Mariology & HagiographyThe forum to discuss the area of Christian theology concerned with Mary, the Mother of Jesus as well as the theology involving Saints.
View Poll Results: Have you read the new Statement of Purpose for the forum?
Goading posts are intentionally or unintentionally baiting other members into responding with a flame.
I do think there needs to be intent or any flame could also be the basis for a "y'all made me do it" excuse.
It is problematic for someone to try to bait someone (and bait can be subtle) to strike back. But where there is NO intent to bait someone why is that a violation?
I think the reason for it is that, if it is left as only intentional baiting is against the rules, then everyone will claim that they said it unintentionally. Everyone who receives a warning is invited to the MSC to talk with us, and if they do so, and we review the post and their posting history, we will be able to determine if it is intentional or not. And while I might not be able to read his mind, posting histories reveal things like this.
__________________
Faith makes things possible - not easy.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think the reason for it is that, if it is left as only intentional baiting is against the rules, then everyone will claim that they said it unintentionally. Everyone who receives a warning is invited to the MSC to talk with us, and if they do so, and we review the post and their posting history, we will be able to determine if it is intentional or not. And while I might not be able to read his mind, posting histories reveal things like this.
If you can figure it out in MSC by posting history why not do that in the report?
The way the rule is written it encourages reporting baiting on any post that causes any negative reaction. And some folks consider almost anything bait. This is a rule that adds reports needlessly.
In fact this rule itselfbaits me . You say, "Yeah but the rule is not intended to bait you." I respond, "Read your rule, that is irrelevant, it baits me."
1. Why isn't there a poll option for "I've read it, and think it's bad"? Is there an assumption that once we read it and get our questions answered we will support it as a matter of fact?
2. Most of the statement is redundant to the forum rules. There really shouldn't be a need for a second policy forbidding flaming and goading. The statement of what the forum is for is already given in the tag line. The only part that is new and might be useful would be:
"Do not use words or phrases which other members have indicated are offensive and derogatory.
Examples (including but not limited to):
pagan; paganism; idolatry; Mary-worship; cult; heresy; referring to the Early Church Fathers and Saints as "dead guys"; not Christian; not saved; etc."
3. I notice the regulation creep is engulfing smileys now. "Depending on context, the use of smilies may come across as flaming or goading." This is silly. CF is already so heavy handed with rules, and now you want to start in on smileys?
4. I note that Mariology and Hagiography is a subforum without any problems that needs a new statement of purpose. In fact, the only subforum that would benefit from clarification would be http://www.christianforums.com/f408/ which I notice isn't getting a statement of purpose, because that place is deluged with Creationists posting an endless stream of inane Bible theories and sermons despite that the fact that such have absolutely nothing to do with science and belong in Origins Theology at best.
If you can figure it out in MSC by posting history why not do that in the report?
The way the rule is written it encourages reporting baiting on any post that causes any negative reaction. And some folks consider almost anything bait. This is a rule that adds reports needlessly.
In fact this rule itselfbaits me . You say, "Yeah but the rule is not intended to bait you." I respond, "Read your rule, that is irrelevant, it baits me."
Chance are, if ya swim with sharks, you will eventually get eaten by one
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rich Man of Luke 16 symbolizes House of Judah, the Jews? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why Jerusalem is Mystically Called Sodom and Egypt
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ....... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ..... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
__________________ I will praise the LORD at all times.
I will constantly speak His praises.
I will boast only in the LORD;
let all who are helpless take heart.
Come, let us tell of the LORD’S greatness;
let us exalt His name together.
Psalm 34:1-3
__________________ I can do all things through Him who gives me strength
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
St. Raphael, Pray for us
O angel of God, my holy guardian, given to me from heaven, enlighten me this day, and save me from all evil. Instruct me in doing good deeds, and set me on the path of salvation. Amen.
I do think there needs to be intent or any flame could also be the basis for a "y'all made me do it" excuse.
It is problematic for someone to try to bait someone (and bait can be subtle) to strike back. But where there is NO intent to bait someone why is that a violation?
I agree, Dr. Steve....
One of my frustrations over my many years at CF is that at times, everything seems to hinge on what was admittedly NOT posted, NOT said - but someone (a user or staffer) FEELS there is some IMPLICATION... however unintentional. Someone hits the "Report" button because they feel "offended" over something that's not there, not intended, but they feel "offended" nonetheless. That has often frustrated me.... greatly.
Without a doubt, many of us are sensitive when it comes to Our Lady. I can be hyper-sensitive (which I often and freely admit). For many of us, She is the most esteemed, the most adored, most loved, the most loved of all women - the Mother of God, the Chief of Saints. We CARE what is said about Her (especially dogmatically) because we LOVE Her so very, very much. If you said some times about my mother - I might CARE, because I love her. And my care MIGHT cause me to be emotional... and to let my emotions "see" and "feel" things that just aren't there. Now, raise that by the power of near infinity - and you have the case with Our Blessed Lady. For many of us. This can cause some..... peculiar things. Sometimes WHOLLY unintentionally.
What I think tends to happen in this forum more than maybe any other at CF is emotions reign rather than respectful discussion of TRUTH. And sometimes there's a confusion between respecting FEELINGS (however inappropriate they may be) and respecting rules, between feeling offended and being flamed. Apples and oranges - but OFTEN confused.
NO ONE has any control over anything other than posted words. That's all we have here, just words electronically displayed on the screen. Nothin' more. People can (and usually should) be held accountable for the words they choose, they cannot (and should not) be held accountable for what they did not post but how people "feel" upon reading the post. I think this distinction is not always remembered.
It's NOT easy... and for some it's impossible... but this is a debate forum. It's ergo academic in nature and will include positions contrary to our own. If that troubles or hurts or offends (and that CAN reasonably be the case)... leave. I hate to be that blunt, but sometimes I think that's the wisest counsel. "If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen...." If our faith or piety or relationships are going to be harmed or are harmed by reading threads here - my counsel is just don't read them. There are PLENTY of other forums at CF. I have (rarely) left a thread (even CF) exactly for this reason - it was beginning to trouble my soul or somehow my faith. TIME TO LEAVE! But that is NOT a rule violation and NOT offense or flaming. It's MY "stuff" - and no one else's. People need to take responsibility for their OWN feelings, reactions, etc. I think people are often WAY too eager to hit the Report icon when maybe they should just bow out... or maybe step back, think, and respond with a HELPFUL post to the issue(s) raised (if they can do that objectively and academically, with the sole issue being TRUTH -rather than my feelings or my denomination's position)?
IMO, SOME issues here, by their very nature, are problematic vis-a-vis CF rules. For example, would we normally permit a thread where the sex life of my mother would be discussed? No! The very topic would likely be a violation of the rules here... and yet, the sex life of Our Mother MUST be permitted here because it's one of the Marian dogmas, one of the issues CF is asking us to discuss HERE. Unless we set aside some rules in that singular topic (or at least apply uniquely), the topic itself seems to violate rules, CF itself perhaps is violating it's own rules. Obviously, things need to be handled differently there than in any other thread or forum. For example, how can one say "She had no sex!" and then shout "it's inappropriate to say if she had sex or not? I think that whole dogma is a set-up for problems... and mandates some very special considerations (one that may well be problematic for some).
And Staff stressed the need for substantiation. This too is more problematic than Staff seems to be admitting. If a Mormon says, "The LDS teaches it - that's proof that it's true" that might not be viewed by Staff (or by posters) as the substantiation that Staff requires. Well, what happens when a Catholic says, "The Church teaches it - and that means it's true?" Or a Baptist posts, "The correct interpretation of Matthew 28:20 teaches it - that makes it true?" I think what Staff may be overlooking (?) is that there IS no singular understanding of what is normative, no singular understanding of what substantiates what. You have a rule with no real meaning to it. And OFTEN, that's the issue of debate (especially as it regards Our Blessed Lady). Things get locked into the "he says.... she says" endless circle precisely because all sides are doing EXACTLY what Staff mandates - supplying your evidence - without ANY agreement on what is and is not evidence. It DOES end up being exactly what Staff doesn't allow - but then how does Staff enforce that? Equally? Or simply on a Report basis?
I think the issue needs to be what's posted - not what someone FEELS when they read it. I think no one should be rebuked for what was not stated or intended. And yes... there ARE situations (specially in this forum!) where people will need to be cut some slack - or else the issue itself needs to be pulled and disallowed.
Just my half-cent.
Pax
- Josiah
.
__________________ .
I'm no longer a part of CF.
I now post at CARM.
My thoughts on ChristianForums: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Check out my "testimony" thread here: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
RCC: "I teach it, therefore it's true."
Protestant: "It's true, therefore I teach it."
Originally Posted by OpenDoor I think the part about "dead guys" is kinda silly
Originally Posted by Rhamiel
i do to
What dead guys?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rich Man of Luke 16 symbolizes House of Judah, the Jews? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why Jerusalem is Mystically Called Sodom and Egypt
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ....... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ..... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. You say, "Yeah but the rule is not intended to bait you." I respond, "Read your rule, that is irrelevant, it baits me." 
Linear Mode
