Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:06 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules
#1
Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules
The Rules of the site state that "Discussion of possible alterations to these rules is encouraged." It is in this spirit that I am making this post. What has sparked it is that I am finding that when I occasionally defend the freedom of expression, this is treated opportunistically by some to suggest that I both advocate and practice defining words arbitrarily or for no reason. I do not think I have ever defined words in this way in these forums and though I have asked several times for evidence that I have done so, it has not been forthcoming.

Also I thought it would be useful to be able to refer people to this thread when off-topic allegations about my use of words arise in other threads, in order to minimise the disruption to the fair discussion of the important topics we are exploring there - eugenics, right-wing ethical failures, capitalism, religion, authoritarianism, and left wing politics. In short, I defend people's right to use their owns words when they are posting as long as they keep within the rules. I think it highly unlikely that anyone will actually think this means they can post entire literally gibberish sentences repeatedly but if they do, fair enough, push down the troll plunger and blow up the culprit (subject to the normal checks and balances of course).

So far the only experience I have of people posting stuff that is literally gibberish is one or two very limited examples posted to try and trash my defence of freedom of expression, but these tend to blow over after a couple of replies. The forum is still functioning, anarchy has not broken out, and everyone including the perpetrators continues to post reasonably coherently. I don't think it's a problem.

However this continues to be an area which results in a lot of confusion and I would therefore like to propose that the following sentence is added to the the General Rules and Guidelines. This will reassure people that they are actually free to say what they think here. I'd be interested in other people's views on possible re-wordings of the proposal prior to formally taking soundings in the form of a poll of users.

---

6. Freedom of expression

We support the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas in these forums. We recognise that new, unusual or complex opinions may be difficult to get across; while we do not condone repeated posting of blatent gibberish, we do not take a controlling stance over the way people express their ideas. In responding to the expression of ideas that people find challenging or difficult, we suggest a guiding principle should be the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Provided people do not break other rules, they can feel free to say what they think here.

---

I should say the first sentence of this proposed amendment is almost a direct quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I think would sit well in a forum of atheists anyway. The quote about the right to say things despite disapproval is from Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

The proposed addition is deliberately not prescriptive in giving examples of what is not acceptable. The judgement of the moderating team will still be needed in extreme cases, which I think will be very few and far between. However I believe that the addition of the clause will tip the balance more firmly in favour of freedom of expression, where at the moment the culture of the forums seems to be rather unsupportive of freedom of expression and in favour of compulsory adherence to some rather one-sided, supposed 'facts', or alternatively in my experience, the selective quoting of dictionary definitions as if that were proof that there is some rule against expressing a particular point of view.

I therefore advocate this change, but as ever am interested other people's opinions, both for and against.
Reply
#2
RE: Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules
Quote:...this is treated opportunistically by some to suggest that I both advocate and practice defining words arbitrarily or for no reason.

Quote:I defend people's right to use their owns words when they are posting...

*facepalm*

Let me clear something up for you; freedom of expression means you can discuss your ideas / beliefs here openly and freely, with no censorship. Whilst some people may wish to use their own custom dictionaries (although goodness knows why they would), we ask that in the interests of better communication, people stick to words that are defined by dictionaries that already exist.

It is quite simple.

Edit: Additionally, if you really are that annoyed by us constantly berating you for redefining words in discussions, have you ever considered not doing it?
Reply
#3
RE: Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules
(October 25, 2010 at 3:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Let me clear something up for you; freedom of expression means you can discuss your ideas / beliefs here openly and freely, with no censorship. Whilst some people may wish to use their own custom dictionaries (although goodness knows why they would), we ask that in the interests of better communication, people stick to words that are defined by dictionaries that already exist.

It is quite simple.

Thanks for that reply Adrian. It certainly does clear that up for me. If it really had been that simple all along, I don't think you'd have felt the need to accuse me 3 times of 'trolling' when I insisted on using the word "misquote" rather than "paraphrase" in the Capitalism is a Religion thread. Your repeated but baseless allegations of trolling not unreasonably led me to think that an act of censorship might have been imminent at the time. It's good that you've finally made a statement supporting freedom of expression, though I think if this were embedded in the rules it would be even better.

Quote:Edit: Additionally, if you really are that annoyed by us constantly berating you for redefining words in discussions, have you ever considered not doing it?

If you've decided to play a game in which you paint a picture of me "constantly" redefining words I don't suppose there's much I can do about it. It's not true, of course. So once we had an argument about the meaning of the word atheism. Big deal. The meaning of atheism was the point of the thread.

The word atheism has conflicting definitions anyway, which I don't think the Hayter-Braeloch scale resolves, but there you go. You did ask for feedback.
Reply
#4
RE: Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules
I've been here far longer than you Existentialist; I've seen more trolls than you can imagine, and they all share one common factor: they exist to disagree with just about anyone, spreading ridiculous beliefs and saying stupid shit in order to get a reaction. So you'll excuse me if I thought you were a troll at first, especially after threads where you attempted to get rid of adjectives by claiming that you needed multiple separate new words for different stances of atheism, and when you changed the definition of eugenics to make damn sure anyone espousing it was a Nazi.

Baseless allegations? Nope. By some standards, you've posted worse stuff here than some of the trolls we've had in the past. The only recognizable difference (and the reason you aren't banned) is because you actually believe the crap that you preach.

I do agree that a statement should be in the rules though, so I've added one, and included a bit about not diverging from dictionary definitions of words.

I never said you "constantly" redefined words; I said we were constantly berating you for it (and it was a slight hyperbole; the number of times we've had to call you on it does strike us as high). It wasn't just the meaning of atheism, it was your insistence on arguing against common definitions of types of atheism (including agnostic atheism, strong atheism, etc) which have long been accepted.

I don't care that the Hayter-Braeloch scale doesn't resolve things; it wasn't meant to. It does, however, cover most types of people when discussing their beliefs. We were aiming for a general purpose scale for simplicities sake; nothing more. You, however, are the guy who suggested that a "theistic atheist" is a valid non-contradictory stance someone could hold [Citation], and you still can't see how we may have mistaken you for a troll? Jebus...
Reply
#5
RE: Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules
(October 26, 2010 at 4:40 am)Tiberius Wrote: threads where you attempted to get rid of adjectives
That's hyperbole.

Quote:you changed the definition of eugenics to make damn sure anyone espousing it was a Nazi.
that's wrong. I absolutely did not change the 'definition' of eugenics. The debate was about the way the idea of eugenics had become inextricably entwined, in my view, with nazism. I think you should be more reasonable. This does not mean I have made it "damn sure" that anyone espousing it is a nazi. It simply implies that there might be a failure to recognise the strength of cultural consensus that there is about the links between eugenics and nazism. In my opinion you have displayed this failure on several occasions. It's an opinion I'm entitled to express.

Quote:Baseless allegations? Nope. By some standards, you've posted worse stuff here than some of the trolls we've had in the past.
I see, so rather than supply a base to your allegations you start painting another picture of what I have said as being "worse than ... trolls". You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But you don't seem to be very good at supplying actual evidence, whenever I ask for it you either make me re-read a whole 5-page thread or you come out with more baseless allegations, they're always very lacking in the specifics to support your case.

Quote:The only recognizable difference (and the reason you aren't banned) is because you actually believe the crap that you preach.
A misrepresentation. First of all, 'preach' is not a word I would use. My image of a preacher is someone who stands in front of an audience talking at them, and not tolerating interventions or debate. On the contrary, I welcome debate. It's a pity you don't - the way you talk it's like you don't want people discussing things, exploring subjects, disagreeing, discussing differences. I think rather than 'preach' a more appropriate word might be 'post'.

Secondly, your argument does rather leave you with the power to summarily judge the point at which I no longer "believe" what I'm saying. That's up to you; it's your site I suppose, but I don't have much confidence in your judgement at the moment. On the other hand I do have quite some confidence in my own ability to decide what I believe. Perhaps if it comes to that, you should just ask me what I believe rather than deciding for yourself.

Quote:I do agree that a statement should be in the rules though, so I've added one, and included a bit about not diverging from dictionary definitions of words.
You added a statement to the rules? Oh great. Thanks for that insight into the democratic values of this website. I never realised changing the rules would be so easy. I still think my proposal is better.

Quote:I never said you "constantly" redefined words
I never accused you of it. I said you were painting a picture of me constantly redefining words. You tried to paint the picture using the brushwork of "constantly berating" me for it. In other words, guilt by association. In your latest post you simply added to this little piece of misrepresentational artwork by saying "the number of times we've had to call you on it does strike us as high". It's up to you if you want the reality to be clouded by more personal reactions, but I do think there are major factors at work in some of your reactions other than rationality.

I do think it would be a good idea to re-open the debate at some point about common definitions of atheism "which have long been accepted". I sense there are a number of differences about how we experience the concept of atheism which a dictionary can only begin to address. I would have thought this would be a reasonable subject for debate on an atheist forum. My views have developed since the previous thread, the last thing I want is for people to feel they must hold a fixed, concrete position that never changes. If you don't disagree, I'd be willing to start a new thread over the next couple of weeks when I get some time. If I still feel like it.

Quote:You, however, are the guy who suggested that a "theistic atheist" is a valid non-contradictory stance someone could hold [Citation], and you still can't see how we may have mistaken you for a troll? Jebus...

I think you massively over-reacted. As I recall the debate was about the etymology and acquired meanings of the word atheist and the word theist. If you read my arguments there they are rational. This doesn't mean they are indisputable or intrinsically right, I welcome counter-arguments. I was exploring concepts, I don't see why that has to be met with such angry impatience. Basically my argument was, and still would be that I see it as a common misperception that the meaning of the word atheist has evolved simply from sticking a negative prefix a- on the front of the word theist. This view that theist is simply the opposite of atheist is one people are entitled to have, but one I'm also entitled to discuss, as I don't think it's anywhere near that simple when you research the evolution of both words.

Feelings have been expressed by others about these forums recently. If I can be specific about my own feelings without pushing the drama button, I do think that frequent appearances of the words "crap" and "shit" as in this thread, accusations of trolling and then talking about someone "pulling lies out of your ass" may not break the rules, but it doesn't lay particularly brilliant foundations for a friendly forum where ideas can be debated to the full. The way I see it at the moment, I do wonder if the psychological dynamics of the forum are to invite people into a conversation and then once they engage in conversation attack, berate, swear at and use bad language towards selected individuals in order to reinforce an essentially patriarchal structure of behaviour, like it's some kind of military training camp or something similar. All I can say is that that's not really the kind of community I wanted to take part in, obviously it's entirely up to me how I react to this growing perception, but I do think it's appropriate at this stage for me to say how I feel and describe my present impression of what goes on here.
Reply
#6
RE: Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules
Existentialist,

This is not a cheerocracy, this is a cheertatorship. It is benevolently cheertated by Adrian, the owner of this particular parcel of the e-scape. He is nice enough to engage and accept input from anyone who is willing to give their opinion but does not necessarily have to follow any political ideas other than those he wishes to follow.

Happy foruming!
Rhizo
Reply
#7
RE: Proposed Alteration to Forum Rules
You seriously used the word misquote instead of paraphrase? Really? Well, that's a horse of a different color.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Suggestion for a minor rules change. Ravenshire 24 6240 July 8, 2015 at 9:12 am
Last Post: Napoléon
  just noticed the rules Coffee Jesus 28 4866 April 26, 2014 at 7:04 pm
Last Post: psychoslice
  Why is having a mod on the ignore list against rules? Something completely different 147 30653 October 31, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Last Post: Fidel_Castronaut
  Religious threats and the forum rules? Something completely different 17 5956 June 2, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  Rules for the R'lyeh Forum Love 18 5560 May 16, 2013 at 6:02 am
Last Post: Tiberius
  Rules Change Shell B 16 5505 November 14, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Last Post: Darkstar
  Proposed change to rep point system, no removals, edits only Angrboda 15 7676 October 31, 2012 at 7:01 am
Last Post: jonb
  Proposed Award - New Member of the Month Jackalope 7 3890 January 2, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Last Post: Jackalope
  Proposed Award - Kook of the Month Jackalope 54 24744 December 30, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Last Post: Jackalope
  When complaining about other users who have broken the rules discussion Violet 4 2254 September 18, 2009 at 6:13 am
Last Post: Retorth



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)