Are peotically phrased deep philosophical questions more likely to be removed than "normal" questions on this forum?

Directly from the guidelines: In general, if your question inspires thoughtful discussion, and/or is particularly creative, and shows effort (so make sure you add details and give examples!), it probably won’t get moderated.

If you ask a question and it does get moderated, just ask why. It may just take some simple tinkering to make it fit the guidelines enough for it to be allowed to stay. (And please do! I like the fun questions as much as the next person, but deeper stuff is usually my favorite.)

I don’t know about likelihood (I have no idea what might not have reached public view), but I can say that there have been plenty such. Go ahead and try it.

[mod says] Philosophical questions like “What is the meaning of life as we know it?” with some details thrown in are fine. Random musings that make little sense, not so much.

I’m new here and after reading the community guidelines they explicitly discourage open ended questions.

I’ve found myself having to change a couple of my questions to fit the mold but you can still ask your questions about deep philosophical topics. I would like it if you did.

[mod says] I think it’s the ‘poetic’ part you might be having trouble with. Clearly communicating what your question is is important.

@augustlan Understood. It’s the poetic part that is a part of me… it’s who I am. In that light, I must be having trouble with myself. It’s the poetic part that promotes the freedom of interpretation upon the one who answers. I promote freedom of interpretation as a tool for studying human nature.

Here’s an interesting recent one that’s still going.

@Jeruba I appreciate that but… that’s exactly the type of question I’d rather avoid. I know it seems contrary to my previous comments, but “meaning of life” questions are rather sophomoric. No offense, and your thoughtfulness is very considerate… just not quite what I’m looking for. Thanks though…:)

@The_Compassionate_Heretic The attempt has been made in a very thoughtful and detailed manner… unfortunately it was tossed aside as rubbish. I’m currently waiting on a reply as to why.

moderators and question askers alike: Just don’t suck at what you do, k?

questions don’t need to be perfect. they just have to generate discussion.
the guidelines are there for a reason: to be guidelines. not rules to thwart creativity.

i haven’t had a problem yet with the mods really, but thinking back to the one question i asked that was moderated (which I adjusted and then resubmitted without a problem) i guess i can see how some would take offense by rules that are held too hard and fast.

i don’t feel that my question needed moderation and I don’t think anyone has benefited from the change. but still, i am happy with the change I was able to make.

Maybe mods need a “Soft-Mod” vs “Harsh-Mod” options.. where it’s more a suggestion vs something that is die-hard necessary.

I’m unlikely to answer a question that seems to be just a bunch of polysyllabic words strung together, where the querent seems more impressed with his own erudition than with what the words mean.

Good poetry is rare and is different from sentimentality. People are still arguing over Socrate’s unanswered questions; viz; What is truth? What is virtue? Those are really simply worded questions that reverberate through the ages.

(What does “solicitous consideration” mean?)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – Your best bet is to wait and see what the mods say. You WILL receive a reason, and they are open to questions. They may be more busy because of the wis.dm influx, I mean activity has risen exponentially and I see more new users than old friends these days, but they are VERY good at what they do, and they don’t make arbitrary decisions. I’ve had a couple questions modded, and no matter how offended I was up front, I was always OK with it by the time I talked to the mods….I’ve had situations where 8 of them discussed what to do for an extended period, and where people have even offered to have one on one chats with me in the chat rooms. The whole point of moderation here is to make questions that are quality, that generate discussion…if they feel for some reason the way you worded a question won’t do that, I’ll bet they have a reason to think that and will be more than happy to share it with you. But it’s better to ask the mods directly and let them get back to you than it is to seek advice from the collective (I did this same thing early on). In general, I think creative and philosophical questions are going to fly here, I seriously would just ask for clarification if you’re not sure why something was modded, and don’t be shy, they’re not going to kick you off if you disagree with them, feel free to argue your point if you don’t think a decision is fair…I have yet to see a situation where the mods couldn’t reach some sort of happy medium.

Why, when people ask about moderation here, do they never give the example of the question that they want to ask?

Once I wanted to ask, “Are Mods mod?” It was too vague, which was, of course, exactly the point. To add details would be to destroy the question. I just wanted to see what people would come up with, and what it might mean to them. It was tongue-in-cheek, too.

Alas, to add detail to it would be to destroy it, so it never got asked, and never will get asked. So it goes.

We won’t go into the other question of mine that got modded, and, in my opinion, should not have been.

These questions are poorly veiled attempts at fluther bashing. You can try to be as verbose and self-effacing as you like, but we can see through it. Why don’t you just ask and answer some real fuckin’ questions? Unless you are slow on the uptake, you will soon find out what fluther is all about. Right now you are wasting our time.

@tinyfaery I don’t spend your time Tiny… you do.

Except we come here to answer and ask questions. When your questions show up in “questions for me” you are wasting my time. From now on I’ll just click remove. No point.

@tinyfaery Maybe he’s just trying to figure out what kind of questions to ask.

[mod says] Let me reiterate. Random ramblings with a question mark attached do not constitute questions. They may have been tolerated on other unmoderated sites, but not here. Sorry to be so blunt, but, that’s life.

I’m so glad people here are so fond of “telling it like it is”. How bout just being a reasonable, relatable person?

It is much easier to relate to others when they are also being reasonable.

@Jiminez I am all of those things. But, there is a limit that we all reach when faced with repeated complaints about this site from people who have never actually used it. Feel free to find another site where there are people who care so deeply about it as this one. I know, I know, you came from wis.dm, which was the best thing to come to the internet since the internet, but, ce la vie.

hmm.. is fluther specifically a non-poetic question board?

if an answerer doesn’t like a question.. can’t s/he just not respond to it?
by the way, i tend to not like questions that don’t make sense either.. but i mean i don’t like a LOT of the questions so i just don’t click them

@ninjacolin It isn’t that simple. Fluther (like most websites save perhaps Google) have a finite server load. Allowing unlimited questions would quickly overwhelm the servers, making the site exceedingly slow. In addition, part of what makes Fluther profitable is a focus on quality questions. Is that somewhat subjective? Yes. Has it been working well? Yes. Why fix what isn’t broken just to suit a few people?

@gailcalled Solicitous in the intended context being “paying very careful attention to details”. Consideration in the intended context referring to “show respect for or be thoughtful of somebody’s feelings or position”.

Both taken directly from Encarta 1999.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: Thanks. Now look up “prolix.” “Solicitous” to me means “being interested or concerned.” “Meticulous” would do better for “paying careful attention to details” in the common parlance.

Socrates would have red-penciled the whole lot.

@gailcalled I can only be myself Gail. I appreciate your honesty upon the things you find unsuitable.

@gailcalled That’s the beauty of free will. You have the right to lend your attention more to your own personal interpretation, and you also can pursue the actual meaning that was intended from the author.

Your original request to clarify terms is to be encouraged. I feel many disagreements could be avoided if more people followed your example.

“Solicitous Considerations” seems a bit redundant.

You are requesting “carefully thought out” “careful thoughts”?

@Real: I am not talking about free will, unsuitability, or personal interpretation. I am talking about the normal use of words and the understanding of their meanings. You can be yourself and write clearly…they are not antipathetic goals.

And with that said, I am going to take my dictionary and go home..

@fireside As you wish. You may do my thinking for me. You may also put words in my mouth if you so desire. I will bend as much as you need me to fireside. If this will eventually lead you to accepting me for who I am, then I’m all for it. If you choose not to accept me, that’s ok too.

Enjoy your pity party.

Acceptance is not related to clarity of prose. I accept you; I’d like to edit your writing. (That’s free will, man.)

@fireside Fireside, what will make my presence more acceptable to you?

@gailcalled Finally, someone here likes something about me. That’s a start. Edit away dear. I will only be the better for it.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Wow. I didn’t realize condescending bullshit was now considered conversation.

RealEyes, you don’t understand what they’re saying because they’re not saying ANYTHING WORTH HEARING….

Actually, RealEyes is the one who’s not really saying anything…

@MacBean: katinthehat was the one who felt it necessary to use big words to conceal her fundamental lack of thought in the question that seems to have gotten her booted, so it’s no wonder she came out in support of thumping other people with big words.

@cwilbur I’m curious as to which word(s) the Kat used that you consider as big.

@MacBean There are more than ten replies that I have given. I’ve offered thanks, shared my thoughts, conformed to opinions, and allowed insulting comments to stand unchallenged. I’m listening to the voices on this thread and attempting to better myself from the comments given, insulting no one in the process.

What exactly is it that you accuse me of this time MacBean?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: “bidirectional modality” and “dialectic” are needlessly large.

She wanted to ask “Is the relationship between moderator and poster the same as the relationship between master and slave?”

But instead she asked about “dialetics” and “bidirectional modalities.” A question that is fundamentally inane is no less inane when you ask it in postmodern critical theory jargon.

Indeed, a good deal of postmodern critical theory jargon does an excellent job of concealing that there is actually no thought going on; or, when there is actual thought, intimidating potential respondents so that they don’t respond. How unfortunate that someone saw through her ruse!

@cwilbur You see this as a trick, as opposed to a mistake of youthful ego?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: I don’t think it matters whether she did it self-consciously or not; the use of needlessly large words is an attempt at intimidation.

@cwilbur That’s an interesting assessment. I’ve had many conversations with the Kat and never once felt intimidated. Never felt like she was attempting it either. I presumed she was simply expressing her particular character with the words she chose to use. I like that in people, and it often teaches me new words, expanding my knowledge, and giving us further things to talk about.

Your perspective upon her persona is interesting too. I understand your position and will look out for it the future, both in myself and in others.

Instead of asking questions about either peotically or poetically phrased deep philosophical questions, how about asking a deep philosophical question and seeing what happens? I’m sure there are one or two flutherfolk who could handle it. If there aren’t, you’ll have learned something useful.

@Jeruba Excellent suggestion. Consider it done.
http://www.fluther.com/disc/39606/to-see-oneself-through-eye-of-foe-could-this-be-the/

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: I didn’t feel intimidated by her either; it is not necessary for an attempt at intimidation to be successful for it to be an attempt at intimidation.

@cwilbur True, yet for it to be an attempt, it must be self-conscious. In this light, it does seem to matter “whether she did it self-consciously or not”.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies—I suppose I’m accusing you of basically the same thing @cwilbur accused @katinthehat of: using ten dollar words when dime words are all that’s really needed.

As you’ve gone along, your answers seem like they’re getting more complicated and actually saying less. It shows more intelligence to be able to get your point across than it does to flip through a thesaurus and pick out the biggest word, you know. Like @cwilbur said, “the use of needlessly large words is an attempt at intimidation.” That’s not gonna work on Fluther. We’re pretty smart folks here; we just don’t feel the need to whip out our big vocabularies and wave them in your face to let you know about it. Most of us are pretty confident about the sizes of our e-peens.

You claim to have conformed to opinions and taken insults without challenging them, but you’ve done so with language that sends the meta message “I’m better than you.” Or, as you might be more likely to put it, “The magnitude and measure of my enlightenment is vastly superior to yours, thus making me the exceptional example of erudition; you are unbefitting of my inestimable time, peon. Begone.”

“What is truth?” “What is virtue?”

@MacBean Please provide one example where I have talked down to anyone. Please show one instance where I have offered anything less than patience.

The key term in your reply is “seem”.

I forewarned of “seeming uppity here” in the original question, and asked forgiveness for it. It is now up to the listener to search for that highest quality of traits within their own heart.

@gailcalled Although I haven’t checked, I’m quite sure there are plenty of threads on this site that have approached those subjects. If that does not suffice, doing the Google and/or the friendly neighborhood library will provide a trail of breadcrumbs that are still fresh enough for tasting.

Anything I speak upon these matters will only be rejected as unsuitable, fit for nothing less than editing.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies : Have you tried to simplify your language in order to provide more clarity?

“It is now up to the listener to search for that highest quality of traits within their own heart.” Certainly you can shrink that and make it less convoluted. You are not being uppity but bombastic (see “prolix”.)

@gailcalled How will this be rephrased yet still be true to my nature as a unique individual? I’m open to suggestions… I really am. I find this fascinating that there are those who insist upon me speaking in a manner that is not true to my nature.

It’s as if being told, “You can be who you are, as long as it’s who I want you to be”.

I am not issuing orders or prescriptions but suggestions. “You are who you are” leaves little room for change. Be whomever you want.

@gailcalled Very well. I’ll give it a go… I am an Information Theorist, that meaning that I understand that all codes are reducible. I will attempt to reduce this code…

“It is now up to the listener to search for that highest quality of traits within their own heart.”

can be reduced to…

“Lighten up dude, show a little love”.

That works for me.:-) (Do you care about correct punctuation? If not, I won’t mention it.)

@gailcalled Please. Help is always encouraged.

That sounds much better.
The point people seem to be trying to make is that verbal masturbation can be just as off-putting as the physical act.

Nobody cares what you do in private, or with friends if that suits you, but most people don’t like seeing it in public.

[edit: I changed it to mental masturbation, but went ahead and changed it back so that your latest comment didn’t seem out of place.]

@fireside “Verbal masturbation” Upon this phrase, you shall be quoted. Love it!

My last comment; the details help readers to understand

“Lighten up, dude. Show a little love.”

@gailcalled I see. Each thought deserves it’s own period. The comma serves to direct the comment to a specific individual, at least in that case.

Almost. Each complete sentence ends with a period, whether it deserves it or not. “It’s” means “it is;” “its” is the possessive. And that is my last Eng. Comp. answer for the week. (Except for suggesting that you avoid the passive voice.)

@gailcalled Thanks for setting me upon the path of finding a new voice. You are nothing less than memorable gailcalled.

Go outside; get some exercise; eat an ice cream. I’m off to the movies.

@gailcalled I’ll put your suggestions on the list. My agenda has already been set for today. Ice cream may earn it’s way up the latter though…

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies—Yes, the key term in my reply is “seem,” and I used it very deliberately. I’m really pleased that you picked up on it; I hoped you would.

In communication, there’s what is literally said (the message) and what is percieved (the meta message). “Nice shirt!” looks like a compliment but it can be said in a way that is definitely not complimentary. On the internet, when the messages are written down and there are no voice cues to tell us otherwise, it’s impossible to actually prove that the meta message was the intended one. But people can still get the idea that you think their shirt sucks. You can claim all you like that you meant it honestly, exactly as it was written. But the fact remains that they feel you hate their shirt.

Basically, what I’m saying is that you may very well be trying to send a message of humility and patience and whatever else. But if that’s true, then we have a failure to communicate, because the meta message I’m getting is one of thinly-veiled snobbery.

@MacBean I appreciate the thorough reply. The longer I remain here, the more intellect reveals itself. It is a signal to abandon my submissiveness.

Your comments remind me of something I need to address in my next conversation with the cosmos. Evolution has made a terrible mistake. Our tails fell off but our trigger fingers remained in place. A more elegant solution, would have been to just sniff each others asses, and start chasing squirrels again.

My tactics are unconventional, yet I’ve found them to be quite effective. Ask a provocative question and assume a submissive posture. It tells me much about who I’m dealing with in a very short amount of time. Your final reply is evidence that this forum can go well beyond a typical drive through window social engagement.

Confrontation is a powerful tool, exposing the intellects, and splitting them from those who spew brain farts as an excuse for contemplation.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies : Since you are open to improvement, keep that finger off the apostrophe key when typing “its”; ”...may earn it’s way up the latter though…”

And you mean “ladder,” I presume?

@gailcalled As you wihs… bugs all gone. Fun you are… filled with solicitous considerations. The pleaseur is mine.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: Teasing me you are?

@gailcalled Was it not mentioned that you would like to edit my writing? I’ze jus’ showin’ a groovy gal a good time!

@gailcalled Oh, and enjoying your company whilts learning a great deal all along the way…;)