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.
Abuse buttons are disabled. No mods allowed or they get whacked upside the head with a folding metal chair.
Last poster standing wins.
In the immortal words of Ric Flair: "WHOOO!"
Sorry for the above. That was a little bit of my SC raisin' coming out. Now where are my boiled p-nuts?
Please don't confuse your (plural) interpretations of scripture as truth.
On each of the three examples you gave, an article addressing more than one belief and contrasting them would be valid for either an "ecumenic" or "open" tag. The difference would be in the type of posts which are tolerated.
So stop with the Abuse Button deal.
Unless you’re a mod, you have no clue who is doing that. Stop whining about it and we can all move on. ;-)
Probably those who are pinging the Moderators all the time. Ask the Moderator.
In Heaven, all threads are preordained.
no not on this thread.
haha
I also want to know, will the forum rules now be EQUALLY ENFORCED on "open" threads...or will certain posters continue to be allowed to post ad hominems and be tolerated?
Not naming names, of course.
>>Probably those who are pinging the Moderators all the time. Ask the Moderator. <<
The Mod didn’t make the accusation, you did. Probably is not in it.
At least we seek the truth in our scriptures and don’t deny it when it’s obvious. The Vatican doesn’t speak for me and it shouldn’t for you, either. You should be able to read scripture for yourself and figure out what it really means.
Phew! I know this thread is pretty long but I haven’t seen a thing that you said that would warrant it.
Maybe it’s just me...
Now that's a thread I'd pay to see!
What holding it back?!!
LOL!
>>I also want to know, will the forum rules now be EQUALLY ENFORCED on “open” threads...or will certain posters continue to be allowed to post ad hominems and be tolerated?
Not naming names, of course. <<
Can you give us an example then?
For the sake of the discussion let's assume there is a thread that is perceived by some to be anti-Catholic. We can pretty much narrow down to a group who is hitting the abuse button.
It's not the Mormons, Calvinists or Methodists. Seeing how the same Catholics show up on these perceived anti-Catholic threads, it's pretty easy to narrow it down to 5-8 folks.
You (plural) haven't demonstrated that you can yet.
Okay, I’ll try, but from all my efforts recently, no one in the Catholic camp, but disrupters, ever make a comment
And what I’m saying is that the new designation cannot discuss a number of subject by their very nature.
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.