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.
We shall see.
BTW, I don’t really have any complaints about our regular RM.
it’s the pinch hitters that I think are most given to DOUBLE STANDARDS.
what?
Not so.
Careful attention to whinings by certain folks and then
watching the sequences of things that follow . . .
who’s posts are most pulled and who’s not etc.
many things can be inferred however accurately or inaccurately.
“Can someone post a “Catholics are idol worshipers” (caucus) thread?”
Ooooh! Ooooooh! If someone can - let it be me! /sarc
That's an abuse of the Abuse Button. For those situations you need to use the Self-Abuse Button.
[Oh No!!! Where is that Self-Abuse Button when you really need it???]
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
= = =
INDEED . . . TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME
with endless loop whining and wailing to boot.
All with dripping self-righteousness and appeals to all that’s !!!!TRADITIONAL!!!! and ‘sanctified’ by the political ruling elite power-mongers in Rome. Sheesh.
I HEAR you!
Is this true:
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 very fiercely agree with you.
Thanks.
In a private (not visible to the public) caucus thread, sure.
Otherwise, let me start a thread based on tomorrow's Mass readings and in post two start a discussion fileting the Scriptural errors of Luther and Cauvin.
See the flaw in your suggestion?
As usual . . .
depends on one’s definitions . . .
here . . . of “Orthodox.”
You make me laff..
The “open” threads will still be there so you can “fight it out.” The difference is that thin-skinned posters will be booted from the “open” threads - just like “anti” posters will be booted from the “ecumenic” threads.
= = =
THIS CHANGE ALONE
Should make your job easier and the boundaries clearer
and the fun more evenhanded and manageable.
HALLELUJAH!
PRAISE GOD!
PROGRESS!
But we do know who is always pinging the Religion Moderator and whining and complaining about what is being said that they are unable to reasonably dispute. Those are a matter of record.
= = =
Quite true.
I don’t know their names . . . but their initials are . . .
LOL.
Ah well
paradox and irony
are rife throughout Scripture.
LOL.
I agree.
I think ANTI-
is a much clearer and easier to enforce boundary.
We shall see.
I don’t think anti is that fuzzy.
All things considered, it is best not to end up on the moderator's radar at all.
The moderators are as "fair and balanced" as they can possibly be considering the size of this forum.
I must head out now, but will check back in later.
I think the RM has been anointed in his fairness.
and exceedingly fair beyond any such experience in my 61 years.
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.