Rule 5 Clarification

[Swart]

Are any of the following considered violations of Rule 5 - Promotion of other religions:

• Making a request to an OC to substantiate claims made against a non-OC religion
• Making a positive statement about an UO religion
• Responding to negative claims about an UO religion with the intention of refuting the claims
• Posting a statement of belief in an UO religion in response to a request from a OC along the lines of "What do you believe?"
• Attempting to prove a particular tenet of an UO religion where belief in that particular tenet does not necessarily indicate membership of that religion nor does such adherence to that tenet necessarily mandate a denial of the nicene creed
• Providing a link to a website containg information of a non-proselyting, non-advocatorial and non-apologetic nature that happens to be owned by an UO religion or members on an UO religion, eg familysearch.
• A response to a direct assertion that a particular UO religion is false

If any of the above are considered inconclusive or too prone to circumstance, which ones CAN be used as a summary judgement of a rule 5 and which one's can't be used for summary judgement.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Swart, you have on open appeal on a rule 5 case. We will answer your question once the appeal is resolved.

Thank you for your patience. You can also reference the sticky thread in UT for now, if that helps.

http://www.christianforums.com/t732492-please-read-guidelines-concerning-rule-5.html

 

[Swart]

Swart, you have on open appeal on a rule 5 case. We will answer your question once the appeal is resolved.

Thank you for your patience. You can also reference the sticky thread in UT for now, if that helps.

http://www.christianforums.com/t732492-please-read-guidelines-concerning-rule-5.html

Thanks for replying BWAP, I was beigging to wonder if the moderators were at home.

BTW, is there a time-frame for appeal resolution?

When I worked in tech-support, part of our charter was to keep the client up-to-date with the status of an open call, even if it was "we are still working on a resolution, it isn't fixed yet, but we will have it fixed asap."

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I am not invloved in that appeal team, but I am aware of its existence. It may have gotten bogged down with the holidays. We usually give up to two weeks for appeals to be researched thoroughly. Sorry for the wait, but it should be done soon.

 

[Swart]

Bump for the mods.

Can we have some clarification here?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Are any of the following considered violations of Rule 5 - Promotion of other religions:

• Making a request to an OC to substantiate claims made against a non-OC religion
• Making a positive statement about an UO religion
• Responding to negative claims about an UO religion with the intention of refuting the claims
• Posting a statement of belief in an UO religion in response to a request from a OC along the lines of "What do you believe?"
• Attempting to prove a particular tenet of an UO religion where belief in that particular tenet does not necessarily indicate membership of that religion nor does such adherence to that tenet necessarily mandate a denial of the nicene creed
• Providing a link to a website containg information of a non-proselyting, non-advocatorial and non-apologetic nature that happens to be owned by an UO religion or members on an UO religion, eg familysearch.
• A response to a direct assertion that a particular UO religion is false

If any of the above are considered inconclusive or too prone to circumstance, which ones CAN be used as a summary judgement of a rule 5 and which one's can't be used for summary judgement.

Hi Swart, I will try to answer you, but the caveat is not to take my words as absolute law. Each case must be judged individually, and I hope that you can appreciate that UT is a difficult forum to mod.

1. Claims should be substantiated; I don't see a rule 5 problem here
2. Positive statements should be ok, but it should not be in the form of an advertisement like one that induces people to try a product. Could be ok, but we would look at individual cases
3. You can attempt to refute negative claims, UT is a debate forum, but it should be open honest debate, not something akin to the Socratic method where questions are asked that are designed to lead someone to a predetermined answer. We need to have everything above board.
4 You are free to state what you believe
5 Once again, you can argue for a tenet, UT is a debate forum, but you must provide the evidence that the tenet is true. Do not send others on an "evidence hunt", the UT member bears the burden of proof.
6 You can provide a link for reference purposes, but not promotional purposes. This is better explained in the rule 5 stickie that I linked for you earlier in this thread.
7 you can always respond to an assertion, that is the purpose of debate, just keep it honest and allow the other posters to counter your response, if they are able.

Hope this helps you, but again these are only guidelines from my perspective. Do you have any specific questions?

 

[skylark1]

Hi Swart, I will try to answer you, but the caveat is not to take my words as absolute law. Each case must be judged individually, and I hope that you can appreciate that UT is a difficult forum to mod.

1. Claims should be substantiated; I don't see a rule 5 problem here
2. Positive statements should be ok, but it should not be in the form of an advertisement like one that induces people to try a product. Could be ok, but we would look at individual cases
3. You can attempt to refute negative claims, UT is a debate forum, but it should be open honest debate, not something akin to the Socratic method where questions are asked that are designed to lead someone to a predetermined answer. We need to have everything above board.
4 You are free to state what you believe
5 Once again, you can argue for a tenet, UT is a debate forum, but you must provide the evidence that the tenet is true. Do not send others on an "evidence hunt", the UT member bears the burden of proof.
6 You can provide a link for reference purposes, but not promotional purposes. This is better explained in the rule 5 stickie that I linked for you earlier in this thread.
7 you can always respond to an assertion, that is the purpose of debate, just keep it honest and allow the other posters to counter your response, if they are able.

Hope this helps you, but again these are only guidelines from my perspective. Do you have any specific questions?

Hi boughtwithaprice,

Could you offer a little more clarification concerning when the line is crossed from discussion of beliefs to promotion of beliefs?

You wrote:

2. Positive statements should be ok, but it should not be in the form of an advertisement like one that induces people to try a product. Could be ok, but we would look at individual cases
​

And also:

4 You are free to state what you believe
​

Could you please expound on what is considered advertising and inducing people to try a product? If someone presents what appears to be a good argument for their beliefs, is that considered inducing someone to try their product?

I'm asking because someone has bowed out of a discussion, because of the ambiguity in knowing if the line has been crossed.

Thanks.

​

 

[boughtwithaprice]

My answer would be stick to the focus of the argument. Say I believe this because of X,Y & Z. Do not talk it up by making it appear better than it is. This is very hard to define, but if you have a reasonable stance, it should be allowed; it has to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

I can only think of an example in Cola advertising. The stuff is sugar water. If you drink it, it will make you fat and may provide a momentary thirst quenching effect and some contain stimulants. This is not what is told in advertising. The companies write some comedic or dramatic fables and place their products in them. The hope is that the public will associate the product with the comedy or drama, instead of looking at it as sugar water that it is; they will then buy the product for reasons other than thirst quenching, and hopefully boost sales.

You are generally allowed to argue for your position in the UT forum, but rule 5 may come into play if we see our members being duped by slick arguments that are not associated with the subject at hand.

I know that this is a gray area, and it is very difficult to define, and we will review case by case, as any attempt to write a policy that covers all issues would be futile.


Does this help any?

 

[True Believer]

Bump for the mods.

Can we have some clarification here?

From my experience here, we are not here to argue fairly our beliefs because our hands are tied. We are here as targets to take potshots at and when we get emotional and say something unkind in return we are the target to be shot. Our posts are deleted and edited, any link to support is removed because someone might go searching in other areas of the website.
If you are very good your stay will be much shorter. If you have a degree in Hebrew or Greek and are a believer of an UO denomination then you will be on the fast track out of here.

I actually thought there would be fairness here and people were going to be allowed to freely interact but my mistake.

 

[skylark1]

You are generally allowed to argue for your position in the UT forum, but rule 5 may come into play if we see our members being duped by slick arguments that are not associated with the subject at hand.

I know that this is a gray area, and it is very difficult to define, and we will review case by case, as any attempt to write a policy that covers all issues would be futile.

Does this help any?

I'm not sure. It seems like you are saying that posters who are considered to be unorthodox Christians may state their beliefs, as long as they seem to be losing the argument, but if they offer what appears to be a convincing argument they have broken the rules.

I realize that this doesn't apply to me anyways, but I hate to see someone abandon a good discussion because they do not feel that they are free to state their beliefs and make a case for them.

 

[Swart]

Hope this helps you, but again these are only guidelines from my perspective. Do you have any specific questions?

Loads. But I don't think I will be allowed to ask them. You didn't really give any concrete answers here, despite the veneer of one. There were too many loopholes. Also, my prior experience with the rule 5 thingy is at odds with what you have posted.

Let me layer it for you:

1. At least one of the senior mods considers the UT forum has the sole purpose of "refuting unorthodox doctrines". This same moderator has been known to wade into threads with his mod hat on and at the same time participate in the discussion in the same post.
2. Contrary to what was stated. At least one warning has been issued and upheld for challenging a claim made by an OC by an UOC.
3. The loophole of the "socratic method" means that I cannot enter into a debate, or initiate one if I have a preconceived objective for the debates conclusion. It also means that I cannot bound debate for the purposes of sticking to a central issue.
4. The concept of protecting OC posters from "slick arguments" is spurious at best. It is an open debate, is it not?
5. What all this really means is that an UOC is allowed to lose a debate, but to win it is considered a "promotion of another religion". I simply cannot interpret it in any other way.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Sorry that you all feel that way, but you only need to remember, you are guests in another's home here at CF, and you need to behave accordingly. This is not the United States, where free speech laws are in force, we have rules.
The primary purpose of Christian Forums is orthodox christianity, and it will remain so. The UT forum exists so that UT christians can interact with OC, if you desire to do so.

You can ask me any question, and I will do my best to answer.

 

[Plan 9]

I'm not sure. It seems like you are saying that posters who are considered to be unorthodox Christians may state their beliefs, as long as they seem to be losing the argument, but if they offer what appears to be a convincing argument they have broken the rules.

I realize that this doesn't apply to me anyways, but I hate to see someone abandon a good discussion because they do not feel that they are free to state their beliefs and make a case for them.

Skylark has made some good points here. Debates are primarily a learning tool for me, and when a UC is afraid to inform me for fear of too punitive a response from a mod, I remain ignorant. When I'm actually debating to convince, the result of my fellow debator's timidity is quite likely rob me of learning what I need to know in order to do so.

Frankly, there are times as an OC when I'm too anxious about unwittingly crossing some line to reply freely, so I can only imagine how distressingly constrained in expression UC and NC members must feel at times.
My observation has shown me that CF is every bit as important to many of them as it is to us OCs; some have formed valuable friendships with our OC members, consider CF a home, and thereby suffer from free-floating fears of being inadvertantly banned. Surely our UC and NC friends here shouldn't have to fear us as a group while caring for us as individuals, and it always seems like a shame to me when a board's mods are seen primarily as meting out punishment, rather than as attempting to serve as the protectors of all members.
I know we're always short of moderators, and that no mod can make perfect judgement calls every time, but since this is a Christian board, wouldn't it behoove us all to attempt to be more loving and caring in participating in rule application than is the norm? After all, mods often act in response to member complaints, and I'm sorry to say that I know from personal experience that it's all too easy to complain in haste and repent at leisure.

 

[seebs]

Sorry that you all feel that way, but you only need to remember, you are guests in another's home here at CF, and you need to behave accordingly.

The question being asked, I think, is whether this home is showing good hospitality.

The primary purpose of Christian Forums is orthodox christianity, and it will remain so. The UT forum exists so that UT christians can interact with OC, if you desire to do so.

I think the purpose would be better served if they were given a little more leeway to discuss their positions and support them. Also, if responses to them were more charitable.

If the rules in another's home are "our teenage kids can stuff garbage in your pants, but you can't tell them it hurts your feelings", well, you have to abide by the rules to stay there, but I don't see why anyone would.

There is such a thing as a bad rule.

 

[Swart]

The question being asked, I think, is whether this home is showing good hospitality.

I like the analogy.

There is such a thing as a bad rule.

There is also such a thing as a good rule that is poorly implemented.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I think the purpose would be better served if they were given a little more leeway to discuss their positions and support them. Also, if responses to them were more charitable.

If the rules in another's home are "our teenage kids can stuff garbage in your pants, but you can't tell them it hurts your feelings", well, you have to abide by the rules to stay there, but I don't see why anyone would.

There is such a thing as a bad rule.

I agree that more hospitality is needed. I want to keep the harsh comments in line, and also prevent subversion of our site. It is a judgement call and a fine line, which is why we have to have a case by case review; we would try in vain to write out every instace of what we would think is an unacceptable post.

The basic rule in UT is you CAN defend yourself. If an OC is flaming, then report them. I believe the mods there now are trying to crack down on abuses by OCs.
I can't help it if some UTs are afraid to talk. You want us to say, "its ok, post anything you want, no rules here"? That is not going to happen. My advice is to argue your faith the best you can, and if you are told that your post is unacceptable by a mod, then take that as a learning experience. We want to have discussion, not proselytizing.

What would you like to say, that you can't now?

 

[seebs]

If you're trying to crack down on the flaming, that's a good start. I read UTD once and left feeling physically sick over the abuse I was seeing. I probably shoulda tried to stick it out and report the worst, but I was too stunned.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If you're trying to crack down on the flaming, that's a good start. I read UTD once and left feeling physically sick over the abuse I was seeing. I probably shoulda tried to stick it out and report the worst, but I was too stunned.

We do need to clean out the worst offenders............it will be a long process that would need the cooperation of everyone..................lots of man and woman hours,,

 

[Swart]

My observation has shown me that CF is every bit as important to many of them as it is to us OCs; some have formed valuable friendships with our OC members, consider CF a home, and thereby suffer from free-floating fears of being inadvertantly banned.

I certainly feel that way.

I know we're always short of moderators, and that no mod can make perfect judgement calls every time, but since this is a Christian board, wouldn't it behoove us all to attempt to be more loving and caring in participating in rule application than is the norm? After all, mods often act in response to member complaints, and I'm sorry to say that I know from personal experience that it's all too easy to complain in haste and repent at leisure.

Very good points.

 

[Plan 9]

The question being asked, I think, is whether this home is showing good hospitality.

Yes. This is what worries me.

There is also such a thing as a good rule that is poorly implemented.

Sometimes a member misunderstands a post, reports it, and the mod, who is rushed, has that misunderstanding passed on to her or him, and censures the posting member for something which wasn't said at all. I saw this happen once regarding a link and the member who posted it was miserable over it for a long time; always worried that someone would come out of left field and ban him. I worry that he didn't get the benefit of the doubt most members here receive because he's a non-Christian.

I know this sometimes happens to OCs visiting other other denominational homes, although more rarely. Perhaps we all become overly defensive at times, seeing offence where none was intended? I know I do. When That happens to me, I inadvertantly join the ranks of truly rude members.
When a member leaves because he or she feels unwanted, I wonder if I made some nasty contribution to that somewhere along the way, because something bad was going on in my life; something unrelated to anyone here that I let creep into my posts, so that I was unforgivably unkind, whether I outright flamed someone, or not.

It's not just our UC and NC members who are sometimes wrongly made to feel that they aren't "real" CF members. Many of us Nicene Creed believers need to show more charity, myself not the least. When my comp crashed, I had a lot of free time to think about how uncharitable I could be while online, and to feel regret.