Posted on 06/04/2008 7:56:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
Below is the latest revision of my profile page which lays out the guidelines for the Religion Forum. Based on a fruitful discussion this morning with another moderator, it has been revised again to simplify and clarify what we are after with the new thread tag “ecumenic.”
Please review it and let me know if anything is unclear. Also, if you have complaints about me, air them on this thread.
I am the current Religion Moderator and have general responsibility for this Religion Forum on Free Republic. However, all moderators have authority on the RF as well and a few others may log in with my handle. So the person handling your abuse reports may or may not be me, but usually it will be.
Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:
Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. The term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
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. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
My job:
I am not the arbiter of truth, for that posters must turn to God or whoever they consider to be the final authority.
I am not the arbiter of logical proofs, for that the posters must turn to the mathematicians, logicians and philosophers.
I am not the arbiter of fact, for that the posters must turn to the scientists, physical evidence, testimonies and historians.
I am not the arbiter of the meaning of words, and I'm not sure there exists such a final authority so the burden rests with the posters to explain what they mean.
But when it comes to this Religion Forum, I lay out the guidelines and resolve disputes within those guidelines. But I do not “settle” matters of dogma, doctrine, tradition or meanings of words.
If a guideline, rule, policy or settlement exists which affects this Religion Forum, I will do all I can to see it enforced.
I diligently try to read all of your posts, but am not here 24/7 and cannot remember all of the slights and parties involved on every single sidebar much less when posters carry grudges between threads. So if you are wondering why I singled one guy out and not the other involved in a dispute, often it is because I either did not see a previous post or did not remember it as part of the sidebar.
If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.
Remember this:
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.
Spiritual maturity is not a prerequisite for posting on the Religion Forum. If the other guy is being childish, be patient with him.
Thanks for laying it out. Pinging Quix, cause I figure she’d be interested.
You have an extraordinarily difficult mission. My hat is off to you.
Thank you RM
Thank you for all the work you do a moderator. Your guidelines are thoughtful, logical and fair to all concerned.
New Rules!
Ping
I saw the new rules. I’m afraid that just seeing my screen name on a thread will “antagonize” someone though...what about you?
LOL!
I think that’s a lot of us!
I know I’ve been thought of as the Poo in the Punchbowl on a few threads.
I think you do a splendid job, RM.
I would have put a “for example” in front of “gross error.” That would make other similar types of comments in the articles eligible for discussion.
I’d also include a disclaimer for most historic documents. Obviously, a Luther sermon should be expected to be hard on his adversaries. Likewise, sermons/articles from those of that era responding to Luther would likewise be hard.
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
How sad that religion discussions fall prey to such exchanges.
Man, I could have gone all day without thinking about that. And I just made Kool Aid for the kids too!
>>Man, I could have gone all day without thinking about that. And I just made Kool Aid for the kids too!<<
I’m so sorry....
Now I am confused on this point. Up front you state that
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
Yet it seems that you are exempting the opening article. That seems to be inconsistent with your stated purpose up front - they are closed to antagonism.
I am also desirous to have this clarified - if the origional poster is allowed leeway
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
This seems to be mighty subjective - I guess I may have to see how this pans out in practice.
The replies cannot be antagonist, only the article itself.
So, we are now using “RelgionForum v2.1”, is there a “patch” we can install or should we just read the instructions? :-)
Riiiigggghhtt.
For instance, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
LOL!
No problem. A chip will be implanted in our brains.
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.