Ernest Angley 'Smack 'em in the forehead' thread?
Posted on 05/14/2008 9:06:42 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
In late April, markomalley and gamecock made a trial run at a “respectful dialog” category for threads on the Religion Forum. The trial failed due to the inability of the posters to agree on what is or is not “respectful.” Then in early May, several other posters appealed for the elimination of posts which seek to tear down other poster’s beliefs (iconoclasm.)
Meanwhile, the situation on the Religion Forum has been exacerbated by posters on the News/Activism forum inadvertently being exposed to religious debate as a result of choosing the “everything” option on browse instead of the “News/Activism” option.
In response to the pleas for a “respectful dialog” and/or the elimination of “iconoclasm” (attacks on other people’s beliefs) – I’m opening the floor for trial postings of a new type of semi-open thread which we shall call “ecumenic.”
Unlike the caucus threads, any poster could reply to an ecumenic thread. And the article on which an ecumenic thread is based could include contrasts and challenges of other beliefs. However, on the ecumenic thread, the poster must not argue against any other beliefs. He can only argue for what he believes – or ask questions.
While we test this new type of thread, be sure to tag every article so that posters will know when to avoid a thread. The tags during this trial run are “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” “ecumenic” or “open.”
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.
Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
When you see a post which is inappropriate for an ecumenic thread, ping me. Do not bother the Admin Moderators with an abuse report unless the situation requires immediate attention.
Ping
FYI Ping, dude!
I like it. It gives people places to go with varying degree of discussion, and clearly defines who will be booted from where.
Where are these tags found? I have seen reference to them, but nobody has mentioned where they are located.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
THANKS TONS AND TONS for all your efforts and for the above.
I think that’s a long needed refinement.
The new thread category should be a worthy effort.
Congrats on God’s wisdom at work through you.
Prayers for JimRob concerning his leg and other medical complications these days.
Also . . . for Family A and Family B in their situations and needs.
And may The Lord Strengthen our beloved RM and all the mods working their hearts out in a job full of hassles and thanklessness in these challenging times.
Bless you all.
One of the “tag” words must be used in the title of the thread. It may be enclosed in brackets, e.g. “[LDS Caucus]” - or it may be part of the title, e.g. “Prayer Thread for John Doe.”
I think people just put them in the title of the thread when originally posting, and, if it’s later determined that the “tag” is inappropriate, it’s removed by the Moderator.
So, for example, you wanted to post an article with the title, “Pope visits ground zero” and you wanted it to be a Caucus thread, you’d make the title, “Pope visits ground zero (Caucus Thread)”.
Welcome back, RM! Sorry to hear of the family illness. IMO everyone behaved exceptionally well while you were gone.
Thank You. This is a wise decision. I for one, consider myself a tolerant Catholic who thinks that all Christians, regardless of differences in some aspects of theology or interpretation, are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Most of us agree on the non-negotiable aspects of the Christian faith-—The Holy Trinity, The Incarnation, the forgiveness of sins, regeneration of the soul through the blessing of The Holy Spirit, and eternal life.
Thank you!
Good, it’ll be a welcome change from some of the venom dripping posts I’ve read on some of these religion threads.
This sounds like it may take some getting used to (especially for newcomers), but I think it could also be very beneficial.
Glad to see you back, I will keep you and your family in my prayers.
God Bless (Or whatever the preferred phrase is if you are an anonymous non-Christian RM :-) )
Ah, thanks. I was looking at topics and keywords and the like.
Thank you!
“If I knew God I’d be Him.”
Amen!
I know that there have been many times after I've been involved in one of the days-long, 1000+ post Catholic vs. Protestant debates I have to leave because I realize how resentful I'm becoming and I really don't like that feeling.
I'm not saying that we should all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I think that we all need to recognize that on most issues we are in substantial agreement.
Ping
It is a small group who are the constant "abuse button pushers" and they will quickly make themselves known.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.