(May 2, 2018 at 9:17 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I would agree with what you were saying would be allowed vs disallowed on the third paragraph there.

As for how to tell if a thread under "Today's Posts" was from the civility subforum? One solution could be making the titles from those threads show up in red.

How about pink? Red seems like "Danger! Stop! Desist! Blood!"

Pink is more the "gentle reminder," and it's what Mathilda said they use on TTA. (And they have their shit together over there.)

Edit: Or maybe brown, since CL is leading the initiative

(May 2, 2018 at 9:25 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 9:17 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I would agree with what you were saying would be allowed vs disallowed on the third paragraph there.

As for how to tell if a thread under "Today's Posts" was from the civility subforum? One solution could be making the titles from those threads show up in red.

How about pink? Red seems like "Danger! Stop! Desist! Blood!"

Pink is more the "gentle reminder," and it's what Mathilda said they use on TTA. (And they have their shit together over there.)

Yeah you are right, pink would be better.

Edit: or brown, yes lol

(May 2, 2018 at 8:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: "I think homosexuals are choosing to be homosexuals and I think those who support homosexuals are ruining this county." Would have to be allowable in any part of the forums as far as I'm concerned... as well as a possible response to it: "I think that is a bigoted position that is born from ignorance." Both of these must be allowed anywhere on the forum. "Fuck you, you homophobic dickwad," would be an example of something disallowed in the civility section, as well as any slurs or inflammatory remarks from the theists about homosexuals.

I don't disagree with the opinion you're expressing here. But you do illustrate my point which is that if we're going to do this, someone has to decide where the line is. And its almost a guarantee the opinion of that someone will not be shared by everyone. So the goal is to create a discussion section which is friendly and encourages civil discourse. But we could also end up with a section where certain opinions are allowed and others simply are not because that's where someone decided to draw the line of what's offensive and what isn't.

Quote:Anyway, I like the idea for what it's trying to achieve, but I do have some reservations.

Sums it up perfectly for me as well.

To clarify, my suggestion isn't to make a section where nothing can be offenssive lol. It would be a civility section, not a "you can't say that because it is offenssive" section.

One other issue I could foresee arising. What is to stop someone excluded from a pink sub-forum thread from creating a parallel thread in a regular sub-forum expressly to vent and shit-sling? Or maybe that wouldn't be any problem at all, so long as it didn't violate the no-calling-out rule. So long as those participating in a pink thread don't have to wade through oceans of insults there, why should anyone there care if elsewhere their ideas are being ridiculed?

Parallel threads are fine.

I think some people here think im suggesting this because I dont want people to "hurt my feelings" in discussion, or whatever lol. Thats not the case.

The reason im suggesting this type of subforum is to encourage productive discussion. Discussion is more productive when it is civil and when there aren't shit posts distracting/detracting from the discussion. It has nothing to do with "not hurting feelings" or "not offending anyone" or whatever. If someone wants to create a parallel thread, they can knock themselves out lol. It wouldn't effect the actual discussion in the civility thread.

---

.
Also, I didn't want anyone to be "excluded" from that section. My intention is for it to be an open section where anyone can pop in if they wish, so long as they were there for honest contribution to the discussion. This is why I'm saying the debate section is not the same thing as what I'm suggesting.

However, if staff decided to do a trial run by having only a select few people to start off with, I'll take that and appreciate their willingness to see what works and what doesnt, etc.

(May 2, 2018 at 10:12 am)Whateverist Wrote: One other issue I could foresee arising.  What is to stop someone excluded from a pink sub-forum thread from creating a parallel thread in a regular sub-forum expressly to vent and shit-sling?  Or maybe that wouldn't be any problem at all, so long as it didn't violate the no-calling-out rule.  So long as those participating in a pink thread don't have to wade through oceans of insults there, why should anyone there care if elsewhere their ideas are being ridiculed?

People in the serious thread can ignore the ridicule thread if they like.

Parallel threads isn't a problem. The bigger problem is that some mockers will attack participants in any normal thread they find them in, regardless of that thread's topic.

(May 2, 2018 at 9:44 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To clarify, my suggestion isn't to make a section where nothing can be offenssive lol. It would be a civility section, not a "you can't say that because it is offenssive" section.

That is where the cookie crumbles. If you can objectively define what would be a civil duscussion, should be easy for us. However, I figure this is something hard.

Well, you came up with the idea, can you give us what would be a clear cut way of sorting the wheat from the shaff?

You can't because every person has own ideas of what would be civil. It can be easily abused.

Also, am I the only one that just scrolls over posts that do not adress a serious discussion?

Does the civility apply just to AF members, or would public figures be treated with greater respect too ?