Rule Changes + New Restrictions

[Psykhronic]

Pretty sure there's theists besides christians on this forum.

[Jackalope]

Oh, I don't know. Seems like we have a fairly lively bunch of theists here.

I'd say it's more a handful of fairly lively Christians.

In a quick check of members online in the last 24 hours, I counted 17 that I know to be theists, and several more who are deists. That doesn't include those who are lurkers who's religious views aren't known to me by memory.

Your idea of a handful and mine must differ.

[Faith No More]

ETA: Never mind

[John V]

In a quick check of members online in the last 24 hours, I counted 17 that I know to be theists, and several more who are deists. That doesn't include those who are lurkers who's religious views aren't known to me by memory.

Your idea of a handful and mine must differ.

Online isn't the same as lively.

[Captain Colostomy]

And vice-versa. So what? What precisely is your point?

That there are atheists espousing a climate which conflicts with the site's stated mission.

Intellectual exercise my undescended left nard.

[Jackalope]

In a quick check of members online in the last 24 hours, I counted 17 that I know to be theists, and several more who are deists. That doesn't include those who are lurkers who's religious views aren't known to me by memory.

Your idea of a handful and mine must differ.

Online isn't the same as lively.

You understand that I excluded lurkers (who's religious views I would not know), and only counted those who actually participate in discussion, yes?

[Whateverist]

And vice-versa. So what? What precisely is your point?

That there are atheists espousing a climate which conflicts with the site's stated mission.

I prefer to see theists treated with respect but I also think it important that the site remain available for atheists to vent a little. Otherwise it would be like having a discussion on race relations while expecting those who have been disadvantaged by the status quo to remain calm throughout. We aren't purely rational beings and real communication doesn't happen in a cerebral vacuum. People are complex. Their expression will be too.

Do the moderators prevent theists from expressing strong feelings? They're certainly the group which comes to this forum with the historically advantaged position. Personally I wouldn't mind if theists did express strong feelings, so long as they speak for themselves.

[Ryantology]

I don't see much of atheists unloading on theists out of principle until the theist makes a name for him/herself for saying objectionable things, or for being very terrible at presenting and defending a position.

And? You know that many theists will say things which atheists find objectionable.

Of course I do. I know you can't help advocating terrible things; your religion insists upon that. What I don't get is why you seem to find it so surprising that some of us are not nice to you when you say them. Nobody asked you to come here and say them.

[Angrboda]

Oh, I don't know. Seems like we have a fairly lively bunch of theists here.

I'd say it's more a handful of fairly lively Christians.

In the main, I would say you are leaning in the right direction, however, likely on account of the base rate for Christians versus other theists in this type of venue (setting aside the question of deism, for the moment). However, it's not an exceedingly strong point, given the likely base rate. Currently, there are two Hindus on the forum, one who is explicitly theist (myself), and one whose opinion likely leans toward an Astika Hindu conception of the divine that is often considered theistic, as well as a Muslim who is an admin, a "Muslim Scholar", and I have, in recent memory, savaged a devotee of Krishna. And that's what comes readily to mind. I don't have figures to hand, but I would not be surprised if we exceed the base rate for non-Christian theists in either an atheist or secular internet discussion medium (English based), or whatever context you think these 'hearty Christians' are unusually representing in. (A recent theist who had minimal participation was Eastern Orthodox Christian, something that many mainstream Christians from a Western branch of the faith would not consider 'the same thing as Christianity[tm]'.)

[Aractus]

---

The staff have had lengthy discussions behind the scenes concerning a couple of rules that have bothered some of us for some time. The result of these discussions was a decision to repeal the two rules and enact three more that we hope will lead to a more balanced and better community.

As of this post, the following rules are repealed:

• No Preaching
  
• No Personal Attacks
  

Before you all start posting quotes from your chosen religious text or calling another member every name under the sun, be aware that the following rules are now being enforced:

1. This is a discussion forum.
This means that members should interact with each other in a proper discussion, and not purposely / repeatedly evade rebuttals made to them. Whilst members are not forced or required to answer every post addressed to them, ignoring them all and continuing to post similar content will fall in line with our "No Spam" rule. This includes posting links / copy-pasted content / scripture verses repeatedly, without adding your own comments or being relevant to the thread.

This is our primary rule and all other rules fall in line with this concept. The staff reserves the right to analyze each case in the spirit of this rule if said case doesn't violate the exact wording of other rules.

2. No Flaming
Flaming is the repeated use of insults and/or threats against a member, and is not allowed. Generally speaking, the occasional insult thrown at a person will not result in a violation of this rule. However, insults that are used again and again, especially if they make up a large portion of a post, will be treated as flaming and may prompt staff action. Threats are strictly forbidden, and any post that is considered a threat will only be exempt from punishment at staff discretion.

3. No Trolling
Trolling is where a person makes a deliberately provocative posting with the aim of inciting an angry response, and is not allowed. As discussions can at times get heated, not all provocative posts will get classed as trolling. However, if a member is found to be making multiple such posts, or appear to only be using the forum to provoke people, they will be in violation of this rule.

---

Well done, all common sense improvements IMHO.

---

New Restrictions

We have also implemented a couple of new restrictions, mainly aimed at allowing staff to better moderate discussion. For various reasons recently, we have discovered a number of members who had placed staff on their ignore lists. Obviously this prevents these staff from getting in contact with this members, and sets the entire team back when trying to uphold the rules.

To that end, we have now (with thanks to Moros Synackaon) disabled the ability to add staff members to ignore lists, and also made it impossible to turn off the PM system, which is used to issue warnings. If you are receiving PMs from people you'd rather not talk to, then add them to your ignore list and they should not be able to send you PMs anymore.

Edited to add: There were about 6 members (who shall remain nameless) who had at least one member of staff on their ignore lists, and these members of staff have now been removed from those ignore lists.

We hope these new rules and restrictions are accepted by the community, and we hope they enable better discussion for everyone.

---

I knew Germans probably wasn't the only one. Glad you got it under control!