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 19, 2024, 5:22 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"The Prime Directive"
#41
RE: "The Prime Directive"
Quote:or accusing people of it.

Except archbishops I hope!
Reply
#42
RE: "The Prime Directive"
[Image: Prime_directive.JPG]
Reply
#43
RE: "The Prime Directive"
The Prime Directive wording has been updated to the following based on feedback:

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.
Reply
#44
RE: "The Prime Directive"
I'm very happy with that description of what is considered trolling on this account, as well. Seems especially like something that a Poe would do too . . . pretending to just be thunderously ignorant and blending in that way. Outrageous misrepresentations of events within the public record are still outrageous misrepresentations whether genuinely believed or not, so all Poes will be considered to be true trolls rather than delusional people who look exactly like true trolls (what a Poe is, someone who looks exactly like a deluded person but they're doing it on purpose and it's hard to tell. Someone pretending like they hold David Icke's views looks no more ridiculous than David Icke who really believes that shit, for example. Although expressing David Icke's views in itself may not be misrepresenting anything within the public record, so that's probably a bad example of the rule break, but a good example of Poe-like behavior if the person is pretending the hold those views, but you get my drift).

I agree that the other rule breaks mentions should all go under the flaming rule and not the trolling rule. You don't have to be a troll to be toxic.
Reply
#45
RE: "The Prime Directive"
(October 23, 2017 at 3:08 pm)LastPoet Wrote: 4. An increase of  100% the amount of hookers and blow for the staff? Big Grin

I will grab me coat.

As long as it does not affect my posting recipes for barbecue kittens, bitching about how bad my Skins suck huge donkey balls, or annoying everyone with my fandom of ABBA, Facts Of Life, or Hawaii Five-O, I'm good.
Reply
#46
RE: "The Prime Directive"
Why aren't PRATT's Points Refuted A Thousand Timesconsidered trolling?
We have a perfect example of this going on right now.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-52203-page-10.html
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
Reply
#47
RE: "The Prime Directive"
(November 22, 2017 at 4:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Similarly, if a theist wanted to state that all atheists were morons, that would be fine as well.

What about Piers Moron? Can we call him a Morgan?
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply
#48
RE: "The Prime Directive"
I see an attempt to be fair. I would like to note that Christians are still being labeled as homophobic bigots and Republicans continue to be slandered as Nazi. It' ubiquitous.
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
#49
RE: "The Prime Directive"
(November 22, 2017 at 5:49 pm)Succubus Wrote: Why aren't PRATT's Points Refuted A Thousand Times considered trolling?

Because that would mean every argument for God's existence that a theist makes is trolling.

(November 22, 2017 at 7:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I see an attempt to be fair. I would like to note that Christians are still being labeled as homophobic bigots and Republicans continue to be slandered as Nazi. It' ubiquitous.

Saying that particular Christians hold a homophobic and bigoted belief as indicated by a homophobic and bigoted belief that they have expressed very clearly, is different to saying that "Christians are homophobic bigots" of course.
Reply
#50
RE: "The Prime Directive"
(November 22, 2017 at 7:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I see an attempt to be fair. I would like to note that Christians are still being labeled as homophobic bigots and Republicans continue to be slandered as Nazi. It' ubiquitous.

If you see something, report it.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)