Rule 5 Clarification

Erwin · Feb 10, 2005

As this is primarily a Christian site, and we specifically aim this site towards conventional/ orthodox Christians, we make no qualms that our rules are geared towards protecting the orthodox Christian viewpoint and Christian members.

It's fair and good that we have open debate and allow unorthodox Christians and people of other faiths to post whatever they like, and mature orthodox Christians would be able to debate these, but there are many immature and "young" Christians on this site who run the risk of being misled. So our rules are also geared towards protecting the less mature Christians. I hope this is understandable.

Juvenal · Feb 10, 2005

Erwin said:
As this is primarily a Christian site, and we specifically aim this site towards conventional/ orthodox Christians, we make no qualms that our rules are geared towards protecting the orthodox Christian viewpoint and Christian members.

Greetings, Erwin,

Thank you for providing this forum where conventional christians can gather and people like myself can come and inquire into the motivations and spiritual principles which guide those of your faith. For me, this is sufficient, and when the rules of the house are openly stated in this manner, I have no reason to hesitate when joining in the discussion in those forums where my participation is explicitly allowed.

It's fair and good that we have open debate and allow unorthodox Christians and people of other faiths to post whatever they like, and mature orthodox Christians would be able to debate these, but there are many immature and "young" Christians on this site who run the risk of being misled. So our rules are also geared towards protecting the less mature Christians. I hope this is understandable.

I read the latter part of this statement as saying that -- in the interest of protecting the young and impressionable members of your faith from being disproportionately swayed in discourse with more mature members of other faiths and unconventional versions of your own -- the opinions of the latter will be restricted on this site. While it would be fair and good to allow fully open debate of other viewpoints, the interests of these younger members is predominant, as the site has been created specifically for them.

***

There you have it, swart, from the webmaster himself if I haven't misunderstood. While I sympathize with your position, his argument in defense of less mature members is compelling. If you want to debate the merits of your own orthodoxy in a fully open forum, you'll have to find a site which is not populated by children. This seems inherently reasonable.

While I would have no problem suggesting alternatives to you, the rules of this site require you to seek them without my help.

I bid you peace.

***

Again, thank you, Erwin, for your clarification of a rule whose interpretation had puzzled me when I first joined your membership. May your spiritual path guide you to the truth you seek and may we find common ground in promoting the spiritual values we share as adherents of differing faiths.

In peace, Jesse

Swart · Feb 11, 2005

lao tzu said:
There you have it, swart, from the webmaster himself if I haven't misunderstood. While I sympathize with your position, his argument in defense of less mature members is compelling. If you want to debate the merits of your own orthodoxy in a fully open forum, you'll have to find a site which is not populated by children. This seems inherently reasonable.

NB: I am working on the assumption that the term 'immature Christians' as used by Irwin refers to new Christians or those not yet secure in their faith, rather than those that are children.

I also don't have a problem with it being openly stated. Indeed, if I were running a forum for discussions I would definitely have restrictions of my own - but lets not pretend it's open debate. As it stands now there are a couple of minor points I wonder about, particularly in the light of the now present connection between mounting a good argument and promotion of another religion:

Do these restrictions apply to responses to attacks against my faith? eg A thread is started by an OC along the lines of "X is wrong because of Y". If I make a shatteringly good defence of Y, is this a rule 5 violation? Is the implicit "good argument" clause sufficiently broad to cover defending one's self to be considered a promotion of a religion.
Does this restrict me from starting a debate thread defending an UO position? Does it restrict me from bounding debate in a thread started by me? Could it? Is the possibility of a R5 violation in a debate thread for an UO position dependent upon the strength of the argument?
If a person has a post edited or removed or a thread closed or deleted for a R5 violation under the good argument clause and no other, will that also contain a warning? Are UO members then to be given warnings for no other reason than the fact they have sufficient skill to mount an effective defence of their beliefs?
If a R5 violation in a debate thread under the good argument clause occurs, will only that particular post be removed or will the entire thread be removed? Personally, for fairness the entire thread should be removed otherwise the debate continues of, but one side will have all the good arguments removed and be left with only strawman.
Does this apply to all debate forums or only UT? I mean GA and NCR seem to have much wilder discussions that don't seem to phase OC in the slightest.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but consider this: This site could be considered in some way a 'front line' for OC beliefs, so I understand trying to protect against the debasement of those beliefs. However, THAT occurs in the forums where truly open debate DOES seem to occur: namely in GA or NCR. In UT, the attacks are AGAINST UO beliefs with the overwhelming majority of the attacks directed at LDS beliefs. So, it seems to me that a successful promotion of OC beliefs includes the ability to discredit UO beliefs without being hampered by good arguments. The reason? To protect those not yet mature in the faith from being swayed. The implication: The Holy Ghost is insufficient to guide them into all truth, and Paul's admonition does not apply to immature Christians.
[Bible]1 Thessalonians 5:21[/Bible]
Now, my twelve-year-old son reads some of my posts here and tries to follow some of the argumentation. I teach him critical thinking and to learn the difference between a fact and an inference and how to draw a logical conclusion. I have directed a newly baptised LDS to the site to read up on what the detractors to our faith are saying. In Australia (at least) it is almost impossible for someone to be baptised LDS without being bombarded by anti-mormon literature and being given links to websites that criticise our beliefs. I would much rather they encounter this stuff early on than in a couple of years and accuse us of withholding information from them.

And what this does confirm to me that the possibility that some OC beliefs do not hold up to close scrutiny has been acknowledged. This is not a startling revelation to me, it is an opinion I have held for some time that my opinions, even inside a stronghold of Orthodox Christian belief and restricted by numerous rules are considered sufficiently dangerous that they need to be restricted to some extent.

boughtwithaprice · Feb 11, 2005

I see your points, Swart. What I can say is that your arguments will not be judged on substance, they will be judged on style. The truth stands on its own. Speak in a forthright manner, and you should have no problem. Make statements, and allow discussion. If you think an OC position is weak, then prove it.
What I don't want to see is when OCs try and analyze your arguments or your beliefs, an LDS tells them that they got it wrong and they have to go to FAIR or FARMS to get it right. If you think they got it wrong, then tell them the right way in your own words, or make note of an agreeable reference. You may also be entering high level apologetics with those not skilled in that type of argument. You may make your case, but I do not want to see any gloating or derision, try to be polite.
I would like to see what it is you have to say and hope your thread goes well. I'll do my best to keep you from getting a warning, but the UT team will judge the appropriateness of the thread. We would like to have a nice reasoned conversation with LDS, as opposed to what is going on at present.

Juvenal · Feb 11, 2005

Swart said:
NB: I am working on the assumption that the term 'immature Christians' as used by Irwin refers to new Christians or those not yet secure in their faith, rather than those that are children.

This is wishful thinking. There are indeed children reading and posting these forums. Nor is there reason to believe they won't be in places you wouldn't expect them to habituate. I've been PMed by a 9th grader already, and I haven't even been here a week.

Erwin's reference to "immature" christians must certainly include the youngster who shared her thoughts with me. Children are easily overawed by reasoning they cannot yet comprehend. Ninth graders, independent of their potential, are still children, extremely impressionable and deserving of protection.

While I also have doubts about the reasonableness of raising children in a hot-house environment, THESE ARE NOT MY KIDS. And, respectfully, they are not yours.

Plan 9 · Feb 11, 2005

lao tzu is correct. I once made a hasty mod decision, chewing out a new member (at another board, mind you), for attacking a junior mod. He had said, "Who do you think you are, the police?! blah, blah, blah, woof woof woof!!" When I informed him via PM that she was, indeed the police, etc., I think I may have made him cry. He told me he was just a kid, that he was only thirteen, groveled, and offered to ban himself. I felt lower than a snake, and worked very, very hard to correct my error. In the end, I made a friend, but it could have gone very differently indeed.
Smart youngsters can sound much older than they actually are when posting, and it, although I don't know what the policy here is, children can ordinarily join a message board at quite a young age with parental permission, and the cut-off for joining without is typically age thirteen.
We should be very careful with other peoples' children, and always keep in mind that our young friends may think far more highly of us than we deserve; find us dazzlingly mature, when we know all too well that how untrue that is. Young friends are wonderful to have; lets remember they're here, so as not to disappoint or hurt them.

Swart · Feb 11, 2005

lao tzu said:
This is wishful thinking. There are indeed children reading and posting these forums. Nor is there reason to believe they won't be in places you wouldn't expect them to habituate. I've been PMed by a 9th grader already, and I haven't even been here a week.

Erwin's reference to "immature" christians must certainly include the youngster who shared her thoughts with me. Children are easily overawed by reasoning they cannot yet comprehend. Ninth graders, independent of their potential, are still children, extremely impressionable and deserving of protection.

While I also have doubts about the reasonableness of raising children in a hot-house environment, THESE ARE NOT MY KIDS. And, respectfully, they are not yours.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact I will post that as a suggestion in a few minutes. My point was that I don't think Erwin was referring to children, but to the spiritually immature adults. I could be wrong, in fact, I'm open to correction.

Swart · Feb 11, 2005

boughtwithaprice said:
I see your points, Swart. What I can say is that your arguments will not be judged on substance, they will be judged on style. The truth stands on its own. Speak in a forthright manner, and you should have no problem. Make statements, and allow discussion. If you think an OC position is weak, then prove it.

I have no problem with that.

boughtwithaprice said:
What I don't want to see is when OCs try and analyze your arguments or your beliefs, an LDS tells them that they got it wrong and they have to go to FAIR or FARMS to get it right. If you think they got it wrong, then tell them the right way in your own words, or make note of an agreeable reference. You may also be entering high level apologetics with those not skilled in that type of argument. You may make your case, but I do not want to see any gloating or derision, try to be polite.

I have seen this happen a lot. I usually don't visit FARMS or FAIR or SHIELDS although and I never reference them. If someone is not skilled in debate or is weak in an area, surely there will be someone willing to step up to the plate. On more than one occasion I have excused myself from a discussion because it was travelling intoi areas that I had only a passing familiarity with. There is nothing wrong with that. A person can say "Gee. I'm not an expert in this matter, so I really can't take this any further. Does anyone else want to carry on?"

In one case I offered the person I was discussing an item with an out by saying 'Look. This is something I know very well. Unless you consider yourself an expert, I suggest we don't continue down this path."

As for gloating and derision. I consider the former to be in poor form and the latter to be implicitly against the rules. I don't care to engage in either.

boughtwithaprice said:
I would like to see what it is you have to say and hope your thread goes well. I'll do my best to keep you from getting a warning, but the UT team will judge the appropriateness of the thread. We would like to have a nice reasoned conversation with LDS, as opposed to what is going on at present.

It'll take some time to get all my notes together. It is rather long and may require multiple posts. There are two or three OCs that I want to give a preview of before I post so that there is not a delay of a few days before I get reasoned comments. I have already had one taker.

skylark1 · Feb 11, 2005

boughtwithaprice said:
We would like to have a nice reasoned conversation with LDS, as opposed to what is going on at present.

Are you saying that there are no reasoned conversations going on with LDS at present? I'm not asking this to argue or be offended... it is simply an honest question.

boughtwithaprice · Feb 11, 2005

skylark1 said:
Are you saying that there are no reasoned conversations going on with LDS at present? I'm not asking this to argue or be offended... it is simply an honest question.

There are some, but we have two extremes. Number one the elusive LDS that refuse to be pinned down or clear on their beliefs, making conversation near impossible, and the christians that like to throw accusations of heresy around. What I would like to see is a calm rational discussion, so we can really compare and contrast the two beliefs. Many threads are just filled with emotion.
Things are getting better, but there still is a way to go.
I meant no blanket statement to all existing threads, but a general tone of the forum.

Apex · Feb 16, 2005

Erwin said:
As this is primarily a Christian site, and we specifically aim this site towards conventional/ orthodox Christians, we make no qualms that our rules are geared towards protecting the orthodox Christian viewpoint and Christian members.

It's fair and good that we have open debate and allow unorthodox Christians and people of other faiths to post whatever they like, and mature orthodox Christians would be able to debate these, but there are many immature and "young" Christians on this site who run the risk of being misled. So our rules are also geared towards protecting the less mature Christians. I hope this is understandable.

Hi Erwin, I have just one simple, Yes or No, question.

Are unorthodox and non-christians allowed to win debates? And please just give a Yes or No. Any mod can answer to if they wish. Thank you.

Plan 9 · Feb 16, 2005

Swart said:
NB: I am working on the assumption that the term 'immature Christians' as used by Irwin refers to new Christians or those not yet secure in their faith, rather than those that are children.

Erwin, although I can't speak for him, may very well mean both. Are you in the LDS never somewhat protective and solicitous toward your more fragile members?

Now, my twelve-year-old son reads some of my posts here and tries to follow some of the argumentation. I teach him critical thinking and to learn the difference between a fact and an inference and how to draw a logical conclusion. I have directed a newly baptised LDS to the site to read up on what the detractors to our faith are saying. In Australia (at least) it is almost impossible for someone to be baptised LDS without being bombarded by anti-mormon literature and being given links to websites that criticise our beliefs. I would much rather they encounter this stuff early on than in a couple of years and accuse us of withholding information from them.

Understood, but please understand that no LDS member would be as isolated as some of us are.

And what this does confirm to me that the possibility that some OC beliefs do not hold up to close scrutiny has been acknowledged. This is not a startling revelation to me, it is an opinion I have held for some time that my opinions, even inside a stronghold of Orthodox Christian belief and restricted by numerous rules are considered sufficiently dangerous that they need to be restricted to some extent.

erm...Swart? You may be jumping to this conclusion (a rariety, if so) because, again, OCs often just don't have the family and community support which LDS members enjoy, so that Erwin is obliged to provide the sheltering influence which so many of us lack at what we laughingly refer to as "home".

boughtwithaprice · Feb 16, 2005

Apex said:
Hi Erwin, I have just one simple, Yes or No, question.

Are unorthodox and non-christians allowed to win debates? And please just give a Yes or No. Any mod can answer to if they wish. Thank you.

they can win debates. I just want them to do it fair and square. Stick to the rules of argumentation and evidence and they should do fine.

Plan 9 · Feb 16, 2005

boughtwithaprice said:
they can win debates. I just want them to do it fair and square. Stick to the rules of argumentation and evidence and they should do fine.

erm..Bought. Some of us OCs are nervous about crossing a line, too, and within the Christian Only fora, too.

Come to think of it, I'm pretty nervous about making this post.

We need a animated smiley that grovels and then slinks off the thread, tail between its legs.

Risen Tree · Feb 16, 2005

Erwin said:
As this is primarily a Christian site, and we specifically aim this site towards conventional/ orthodox Christians, we make no qualms that our rules are geared towards protecting the orthodox Christian viewpoint and Christian members.

It's fair and good that we have open debate and allow unorthodox Christians and people of other faiths to post whatever they like, and mature orthodox Christians would be able to debate these, but there are many immature and "young" Christians on this site who run the risk of being misled. So our rules are also geared towards protecting the less mature Christians. I hope this is understandable.

With all due respect, Erwin, if Mormonism truly were falsehood, would it not perish on a level playing field? Does not the concept of sheltering conventional Christianity automatically imply that it might be an inferior belief?

nyj · Feb 16, 2005

Apex said:
Are unorthodox and non-christians allowed to win debates? And please just give a Yes or No. Any mod can answer to if they wish. Thank you.

Since hardly anyone uses any of the Formal Debate Fora, this is basically a moot point.

Plan 9 · Feb 16, 2005

Rising Tree said:
With all due respect, Erwin, if Mormonism truly were falsehood, would it not perish on a level playing field? Does not the concept of sheltering conventional Christianity automatically imply that it might be an inferior belief?

I guess the point I made earlier wasn't particularly convincing, then, RT?

We have plenty of excellent debaters here who are plenty secure in their faith, but most don't seem to participate in these particular debates, so I'm unsure whether we can have a level playing field here.

Sorry. I know your post wasn't addressed to me.

Plan 9 · Feb 16, 2005

nyj said:
Since hardly anyone uses any of the Formal Debate Fora, this is basically a moot point.

erm..nyj, where are the Formal Debate Fora, and are they one-on-one only?

Apex · Feb 16, 2005

boughtwithaprice said:
they can win debates. I just want them to do it fair and square. Stick to the rules of argumentation and evidence and they should do fine.

But OCs dont have to stick to being fair and square?

boughtwithaprice · Feb 16, 2005

Apex said:
But OCs dont have to stick to being fair and square?

Everybody has to stick to being fair and square. See the stickie that Oldshepherd posted in the UT forum

Rule 5 Clarification

Well-Known Member

Radical strawberry

ÜberChristian

Legend

Radical strawberry

Absolutely Elsewhere

ÜberChristian

ÜberChristian

In awesome wonder

Legend

Apex

Guest

Absolutely Elsewhere

Legend

Absolutely Elsewhere

previously Rising Tree

Goodbye, my puppy

Absolutely Elsewhere

Absolutely Elsewhere

Apex

Guest

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency