10

Proselytizing is definitely inappropriate — but my first thought is just applying SE guidelines. If a comment isn’t helpful in clarifying the question, then flag it for removal. Just in general, content in Q+A should be as neutral point-of-view as possible. For comments this is less important. But bounds of reason apply and “be nice” ethos is in effect ...


6

A general problem with philosophy.SE indeed is that humanities work kind of differently compared to, say, mathematics or programming. The main problem is that the kind of questions which arise in mathematics or programming only arise to mathematicians (or students thereof) or programmers respectively. All other questions which theoretically do count to the ...


5

I think we could realise the StackExchange model (mind, "Experts answer your questions") more rigorously. The real question ever since I joined this site is: Do we want to? I remember several tries back when @virmaior had been moderator. A pretty good example for a site with a working, hard policy is Sceptics.SE. There are several options available, of ...


5

I'd start with reading the comments under the deleted posts. (You can find the deleted answers behind a "deleted recent answers" on your answers page.) I won't quote them directly, but the theme is that your answers are generally too terse for this site. Philosophy tends to be rather subjective. There might be right and wrong answers, but, for ...


3

Serious matters are raised here. I offer a few observations. The question about security cameras and miracles plainly has no place but how representative is it ? What proportion of our questions is anything like as inappropriate as this ? I am glad that the slew of questions about fallacies has stopped. It was at its fullest about a year ago. Adequate ...


3

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the review queues. That's where the community can exercise its moderating power in a more systematic way. Currently, the review queues are dominated by 2-3 users that, judging by the review history, tend to be quite lenient. For instance, they voted to leave open 38 out of 50 questions that have been nominated for ...


3

If the proposal is to change Philosophy.SE settings to be a bit more forgiving of automatic deletion of posts, then yes, I'd be all for that. Understandably, it makes sense to give new users a chance to update posts to something that fits with what we're trying to build here, and encourage new users in the process. If the proposal is for participants to ...


2

Also a newbie, but I think that applying the SE policies is sufficient. That being said, I believe that philosophy is a strong enough practice to tolerate answers such as "because God said so" within normal Socratic dialogue, without resorting to blocking and flagging and so forth. "Because God said so" is a weak answer to "why", whether or not it is in ...


1

The basis are the rules and guidelines laid out in the help center I would like to quote this page of the help center. The articles of the help center are the basis of moderation, it's guidelines. There, it says: Answers that do not fundamentally answer the question may be removed. This includes answers that are: commentary on the question or other answers ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible