Oy. With all this academic masturbation John should be dean of emissions.

(November 12, 2013 at 12:17 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(November 12, 2013 at 12:03 pm)max-greece Wrote: Is it important for me to read the rules? I never have done. I'm only on this thread because I saw 14 pages of discussions on a rule change, really???

It would seem to me that the new rules actually take some of the chains off the theists yet its the theist(s) that is/are complaining (to be honest I read the first page and then scanned through the rest quickly).

No pleasing some people.

14 pages?! really?
Good thing I changed that setting... I "only" see 3 pages, each with some 50 posts, but I like it that way.

I didn't even know you could do that. Obviously the settings were ignored with the rules.

(November 12, 2013 at 1:07 pm)max-greece Wrote:

(November 12, 2013 at 12:17 pm)pocaracas Wrote: 14 pages?! really?
Good thing I changed that setting... I "only" see 3 pages, each with some 50 posts, but I like it that way.

I didn't even know you could do that. Obviously the settings were ignored with the rules.

So you haven't utilized the 'complimentary colonic' coupon offered to new members already? Pity. Tiberius uses a fireplace bellows to administer it. Bracing! :p

(November 12, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Bracing! :p

Might be too late at that point!

(November 12, 2013 at 1:31 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(November 12, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Bracing! :p

Might be too late at that point!

Yeah. It's difficult to brace for a perforated bowel.

We have discussed this at length behind the scenes and have just made a change to the rules to reflect this. The "No Flaming" rule now reads:

Quote:No Flaming
Flaming is where a person makes a post that is either entirely or mostly made up of insulting language towards another member, and does not form part of a discussion between those members. Generally speaking, the occasional insult thrown at a person will not result in a violation of this rule, as discussions based around certain subjects tend to get heated for those involved and the use of insults is forgivable (and sometimes expected) in these situations. Additionally, staff will take into consideration the context surrounding the insult when making a decision. This rule is intended to prevent people from using the forum just to attack other members, or to bully opponents into submission. Members that have previously demonstrated that they are here to participate in civil conversation may be shown leniency if they run afoul of this rule. Punishments for violating this rule are verbal warnings, regular warnings, and varying lengths of bans, depending on the severity of the flaming and whether the member has violated the rule before.

Threats and threatening language are strictly forbidden, and any post that is considered a threat will only be exempt from punishment at staff discretion.

In addition we will publish some examples of flaming / non-flaming to make the purpose of the rule clearer. The point is not that insults and insulting language are prohibited when used multiple times, but more that flaming is an attitude problem. Rather than punish people for loosing their cool once in a while, especially during heated or controversial discussion, the rule allows staff to consider whether the person is using the forum to attack people rather than having meaningful discussions with them.

(November 12, 2013 at 9:15 am)John V Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You understand that I excluded lurkers (who's religious views I would not know), and only counted those who actually participate in discussion, yes?

Yes, and the point remains - online isn't the same as lively.

Clearly, we aren't going to come to an agreement on this, so I'm going to drop it at this point.

(November 12, 2013 at 9:15 am)John V Wrote: I haven't been notified of resolution of my report from several days ago. Is this purely a matter of logistics, or is it also evidence that the rules are not clear, as I suggested?

The issue is still under consideration. Being bombarded by a shit ton of frivolous reports by another member certainly didn't help matters any.

Another ex-member perhaps Cthulhu???

Anyway well done Tiberius - I am sure that version of the rule is much better than the previous version that I didn't read, unless it was the version on the first page of this thread which I did accidentally read but have now forgotten entirely.

Whooooo! 15 pages! Made it all the way through that one. Who won?

(November 11, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 11:02 am)John V Wrote: I think my wording already addresses your concerns:
"posts which only insult and do not add to the discussion"

Insults would be allowed in posts which also substantively add to the discussion.

Thanks for the clarification.

I am not sure if I should break this new toy... or play with it. What are you playing at, Tibbersnips?

---

(November 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Well both myself and Synackaon have the "keys" (so to speak) for the server, so I guess either one of us could do it. There would literally be no point to doing it though, and we'd also be in the same basket as the admins at other atheist forums who for some reason or another thought that a hostile takeover was the best course of action (where are those forums today...oh yes, pretty much dead). :-)

I think I'd be more afraid of what 'The Master of Protoss' would do than I would what a mere RACIST! would do

Calling Tibs a racist is still fashionable, right? :S

---

(November 11, 2013 at 5:39 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: Pretty sure there's theists besides christians on this forum.

Hi.