Posts: 66303
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 6:22 pm
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2018 at 6:23 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
It would be pretty to a host of believers, though. No more mean atheists ruining your fantasy by mockingly calling it a fantasy and not taking it seriously.
May they burn in hell!
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 6:32 pm
The problem I see with this is most people don’t go to specific forums to find threads, they find threads using the search features. So a person might not realize they are in a strictly moderated environment.
I would suggest using the debate forum more.
Or perhaps a self-moderated forum where the thread creator defines a list of users who are allowed to participate in their first post, and they control the discussion.
Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 6:36 pm
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2018 at 6:49 pm by GrandizerII.)
I'm personally against this idea, because this is more catering to the preferences of theists in general, than it is to members in general (even if a few atheists agree with the idea). Theism shouldn't be a protected group here on an atheist forum.
Posts: 1227
Threads: 6
Joined: September 17, 2017
Reputation:
23
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 6:42 pm
(May 1, 2018 at 6:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The problem I see with this is most people don’t go to specific forums to find threads, they find threads using the search features. So a person might not realize they are in a strictly moderated environment.
I would suggest using the debate forum more.
Or perhaps a self-moderated forum where the thread creator defines a list of users who are allowed to participate in their first post, and they control the discussion.
Isn't that against the rules? I mean I don't know the rules that well because I once wanted to ban transcended dimensions and mk from the philosophy forum and got reported for it.
But wouldn't making a list of people who can participate be banning everyone else from the thread? Also new comers won't know anyone so they can't make that kind of list.
Posts: 34713
Threads: 200
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
145
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 6:52 pm
If we have a Civility Subsection can we also have an Uncivil Subsection (we can name it the Drunken Brawl section).
Thanks in advance, you bastards!
Dying to live, living to die.
Posts: 66303
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 6:54 pm
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2018 at 6:55 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
We'd need more civility sections within the civility section for every more deeply and easily offended believer, lol.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 7:03 pm
(May 1, 2018 at 2:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Quote:I doubt that the quality of discussion on the boards will improve by instituting anti-blasphemy laws.
I like blasphemy!
Fuck that shit!
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 7:04 pm
(May 1, 2018 at 6:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The problem I see with this is most people don’t go to specific forums to find threads, they find threads using the search features. So a person might not realize they are in a strictly moderated environment.
I would suggest using the debate forum more.
Or perhaps a self-moderated forum where the thread creator defines a list of users who are allowed to participate in their first post, and they control the discussion.
Thats a fair point. Maybe there can be some sort of defining characteristic, like the thread title comes up in red for that subforum?
"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
Posts: 27198
Threads: 519
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 7:16 pm
(May 1, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It would be for pretty much anyone who wants to have honest discussion about topics that may spark controversy (religion, politics, philosophy, morality, etc), without having to comb through the shit slinging and irrelevant posts that are just there to mock the OP.
This would be beneficial to the theists, the atheists who have opinions that deviate from the norm, and anyone who enjoyes honest discussion of opposing views and exchange of ideas.
The point is to encourage diversity and encourage discussion of opposing views - making this place overall less like an echo chamber.
Perhaps when a new member joins, they can get an automatic PM telling them about the introduction subforum and about this particular subforum. So then they would know about it.
Sooooooo, do you have a suggested way of keeping the "shit slingers" out? Keep them from not posting? Keep the report function from not being abused? Is this a "by special permission" sub forum?
I applaud your motives, I see little about implementation, monitoring and rules of engagement.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 1, 2018 at 7:21 pm
(May 1, 2018 at 4:47 pm)henryp Wrote: (May 1, 2018 at 4:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: That's what I gather... a normal forum section where the rules impose civility, friendliness, etc... much like the intro section.
That would have the benefit of believers feeling better, as the evil atheists wouldn't jump to insults.
As someone who doesn't mind a conversation with a believer, it'd be nice to try it without the piles of monkey shit that some of the regulars start hucking any time they see particular poster made a comment on something.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-52467.html
This thread is a good example of why it'd be nice.
I like nice when it is genuine and freely given. Rather than think in terms of rules to be enforced I'd suggest we just call out what we don't like and be the change we want to see.
|
