Scripture Study

[Happy Evolute]

Does anyone mind if I split the posts discussing trolling to a separate thread?  I think both the SS board and trolling issues are worth discussing and wouldn't want one to take away from the other.

You can try, but I think the two aspects are very intimately entwined. Good luck!

[kevin]

i would like it kept here.

the original post was directed at trolling the board, and what types of posts were appropriate. so all that discussion is pertinent here.

why not start a new topic, now that people have a clearer idea of what the issues are?

[Happy Evolute]

Unusually, I agree with kevin.

[Assyriankey]

I also would like this thread left unsplit.

It certainly would not make sense to have the trolling rule be harsher than e1a(ie, if inflammatory was worse than derogatory), or all troll posts would be e1a violations and there would be no need for a trolling rule.

It just goes to show how varied different members' takes on even seemingly straight-forward things can be.  From memory, there was never any question whatsoever amongst the mods about grading inflammatory lower than derogatory or insult yet Shawna is clearly questioning that order.

Well, to be fair, we had our own issues at times on what the word inflammatory meant.  Which is why we came up with the faq entry.

The road wasnt always rose lined, but  it wasnt rocky either.  We just had to find a map to make it easier.

Yep.

And being able to rank 'inflammatory' in amongst the other choices helped too.

So rename SS board to Theism, and revisit Shawna's attempt at those guidelines?

[Jay]

I also would like this thread left unsplit.

It certainly would not make sense to have the trolling rule be harsher than e1a(ie, if inflammatory was worse than derogatory), or all troll posts would be e1a violations and there would be no need for a trolling rule.

It just goes to show how varied different members' takes on even seemingly straight-forward things can be.  From memory, there was never any question whatsoever amongst the mods about grading inflammatory lower than derogatory or insult yet Shawna is clearly questioning that order.

Well, to be fair, we had our own issues at times on what the word inflammatory meant.  Which is why we came up with the faq entry.

The road wasnt always rose lined, but  it wasnt rocky either.  We just had to find a map to make it easier.

Yep.

And being able to rank 'inflammatory' in amongst the other choices helped too.

So rename SS board to Theism, and revisit Shawna's attempt at those guidelines?

Oh most certainly the list of words in ranking helped.  But the way we have it now, with the faq, we could probably use any old word we wanted to and still base it off the faq.  Ultimately, the way we have it now, the word we use to describe it is almost irrelevant, as the definition takes center stage.

And I am fine with the rename, since I was the one to bring it up in the first place.  :)

I guess we only really need to revist the guidelines as part of this discussion if we are going to go with my other suggestion of inflammatory OR off topic for those two boards.   As that would be the only reason it would be relevant for this specific discussion.  If we are not going to do that, then I would say Mooby had the right idea of splitting out the discussion, or at least starting a new thread.

[Shawna]

I guess we only really need to revist the guidelines as part of this discussion if we are going to go with my other suggestion of inflammatory OR off topic for those two boards.   As that would be the only reason it would be relevant for this specific discussion.  If we are not going to do that, then I would say Mooby had the right idea of splitting out the discussion, or at least starting a new thread.

I think the way to address that concern is to make non-inflammatory posts be a specific requirement for the theism and the nontheism board.  See my suggested guidelines.  That keeps the rules simple.

At the time that I wrote those guidelines, I believed that inflammatory language was worse than insulting language.  But such is life.  Every forum needs someplace safe for My Pretty Pony.

[Shawna]

It certainly would not make sense to have the trolling rule be harsher than e1a(ie, if inflammatory was worse than derogatory), or all troll posts would be e1a violations and there would be no need for a trolling rule.

It just goes to show how varied different members' takes on even seemingly straight-forward things can be.  From memory, there was never any question whatsoever amongst the mods about grading inflammatory lower than derogatory or insult yet Shawna is clearly questioning that order.

Shawna wasn't here when you formulated this particular hierarchy of offenses.  Shawna is indeed questioning that order.

In my opinion, it is a worse thing to remove someone's post, than to make them edit it.  Therefore, inflammatory language has to be worse than merely insulting language.  It can be different....  as in some of the examples I have already provided:  "Still pretending to be a preacher?"  "Still imagining that you can converse on an equal footing with men?"  or "I'll bet you're on your period."  None of those would be found guilty of e1a (I think), and yet they are clearly inflammatory... designed to arouse anger, and demeaning.

You guys seriously think that "inflammatory language" needs to be milder by definition than "derogatory language"?  I think that's a mistake, for a lot of reasons..... not the least of which is people get their posts removed for the sin of saying that someone is preaching.

[Jay]

This Shawna?

The Theism Board is designed to allow for non-inflammatory discussions which presume the existence of the Divine.  All members are invited to participate in discussions on this board; however, all members are asked to respect the purpose for which this board was created.

You may disagree with an individual poster in other ways, but please do not bring up the nonexistence of the Divine in threads in this board.  And please do not express your opinions in a way that would be considered inflammatory to believers.

For example, you may say, ?I disagree with you about the Flood story.  I think it is a parable.?  You may not say, ?I disagree with you about the Flood story.  God didn?t cause the Flood, because God doesn?t exist.?

You may say, ?I think that Muhammad was an odd choice for prophet.?  You may not say, ?Muhammad was an idiot.?

Members who violate this guideline may be asked to edit their post.


********************************************


The Nontheism Board is designed to allow for non-inflammatory discussions which presume that the divine does not exist.  All members are invited to participate in discussions on this board; however, all members are asked to respect the purpose for which this board was created.

You may disagree with an individual poster in other ways, but please do not bring up the existence of the divine in threads in this board.  And please do not express your opinions in a way that would be considered inflammatory to non-theists.

For example, you may say, ?I disagree with you about the usefulness of attending church on Sunday.  Many people find that the fellowship is valuable.?  You may not say, ?I disagree with you about the usefulness of attending church on Sunday.  God wants us to gather together.?

You may say, ?I disagree with a lot of Sam Harris? ideas.?  You may not say, ?Sam Harris is an idiot.?

Members who violate this guideline may be asked to edit their post.

**********************************

Please tear these guidelines apart as you all see fit.

I dont see that changing much, if anything in the way we currently are.  We already require that all posts presuppose the supernatural.

I also do not see  the specific requirements you speak of.

We currently have specific requirements for inflammatory.  If we want to expand on that, that is fine, but we should follow the format of the faq or we will have something unworkable in practice when determining if a post is guilty or not guilty.

Simply making the AND an OR for those boards would be the easiest, but if we dont want to do that, then we would at least need to define what posts are not allowed in a clear cut format like the faq.

[Shawna]

Jay, if non-inflammatory requirements are written into the board description, then no one can write anything inflammatory, without being told to edit it.  It becomes part of the requirement for the board.  Currently, no board requires that posters be non-inflammatory.  They are only required to be non-inflammatory if they are also off-topic.

If someone is inflammatory AND off-topic in either the theism or the nontheism board, then the forum-wide rules would apply, and the post would be sent to the BoneYard.  If someone is on-topic, but inflammatory, then the specific guideline for the board kicks in, and the mods tell the inflammatory poster to edit their post.

It's pretty straightforward and it is already covered by E2g:   "g) Be sure your threads and posts comply with each board's description."

[Jay]

So we are sticking with the same definition for inflammatory?

[Shawna]

Sweetheart, you can stick your definition of inflammatory anywhere you want. 

It's a stupid definition, but it's yours.[nb]By yours, I mean all the mods plural, not you singular.[/nb]

If you want to make sure that My Pretty Pony is happy posting here, that's your prerogative.

[Jay]

how very kind of you.

Well then, then I propose to use the trolling rule instead of E2g, by making it inflammatory OR off topic in that section.

1.  There is no need for off topic posts in those sections.
2.  It is the quickest and easiest to process from a staff perspective.
3.  It is the best from a member perspective that does not want his\her threads trolled, as the post are removed much much quicker than waiting the 24 hours for someone to decide if they are going to edit or not.
4.  No rule 4's for failure to edit.
5.  We already have the whole process in place.

Simply change the faq for trolling to state that in these two boards, trolling is inflammatory OR off topic.  Not AND. 

Done and done.

[Shawna]

Yep.  That's about as horrible as it can get, in terms of stupidity of rules and autocratic enforcement.

My Pretty Pony should like that.

[Jay]

Explain to me why.

1.  you think off topic posts should be allowed in those sections?
2.  Why you think it is worse for the member who just wants to discuss something without being trolled to have the troll post removed from the thread rather than....wait for the staff to rule on the violation, wait for the staff to send out the PM to edit, and wait up to 24 hours for someone to decide to edit or not?
3.  Handing out rule 4's is necessary?
4.  Why speed and ease of process is a bad thing?

[Shawna]

Explain to me why.

1.  you think off topic posts should be allowed in those sections?

Because this forum was designed for socializing, as much as for discussing religion.  Those boards are both a part of the forum.  Therefore, people should be allowed to socialize in those boards, too.

2.  Why you think it is worse for the member who just wants to discuss something without being trolled to have the troll post removed from the thread rather than....wait for the staff to rule on the violation, wait for the staff to send out the PM to edit, and wait up to 24 hours for someone to decide to edit or not?

Because you are proposing that every single off-topic post AND every single "inflammatory" post be removed.  It is hard enough to follow the conversation in a thread when a post has been sent to the BoneYard, without having to deal with the multiple posts that will be deleted from threads, if you have your way.

3.  Handing out rule 4's is necessary?

Giving a member a chance to edit their post is a courtesy to that member, and it is a courtesy to the other people reading the conversation, because it means that the post remains, and the flow of the conversation continues to remain intact.

4.  Why speed and ease of process is a bad thing?

Speed and ease of process are extremely popular excuses for every dictator and autocrat in the world.  Democracies are messy, and require that we allow things to take time, in order to show respect to the people who are involved in the conversation.  But this is your forum; feel free to run it according to your own autocratic philosophies.  Certainly Mooby has proven his autocratic attitude.  He will appreciate your suggestion.

****************

Jay, you can't seriously think that conversation will be helped by removing every single post that is deemed off-topic, as well as every single post that the mods decide is inflammatory? 

What about posts that are on topic and contribute information, but contain one inflammatory line, like "Still preaching huh?  Oh well."  By your inflammatory standards, that line would mean that the post would be sent to the BoneYard, even if the post went on to provide 2 or 3 paragraphs of on-topic non-inflammatory interesting insight into an OP.  Jay....  that's stupid.

[Jay]

Explain to me why.

1.  you think off topic posts should be allowed in those sections?

Because this forum was designed for socializing, as much as for discussing religion.  Those boards are both a part of the forum.  Therefore, people should be allowed to socialize in those boards, too.

Off topic is not socializing.  Off topic distracts from the discussion at hand.  If you want to ask someone something off topic, there are plenty of boards on the forum to do so.

Socializing is not a good enough reason to weigh against the negative aspects of off topic posts in those sections if we are actually trying to prevent trolling as much as possible in those sections.

2.  Why you think it is worse for the member who just wants to discuss something without being trolled to have the troll post removed from the thread rather than....wait for the staff to rule on the violation, wait for the staff to send out the PM to edit, and wait up to 24 hours for someone to decide to edit or not?

Because you are proposing that every single off-topic post AND every single "inflammatory" post be removed.  It is hard enough to follow the conversation in a thread when a post has been sent to the BoneYard, without having to deal with the multiple posts that will be deleted from threads, if you have your way.

When reported and found guilty.  yes. 

But what about the person who just wants to have a discussion of the subject of the thread without being trolled?  All of those extra posts are a distraction as well.  Probably more so as they get responded to and then potentially ruin a good thread.

3.  Handing out rule 4's is necessary?

Giving a member a chance to edit their post is a courtesy to that member, and it is a courtesy to the other people reading the conversation, because it means that the post remains, and the flow of the conversation continues to remain intact.

No.  It is busy work.  But that doesnt answer why rule 4's are necessary.

4.  Why speed and ease of process is a bad thing?

Speed and ease of process are extremely popular excuses for every dictator and autocrat in the world.  Democracies are messy, and require that we allow things to take time, in order to show respect to the people who are involved in the conversation.  But this is your forum; feel free to run it according to your own autocratic philosophies.  Certainly Mooby has proven his autocratic attitude.  He will appreciate your suggestion.

pfft.


****************

Jay, you can't seriously think that conversation will be helped by removing every single post that is deemed off-topic, as well as every single post that the mods decide is inflammatory? 

What about posts that are on topic and contribute information, but contain one inflammatory line, like "Still preaching huh?  Oh well."  By your inflammatory standards, that line would mean that the post would be sent to the BoneYard, even if the post went on to provide 2 or 3 paragraphs of on-topic non-inflammatory interesting insight into an OP.  Jay....  that's stupid.

[/quote]

I think if the goal is to try to have a place on the forum that is as troll free as possible, then my proposal is the best option.

Your proposal is lacking because it is slow to react and slower to process, would allow 2 members to carry on a 2 page distracting discussion on growing vegetables instead of discussing religion or atheism(which is what those two boards are supposed to be about), requires more staff work than my option, and is just more of the same ole same ole.

My solution is therefore the progressive solution, while you are hanging out with the tea party.  ;)

[Shawna]

Your proposal is lacking because it is slow to react and slower to process, would allow 2 members to carry on a 2 page distracting discussion on growing vegetables instead of discussing religion or atheism(which is what those two boards are supposed to be about), requires more staff work than my option, and is just more of the same ole same ole.

NO.  Those two boards are not supposed to be about discussing religion and atheism, respectively.

Those two boards are supposed to be places where it is possible to have any conversation you want to have, with the caveat that the Divine cannot be denied in one board, and the divine cannot be insisted on in the other.

The rule of law requires time.  If you want expediency, then why not just cut out the charade of having rules and the BoneYard, and tell everyone that posts will be summarily deleted if they are not appropriate in the opinion of the moderators.  Frankly, that's where you're headed, anyway.

[Jay]

Lol.   

[kevin]

shawna wins.

jay lols.

[Happy Evolute]

Sweetheart, you can stick your definition of inflammatory anywhere you want. 

It's a stupid definition, but it's yours.[nb]By yours, I mean all the mods plural, not you singular.[/nb]

Ahem ... while it was a definition that we eventually agreed, after many amendments, it was in fact drafted by me. I rather like it.

[Assyriankey]

I wouldn't like to see off-topic but non-inflammatory posts ending up in the boneyard.

How about we just bone inflammatory posts made in SS?

[Happy Evolute]

How about we just bone inflammatory posts made in SS?

How about we don't? How about we ask people to edit posts that don't conform to the Board description?

How about we give the members some credit for being grown-ups?

[Assyriankey]

How about we just bone inflammatory posts made in SS?

How about we don't? How about we ask people to edit posts that don't conform to the Board description?

How about we give the members some credit for being grown-ups?

That's what we got at the moment.  Maybe we should just change SS to Theism and be done with it.

[Shawna]

Sweetheart, you can stick your definition of inflammatory anywhere you want. 

It's a stupid definition, but it's yours.[nb]By yours, I mean all the mods plural, not you singular.[/nb]

Ahem ... while it was a definition that we eventually agreed, after many amendments, it was in fact drafted by me. I rather like it.

Yes, I spoke in error.  My apologies.

As it is written, I like the definition of Troll Post, as seen in the FAQs.  It's a good definition.

The problem is how it is being interpreted.  If a simple phrase like "Still preaching huh" can be interpreted as inflammatory, then the forum has gone waaay over the edge in trying to be inoffensive.[nb] For reference, see http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,57441.msg706186.html#msg706186[/nb]

Right now, what we have is mods who feel free to decide that anything someone says that they don't like, is inflammatory.  That doesn't bode well for trying to make an anti-inflammatory rule for the Theism/Nontheism boards.

[Shawna]

How about we just bone inflammatory posts made in SS?

How about we don't? How about we ask people to edit posts that don't conform to the Board description?

How about we give the members some credit for being grown-ups?

That's what we got at the moment.  Maybe we should just change SS to Theism and be done with it.

No, that's absolutely NOT what we got at the moment, because at the moment there is no description that says the boards are intended for non-inflammatory conversation.  If you add "non-inflammatory" to the description of the boards, then you have a way of controlling offensive conversation, by requiring people to edit posts that don't comply with the description of the boards.

It's very simple.  It's already built into the rules of the forum.  It allows for conversation to happen.  It prevents unnecessary BoneYarding... which is a great tool for the forum to have, but shouldn't be over-used.

[Happy Evolute]

The problem is how it is being interpreted.  If a simple phrase like "Still preaching huh" can be interpreted as inflammatory, then the forum has gone waaay over the edge in trying to be inoffensive.

Several of those posts are currently under review in the Mod Box (I think I'm allowed to say that).

Right now, what we have is mods who feel free to decide that anything someone says that they don't like, is inflammatory.  That doesn't bode well for trying to make an anti-inflammatory rule for the Theism/Nontheism boards.

I think the troll rule should apply to the T/NT boards without modification. Members who break whatever we decide the new board description will be should be asked to edit in the normal and time-tested way.

[Assyriankey]

How about we just bone inflammatory posts made in SS?

How about we don't? How about we ask people to edit posts that don't conform to the Board description?

How about we give the members some credit for being grown-ups?

That's what we got at the moment.  Maybe we should just change SS to Theism and be done with it.

No, that's absolutely NOT what we got at the moment, because at the moment there is no description that says the boards are intended for non-inflammatory conversation.  If you add "non-inflammatory" to the description of the boards, then you have a way of controlling offensive conversation, by requiring people to edit posts that don't comply with the description of the boards.

It's very simple.  It's already built into the rules of the forum.  It allows for conversation to happen.  It prevents unnecessary BoneYarding... which is a great tool for the forum to have, but shouldn't be over-used.

Agreed.

[Shawna]

Several of those posts are currently under review in the Mod Box (I think I'm allowed to say that).

Good.  Has Mooby recused himself, since he has already declared that there will be no review, as far as he's concerned?

I think the troll rule should apply to the T/NT boards without modification. Members who break whatever we decide the new board description will be should be asked to edit in the normal and time-tested way.

Yup.  That plan ^ doesn't require any new rules to be created, and yet addresses the concerns of people for a more polite tone to conversation in those threads.  Someone should write a brief description and explanation of that.     Oh wait.  Someone did.

[Happy Evolute]

The Theism Board is designed to allow for non-inflammatory discussions which presume the existence of the Divine.  All members are invited to participate in discussions on this board; however, all members are asked to respect the purpose for which this board was created.

You may disagree with an individual poster in other ways, but please do not bring up the nonexistence of the Divine in threads in this board.  And please do not express your opinions in a way that would be considered inflammatory to believers.

For example, you may say, ?I disagree with you about the Flood story.  I think it is a parable.?  You may not say, ?I disagree with you about the Flood story.  God didn?t cause the Flood, because God doesn?t exist.?

You may say, ?I think that Muhammad was an odd choice for prophet.?  You may not say, ?Muhammad was an idiot.?

Members who violate this guideline may be asked to edit their post.


********************************************


The Nontheism Board is designed to allow for non-inflammatory discussions which presume that the divine does not exist.  All members are invited to participate in discussions on this board; however, all members are asked to respect the purpose for which this board was created.

You may disagree with an individual poster in other ways, but please do not bring up the existence of the divine in threads in this board.  And please do not express your opinions in a way that would be considered inflammatory to non-theists.

For example, you may say, ?I disagree with you about the usefulness of attending church on Sunday.  Many people find that the fellowship is valuable.?  You may not say, ?I disagree with you about the usefulness of attending church on Sunday.  God wants us to gather together.?

You may say, ?I disagree with a lot of Sam Harris? ideas.?  You may not say, ?Sam Harris is an idiot.?

Members who violate this guideline may be asked to edit their post.

**********************************

Please tear these guidelines apart as you all see fit.

I don't see the non-existence of God and Sam Harris being an idiot as in any way contradictory.

Would we be allowed to say "Satan is an idiot" on the Theism board?

[Shawna]

I don't see the non-existence of God and Sam Harris being an idiot as in any way contradictory.

Would we be allowed to say "Satan is an idiot" on the Theism board?

As I understand it, the idea is that these boards want a smitch more protection from opinions that some people may find offensive.

If a nontheist is offended by someone insulting their personal nontheist hero, then it shouldn't be allowed.

If we have Satanists on the forum, then it would be inappropriate to say "Satan is an idiot" on the Theism board.

If we rely on people to report the posts that they consider inflammatory, then some posts saying that Satan is an idiot would never be reported.  Where two Christians are discussing the Garden of Eden, for example, if someone posts, "Satan is an idiot," I don't think anyone would consider that inflammatory.  If a Satanist has a thread about the efficacy of satanic ritual, and someone posts "Satan is an idiot", then it would be appropriate to consider that inflammatory.  Inflammation is like sex..... context is everything.

Same thing for the Nontheism board.  If you prefer, we can try to think of a better example than the Sam Harris one.  Think of a personal insult that someone might direct at a well-known nontheist....  you personally don't have to be offended... not every theist would be offended if I said "Muhammad was an idiot."