Make Atheist Forums Great Again (Part 1)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can we order MAFGA hats yet?

[tackattack]

I only got to page 4. Looks good, but why can't thread titles not contain any slurs or derogatory terms at all.

Instead of "Christards are stupid" or "Christians are stupid" or "Christianity is stupid" why not just save all that for the body and make the thread title non-inflamatory neutral,
ie. "Christian intelligence test" or "Welcoming all Christians to defend their intelligence" or " Are you stupid? You might be if..."

[A Theist]

If we're still allowed to call an idea stupid, the overall vibe of the thread titles won't really change. It's essentially a loophole for those looking to put slurs in thread titles.

How is it a loophole for putting slurs in thread titles?
Do you really think saying “Christianity is stupid” is a slur? Or am I missing something?

Which would sound least confrontational to you, "Atheism is stupid", or, "I think atheism is wrong, and here's why". Which of those two terms will encourage you to engage in an actual conversation where you bring your facts and evidence into a discussion to prove your argument, and, which is more likely to cause you to be combative and to encourage you to be involved in a shit flinging contest. I agree with DodosAreDead on this. It's a loophole that will end up in back and forth personal attacks rather than having actual discussions. Having a separate civility thread where members could sign up to have uninterrupted conversations was much less confusing than trying to figure out what rule you may be breaking with these new changes.

[LastPoet]

Yeah. Hang real tight A-T. More to come soon, be patient. We're cooking.

[A Theist]

Yeah. Hang real tight A-T. More to come soon, be patient. We're cooking.

I'll be around, Kemosabe!

[Tiberius]

I think the point here is also that these are baby steps. We haven't really moderated thread titles at all in the past. To go from that to complete moderation is a big step, not one that I think the staff are prepared to take right now simply because of the other changes we plan on implementing, and the associated increase in moderation duties those would involve.

The positive take from this is that we're preventing at the very least, slurs aimed towards groups of people. That has to be an improvement on before.

[Whateverist]

How is it a loophole for putting slurs in thread titles?
Do you really think saying “Christianity is stupid” is a slur? Or am I missing something?

Which would sound least confrontational to you, "Atheism is stupid", or, "I think atheism is wrong, and here's why". Which of those two terms will encourage you to engage in an actual conversation where you bring your facts and evidence into a discussion to prove your argument, and, which is more likely to cause you to be combative and to encourage you to be involved in a shit flinging contest. I agree with DodosAreDead on this. It's a loophole that will end up in back and forth personal attacks rather than having actual discussions. Having a separate civility thread where members could sign up to have uninterrupted conversations was much less confusing than trying to figure out what rule you may be breaking with these new changes.

I agree with you.  What I'm picking up on very clearly is that there is still a strong vibe that the forum as a whole and as exemplified by the comments of the mod team hold derision and name calling very near and dear.  I don't give a damn about debate, discussion is what I go to forums for and it is pretty tough to carry on when so many are chomping at the bit to toss the shit.  I have no trouble with any choice of vocabulary and I can also be provoked to name calling, but it is never something I aim for or celebrate.

[tackattack]

I think the point is that provocation and name calling isn't something anyone here aims for, regardless if they're here for rigid debate, reprieve from society, general discussion or to shoot the shit. I don't think anyone is making the case that things don't get heated or that curse word or slurs are so abhorrent that they should be eliminated. I think most mods are absolutely fine with "colorful" language and use it regularly. I don't think anyon's being prudish here. I think they're just trying to find a way so the initial thread title doesn't aim to provoke or name call.

[Shell B]

No one is celebrating it. They're reserving the right to employ it when necessary. It's obvious that we should have that right because of the passive-aggression and character assassination that followed the last debacle. It's glaringly obvious that the people who look down their noses at those of us who are trying to uphold the right to be assholes when warranted are the real problem. At least we just call you a shithead and then move on with our lives. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to attack them as a human being, make things personal and join gangs of bullies who are doing the same. That doesn't make you better than us. It makes you more underhanded. It's also clear to me that you enjoy this type of discord, as I don't see you thanking Tibs for trying to meet you all halfway. Oh, no. You've got to continue to find a way to nitpick and stomp your feet at it, as if anything short of perfection and making you exceedingly happy is a failing on our part.

Again, why are you here? Are you collecting information to report back to your squad?

[Tiberius]

Which would sound least confrontational to you, "Atheism is stupid", or, "I think atheism is wrong, and here's why". Which of those two terms will encourage you to engage in an actual conversation where you bring your facts and evidence into a discussion to prove your argument, and, which is more likely to cause you to be combative and to encourage you to be involved in a shit flinging contest. I agree with DodosAreDead on this. It's a loophole that will end up in back and forth personal attacks rather than having actual discussions. Having a separate civility thread where members could sign up to have uninterrupted conversations was much less confusing than trying to figure out what rule you may be breaking with these new changes.

I agree with you.  What I'm picking up on very clearly is that there is still a strong vibe that the forum as a whole and as exemplified by the comments of the mod team hold derision and name calling very near and dear.  I don't give a damn about debate, discussion is what I go to forums for and it is pretty tough to carry on when so many are chomping at the bit to toss the shit.  I have no trouble with any choice of vocabulary and I can also be provoked to name calling, but it is never something I aim for or celebrate.

Again, I would stress that this is the first of many changes. We thought that by doing them one by one we would be able to get feedback on each individually. I disagree entirely that we hold derision and name calling very near and dear.