, you find out that he's a Jehovah's Witness, and he tells you that the steak dinner you are eating is an abomination, because there's a passage in the Bible that says you shouldn't eat the blood of animals.

What would you do?

Now. First of all, let me make something perfectly clear: It doesn't matter what you or your visitor's beliefs are. My guess is your answer would be "No Thanks," and you would close the door without letting him in.

Well, that is our answer to your rants about Nietzsche. No, thank you.

Philosophy.SE is not your personal soapbox; it is a Question and Answer site. If you wish to follow the prescribed format of the site, your future contributions are welcome. Otherwise, there are plenty of other forums and discussion boards where you can more freely express yourself.

  • I am well aware of how this site works, and I express views when they are relevant and important answering the question. To expand your analogy, if I asked a Jehova's witness what is God's view of a steak dinner, I would expect this response. This is what is going on here, where a fellow comes in and says "Why is nietzsche calling Jews a priestly people?" The answer is because he hates priestly people, and considers them morally and aesthetically inferior. To prevent one from saying this is to protect nietzsche from criticism. – Ron Maimon Apr 26 '12 at 3:24
  • 4
    Perhaps I make my point better by pointing out that the JW is insisting that he come into your house to discuss it. No, in fact, he's demanding it; he feels that it is his right to come into your house and save your sorry non-Christian ass. Which is exactly what you are doing here. The JW doesn't care at all about your steak dinner logic; he only cares about his agenda. – Robert Harvey Apr 26 '12 at 3:28
  • 2
    Seriously, no link to what SO is not (we should rename the post, or have a network-wide one at least)? – casperOne Apr 26 '12 at 12:19
  • @casperOne: If this is what the higher level of SO looks like, why should I participate? You have no experts for a reason--- experts don't do your kind of politics. – Ron Maimon Apr 26 '12 at 13:59
  • 6
    @RonMaimon And civil people don't make ad-hominem attacks. You sir, are out of line. – casperOne Apr 26 '12 at 14:15
  • 5
    @RonMaimon "You have no experts" - disproof by counterexample: Jon Skeet – commando Apr 26 '12 at 16:27
  • 2
    Please keep interaction, even in the comments, civil. I would encourage any extended discussion to be taken to chat. – davidlowryduda May 2 '12 at 20:08
14

Judging by what I've seen, yes Joseph is doing a reasonable job as a moderator on Philosophy.SE.

Background: Joseph is - as are the other three moderators here - "Pro Tempore" moderators; that is to say, they are not elected, but picked and appointed by Stack Exchange staff members such as myself. This is the usual practice prior to a site graduating, as there are not yet enough established community members to vote in an election.

That said, we do pay close attention to how they behave, and have been known to remove the moderator privileges if they are abused or if the community vehemently disagrees with their actions. They are appointed - later elected - to represent and act on behalf of the community...

And Joseph has done this. I've yet to see a single complaint apart from your own regarding his behavior. Even in regard to your participation here, he was reluctant to step in, attempting to reason with you and soliciting advice from other moderators before taking action. I do not consider his actions unreasonable.

  • 8
    There are three other moderators who can review it, and 23 other users who can vote to re-open if they see fit, 8 of them who've visited the site in the last week. Make the case for your question, and abide by the community's decision. – Shog9 Apr 26 '12 at 2:47
  • 4
    Again, three other moderators who can re-open with a single vote, and a sufficient number of other users able to vote, edit, and comment in support of your question. First make an honest effort to convince them; if you do not, your allegations here hold little weight. – Shog9 Apr 26 '12 at 2:57
  • 7
    @Ron: You're trotting out the exact same arguments here again about members of this community trying to protect Nietzsche's image? As I've said numerous times before when you've raised the issue of your contributions being closed/deleted, the problem is not the fact that you have opinions. Rather, it's the way in which you present them. I already tried to edit that very question, but you rolled back my edits. You're apparently uninterested in it remaining open. – Cody Gray Apr 26 '12 at 3:46
  • 5
    It's rare for comments from people who are "not right" to receive 3 upvotes and counting. So long as you adopt a populist justification for the continued presence of your question, this seems to be a particularly strong argument against your position. And you're precisely correct in divining that I don't like assholes. In fact, one of the primary roles of a ♦ moderator is to keep the site relatively asshole-free. The solution to end the friction seems obvious. – Cody Gray Apr 26 '12 at 4:30
  • 7
    "nietzscian supermen that run this place"? ugh. This discussion is getting further and further away from anything related to your actual question, @Ron. From the look of it, Cody would support your question were you to allow a small edit, mostly for tone. Surely that's a useful thing; make the edit, get the question re-opened, move on. – Shog9 Apr 26 '12 at 14:42
  • 8
    @Ron: that sounds like a question you need to answer for yourself. – Shog9 Apr 26 '12 at 15:04
  • 7
    @Ron: If you're mind isn't open, then why are you asking the question in the first place? Stack Exchange is not a discussion board, debate society, or place for people to evangelize their belief systems; you still seem to be missing this point. – Robert Harvey Apr 26 '12 at 16:36
  • 5
    @Ron: Just so you know, I probably won't chose to vote to reopen the question because I see no indication that its quality has been improved and it probably can't be answered any better than Michael Dorfman and commando already have. In fact the most recent edit represents a moving target that seriously devalues the question and its answers. – Jon Ericson Apr 26 '12 at 19:16
  • 6
    Whether Nietszche is racist or not is not really relevant here... You seem to have difficulty staying on topic. – Robert Harvey Apr 27 '12 at 6:14
  • 3
    @RonMaimon Again... I'm the last person who'd have any interest in defending Nietzsche against anything. I do concede that there was an element of racism involved in his writings (e.g. in the passage about the Chinese you added after my answer). I do not concede that my interpretation is incorrect. Given that my philosophy teacher is a staunch Anti-Nietzscheian who despised every moment of his Nietzsche classes, yet agrees with my interpretation, clearly it is not only me who disagrees with Nietzsche's philosophy yet finds him defensible on some points. – commando Apr 27 '12 at 13:25
  • 4
    @Ron: In that case, if this question were to be reopened, I'd immediately vote to close it as "Not a real question". The really toxic thing about the post is that it discourages similar (but honest) questions. I have a question about the relationship between Hitler and Nietzsche, but there's zero chance I will ask it in the near future. (Maybe that's for the best in this particular case, but not in general.) – Jon Ericson Apr 27 '12 at 15:46
  • 3
  • 3
    @Ron, either you're asking a question you honestly want to see answered, or you're missing the purpose of the site. If you can't abide edits that preserve the former while softening the argumentative tone of the question, I tend to suspect the latter. See also: philosophy.stackexchange.com/faq#editing – Shog9 Apr 27 '12 at 20:42
  • 5
    Ironically, your contributions read like "nails down a chalkboard" to the ears of 99% of the members of this community. I'm not sure why your ego is so inflated that you can't appreciate this fact. Why should we all arrange to satisfy you, rather than you arranging to satisfy others? This is not so much a philosophical question but a rhetorical one. No, it does not appear to anyone that you are seeking to debate the ignorance of this observation. For one thing, debating observations is not within the scope of this site. For another, the question actually being asked is sufficiently clear. – Cody Gray Apr 30 '12 at 10:31
  • 3
    "it only serves as a warning to others--- devils be here, stay away" is precisely why I'm reconsidering my decision to leave this question visible. – Cody Gray May 24 '12 at 8:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .