(May 1, 2018 at 7:16 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:(May 1, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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.
Sooooooo, do you have a suggested way of keeping the "shit slingers" out? Keep them from not posting? Keep the report function from not being abused? Is this a "by special permission" sub forum?
I applaud your motives, I see little about implementation, monitoring and rules of engagement.
No, I don't like the special permission thing. My intention is for it to be like any other subforum where anyone can jump in if they want, not like the debate format at all.
Perhaps I'm giving y'all too much credit, lol, but I honestly don't think it would be that hard to regulate. People will know that section is specific for civil discussion, and they have the whole rest of the forum to say whatever they want. I tjink most people would follow the rules as they do in the Introduction section. We are all adults here.
"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
-walsh