Suggestion for management: a "respectful dialogue" designation for threads

4/25/2008 | vanity

[markomalley]

I do realize that those who "throw bombs" likely don't perceive that they are doing so and that, in all likelihood, they do so out of concern for the souls of the recipient of the bomb...

But I'd be interested in any feedback (agreement/ disagreement/ boredom).

[Gamecock]

This is exactly what we need.

I would like to keep the Theological Word Of The Day open to all, but a flame free zone.

How say you RM?

[Religion Moderator]

For a trial run, I suggest each of you try one thread with that designation and a warning as post #1. Ping me to them and we’ll see how they go. If there’s a bunch of abuse reports and moderator pings, we’ll know the forum is not “mature” enough ... yet.

[TheDon]

On this type of thread, people could feel free to disagree all they want, but bomb throwing on either side (such as, you Protestants are nothing but heretics, you Catholics are idolators, you Mormons are cultists) would be strictly prohibited.

Good luck with that! MDS sufferers are not able to control their outbursts. :-)

[newberger]

Amazing,

GREAT IDEA!!!

A few weeks ago after a dialog here with several others who often are into “strong” statements, I thought of posting a suggestion or a new kind of caucus called a SASM caucus.

SASM stands for the “Society to Abolish StrawMen”. I came up with that name about twenty years ago and suggested it in several settings (including her, I think, years ago.

My idea was just a bit stronger than “respectful dialog. I think that if all of the energy we spend on creating “heat” was focused instead on creating “light” — sharing real information, there is no telling what we might uncover.

I love a good argument about religion but not when it degenerates into a flame war.

I think that if we had a clear, small set of rules that the RM could enforce, it might revolutionize this forum.

[fproy2222]

I would like to see this happen.

[AdaGray]

Oh please. Aren’t we slicing the ham a little too thin?

[wita]

open to all, but a flame free zone.

These two concepts cannot exist on the same thread, but I certainly agree with the idea.

[Tax-chick]

I think it’s a good idea, in theory. Of course, different people have their own personal definitions of “respectful,” so ...

It would be nice to have the opportunity to discuss and ask questions politely. “What do you believe about this? Yes, but how does that relate to this other thing? Thanks, that was informative.” It does happen occasionally, even on threads that are otherwise full of the Usual People saying the Usual Things.

The Undead Thread Religion Rule is that anyone can ask a question about religious belief, but once the information has been provided, argument isn’t allowed. That’s not quite what you’re looking for, though.

[deuteronlmy232]

Interesting, but, how would a moderator know what to dump and what to keep, who to ban who not to ban? When speaking about open forums dealing with the extreme differences between those who follow the Bible and those who instead rely upon commentary, the discussion is going to get very heated. Only with the understanding that under no circumstances would or could a person be banned or suspended would I agree to participate.

I would also have to know that there would be no banning or suspensions based upon the sources and resources used in the discussions.

[ChurtleDawg]

no one follows “the Bible alone.” Everyone is influenced to some degree by some other’s interpretation of the writings (whether it be Martin Luther’s, John Calvin’s, Pope Benedict’s, Thomas Aquinas’s or simply their own Pastor’s) and their own biases as well as by general Christian tradition-—the basic statements of faith, like the Nicene Creed.

[Tax-chick]

the discussion is going to get very heated.

Only if people choose to be "heated" instead of polite. Mark seems to be looking for a level of self-chosen civility that simply may not be possible for some, in which case those people would want to avoid the designated threads.

My suggestion would be that anyone who behaves inappropriately on a thread where the participants have agreed to discuss politely should simply be ignored. It works for the Undead Thread.

[Uri’el-2012]

Oh please. Aren’t we slicing the ham a little too thin?

Ham is not scripturally clean !

;-)

[marshmallow]

Perhaps we need a FR "thread classification", like they have for movies.

X-rated: all out flame war in progress.

PG: food fight underway which shows signs of escalating but pockets of civility remain.

G**: generally OK but a provocateur has entered and things could get ugly at any moment.

G: Intelligent, civil discourse in progress. Thread is informative and uplifting.

gag: mutual admiration society being faux nice to each other.

[marshmallow]

I forgot to add:

FB: flame bait, posted by a troll with the express purpose of starting trouble.

[sitetest]

Good luck.

I hope it works.

But color me skeptical.

Unless the Religion Moderator does some large-scale permanent banning, there are a number of posters who likely will not be able to participate in the long-term on a respectful basis.

[pilipo]

It would be nice to have an "ignore poster" option.

[Petronski]

I had some success in this regard on my “which translation of the Bible” thread, though without such a formal designation.

I wish the experiment well.

[mad_as_he$$]

Yea you could call it the Chronicles of Rodney King .

[newberger]

Only if people choose to be "heated" instead of polite.

What about "lighted" rather than "heated"?

My suggestion would be that anyone who behaves inappropriately on a thread where the participants have agreed to discuss politely should simply be ignored.

Yes! I agree that this kind of thread could be largely policed by participants ignoring hot spots.