(May 8, 2018 at 5:20 pm)Joods Wrote:

(May 8, 2018 at 3:42 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I personally think the forum as a whole should make name calling, insults, detailed threads with insults etc - bannable offenses. Not banned forever but time limits.

Even if I were an atheist, if I posted something that someone didn’t like about say politics, I don’t want to deal with that one special poster calling me a fuck wit or whatever, as it derails the dialogue. Other forums ban for a day or week or whatever, those types of offenders. Religious forums does this and it works. Play nice or go in time out.

I think if those rules were enforced (whether the mod spots it on sight or it’s reported) there wouldn’t be a need for a separate space.

bold mine 

Do you realize how deserted this place would get if that were to happen? IJS.

haha You'd be surprised.   It isn't that everyone turns into dutiful little drones, all parroting one another. But, it just stops the name calling of posters. Attack the post/topic, not the poster.

---

(May 8, 2018 at 5:26 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(May 8, 2018 at 3:42 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I personally think the forum as a whole should make name calling, insults, detailed threads with insults etc - bannable offenses. Not banned forever but time limits.

Even if I were an atheist, if I posted something that someone didn’t like about say politics, I don’t want to deal with that one special poster calling me a fuck wit or whatever, as it derails the dialogue. Other forums ban for a day or week or whatever, those types of offenders. Religious forums does this and it works. Play nice or go in time out.

I think if those rules were enforced (whether the mod spots it on sight or it’s reported) there wouldn’t be a need for a separate space.

More censorship is not the answer, the answer to to just be an adult and interact with who you want to. Its so easy to ignore replies you don't want to, and interact with only the people you want to.

I think this whole idea is childish.

---

I think in theory, this is true, and I agree. But, the problem is that when one person starts name calling, then it's a pile on. And then, there's maybe three posts that are decent, out of 100. That's an exaggeration, but you get the point. It's not censorship.

Civilised?

What-ho, pip-pip, and all that?

Jolly good!

It's just tedious, and doesn't help when other people who you would otherwise be having a discussion with get caught up responding to the trolly stuff lol.

(May 8, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It's just tedious, and doesn't help when other people who you would otherwise be having a discussion with get caught up responding to the trolly stuff lol.

That's my single contribution.

Apart from this one.

Promise.

(May 8, 2018 at 6:18 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:

(May 8, 2018 at 5:20 pm)Joods Wrote: bold mine 

Do you realize how deserted this place would get if that were to happen? IJS.

haha You'd be surprised.   It isn't that everyone turns into dutiful little drones, all parroting one another. But, it just stops the name calling of posters. Attack the post/topic, not the poster.

What constitutes name calling though? If someone is being intentionally obtuse, I'm going to tell them that. If they are being disingenuous, I'm going to tell them that. If they are being a straight up asshole - well then they get told that too. Name calling is subjective and there's too much wiggle room involved to be able to honestly make the determination of whether or not someone was called a name and deserved it.

I don't believe that putting restrictions on what we can say is going to be successful with this forum. It's never been that way before and I honestly don't see a reason to start now. If so, I might as well get banned now because people are going to intentionally make some underhanded remark just to get a jab in and then I'm not going to be able to keep myself from responding to that. And I shouldn't have to. 

What I think should happen is this - someone critiques someone else's POV. That person responds by going on a tangent and resorts to making all sorts of wild accusations that get dragged across numerous threads. Said person is put on ignore but said person continues to bully the other person despite others pointing out that they need to chill. Said person should be given a two week time out so that they can do just that. Chill. If the behavior happens again - whether or not it's with another member or the same member - then a permanent ban should take place.

(May 8, 2018 at 7:01 pm)Joods Wrote:

(May 8, 2018 at 6:18 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: haha You'd be surprised.   It isn't that everyone turns into dutiful little drones, all parroting one another. But, it just stops the name calling of posters. Attack the post/topic, not the poster.

What constitutes name calling though? If someone is being intentionally obtuse, I'm going to tell them that. If they are being disingenuous, I'm going to tell them that. If they are being a straight up asshole - well then they get told that too. Name calling is subjective and there's too much wiggle room involved to be able to honestly make the determination of whether or not someone was called a name and deserved it.

I don't believe that putting restrictions on what we can say is going to be successful with this forum. It's never been that way before and I honestly don't see a reason to start now. If so, I might as well get banned now because people are going to intentionally make some underhanded remark just to get a jab in and then I'm not going to be able to keep myself from responding to that. And I shouldn't have to. 

What I think should happen is this - someone critiques someone else's POV. That person responds by going on a tangent and resorts to making all sorts of wild accusations that get dragged across numerous threads. Said person is put on ignore but said person continues to bully the other person despite others pointing out that they need to chill. Said person should be given a two week time out so that they can do just that. Chill. If the behavior happens again - whether or not it's with another member or the same member - then a permanent ban should take place.

https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

If I'm reading correctly, it might fall under ''flaming.''

(May 8, 2018 at 7:12 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:

(May 8, 2018 at 7:01 pm)Joods Wrote: What constitutes name calling though? If someone is being intentionally obtuse, I'm going to tell them that. If they are being disingenuous, I'm going to tell them that. If they are being a straight up asshole - well then they get told that too. Name calling is subjective and there's too much wiggle room involved to be able to honestly make the determination of whether or not someone was called a name and deserved it.

I don't believe that putting restrictions on what we can say is going to be successful with this forum. It's never been that way before and I honestly don't see a reason to start now. If so, I might as well get banned now because people are going to intentionally make some underhanded remark just to get a jab in and then I'm not going to be able to keep myself from responding to that. And I shouldn't have to. 

What I think should happen is this - someone critiques someone else's POV. That person responds by going on a tangent and resorts to making all sorts of wild accusations that get dragged across numerous threads. Said person is put on ignore but said person continues to bully the other person despite others pointing out that they need to chill. Said person should be given a two week time out so that they can do just that. Chill. If the behavior happens again - whether or not it's with another member or the same member - then a permanent ban should take place.

https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

If I'm reading correctly, it might fall under ''flaming.''

I don't think you're interpreting the rule correctly, but IANAM (I am not a moderator).

Quote:Flaming
Flaming is not allowed. We consider flaming to be the act of creating a series of posts that are either entirely or mostly comprised of insulting language aimed at another member, whether they are involved in the thread or not. This rule is intended to prevent members from using the forums to attack other members repeatedly.

As discussions that involve controversial or taboo subjects often tend to get heated for those involved, the occasional insult is to be expected, and will not violate this rule. Staff will take into consideration the context surrounding the insult when determining whether this rule has been violated. More generally, a violation of this rule occurs when a member's posts are repeatedly inflammatory or insulting without adding anything to the discussion at hand.

I don't see name calling or ad homs in the rules, what??? OMG, you all might get a pass.

(May 8, 2018 at 3:42 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(May 8, 2018 at 3:24 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I see the points of view of those who don’t want this separate area. The reason being, faith for an atheist isn’t debatable. And if we are being honest, theists who debate are really just defending their faith. Witnessing, etc.

There is no absolute evidence to debate unlike secular topics. Faith is derived from many things and experience and emotions are both part of it.

To want a separate space to not be insulted, I get that. But I honestly see it turning into a pulpit for some to preach, which doesn’t offend me, but I’m not an atheist. So, I see both sides.

Heh, I am atheist, I don't get offended by preaching. Mouse wheel or scroll it up on mobile. It's so easy.

These days, I am more interested in cooking. Any advice on cauliflowers?

Steamed with butter and a little garlic salt. Simple, but tastes gooooood!

(May 8, 2018 at 5:26 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(May 8, 2018 at 3:42 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I personally think the forum as a whole should make name calling, insults, detailed threads with insults etc - bannable offenses. Not banned forever but time limits.

Even if I were an atheist, if I posted something that someone didn’t like about say politics, I don’t want to deal with that one special poster calling me a fuck wit or whatever, as it derails the dialogue. Other forums ban for a day or week or whatever, those types of offenders. Religious forums does this and it works. Play nice or go in time out.

I think if those rules were enforced (whether the mod spots it on sight or it’s reported) there wouldn’t be a need for a separate space.

More censorship is not the answer, the answer to to just be an adult and interact with who you want to. Its so easy to ignore replies you don't want to, and interact with only the people you want to.

I think this whole idea is childish.

---

(May 8, 2018 at 5:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think it is about use curse words either (if it's a part of it, I think that it should be a small part of it certainly with some grace).   As for your " safe space", you just seem to keep wanting to repeat and not listen. I can speak for myself thanks!  

I truly don't understand your aversion to a civil part of the forum with an emphasis on honest discussion. Perhaps afraid isn't the correct word, but I find the opposition to it humorous. 
If you have a particular point that you want addressed, perhaps you should be more civil.  Right now, the crap covers anything of value.

Maybe you get a lot of crap towards you because of a problem with you that inspires it as a response. For example insulting people and then crying that they aren't being civil enough towards you. It is easy to have civil conversations on here and ignore the crap, if that is what you are after.

I don't know how that is such a problem. I think that this idea is being championed by forum theists says it all. Theists, as a group, always tend towards censorship and away from free speech. Both in reality and online. Atheist forums are always rowdier more fun places. There are already so many places on christian forums with exactly the rules you guys want. There is no reason to have it hear, and I hope the idea is not even entertained. I think the very existence of it here would detract from the fun chaos of atheist forums and basically create two forums. We already have a place we like. If you want more censorship, just go join a Christian forum, they are full of it.

Also, it still sounds like you want a safe space. You say I'm not listening, but I've read everything you wrote twice and you aren't even offering a reason it's not. So maybe try that, start with "this is not a safe space because....."

The problem is it’s not just theist who think it’s a good idea. And I don’t see anyone asking or suggesting special rules for theists. I don’t think I understand what you mean by safe space, unless you are talking about an area where civil discourse is promoted (which is all anyone is promoting). I think that their are atheist who would benefit, and that we might hear more from some of the more reasonable ones (which I think is good for the forum and good for atheists as a group).

The thing is that the forum does have rules, and it does censor. There is a whole page of rules, and the mods have the authority to shut people down. Just ask Zen Classic and his many socks. I think that these rules make things better. Likewise I believe that there is a rule against prostelitizing. Should we lift that? You say that the adult thing is to just ignore the trolls, which I agree, and I admit I’m not always very good at. But I don’t think that an area that promotes discussion is bad, and raises the question of if you don’t like it, shouldn’t you be adult eneough to ignore that area?

I think it would make things better. However I’m not opposed to some being loud who make atheism look bad either. I can understand where it might be difficult to lay out concrete rules. From many of the responses, I’m doubtful it would work anyway.