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: May 16, 2022, 12:33 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Discussion, not Provocation
#31
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
(November 1, 2017 at 11:28 am)Tiberius Wrote: As part of the new "Prime Directive" rule, we are moving to remove and/or shut down threads which serve no purpose but to be provocative and troll people. We live in times where people spend too much time shouting at each other and spreading misinformation about each other, rather than sitting down and having a good discussion about their views. At AF, we want to facilitate the latter and not the former.

As with anything new, there will be some kinks that need to be worked out along the way, but we feel that this will be a positive move for the forum. It is important to note that we aren't too concerned with the subjects of discussions, but are more concerned with how threads start off, and how threads develop. Here are a few tips on how to create a good discussion thread:

1. Avoid false equivocation. Making generalized statements about a person or groups of people almost never goes well. Rather than making blanket statements like "all X are Y", make an argument for why "X has some attributes of Y" and present it for discussion.

2. Be accurate. Check your sources before posting, ensure that you have the facts. If you are presenting someone else's opinion, use quotes and don't editorialize what they are saying unless you make it clear that this is your interpretation rather than what they have said specifically.

3. Add some discussion to your post. Rather than just posting a link and your opinion, try to encourage discussion. Ask whether people agree or disagree, pose questions, ask for clarification from people rather than assuming something. In short, be open about discussing a subject rather than being provocative from the get go.

As always, use the report feature if you feel that someone is being provocative and not trying to have a discussion. Remember why we are all here. Together we can ensure that the forum remains a place where people who disagree can discuss things in a positive and friendly way.

Thanks.

Does this include creationist threads where the op is posting the exact same question he's been posing in many previous threads, or threads about god(s) being real which essentially boil down to "I believe in god therefore god is real"?

Because, frankly if we get rid of those, a lot of the theist posting is kaput.
As a species, we are fucked. To the next generation, I offer my inadequate apologies.
Reply
#32
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
(November 1, 2017 at 2:32 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Could've sworn there was an existing "no-trolling" rule suitable enough to address such threads. Perhaps I'm nuts.

Or perhaps the new addendum is somewhat reminiscent of witnessing the perils of micromanagement in the workplace. Only with no overtime to snag if folks get discouraged and don't bother showing up.

Heh! I don't show up for all the hookers and blow. I do it by my own will.
Reply
#33
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
(November 1, 2017 at 2:31 pm)LastPoet Wrote:
(November 1, 2017 at 1:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Does that mean there won't be anymore "Damned ________" threads?

I forgot exceptions. Damn "murderers" "rapists" "pedophiles" is something we allow.

"Catholics are murderers", we won't allow. "Hindus are rapists" also no. What are we discussing? The same happens in political threads. It doesn't foster discussion of Ideas. Think of this as "God hardened the Pharao's heart"-

Most of this forum now are polarized political threads, save for Little Rik, but who knows what he is talking about anyway?

Oh and Mafia. $%%&&.

Yes, I was referring to the Damned Christians, Damned conservatives, Damned police officers, etc.

(Sorry Min and Kitan, don't mean to pick on your threads. It was a genuine question.)
"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
Reply
#34
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
(November 1, 2017 at 3:05 pm)LastPoet Wrote:
(November 1, 2017 at 2:32 pm)Thena323 Wrote:


Heh! I don't show up for all the hookers and blow. I do it by my own will.

*sigh* ....oh, never mind.
I can't even.
Reply
#35
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
I'm tentatively optimistic towards this. I know it will have some kinks to iron out, but this will hopefully at least cut down on the more blatant bait/troll/flame threads that seem to have been popping up here more recently with zero actual discussion going on. Plus it doesn't say anything about insulting an individual, so our usually vitriolic users can still keep it up towards each other.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#36
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
“Muslims drink Human Feces” by AtlasS33
“Stupid Christians” by It_was_me
“Believing in Dieties is a form of Psychosis” by CeruleanNight
“Xhristards Just Keep Getting Dumber and Dumber” & “Fucking Cops Volume II” by Minimalist (just to name 2)
“Damned Christians” by Lutrinae

Nobody saw the need for a rule until the shoe was on the other foot. Maybe we can talk about false equivocation the next time someone brings up "white supremacy"
Reply
#37
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
(November 1, 2017 at 3:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: “Muslims drink Human Feces” by AtlasS33
“Stupid Christians”  by It_was_me
“Believing in Dieties is a form of Psychosis” by CeruleanNight
“Xhristards Just Keep Getting Dumber and Dumber” &  “Fucking Cops Volume II”  by Minimalist (just to name 2)
“Damned Christians” by Lutrinae

Nobody saw the need for a rule until the shoe was on the other foot. Maybe we can talk about false equivocation the next time someone brings up "white supremacy"

Actually we've been discussing this rule for some time. Your recent behavior was not the reason for our new rule. But I'm glad you can see that you're just as bad as them.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
#38
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
This discussion, as m'colleague said, has been going on for quite a while. The tightening of the Rules has come about because of the increasingly polarised turn the Forum has been taking, not because of any individual members. This is not a witch hunt and will not become one. Basically, we want to open a window and let the foul air out.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#39
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
Quote:“Xhristards Just Keep Getting Dumber and Dumber” & “Fucking Cops Volume II” by Minimalist (just to name 2)

You could try not being a xhristard but that's probably beyond your abilities.

BTW, you seem to be out of line with your co-religionists with your white supremacy bullshit.

http://www.swedenborg.org/Beliefs/Tenets...anism.aspx

Quote:As Paul Zacharias, a Swedenborgian minister, observes in his pamphlet This We Believe, "Everyone who lives up to the best he knows, whether Christian, Jew, Moslem, or Pagan, is truly a member of the church Invisible."
Reply
#40
RE: Discussion, not Provocation
(November 1, 2017 at 3:39 pm)Cyberman Wrote: This discussion, as m'colleague said, has been going on for quite a while. The tightening of the Rules has come about because of the increasingly polarised turn the Forum has been taking, not because of any individual members. This is not a witch hunt and will not become one. Basically, we want to open a window and let the foul air out.

I think you guys are doing the right thing.
"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
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Serious] Future of the Forums (Discussion) Tiberius 130 11648 May 6, 2020 at 9:47 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)