Civility subsection suggestion

[GrandizerII]

I'd like to civilly discuss how Christian theism is silly.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'd like to civilly discuss how Christian theism is silly.

And that's why we can't have nice things. :-P

[brewer]

If we were all adults here there wouldn't be your desire for a special sub forum.

Maybe I'm being overly charitable, but I feel people here are generally good about following the rules. If someone wants to shit post, they have the entire rest of the forum to do so. I can't fathom why any person would have such a hard time with this.

And this is exactly why some would show up to shit post in a non shit post sub forum. 

You're giving people to much credit. (I may be one of them)

[Rev. Rye]

You know, when I was on Newspeak Dictionary, one forum member had a big "Civilized Debating Manual" that seemed like it could be a perfect compromise between what CL presents and the millieu of the forum. I remember that one of the rules was that, if insults were to be used they were to be secondary to actual content of arguments and not a substitute for arguments.

BAD:
A: We need to implement System X into our government.
B: You're a fucking moron!

GOOD:
A: I think System X would be a good thing to implement.
B: No, That's been tried before and it's failed every single time, you fucking moron!

Sadly, it seems like the CDM has been lost into the AEther. It seems the Wayback machine has not archived that particular thread, alas.

[Succubus]

...Perhaps I'm giving y'all too much credit, lol,...

I invite you to a formal debate, in the appropriate section of course.

My opening statement:

God, as described in the bible! Does not! And can not exist!
The laws by which the universe functions on the human scale, are immutable and these laws proscribes such an entity.

Your challenge:

Is to explain how the rules by which the universe works are null and void when viewed through the eyes of the religious.

[Joods]

I'd be okay with this a bit more if it were an invite only forum akin to Area 69.

You get in after 60/60 and staff votes on whether you are a good fit. You get kicked out permanently if you fuck up.

My only worry, and it's a big one, is that all substantive conversation would migrate into that forum, and the outer forum would be a shit show, and we'd dry up on new membership.

bold mine. 

This leaves out like 70% of the members here. Plus, it's subjective to the opinions of the staff. If the majority don't like a person, no matter how many quality posts they provide, then the majority wins and the person is now unable to participate and there goes one of the forum's decent debaters. 

This plan will not work. Plain and simple. It just won't work considering how many variables there are.

[GrandizerII]

I'd be okay with this a bit more if it were an invite only forum akin to Area 69.

You get in after 60/60 and staff votes on whether you are a good fit. You get kicked out permanently if you fuck up.

My only worry, and it's a big one, is that all substantive conversation would migrate into that forum, and the outer forum would be a shit show, and we'd dry up on new membership.

bold mine. 

This leaves out like 70% of the members here. Plus, it's subjective to the opinions of the staff. If the majority don't like a person, no matter how many quality posts they provide, then the majority wins and the person is now unable to participate and there goes one of the forum's decent debaters. 

This plan will not work. Plain and simple. It just won't work considering how many variables there are.

And it's not like most of us haven't ever failed to be civil towards others. Even the ones suggesting, or siding with the suggestions, have had their share of insults and/or personal attacks.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think it's a great idea. It sounds like the opposite of the R'lyeh subforum basically.

I don't care about swearing or insults personally but I know many people do.

[SteelCurtain]

I'd be okay with this a bit more if it were an invite only forum akin to Area 69.

You get in after 60/60 and staff votes on whether you are a good fit. You get kicked out permanently if you fuck up.

My only worry, and it's a big one, is that all substantive conversation would migrate into that forum, and the outer forum would be a shit show, and we'd dry up on new membership.

bold mine. 

This leaves out like 70% of the members here. Plus, it's subjective to the opinions of the staff. If the majority don't like a person, no matter how many quality posts they provide, then the majority wins and the person is now unable to participate and there goes one of the forum's decent debaters. 

This plan will not work. Plain and simple. It just won't work considering how many variables there are.

Except if we were to implement such a thing, we'd give ourselves non subjective criteria just like we do for all of our other subjective decisions. It's why we dont make decisions based on whether we like people or not elsewhere.

[Edwardo Piet]

So Alpha had a good idea that he brought up in a different thread, and I liked it and wanted to present it here as a suggestion. 

The idea was to have a single subforum with its own set of rules, geared towards civil discussion about serious topics. The rules for civility would be along the lines of: no insults, no mocking, no off topic posts, etc.... similar rules as the introduction section. Basically an "if you're just here to sling BS and not for honest discussion, don't post" rule, lol. This would also be different from the debate section, as that section is for formal one on one debate, and not for simple discussion among various people who choose to pop in and participate.     

I understand the value of free speech here, so let me reiterate that these rules would not apply to the rest of the forums. This would merely be a single reserved section for people who want civil discussion and exchange of ideas about serious topics, without having to comb through all the insults, shit posts, mocking comments, random memes, etc. If someone does not like the terms/conditions, they need not use that section.  

I figure if we have a rlyeh section for relaxed rules, why not also have the opposite option? 

Anyway, just a thought.

It seems like a needless complication for the mod team.  Forums with rules like that are pretty easy to find.  I doubt if anyone who signs up to enforce the rules we have now is going to be happy to have to jump between the mindset of enforcing one set of rules in order to get in the mindset required to enforce the other.  I'd say no way.  We already have a kid gloves rules section for introductions.

Oh I don't think CL was suggesting that it should be against the AF Rules as a whole to be uncivil in the civility subforum. I think the idea is that any posts that were uncivil in the civility section would get removed.

But I agree it's a load of extra work for the mods so it would probably never actually be implemented. If you want somewhere with civility go to another website.