Rule/Etiquette Updates: Prejudicial Language

[acctnt_shan]

R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people.

Why just people?  I happen to find speech advocating harm against animals as offensive too... 

[kevin]

please substitute "theist" for "atheist," should you find these observations troubling.

I find them trolling.

i am not even go to try to figure this new rule out. i find it much more straightforward in this forum to simply say what i want, and take the consequences if it breaks the rules.

you know, i liked IGI's policy of rules-based moderation at first, but recently i find it increasingly byzantine. not every jot and tittle of human behavior necessitates a detailed rule, and the community fails to benefit from an increased interest in micromanaging minutiae.

so either IGI has changed, or i have. hard to say which.

[kevin]

one thing i do like very much about this forum is that i do have the option to not try to figure out the rules.

so long as i stay away from TOS violations, which i find quite clear, i am more or less free to say what i want. i take occasional hits in the corner for it, but sooner or later i'm out, none the worse for the experience.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people.

Why just people?  I happen to find speech advocating harm against animals as offensive too...

Tell it, Sister! The rules here are multiplying like rabbits on fertility drugs. We must stop them. A rabbit in every pot, I say! With carrots and onion!

[Gnu Ordure]

By the way, I think most of us know who will be hit by this the most often. The thing is, he has only overstepped the bounds in any serious way once that I have ever seen. His opinions are colorful and very unpopular but that does not justify them being choked off in a forum that is supposed to be open to discussion.

My understanding is that this a relaxation of the rules designed to facilitate discussion of difficult subjects such as race. So I don't see how how anyone is going to be 'hit' by it.

(And I don't know who you're referring to, nor why you don't identify him, or her). 

[Jezzebelle]

This is so hilarious to me.  "More rules"  Maggie you are so amusing.  If you think for one second that you're being some great savior and sticking up for who you're obviously referring to as Steve, then you've lost your mind.  This is exactly what Steve has been BEGGING for for months.  Now, instead of getting dinged for constant TOS violations and being put on post moderation for weeks at a time, someone can just edit their "colorful opinions" and get simple rule/etiquette violations like they do insults.  This is LESSENING the violations for certain comments, that have ALWAYS been not allowed. 

Go trot off on your high horse back to your new inactive forum.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

You have achieved perfection in writing b***hy posts and can now charge money to teach that skill to others. Congratulations on a fine achievement that is sure to look good on your resume.

[Assyriankey]

You have achieved perfection in writing b***hy posts and can now charge money to teach that skill to others. Congratulations on a fine achievement that is sure to look good on your resume.

But Jezz's post actually had substance whereas yours is just taunt.

Ride that horse, baby :D

[Maggie the Opinionated]

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

...
I will keep your warnings in mind, as I continue to gather my own evidence.

Any further questions?

My rules, all of them, will fit on 1, maybe 1.5  sheets of 8 1/2" paper and no one needs a lawyer to parse them. I imagine you could get this new slur rule on that. Nor are they an end in themselves.  Rules, endless new rules aimed at regulating speech, have no place at my forum.

Possibly I will need a second page when my forum is 5 years old. At 6 weeks of age, the forum doesn't need the iron grip that is exercised here-- to the applause of the writers of the stupidest posts and the b***hiest posts on the planet. Really, it is almost worth it to see the two least useful mods/administrator come trotting out breathing their version of fire and brimstone. Thankfully, a good swig of Listerine can take care of that. Nothing can help an innate deficiency of IQ or temperament.. 

[nateswift]

SO...... Jezzebelle could have written her post without the comments on Maggie's attitudes and performance, but the information would have been the same and anyone with a lick of sense could have drawn the appropriate conclusions........  Do it that way, Jezz, it's not as much fun but it cuts down on the vitriolic replies.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Have you ever considered the wisdom of butting out and staying out until you have something of substance to say? The information in her post was beside the point. No, she want to spew and boy did she. She didn't give a damn about not dragging the immediate intended target of the rule into this "discussion" on which he has not expressed an opinion. So much for respecting another valued member.

She didn't understand, nor do you apparently, that making the rule less harsh than a TOS violation is not the point either. It is the proliferation of rules, more and more rules, rules with more and more clauses to make violating them easy that is the point. I made the point subtly, so she didn't get it, of course. Kevin made it more plainly. For his pains, he got called a troll by the forum owner. Oh no, Mooby didn't break one of his sacred rulez. Heaven forbid! He called Kevin's remarks trolling. But that is almost as disgraceful as Belley's b***hy posts. Circumlocution doesn't change a thing.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Kevin made it more plainly. For his pains, he got called a troll by the forum owner. Oh no, Mooby didn't break one of his sacred rulez. Heaven forbid! He called Kevin's remarks trolling.

I did neither.  You need to read my post again.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Once was more than enough. You were your usual gracious self accepting criticism you would do well to heed.

Heaven help us!!! I used the word "remarks" instead of "observations". Well don't that beat all? And it changes everything! Everything!

[nateswift]

Have you ever considered the wisdom of butting out and staying out until you have something of substance to say? The information in her post was beside the point. No, she want to spew and boy did she. She didn't give a damn about not dragging the immediate intended target of the rule into this "discussion" on which he has not expressed an opinion. So much for respecting another valued member.

She didn't understand, nor do you apparently, that making the rule less harsh than a TOS violation is not the point either.

Actually, Maggie, the point she made is what it is all about and is in direct contravention to your perceptions.  You might understand that if you were not so wrapped up in your rebellion against the Forum for not kowtowing to your perceptions about what you considered trolling in your archaeology thread.  The simple fact is that the person in question should have been banned for numerous TOS violations, and would have if the admin team had not bent over backwards to find a way to allow him to continue as a valued member.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Once was more than enough. You were your usual gracious self accepting criticism you would do well to heed.

Heaven help us!!! I used the word "remarks" instead of "observations". Well don't that beat all? And it changes everything! Everything!

Try reading it again. You clearly still don't get it.

[Dr H]

To a true atheist, no one should deserve anything. If anyone deserves anything, then there must be a God.

What makes you an authority on what constitutes a "true atheist," and what do you imagine the qualities of such a creature to be?

[Dr H]

i am not even go to try to figure this new rule out. i find it much more straightforward in this forum to simply say what i want, and take the consequences if it breaks the rules.

kevin, the more I read from you the more I like you. :

you know, i liked IGI's policy of rules-based moderation at first, but recently i find it increasingly byzantine. not every jot and tittle of human behavior necessitates a detailed rule, and the community fails to benefit from an increased interest in micromanaging minutiae.

so either IGI has changed, or i have. hard to say which.

I get the distinct sense that this discussion is referencing a history that I, as a realtive newbie, am unfamiliar with.  Because I understood Mooby to be sayingthat he was looking to alter the rule in such a way as to lighten up on it, yet some people seem to be reacting as if he were tightening it down instead.

So, I'm going to stick by your first statement: 'do what thou wilt,' and deal with the consequences, if any.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Actually, Maggie, the point she made is what it is all about and is in direct contravention to your perceptions.  You might understand that if you were not so wrapped up in your rebellion against the Forum for not kowtowing to your perceptions about what you considered trolling in your archaeology thread.  The simple fact is that the person in question should have been banned for numerous TOS violations, and would have if the admin team had not bent over backwards to find a way to allow him to continue as a valued member.

  Nothing penetrates does it? Nothing at all. My perceptions are completely accurate. Yours? Not so much I am afraid. Thus, I repeat. Butt out.

[Dr H]

My rules, all of them, will fit on 1, maybe 1.5  sheets of 8 1/2" paper and no one needs a lawyer to parse them. I imagine you could get this new slur rule on that. Nor are they an end in themselves.  Rules, endless new rules aimed at regulating speech, have no place at my forum.

Maggie, your Mission Statement says:

"Seeking the Kingdom exists to give believers of all sorts a place to talk without the distraction of hostile debate; particularly debate about the existence of God. That is taken as a given here and will not be argued."

Forbidding debate about the existence of God in a forum ostensibly centering around religion is a pretty severe blanket restriction of speech.

As I've already made clear, I stand by your right to have such a rule for your own forum, but please don't try to pretend that it's not restrictive.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I get the distinct sense that this discussion is referencing a history that I, as a realtive newbie, am unfamiliar with.  Because I understood Mooby to be sayingthat he was looking to alter the rule in such a way as to lighten up on it, yet some people seem to be reacting as if he were tightening it down instead.

No one is reacting like that. We who have been here awhile know exactly what this is about and at whom it is primarily aimed. For now. There is no mystery there. Yes there is a history of which you are unaware. One outcome of that history is that some of us are growing more and more weary of rules. Rules. Rules. Rules! Rules that cover every possible eventuality up to and soon to include when you can blow your nose. Rules that are applied capriciously and against which there is no defense. If you try, you will be accused of lawyering-- a really ironic charge here.

So no. None of the "rebels" are unaware that this rule is supposed to benefit one person and I will personally be glad if that proves to be the case. It will soon be misused to harm other members. You can take the mod out of WWGHA. You can't take WWGHA out of the mod. Or out of the administrator.

Let's hope that I haven't been corrupted. I would hate to think that I would ever impose layers of rules on the members of my forum. Of course it is little and inactive--or as inactive as a six week old forum carved out for a half dozen people here might be expected to be. Still, we have picked up members along the way and the temptation to lord it over them cannot be discounted. It must, however, be resisted.

[Airyaman]

Maggie, you seem to be the only one making a big deal about this. Perhaps it is as you say, but it also appears that you think we have way too many rules here. This obviously makes you unhappy, but I do not think anyone is going to take your words here seriously. It is beginning to look like a rant as opposed to "constructive criticism".

Perhaps you should focus on your small but growing forum instead. There you can discuss things, over here it looks like you just want to fight about things.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

My rules, all of them, will fit on 1, maybe 1.5  sheets of 8 1/2" paper and no one needs a lawyer to parse them. I imagine you could get this new slur rule on that. Nor are they an end in themselves.  Rules, endless new rules aimed at regulating speech, have no place at my forum.

Maggie, your Mission Statement says:

"Seeking the Kingdom exists to give believers of all sorts a place to talk without the distraction of hostile debate; particularly debate about the existence of God. That is taken as a given here and will not be argued."

Forbidding debate about the existence of God in a forum ostensibly centering around religion is a pretty severe blanket restriction of speech.

As I've already made clear, I stand by your right to have such a rule for your own forum, but please don't try to pretend that it's not restrictive.

The rules of the chess club are restrictive if you are hell-bent on playing football.

Even though you accurately state that your quote comes from our mission statement, you don't seem to understand that a mission statement is not the rules. It is a statement of purpose. You also conveniently left off the following sentence: Seeking the Kingdom exists to give believers of all sorts a place to talk without the distraction of hostile debate; particularly debate about the existence of God. That is taken as a given here and will not be argued. However, questions about why we believe what we believe are welcome, so long as they do not demean belief or believers. See the attempt to preclude hostility? You will have to look at the rules to find out what happens if drawing your attention to the mission statement isn't enough.

You seem to hunger for that hostile debate but most of us think there are enough venues for that. To let people know that we will not argue the existence of God does nothing to prevent you from trying to. We will not respond but we will also not ban you for trying. You are not breaking a rule; you are misunderstanding the nature of reality. If enlightenment ever dawns, we will discuss with you why we believe what we do.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Maggie, you seem to be the only one making a big deal about this. Perhaps it is as you say, but it also appears that you think we have way too many rules here. This obviously makes you unhappy, but I do not think anyone is going to take your words here seriously. It is beginning to look like a rant as opposed to "constructive criticism".

Perhaps you should focus on your small but growing forum instead. There you can discuss things, over here it looks like you just want to fight about things.

Why not think about why that is. Perhaps looking at the reaction of the mods might give you a clue. I will not be silenced by belley's b***hy posts or Assy's stupid ones. Both of them should have kept their mouths shut. They injected the hostility into this thread applauded by Mr Live in Love himself. There is no one here who has any excuse for hoping that I will back down just because a pack of pit Yorkies is nipping at my heels. Have I ever? They can disrupt an honest discussion and prevent it from taking place (indeed, they already have) but they cannot make me back down either. This place is imploding. Every time I have looked today or over the last few weeks, there has either been nobody or 1 person + the ever faithful baidu online during the day. You do better as quitting time approaches but there still isn't the number of members that used to be here. This place is imploding and you all don't even see it. But by golly, nothing stops the admin from multiplying rules and actively inciting hostility.

All those rules and soon there will be no one to obey them. It would make a stone weep.

[Tom]

Maggie,

Rules grow because people get their ?rocks? off trying to beat them such that you need more and more expansive rules to cover the nit picking that these people go on about.  It becomes an unofficial sport for them to participate in

I am on another board where there was no administrator for a long time and self regulation worked well and it still does when the members are happy to exhibit responsibility for what they post and why they post.  Administrators/mods became necessary to control the marketing trolls and once they began to operate a member or two required them to become their stooges to do their dirty work to get rid of those whom they had a dislike for because some other members dared to disagree with them and their own self righteousness.

The right to "free speech" has associated with it responsibility to communicate in a manner where we do not inflame a situation simply because we can.  We sometimes have to choose to pull in our horns and let the other people be the other people and allow them to have their opinion until they become hoarse or bored with the topic and it is possible to enter into the conversation again.  When we do this we have to let go of the past history and begin posting again with a clean slate.

Unfortunately there are one or two members that believe that only their opinion has any value and anyone who posts differently is a fool.

Maggie, it would seem that it is time for you to permanently move on as your forum will begin to take on a heavy administration role because of all the people that you have upset with your style and attitude who just might begin to inhabit your form site just to cause it to fail.  For them it will become a sport.  It will become ?them against you? and you will be swamped by the increasing work load and burn out will come a knocking at your door like it did here before the new management sign was put up. 

Maggie let go and Let God do what you are trying to do.  You may be surprised what God will do if you are able to show Him that you actually do trust Him just a little to deal with the situation.  At present, it seems that you have the same issues as King David had when Nathan the prophet came to bring correction to him.  Adultery was not the issue that God wanted to deal with in David.  It was something more disturbing which many people even today fall into.

Now if God has called you to run a ?religious discussion forum,? then embrace that calling and let ?God? be ?God? here.  He is not imaginary, even here.

Shalom

Tom

[Airyaman]

@ Maggie, yes this place has slowed down quite a bit, but I notice the same about similar boards (atheist heavy with theist participation). WWGHA has slowed way down, and ATT is practically dead. The Happy Atheist Forum seemed to be more active at one time too. Who knows the real reason? It could be that such discussion has seen a lull or that people have moved away from forums to other forms of online communication like Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I really do not think it is the rules that have driven people away. And if I read the OP correctly, all of the rules were already there, they just happened to be more severe and will now be less so.

[Jezzebelle]

And if I read the OP correctly, all of the rules were already there, they just happened to be more severe and will now be less so.

ding,ding,ding!  winner, winner chicken dinner


but shhhh, don't let all that logic get in the way of a good rant.  one has to get their hate-filled posts out somewhere when they spend all day pretending to be nice and delightful in other places on the internet.

[Dr H]

The rules of the chess club are restrictive if you are hell-bent on playing football.

True, but I note that you recognize that they are, nonetheless, restrictive.

My point was that there are rules, and then there are rules.  Having a lot of rules doesn't necessarily make for a more restrictive environment than having a few rules; it depends on what the rules are.  I can have a club that has a phonebook full of rules specifying what styles of shoes, cars, toothpaste, and music members should like, and still not have a club as exclusive as one that has the single rule "No blacks, Catholics, or Jews allowed."

Not allowing debate about the existence of God is a very restrictive rule in a religious forum.

Even though you accurately state that your quote comes from our mission statement, you don't seem to understand that a mission statement is not the rules. It is a statement of purpose.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that providing an example implies a lack of understanding about matters not directly connected with the example.

That said, a "mission statement" is the primary rule of an organzation, in that it drives all other rules.  Any and all other rules are designed to support the goal expressed in the mission statement -- at least that's the way it works if the mission statement is actually held to be meaningful, and not just words crafted to make the organizaation look good in Standard & Poor's Register.

If you actually mean to allow debate on the existence of God in your forum, then why state in your mission statement that the point "will not be argued"?

You also conveniently left off the following sentence: Seeking the Kingdom exists to give believers of all sorts a place to talk without the distraction of hostile debate; particularly debate about the existence of God. That is taken as a given here and will not be argued. However, questions about why we believe what we believe are welcome, so long as they do not demean belief or believers.

If you are suggesting that I left it off to convey a false impression, I did not.  I quoted only as much of the mission statement as was germane to the point I was trying to make.  When I use a dictionary definition to make a point in an argument, I don't quote the entire page of the dictionary on which the definition appears, either.

See the attempt to preclude hostility?

Yes, I do.  And as I told you, I think it's reasonable -- for your forum.

Be aware, however, that limiting hostility is also a form of restriction.
Again, it's your prerogotive to have such restrictions if you like, but it is disingenuous to pretend that they are not, in fact, restrictions.

You seem to hunger for that hostile debate but most of us think there are enough venues for that.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.  I am neither thin-skinned, nor shy, nor lacking in colorful vocabulary that I am fully capable of employing as I deem fit. 
However, I almost never deliberately seek hostile confrontations.  But if and when presented with such I sometimes tend to respond in kind, with roughly the same level of vitriol I feel has been flung at me.  Some people don't like that, but that's too bad; it's my nature.  As the general run of on-line discussion goes, my degree of control is pretty damned good -- but I am human, so of course it's not perfect.

Maybe someday, if I'm reborn as a Vulcan... 

To let people know that we will not argue the existence of God does nothing to prevent you from trying to. We will not respond but we will also not ban you for trying. You are not breaking a rule; you are misunderstanding the nature of reality. If enlightenment ever dawns, we will discuss with you why we believe what we do.

OK, that's a fair distinction.  Perhaps we'll see how it plays out in reality.

At any rate, I acknowledge your high philosophical ideals, and wish you the best of luck in maintaining them. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

@ Maggie, yes this place has slowed down quite a bit, but I notice the same about similar boards (atheist heavy with theist participation). WWGHA has slowed way down, and ATT is practically dead. The Happy Atheist Forum seemed to be more active at one time too. Who knows the real reason? It could be that such discussion has seen a lull or that people have moved away from forums to other forms of online communication like Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I really do not think it is the rules that have driven people away. And if I read the OP correctly, all of the rules were already there, they just happened to be more severe and will now be less so.

The rules play their role and it is/was totally unnecessary, though I mostly agree with your assessment. This forum was born out of discontent with the moderation of another forum, as I recall. Ironic isn't it that it has become a forum about its own rules. How long has it been since there has been a really enjoyable thread here?  Who needs to have mom constantly nattering in the background? Who needs an overaged teenaged gauleiter making threads even more repellent in order to feel important? Why was it necessary to multiply posts in this one instead of weighing the original responses and moving on? Well, when nothing else is happening, I guess a fight is as good as it gets these days.

[Airyaman]

I dunno, I enjoy some of the threads. I have started memberships on two different atheism boards, and while I initially enjoyed the change, I found that most of the posters on those boards were simply there to insult theists (mostly Christians). Some of those Christians gave back as much as they got, but that is beside the point.

I too wish IGI would pick up steam again. It has been my "Internet home" for several years now because most of the discussions have been civil imo. I'm not about to start discussing religious topics on Facebook, so this will likely be my last refuge.

[Dr H]

This place is imploding. Every time I have looked today or over the last few weeks, there has either been nobody or 1 person + the ever faithful baidu online during the day. You do better as quitting time approaches but there still isn't the number of members that used to be here. This place is imploding and you all don't even see it. But by golly, nothing stops the admin from multiplying rules and actively inciting hostility.

All those rules and soon there will be no one to obey them. It would make a stone weep.

You know, I can't help but chuckle at this.  I've seen the same prediction made -- often in very similar words -- in dozens of fora over the years.  It happened in many of my favorite Usenet newsgroups as regularly as once or twice a month.  Somebody would get a bone up their butt about some real or imagined affront they had received at the hands of other newsgroup members, take their toys, and stomp off to another newsgroup (or start their own).  But somehow they just couldn't let it go, so they would come back like clockwork to harangue the denizens of the old group, predicting the immanent demise of the group for its transgressions.

And some groups did die, although it was almost never immanent, and sometimes took as long as 5-10 years or more.  Such is the way of forums; they come; they go.

Usually the doomsayers came to be regarded by most of the persistent regulars as something akin to court jesters in the group.  A few people got off on poking sticks at them when they showed up, but mostly they were ignored, like the Viagra? spam, in pretty much the same way you'd ignore a fire hydrant in the middle of a frequently-taken sidewalk:  you know it's there, but you really don't pay attention to it anymore; you just walk around it.

Word to the wise(?):  the effort you waste, is your own.