7
I guess I don't understand the problem because the whole point of the SE design is that users are the authorities. Even with almost no rep everyone has the power to vote up/down questions which alters their visibility on the site, they can vote to close or delete, etc. It is an error to think of ♦ Moderators as sole "authorities" in the sense we dictate how ...
7
Given the Wikipedia article and the quote are correct, I see nothing wrong in exploring his writings in the context of Philosophy.SE:
He seemingly argued for a cosmology, including some kind of a monistic ontology (emanation from the light of lights - somewhat similar to Spinoza but with more of an idealistic flavour), and critically commented on Avicenna. ...
7
This was due to violations of our rules in which several different accounts were involved. The violations happened across several communities.
Please understand that we will not discuss publicly who these users were, what they did exactly, or how we found out about it.
If it helps anything, I lost 1,205 reputation on Philosophy.SE that day. Don't worry, ...
6
I would say that these comments are sometimes useful as rebuttals to the corresponding close comments. For example, I think there isn't much debate that this is a constructive comment:
I vote to close this question because it is about a definition of a word in English, not a question of philosophy.
It seems then that this is only a fair response:
This ...
6
It is possible to delete your stack exchange account.
See How can I delete my account?
for the steps you would need to take.
6
Stack Exchange sites are rarely an appropriate place to "try out" new or eclectic theories. Like Wikipedia, Stack Exchange sites are only meant to be secondary sources, quoting and linking to the primary sources of knowledge. Maybe on occasion people will in the process of answering a question give some new novel insight or pose a question that leads to a ...
5
This has already been asked on Meta.SE. Jeff Atwood himself gave this reason:
would you also like the ability to change your vote after the president has been elected? Sorry, but vote undos have historically been our #1 source of gaming and exploits. The window is very limited for a reason, so vote carefully.
Whether or not his election analogy is useful,...
5
If they provide necessary clarification, this should be edited into the question and answer proper.
Comments are temporarily by nature and if one wants to have information contained therein to be permanent, incorporation into posts is the way to go.
5
Phil SE exists because the "work from first principles only" paradigm DOES NOT WORK! It is the nature of humans to be blind to their own unexplored pre-conceptions. We NEED other humans to help us identify, and critique, the assumptions we hide from ourselves. This is a process of dialog, with others both interactively, and by research into prior ...
4
Officially we're here to give objective answers, and to keep our own opinions out of it. However, I think we all know none of us do that 100% of the time. So is it possible for there to be a "right" way to be subjective in an answer?
These are the standards I've generally arrived at personally:
1) Don't answer a question at all unless you have at least ...
4
tl;dr
12 hours does not seem like a long time at least to me for us to think about whether what's there is now on-topic.
Further Thoughts
But there are some things you're posting here that suggest other reasons your question should be closed.
Cross Posting
You're not supposed to post essentially the same question in multiple SEs. Or at least that's how I ...
4
First: Yes, the user should be suspended for this behaviour and has been.
I, personally, do not think it is because having been bigoted, but because the tone went way out of any reasonable limit. You can be bigoted and still watch your tone. But you cannot use increasingly insulting language, bigoted or not.
That been said: For the next time, please try to ...
4
It seems you are referring to this answer. It was deleted by jobermark himself, seemingly after a comment by the question owner implied that it was not exactly what he was looking for.
Thus, since the owner himself deleted the answer, only he can/should decide to undelete his intellectual property.
4
You have been automatically blocked from asking due to a number of badly received questions. This is not about the last question in particular. Also, there is nothing we can do about it. Only you can change this.
To learn more about the automatic question ban and what you can do to lift it, I would like to suggest this help center article.
Essentially, you ...
4
The reason your question attracted downvotes is already explained here on meta and in the comments:
The title question has nothing to do with the body of the question
The body of the question mixes a quote by Curry, something about mere points of views and something about truth and provability. The three have nothing inherently to do with each other, yet ...
4
I'm not quite sure the answer is correct on that particular point. The help center article does not state anything which suggests answers have any effect on question bans whatsoever.
In fact, the article specifically mentions questions only and that even a single good question may lift the ban. This makes sense since both there is an answer ban as well and a ...
4
What does it mean for a question to be removed for "reasons of moderation?" Why was this entire question, its answers and comments to all removed?
There are basically two ways for a question to be removed: voluntarily by its author, and for reasons of moderation. That's a very broad indication; one of the reasons may be that the question was ...
4
There are external editors like Codecogs
which convert a LaTeX(-like) expression into an image, which you can then embed in your post (either directly or by uploading the image with the built-in image uploader).
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible