Yup, staying on topic should be a rule. Good catch. However there should be some leeway, sometimes related topics can be brought up to make a point in a discussion.

I think context is important for determining if language is insulting. “You’re ignorant” can be used as an insult but can also be a way of challenging someone’s knowledge. “You’re willfully ignorant” is always an insult though, the implication is that the person is purposefully ignoring certain facts.

(May 5, 2018 at 1:05 pm)Tiberius Wrote: So having skimmed the last few pages, it seems like people would be happier if they were able to swear to emphasize a point, but not if it’s being used to attack / insult someone.

So essentially a forum where we have a stricter enforcement of flaming, would that suffice or are there other rules it would need?

Ok, so I read through the official forum rules. I would say the civility section should be a stricter less tolerant enforcement of the prime directive rule, the flaming rule, and the trolling rule.

I think those 3 cover everything that would aim to make for a more productive discussion: general civility, no name calling/cussing people out, no baiting/provocation (including blatant repeated strawmen), no random pointless posts made specifically for the purpose of mockery or whatever, and staying on topic.

That's my opinion, though we can certainly loosen it up a bit to make things more practical for moderation purposes or whatever.

I propose that it be a request only subforum where everyone can read but you have to request to join and agree to the rules/conditions to be able to post.

The thread titles for that section should show up in a distinctive color.

Rule vilolators should initially get warnings, then get temporarily banned from the section, then get permabanned from the section.

^Again, all this being my suggestion/proposition. Tweak as necessary.

(May 4, 2018 at 11:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: That's because shells not a bitch

That’s a horrible thing to say. Stop spreading these heinous lies about me.

My only objection would be on the strawman front. I don't think staff should have to determine whether an argument is a strawman or not. If an argument is a strawman, the person responding should be able to point that out and correct the person making the argument.

(May 5, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(May 4, 2018 at 11:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: That's because shells not a bitch

That’s a horrible thing to say. Stop spreading these heinous lies about me.

He also called you a big girl! You're not even fat.

(May 5, 2018 at 5:00 pm)SaStrike Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Shell B Wrote: That’s a horrible thing to say. Stop spreading these heinous lies about me.

He also called you a big girl! You're not even fat.

Aw, you're so sweet.

I have strong objections on the idea, personally.

Such section would make the rest of the forums "look like a joke"; in other words if you posted outside the "serious section" then you have posted a "shit post/ a not serious post".

That limits the precious freedom we have here in my opinion.

When you reverse my comment; you get the "Riyah" sub-section.

riyah :]

You know, it's funny that CL wants a civility subsection to stop people from name calling yet defends the single most uncivil post I've ever seen on these forums. If Neo's bile is going to pass as civil, the subsection is already doomed.

(May 6, 2018 at 6:51 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: If Neo's bile is going to pass as civil, the subsection is already doomed.

Oh, it won't. If this sub-forum goes live, you know it will be a great opportunity to call believers out on the uncivil behaviors that some of them often pass off as faith (you're going to hell, etc.). They'll have to behave as well as the atheists, if not better. When you consider they'll have more eyes on them, you have to wonder how soon the cries of persecution will set in.