Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 4:50 pm
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2018 at 4:55 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(May 1, 2018 at 4:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: (May 1, 2018 at 4:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No problem. And no, what im suggesting here is not a debate forum. I specified as much on the OP.
That's what I gather... a normal forum section where the rules impose civility, friendliness, etc... much like the intro section.
That would have the benefit of believers feeling better, as the evil atheists wouldn't jump to insults.
Of course, this would apply to theists too... they can't go on there and be assholes. And the topic could span beyond just religion related. It could be related to politics, philosophy, morality... or otherwise any of the more divisive, controversial topics where sometimes people are hesitant to try to talk about because they don't want to deal with the hostility or shit slinging.
The premise is to encourage honest discussion of differing view points.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 19644
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 4:59 pm
(May 1, 2018 at 4:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (May 1, 2018 at 4:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: That's what I gather... a normal forum section where the rules impose civility, friendliness, etc... much like the intro section.
That would have the benefit of believers feeling better, as the evil atheists wouldn't jump to insults.
Of course, this would apply to theists too... they can't go on there and be assholes. And the topic could span beyond just religion related. It could be related to politics, philosophy, morality... or otherwise any of the more divisive, controversial topics where sometimes people are hesitant to try to talk about because they don't want to deal with the hostility or shit slinging.
The premise is to encourage honest discussion of differing view points.
For what it's worth, I support this.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 5:02 pm
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2018 at 5:29 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(May 1, 2018 at 4:59 pm)pocaracas Wrote: (May 1, 2018 at 4:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Of course, this would apply to theists too... they can't go on there and be assholes. And the topic could span beyond just religion related. It could be related to politics, philosophy, morality... or otherwise any of the more divisive, controversial topics where sometimes people are hesitant to try to talk about because they don't want to deal with the hostility or shit slinging.
The premise is to encourage honest discussion of differing view points.
For what it's worth, I support this.
Thanks!
And again, it wouldn't just be beneficial to the theists here... but to any of the atheists who have opinions that deviate from the norm/majority of AF and those who like honest discussion of opposing views.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 28370
Threads: 524
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Don't think it would ever work. When it comes to religion/sex/politics/humor/pooping, what CL finds civil and what I find civil I'm sure are two different things.
Anyone got a working definition for all things civil and/or not? Or will it turn into "this does not feel civil", report, report, report?
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 30974
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 5:22 pm
(May 1, 2018 at 5:15 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Don't think it would ever work. When it comes to religion/sex/politics/humor/pooping, what CL finds civil and what I find civil I'm sure are two different things.
Anyone got a working definition for all things civil and/or not? Or will it turn into "this does not feel civil", report, report, report?
I suspect the latter, and as we have to consider and debate every single report regardless of it's merit, I'm generally not going to be supportive of suggestions like this that create extra work for the staff, particularly when the extra work is going to consist of a lot of wrangling over highly subjective matters such as this.
I've opened a staff discussion thread on this to poll the staff as to where they stand on it.
Posts: 29721
Threads: 116
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 5:35 pm
I have to wonder who would use such a forum. People first coming to the forum aren't going to be aware of the differences that exist. People who have already been here awhile apparently have already made their peace with the way things go. Who is this proposed forum sub supposed to be for?
Posts: 46294
Threads: 540
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 5:38 pm
I like the idea. The three interested members will assemble in the room so designated.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 5:52 pm
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2018 at 5:54 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(May 1, 2018 at 5:35 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I have to wonder who would use such a forum. People first coming to the forum aren't going to be aware of the differences that exist. People who have already been here awhile apparently have already made their peace with the way things go. Who is this proposed forum sub supposed to be for?
It would be for pretty much anyone who wants to have honest discussion about topics that may spark controversy (religion, politics, philosophy, morality, etc), without having to comb through the shit slinging and irrelevant posts that are just there to mock the OP.
This would be beneficial to the theists, the atheists who have opinions that deviate from the norm, and anyone who enjoyes honest discussion of opposing views and exchange of ideas.
The point is to encourage diversity and encourage discussion of opposing views - making this place overall less like an echo chamber.
Perhaps when a new member joins, they can get an automatic PM telling them about the introduction subforum and about this particular subforum. So then they would know about it.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 67244
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 6:16 pm
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2018 at 6:19 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
If a superstition is mockably silly, the honest way to discuss this isn't by avoiding that discussion. I love that the suggestion forum has become a place to air christian grievances about people calling our superstitions™ silly in all of the ways that they are silly, and attempting to enforce the notion that an honest discussion couldn't be one that's offensive to them, personally.
On behalf of god, as an appointed representative, ofc.
I can't see how blasphemy rules are going to produce diverse viewpoints or discussions. Maybe believers should stop being snowflakes? There's my site suggestion. 
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 33140
Threads: 1412
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 6:19 pm
I can understand CL's point of view.
However, I have experience what she is suggesting. It is not pretty.
There is a similar system over at religiousforums.com.
A long time ago daring to post in a thread you were not allowed to post in could get you in real trouble. With advancements in coding, they've managed to alert you that you're attempting to post in the wrong area so you don't make that mistake.
I honestly don't want this forum to become that place.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
