Make Atheist Forums Great Again (Part 1)

[Angrboda]

Those are both broad generalizations about a large class of people without anything really backing them up.  As already stated, I think you're simply wrong.  And this disingenuous bit about how what you said may or may not have been a slur is straining at gnats to avoid any discussion of the actual point I was making.

Well obviously if I don't think the entire mod team has that vibe I sure don't think the entire forum does.  I didn't mean the forum as whole in the sense of "without exception", and I certainly don't mean you.  I just mean there is a loud and conspicuous portion of the forum giving rise to that vibe, and there is very little if any push back from the site's leaders against it.  I think the reason they don't is that "freedom of speech" is put on too a high a pedestal here.  There isn't even a culture of regret toward some unavoidable but toxic forms of speech.

You have your surly moments but you've always been very much worth it because you're so smart and insightful.  You are also versatile enough to go civil when you want as you showed during the brief, wondrous life of that sub-forum Tibs started.  Besides you've just become more open and at times vulnerable over the years making pushing you even higher in my regard.  You still have and probably will always have a tendency to lash out when someone hits a nerve - as Shell does and as I do as well.  But that isn't what I'm complaining about.

I'll likely have more to say, but what you're saying disturbs me. How exactly are you going to excise the people who do not use such language well from those that do? I can't help but see your interests as somewhat political here. You want certain behaviors preferred to other behaviors because you want the partisans of such behaviors to be more prominently represented. Isn't your own damn forum enough for you people? Regardless, if you deny them their words, you deny me my words. You're not going to get something for nothing here, Whateverist. Whatever restriction you place on their speech is going to affect the range and efficacy of the things that I can say. The moderators have put forward a least restrictive approach to the question which makes your claim that they are placing too high a premium on free speech seem, frankly, dishonest, and seems nothing more than a stealth advocacy of an agenda. You value your interactions with certain groups more highly than you value me and my lot. Well good on you. It's this type of shit which makes me wary of the lot of you and makes me hesitate to join former friends in your new Eden.

[Shell B]

To play devil's advocate slightly, I don't think people should be held to their words which were written after a heated discussion. Moreover, I don't think internet forums should have a concept of loyalty. It's perfectly acceptable to be a member of multiple forums. Many members here are.

If this is in response to anything I said, I'm definitely not a "loyalist." I think the other forum is great. I've lurked a little bit, and it seems the people from TTA have found a new home. That can't be a bad thing. My irritation is about something else entirely-the way things were handled by people ostensibly promoting civility.

I'm also fine with negative feedback. I just want to stress that every effort is being made to hear everyone, not just a few, which results in compromises. You will all have to be okay with compromise.

[LadyForCamus]

Speaking as a fresh mod, I am all for constructive criticism of the forum, and this is a thread to do that in. But, I don’t see anything productive about singling people out.

[Angrboda]

I can't help but be struck by the irony between Time magazine naming journalists as "Person Of The Year" and an ostensible peace-maker coming here to argue that we place too high a value on free speech.

[Aliza]

To play devil's advocate slightly, I don't think people should be held to their words which were written after a heated discussion. Moreover, I don't think internet forums should have a concept of loyalty. It's perfectly acceptable to be a member of multiple forums. Many members here are.

I went to AD to confront some misinformation but also to encourage discussion back at AF. I know at least one person came back to make suggestions. If people come back to AF from AD after this, that's great. If they remain members of both forums, that's great too. If they just want to stay at AD, well I'll certainly miss some of them more than others but that's also their decision.

This thread is about feedback. Negative feedback is fine. We're not all going to agree on things. My hope is that people will stick around long enough to see all the changes and make an educated opinion then on whether they think the community is one they want to stay in.

It is all well and good. People can say whatever they want and afraid of hearing what they do not want, like behing their back.  It is a thing. And people should be held for their words, unless they find a way to overcome such pride of admitting to be wrong. dead wrong.

And you are right, this is about the new rule and discussing thread titles. Let's not veer out of that.

People are going to say what they want, whether you like it or not. They're going to say it here, or they'll say it over there, or they'll say it on discord or slack.

The thread titles on this forum seem like a good rule for setting the tone of the thread so people don't go into it with preconceptions of how they'll respond.

[LastPoet]

People are going to say what they want, whether you like it or not. They're going to say it here, or they'll say it over there, or they'll say it on discord or slack.

The thread titles on this forum seem like a good rule for setting the tone of the thread so people don't go into it with preconceptions of how they'll respond.

It's not about me liking, it's about what they don't want to hear back. This as nothing to do with the forums per se, some people, just are offended virgins.

As to the thread titles, seems good, let's see how it plays out.

[vulcanlogician]

[Catholic_Lady]

Someone is absent from this forum because they were ganged up on in a cruel and malicious way

This is a bit of a misrepresentation, I think. The reason this person is missing is because a forum buddy of theirs PMed them to ask them the question. It was after receiving that PM that they left the forum.

[Shell B]

Someone is absent from this forum because they were ganged up on in a cruel and malicious way

This is a bit of a misrepresentation, I think. The reason this person is missing is because a forum buddy of theirs PMed them to ask them the question. It was after receiving that PM that they left the forum.

Is that so? How does that remotely change what I said? I sent her a link to that thread. You don’t think that thread had anything to do with it? I’m shocked you’re again defending the indefensible. /s

Can we talk about the forum updates or not?

[DodosAreDead]

So I'm a little confused here. Now that Tibs has introduced this new rule, when will it be better defined, seeing as there's a bit of confusion (at least in my mind) about that at the moment? Secondly, why do people leave a forum because they don't like the vibe and then keep coming back to diss the vibe, again and again?