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.
That is one of my favorite movies! Let’s not start a Monty Python insult contest - I went through that a couple weeks ago on a motorcycle forum.
>>...enough already, this is maddening! <<
Sorry, it was really just an excuse to post a picture of Robert Downey Jr.....
That is the problem with the current Caucus rules. Anyone can go on the caucus thread and complain that something someone from that caucus said offended them and buzz the moderators and waste their time and start a contentious debate on the thread and turn it into a free-for-all.
If we are going to have Caucuses, then the rule should be that if you are a member of that religion or that sect or that ping list or whatever, you should be able to say anything you want and quite frankly it shouldn't be anybody else's business unless there is a direct personal attack on a freeper. In other words, what goes on in a caucus is the solely the decision of those who are members of that caucus and everyone else needs to realize that if they are not a member of that caucus then they have no business complaining about what is going on inside.
As it stands right now, everyone seems to go onto the caucuses looking for something that offends them, and when they see it, they push the abuse button and demand that the caucus label be removed.
If we are going to have caucus threads, then let the members of that caucus speak freely.
Another benefit of this is that those who are easily offended by debate of any kind can go on their own little caucus thread and say all manner of nasty stuff about the other religions and nobody will bother to challenge them. This would eliminate 90% of the bickering that goes on here because 90% of the bickering happens when someone gets offended by something someone else says and they cry "Anti-Spaghetti Monster Bigot" thus ending all discussion on that subject.
If someone doesn't want to hear someone bashing their religion, but they like to bash others, then they can stay in the caucuses and not bother those of us who are not afraid to vigorously defend our faith without crying to the mods every time we feel like someone has hurt our sensitive feelings.
Actually this should free up the Open Threads for some real solid theological debates and free up the mods to do more important things, like having a life.
I have no idea what your point is. If you aren’t really interested in having a conversation, why don’t we just forget it.
So; if you leave; does that make you apastate?
Just think someday we all want to fit into the same kingdom this saga continues!:)
The “abuse button” is what you click in order to file an abuse report to the moderators.
“The extraterrestrial is my brother”
What’s wrong with that statement? It’s hand-in-glove with the near universal salvation doctrine of the RCC (which I am strongly inclined to start calling “the cult of Rome”).
“These little SATANs (Self-appointed thread attack nannies) will find a purpose in life, as they have no passion for true theological discussion.”
That’s PRICELESS! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not interested in your spin.
Actually I find the best use for that button is when you post something really stupid and you don't want anyone to see it, you push the abuse button and beg the Moderator to make that post disappear.
Hopefully it will disappear before anyone has a chance to archive it.
!!
Though I understand the . . . doubts . . .
I’m much inclined to agree with you.
“I could care less if people are “offended” by something I say”
Off topic: Don’t you really mean “I couldn’t care less”? If you “could care less”, of what do you care less? What would be your bottom “care about”.
Sorry - it’s a thing I have.
LOL! We get a lot of those.
imho, your points are too true.
Sadly.
I just love your tagline.
Would you like to be pinged when I repost my "Hollow Earth" thread?
It’s been evident by a variety of means
AND SEQUENCES OF EVENTS
which side is more given to pushing the abuse button.
ad hominems are quite tolerable . . . it makes evident who has the weaker points . . .
IT’S THE PERSONAL ATTACKS some are so oft getting by with . . . that annoys me far more.
And even that would be tolerable if it were even-handed.
Alas, it’s been long clear that the RC’s throw so much dust in the air, that either the mods get weary or so bothered by their whining and abuse button sitting that those the whiners are whining about are called down instead of the whiners.
I’d love to see some change in THAT!
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.