The Prime Directive wording has been updated to the following based on feedback:
Specifically, we updated the language regarding "generalizations" to enforce the fact that we only consider "overly negative generalizations" to be against the rules, unless these are strongly supported by evidence. While generalizations on their own are often inaccurate, we don't feel that an outright ban on every single one is required. The Prime Directive was originally intended to deal with the worst of the worst: calling atheists pedophiles, labelling christians as homophobes, muslims as terrorists, etc.
To note two recent examples, calling theists childish, while offensive to theists, isn't enough to break the rule. Similarly, if a theist wanted to state that all atheists were morons, that would be fine as well. A recent thread was titled in a way that broke the rule (the title has been updated) but the first post of that thread disavowed the title, and then proceeded to present an argument, and a prompt form discussion. For those reasons we feel that the post itself did not violate the rule.
This has been a learning curve for us, and we hope that going forward the new wording of the rule provides a bit more clarity.
Quote:The staff are aware that any thread may devolve into flaming, either indirect or direct, over time. Staff reserve the right to ban certain members from these threads if they are deemed to be flaming or trolling. Posts which are comprised of mostly insulting language, name calling rather than addressing points, overly negative generalizations of entire groups of people (unless strongly supported by evidence), etc. will be considered as flaming. Posts which are comprised of outrageous misrepresentations of events within the public record will be considered as trolling. Staff reserve the right to close or delete threads which were created for the purposes of flaming or trolling, and not for discussion.
Specifically, we updated the language regarding "generalizations" to enforce the fact that we only consider "overly negative generalizations" to be against the rules, unless these are strongly supported by evidence. While generalizations on their own are often inaccurate, we don't feel that an outright ban on every single one is required. The Prime Directive was originally intended to deal with the worst of the worst: calling atheists pedophiles, labelling christians as homophobes, muslims as terrorists, etc.
To note two recent examples, calling theists childish, while offensive to theists, isn't enough to break the rule. Similarly, if a theist wanted to state that all atheists were morons, that would be fine as well. A recent thread was titled in a way that broke the rule (the title has been updated) but the first post of that thread disavowed the title, and then proceeded to present an argument, and a prompt form discussion. For those reasons we feel that the post itself did not violate the rule.
This has been a learning curve for us, and we hope that going forward the new wording of the rule provides a bit more clarity.
