Make the "civil" discussion part of the forum invisible to non members

[J a c k]

I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I get it. It’s messy. You’re about to click on a thread, then there it is. It’s the one you’re not a member of. Never mind. You have to be looking twice. It’s annoying.

[Ravenshire]

I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I get it. It’s messy. You’re about to click on a thread, then there it is. It’s the one you’re not a member of. Never mind. You have to be looking twice. It’s annoying.

Yep. I've already tried replying to a thread I didn't realize was in there when I clicked on it.

There's also going to be a rise in duplicate threads as those who don't wish to partake make threads on the same topic in the open forum.

[tackattack]

I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I get it. It’s messy. You’re about to click on a thread, then there it is. It’s the one you’re not a member of. Never mind. You have to be looking twice. It’s annoying.

Maybe a productive turn would be to revamp the new posts by adding an option to see

A. All new posts
B. All new subscribed posts

Then leave it to people to subscribe to just the general forums or 69 or whatever.

This seems to only affect those browsing by new posts, not by navigating threads.

[Minimalist]

I’m sorry that you are so opposed to civil and rational discussion.

I’m so sick of seeing this bullshit remark already. Being opposed to the civil discussion subforum does not mean being opposed to civil and rational discussion. And who are you to say what is rational and what isn’t anyway?

Losty,

He really wants us to take this shit seriously.




I can't do it.  You cannot tell someone he is a fucking asshole in a "civil" manner.

[GUBU]

Sorry, lady. I disagree. This is not about being snowflakes. It’s about dicks being offended when dicks are thrown at their face, walking out, coming back with privileges, having a dick free zone, still being dicks outside of their zone, and bragging about it. But whatever. This might be the last I’ll say about this. No promises, though, so don’t quote me.

I get where you’re coming from, but I can’t help but think this is going to level the playing field in a very revealing way. Some theists in this group are better at civility than others, and some of them tend to resort to insults when their points are refuted.  So, now EVEYONE has to play by the same rules.  Theists have to keep it civil and actually address the rebuttal if and when someone proves a point of theirs wrong, and Atheists have to follow by these same rules as well, so noone can cry, “the atheists didn’t want to talk; they were just mean to me!”  I think it’s going to be interesting, if nothing else.

Edit: Just to clarify, I didn’t mean that the people who object to the subforum itself are being snowflakes.  Valid points have been made on both sides of the argument.  I am talking about the people who want it hidden from the forum at large because they don’t even want to have to see it.  I think that’s a bit ridiculous, frankly.

The wanktards are already trying to control the rules over there. It is blatantly apparent that the likes of wooters, am, a theist or cl wanted that section not to have polite debate, but to control what could be debated, how it could be debated and what refutations the opposition could use.

[Ravenshire]

I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I get it. It’s messy. You’re about to click on a thread, then there it is. It’s the one you’re not a member of. Never mind. You have to be looking twice. It’s annoying.

Maybe a productive turn would be to revamp the new posts by adding an option to see

A. All new posts
B. All new subscribed posts

Then leave it to people to subscribe to just the general forums or 69 or whatever.

This seems to only affect those browsing by new posts, not by navigating threads.

There are many who simply click "Today's Posts" to get the latest, most relevant threads all in one place. I kinda like the idea of having that button serve up subscribed thread and making the open forum a the default subscription. Perhaps people who wish to avoid the main forum could unsubscribe.

---

I get where you’re coming from, but I can’t help but think this is going to level the playing field in a very revealing way. Some theists in this group are better at civility than others, and some of them tend to resort to insults when their points are refuted.  So, now EVEYONE has to play by the same rules.  Theists have to keep it civil and actually address the rebuttal if and when someone proves a point of theirs wrong, and Atheists have to follow by these same rules as well, so noone can cry, “the atheists didn’t want to talk; they were just mean to me!”  I think it’s going to be interesting, if nothing else.

Edit: Just to clarify, I didn’t mean that the people who object to the subforum itself are being snowflakes.  Valid points have been made on both sides of the argument.  I am talking about the people who want it hidden from the forum at large because they don’t even want to have to see it.  I think that’s a bit ridiculous, frankly.

The wanktards are already trying to control the rules over there.  It is blatantly apparent that the likes of wooters, am, a theist or cl wanted that section not to have polite debate, but to control what could be debated, how it could be debated and what refutations the opposition could use.

While I don't like the divisiveness this has caused, I really don't think the situation is as extreme as all this. I can even see their side that many threads devolve into incivility. My problem is with their attitude that it's all one sided. I saw vastly more "eye for an eye" from them than I did "turn the other cheek."

[Minimalist]

The wanktards are already trying to control the rules over there.  It is blatantly apparent that the likes of wooters, am, a theist or cl wanted that section not to have polite debate, but to control what could be debated, how it could be debated and what refutations the opposition could use.

Surely you expected nothing else.  They want a "safe space" so no one calls jesus a fucking joke.

[RoadRunner79]

I’m sorry that you are so opposed to civil and rational discussion.

I’m so sick of seeing this bullshit remark already. Being opposed to the civil discussion subforum does not mean being opposed to civil and rational discussion. And who are you to say what is rational and what isn’t anyway?

I only put a little bit of thought into this, but I think that the solution is to not whine and oppose a section for critical and civil discussion.   Or people could complain and make stuff up.   While I may not be an authority,  I don't think that is rational.

Edit to add:  I'm sick of seeing this discussion as well!

[tackattack]

Min, I think I’m about as fed up with the safe place snowflake BS as I am of taunting atheists. Both are just rude for no reason, but your opinion noted.
Theist should remember that this is an atheist forum and we are guests in “their house” and everyone else should have the courtesy to have a hospitable house. That obviously couldn’t be done on the main forums because for some atheist this is an escape from their world of religious crap. If anyone really sees a problem with it they should propose a productive alternative and just let people be passive aggressive, assholish or whatever suits them in life.

Personally, if I visit someone’s house and their teenage kid comes out smelling of roadkill and shouting obscenities, I wouldn’t leave unless asked to or if that kid made it too unbearable to stay. This isn’t about whether they stay or go or who got their feeling hurt. This is about whether everyone here needs to see it. I don’t think everyone should have to see it if they don’t want. Any thoughts on a subscribe only filter to new posts? It seems to suit both sides.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I get it. It’s messy. You’re about to click on a thread, then there it is. It’s the one you’re not a member of. Never mind. You have to be looking twice. It’s annoying.

Another good solution to this would be to make threads from that section come up in a different color, like pink.

---

I get where you’re coming from, but I can’t help but think this is going to level the playing field in a very revealing way. Some theists in this group are better at civility than others, and some of them tend to resort to insults when their points are refuted.  So, now EVEYONE has to play by the same rules.  Theists have to keep it civil and actually address the rebuttal if and when someone proves a point of theirs wrong, and Atheists have to follow by these same rules as well, so noone can cry, “the atheists didn’t want to talk; they were just mean to me!”  I think it’s going to be interesting, if nothing else.

Edit: Just to clarify, I didn’t mean that the people who object to the subforum itself are being snowflakes.  Valid points have been made on both sides of the argument.  I am talking about the people who want it hidden from the forum at large because they don’t even want to have to see it.  I think that’s a bit ridiculous, frankly.

The wanktards are already trying to control the rules over there. It is blatantly apparent that the likes of wooters, am, a theist or cl wanted that section not to have polite debate, but to control what could be debated, how it could be debated and what refutations the opposition could use.

You're right! That is exactly what I want. Thanks hon!