Rule 5 Clarification

[seebs]

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.

Unfortunately true. It's very easy to perceive hostility in challenges to your own position, while missing it in challenges to positions you reject.

 

[Swart]

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.

The problem is that - according to the rules - those not considered to be "Christian" must behave decently and fairly in their comments about Christians and Christianity. However, those that are considered to be "Chrtistian" (by this forums definition) don't have the same requirement to their UC and NC counterparts. They can say whatever they like as long as it doesn't specifically refer to an individual (and is thus ad hominem).

So the Unorthodox Christians and non-Christians must behave like Christians, but the "Christians" can be as rude and offensive as they please.

I have contributed here for less than one year, during which time I have managed to receive seven warnings ( five overturned on appeal ), one "warning that I will get a warning", four edits, several post deletions (most without notification) and one thread deletion.

Comparing my own posts with the stuff that is allowed to stand when reported amazes me no end. It seems that EVERYBODY can see the bias except the moderators.

If any OC doubts that, all they have to do is post a mild support of an UC under attack to see what treatment they get. There are MANY here that can attest to that.

I have spent a great deal of time this year preparing a post on an UT topic that would be of a great of interest to most participants there. Unfortunately, it will have to remain on my computer. Unfortunately, it is a discussion item where I have explored all principal objections and covered them. The discussion is bounded by the context and leads to (what I believe to be) a logical conclusion. Since I cannot get concrete answers to the questions in the OP, based on previous experience, posting it would be a rule 5 violation.

 

[Swart]

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.

I understand this concept. If I were running an LDS site it would be anathema for me if the site were used to convert someone AWAY from the CoJCoLDS. However, the restrictions upon UC in UT seem to be far in excess of those found in GA or non-Christian religion. In those forums, it is considered that there is "no case to answer".

One is left to wonder, why the sensitivity in UT on the side of topicality and the suppression of requirement for decent behaviour?

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.

Been there. Done that. Report. Ignore. Report. Ignore.

It is only recently that I have been contacted regarding flaming by OCs by a moderator. I gave him the information that I could, however, it appears that little has happened.

I noriced this same mod closely scritinizing one particularly nasty thread today (that I hadn't been following). It seemed to be temporarily closed and then reopened with the offensive posts intact.

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.

It's ther drawing of the line that is the point. As it stands now, to win a debate is proselyting. To initiate a debate with an objective outcome is proselyting.

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

I would like to say "IF X is true, then Y is possibly true" without someone saying, "NO! Y is false! Therefore, discussion of X is considered proselyting!" without considering the possibility that there may not be a necessary link between X & Y.

I would also like to discuss the possibility that A is false where:

1. A is considred to be an OC concept only.
2. For an UC faith to be valid A must be false.
3. MANY OCs accept A to be true.
4. SOME OCs regard A to be a major tenet of their particular faith.
5. SOME OCs consider A to be false.

However, discussion of the validity or otherwise of A is a rule 5 violation WHEN DISCUSSED BY AN UC! This is because of point '2'.

I would also like to discuss B, where:

1. If B is false, a particular UC faith is false.
2. The detractors of B site C, D, E as the reasons B is false.
3. C, D, E are mutually exclusive. If C is true, D & E are not. If D is true, C & E are not etc.
4. Restriction of discussion of B to either C, D, E but not at the same time is considered a rule 5 violation.

I have others...

 

[CaDan]

So the Unorthodox Christians and non-Christians must behave like Christians, but the "Christians" can be as rude and offensive as they please.

Yes. This is shameful.

If any OC doubts that, all they have to do is post a mild support of an UC under attack to see what treatment they get. There are MANY here that can attest to that.

I will affirm that.

 

[skylark1]

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,,

I hope that I am not out of line if I ask "why?" The rude and insulting behavior, the "flaming," that is exhibited by some OC has been going on for many months. If anything has been done about it, it is hard to tell from reading the posts. Why do you expect for this to be such a long and time consuming process? The times that UC have came here and exhibited behavior that consisted of insults, rudeness, and flaming, it has appeared that the moderators were always able to deal with the situation quickly.

When you ask for the cooperation of everyone, what exactly is it that you would like for us to do?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I hope that I am not out of line if I ask "why?" The rude and insulting behavior, the "flaming," that is exhibited by some OC has been going on for many months. If anything has been done about it, it is hard to tell from reading the posts. Why do you expect for this to be such a long and time consuming process? The times that UC have came here and exhibited behavior that consisted of insults, rudeness, and flaming, it has appeared that the moderators were always able to deal with the situation quickly.

When you ask for the cooperation of everyone, what exactly is it that you would like for us to do?

What I would like you to do is continue to report rude behavior. Don't try and antagonize flamers, report them.

Why I think that it will be a long process, is that we have to change people's behavior. That can take a lot of convincing sometimes. Some are easy to delete or ban, some are on the edge of rules. Then there are those that like to flame the mods; that you don't see, but it is there. Mods have to sometimes work through intense flames to extinguish them, rather than use a simple delete option, like in the forums. What it comes down to is that we can work together or work against eachother, your choice.


ps. if you have a brilliant idea to instantly handle the situation, I'd like to hear it

 

[skylark1]

What I would like you to do is continue to report rude behavior. Don't try and antagonize flamers, report them.

Why I think that it will be a long process, is that we have to change people's behavior. That can take a lot of convincing sometimes. Some are easy to delete or ban, some are on the edge of rules. Then there are those that like to flame the mods; that you don't see, but it is there. Mods have to sometimes work through intense flames to extinguish them, rather than use a simple delete option, like in the forums. What it comes down to is that we can work together or work against eachother, your choice.


ps. if you have a brilliant idea to instantly handle the situation, I'd like to hear it

Thanks for responding. Evidently, there is a lot that happens behind the scenes that I am not aware of. I don't know if it would help or not, but maybe when a thread has digressed it would help to have more frequent commments from a moderator reminding all involved that the behavior isn't acceptable, in order to get the discussion back on track. Comments that are out in the open would show more clearly what is and isn't tolerated here. I don't mean comments directed at a single person, but more general comments directed at the problem. If most of the discussion about this is behind the scenes, then it is easy to draw a conclusion that certain behavior is tolerated, whether that is true or not.

 

[Plan 9]

Thanks for responding. Evidently, there is a lot that happens behind the scenes that I am not aware of. I don't know if it would help or not, but maybe when a thread has digressed it would help to have more frequent commments from a moderator reminding all involved that the behavior isn't acceptable, in order to get the discussion back on track. Comments that are out in the open would show more clearly what is and isn't tolerated here. I don't mean comments directed at a single person, but more general comments directed at the problem...

I agree, Skylark, because I've learned from experience that this method is very effective indeed, and employing it raises, rather than lowers, member morale. It's well worth the effort, but more labor intensive for mods, and it can be hard for some mods to find the extra time needed, given the necessity of doing all that "behind the scenes" work, and thread clean-up.
At the board at which I modded, I had the time-saving help of members who were particularly devoted to the concept that we should all work to keep things friendly, who would PM me, not to report someone, but to let me know that problems might be developing in a thread, and they would include a link for me to use to check it out quickly, and perhaps nip hurtful arguments in the bud.
I have no idea, though, if such "heads up" PMs are considered appropriate for us to send to mods here at CF; all I know is that getting them allowed me to prevent a lot of ill-feeling and heartache from ever developing.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I agree, Skylark, because I've learned from experience that this method is very effective indeed, and employing it raises, rather than lowers, member morale. It's well worth the effort, but more labor intensive for mods, and it can be hard for some mods to find the extra time needed, given the necessity of doing all that "behind the scenes" work, and thread clean-up.
At the board at which I modded, I had the time-saving help of members who were particularly devoted to the concept that we should all work to keep things friendly, who would PM me, not to report someone, but to let me know that problems might be developing in a thread, and they would include a link for me to use to check it out quickly, and perhaps nip hurtful arguments in the bud.
I have no idea, though, if such "heads up" PMs are considered appropriate for us to send to mods here at CF; all I know is that getting them allowed me to prevent a lot of ill-feeling and heartache from ever developing.

A heads up PM is ok, if you would like to do that. Perhaps mod notes in threads would let everyone know that staff is looking into things and trying to watch them. I would only ask people to be patient. If your heads up PM is not answered right away, send it again, or send it to someone else. Sometimes the mod is busy, and is thinking of a good response, or hasn't got to it yet. I know of some situations where a PM is sent and not answered, if it has been a long time the mod can think that the sender lost interest. A followup PM would let the mod know that you are still waiting
If it is just a general feeling about a thread, then you can use the PMs to mods. If it is a particular post, then I still advise to use the report button.

 

[pyro457]

How hard is it here to get the rules alterd a bit? In my opinion just a couple word changes in the rules would solve the problems, that is if the mods would enforce the new rule changes. Although I doubt they would even be considered, but I can hope.

1.1 You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest.

Instead of simply "member" add "members religion" as well. That way members and their beliefs are safe from insulting posts and their beliefs are still able to be disscused.

1.4 You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian.

This would need a little tweeking becuase OCs will claim that members within an unorthodox religion are not christian instead of saying that the member themselves are not Christian. They sort of skirt around the rule and still end up witht he same result of claiming a member is not Christian. This way they dont get a warrning.

2.2 You will not post anything that puts down or belittles Christianity as a whole.
2.3 You will not post anything that puts down or belittles any Christian group or denomination.

These rules should protect every religion not just orthodox christianity. If a site is going to allow people of all faiths to be members, and not guests, then the site should provide the same protection to them as it does itself.

Rule No. 5 - No Promotion of Other Religions
5.1 You will not post, attach, use or send any posts, PMs, links, images or files that promote a religion, belief, faith or doctrine other than "Christianity" as defined in Rule 6.

This rule needs to be altered becuase, as has been stated here, when an UC or NC begins to win a debate the OC say they are "promoting other religions" and the UC or NC gets posts deleted, threads closed, and warnings issued. This where it gets really easy to get a warrning without knowing it. I myself can attest to worrying about someone comming out of left feild and banning me for something I had no idea would be considered wrong.

I personally think CF needs to undergoe a major overhaul with its "public policy". Either that, or just stop allowing UCs and NCs to be members at all if CF will not treat them as such.

 

[Swart]

I understand this concept. If I were running an LDS site it would be anathema for me if the site were used to convert someone AWAY from the CoJCoLDS. However, the restrictions upon UC in UT seem to be far in excess of those found in GA or non-Christian religion. In those forums, it is considered that there is "no case to answer".

One is left to wonder, why the sensitivity in UT on the side of topicality and the suppression of requirement for decent behaviour?



Been there. Done that. Report. Ignore. Report. Ignore.

It is only recently that I have been contacted regarding flaming by OCs by a moderator. I gave him the information that I could, however, it appears that little has happened.

I noriced this same mod closely scritinizing one particularly nasty thread today (that I hadn't been following). It seemed to be temporarily closed and then reopened with the offensive posts intact.



It's ther drawing of the line that is the point. As it stands now, to win a debate is proselyting. To initiate a debate with an objective outcome is proselyting.



I would like to say "IF X is true, then Y is possibly true" without someone saying, "NO! Y is false! Therefore, discussion of X is considered proselyting!" without considering the possibility that there may not be a necessary link between X & Y.

I would also like to discuss the possibility that A is false where:

1. A is considred to be an OC concept only.
2. For an UC faith to be valid A must be false.
3. MANY OCs accept A to be true.
4. SOME OCs regard A to be a major tenet of their particular faith.
5. SOME OCs consider A to be false.

However, discussion of the validity or otherwise of A is a rule 5 violation WHEN DISCUSSED BY AN UC! This is because of point '2'.

I would also like to discuss B, where:

1. If B is false, a particular UC faith is false.
2. The detractors of B site C, D, E as the reasons B is false.
3. C, D, E are mutually exclusive. If C is true, D & E are not. If D is true, C & E are not etc.
4. Restriction of discussion of B to either C, D, E but not at the same time is considered a rule 5 violation.

I have others...

Bump! These questions haven't been answered.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Swart, you are making over generalizations, when I told you that issues will be reviewed on a case by case basis. A thread of yours was deemed inappropriate, and that decision is final. If you want to go over specific details of that case, then you are going to have to ask.

 

[Swart]

Swart, you are making over generalizations, when I told you that issues will be reviewed on a case by case basis. A thread of yours was deemed inappropriate, and that decision is final. If you want to go over specific details of that case, then you are going to have to ask.

All of the rules are generalisations. The general idea for a rule is for it to be over tight in specifications and the case-by-case analysis is for exceptions to the rules. Otherwise you have simply put the cart before the horse and said "We will decide but will not clarify"

The only explanation for this is to allow for bias and discrimination whenever you want. There can be no fairness if I cannot know beforehand if a post violates a rule. I come back to my previous assetion:

- We are permitted to engage in a debate only if we lose. If we are seen to be winning, that is promotion of a religion and a rule five violation. All sorts of rhetoric will be used to justify this position such as use of the "socratic method", "slick argumenattion", "restriction of open debate", "limited scope" or even "salesmanship".

 

[seebs]

I really don't see how Rule 5 can be applied in a way that doesn't have the effects Swart describes. Quite simply, this is the puzzle of apologetics; to defend something requires showing rational supports for it, which promotes it.

I don't think this can be resolved very easily. Leaving it up to case-by-case decision making seems likely to make it very hard for the staff to keep their natural human biases in check. A clear rule would be helpful... But honestly, I don't think any clear rule can be made to provide for the sorts of discussions that UTD is intended to have, unless it is clearly acknowledged that some of these discussions may be seen as violations of Rule 5.

In short, if you really want to have productive discussions of Unorthodox Theology, there probably needs to be a limited exemption from Rule 5 for them; otherwise, we are essentially baiting the unorthodox folks into doing something we know they'll be warned for.

This seems fairly straightforward to me, and I'm wondering why it's so contentious. To openly debate something runs the risk of losing the debate. Even granting for the sake of argument the universal correctness of orthodox positions and falsity of unorthodox ones, we can reasonably assume that the defenders of orthodoxy will lose debates sometimes anyway... In which case, the unorthodox position is "being promoted".

It is not an exceptional or surprising claim that a debate won in this way "promotes" the religion being debated. So. I think we should either admit that we have no interest in genuinely open debate on these issues, or grant an exemption to Rule 5 within the context of debates in UTD. I don't think there's any other way to accomplish this.

If indeed our goal is to promote the orthodox faith, I think we must accept the risks; lack of debate just makes us look like our faith can't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

- We are permitted to engage in a debate only if we lose. If we are seen to be winning, that is promotion of a religion and a rule five violation. All sorts of rhetoric will be used to justify this position such as use of the "socratic method", "slick argumenattion", "restriction of open debate", "limited scope" or even "salesmanship".

Swart, if you want to argue for the veracity of a premise of the LDS, then show us all of your evidence, and then let others talk about it. There would be no objection to reasoned debate over facts.
The thread that was deleted was deleted due to logical and legal fallacies contained in the argument, specifically "begging the question", and "assuming facts not in evidence". There was no time for explanations, so the staff used our judicial power, and said "objection sustained, let it be stricken from the record" Try again,
Show me some honest arguments based on fact, and we will let you post them all you want. Just so we can play fair, I will remove your warning, but the thread remains deleted.

 

[Juvenal]

Greetings, boughtwithaprice,

Thank you for adressing this issue, as seebs position seemed intuitive when I first read the rules as I was signing up for CF. While this is considerably less of an issue for me as a "NC" if I'm reading the acronyms correctly, seebs point seems particularly well taken.

Oddly enough, atheists and adherents of nontheistic religions like myself are subjected to far less vitriol than the unorthodox members of christianity on a christian forum. I've spent a good deal of time considering this recently as part of a thread on a, shall we say, far more fundamentalist forum.

I've seen this issue handled well, and less well, on different boards. The common mechanism on boards where it's been handled well is openness. One site in particular, when editing a user's post, specifically spells out why the post is being edited, in situ, citing the rule violation in a slightly different font, making both the edit and the reason for it transparent to all participants.

E.g. from another forum ...

Where did you [edited to remove ad hominem - crazyfingers] When I was ...

This method has the additional benefit that everyone on the thread receives an implied warning. No one was unclear about why the post was edited, what was edited out, who edited the post, or what they should expect if they behaved similarly.

In peace, Jesse

 

[seebs]

Swart, if you want to argue for the veracity of a premise of the LDS, then show us all of your evidence, and then let others talk about it. There would be no objection to reasoned debate over facts.

This may be true, but it would certainly be a change from historical practice.

The thread that was deleted was deleted due to logical and legal fallacies contained in the argument, specifically "begging the question", and "assuming facts not in evidence". There was no time for explanations, so the staff used our judicial power, and said "objection sustained, let it be stricken from the record" Try again,

How can there be no time for explanations? This is a message board. Posts on it will sit around until we do something.

If indeed an argument is flawed, the correct response in a discussion is to show the flaws in detail, through counter-argumentation, not to remove all public record of the argument.

It seems to me unlikely that our members are arguing in bad faith. If indeed they are committing fallacies, then surely they would appreciate it if we could show them those fallacies in detail, rather than merely asserting that fallacies were committed.

This is the essence of argumentation; to discuss exactly these things.

Show me some honest arguments based on fact, and we will let you post them all you want.

May I ask who is the authority on which claims are "facts"? For instance, if a Mormon were to make arguments to me based on some gold plates allegedly found in the desert, I might respond by criticizing this source, arguing that the facts alleged are not in fact part of the true history of the world. But then, if I were to make an argument based on the Bible in General Apologetics, someone might well direct the same argument to me.

It seems to me that, if we feel an argument's factual basis is flawed or weak, once again, the correct response is to demonstrate this through argumentation.

Ideally, moderator powers would be used to keep a discussion civil and productive, and provide an environment conducive to free and frank discussion. Without such an environment, it is unreasonable for us to ask our unorthodox members to participate in a "debate" on uneven ground.

 

[Swart]

Swart, if you want to argue for the veracity of a premise of the LDS, then show us all of your evidence, and then let others talk about it. There would be no objection to reasoned debate over facts.
The thread that was deleted was deleted due to logical and legal fallacies contained in the argument, specifically "begging the question", and "assuming facts not in evidence". There was no time for explanations, so the staff used our judicial power, and said "objection sustained, let it be stricken from the record" Try again,
Show me some honest arguments based on fact, and we will let you post them all you want. Just so we can play fair, I will remove your warning, but the thread remains deleted.

Well, thanks for removing the warning. (By my count that makes seven).

I wasn't aware we could discuss specific moderator actions in an open forum, but since you mentioned it, never at any time were logical fallacies mentioned as the reason for the thread removal. I am well versed in formal and prepositional logic and I would welcome a technical critique of the things I have posted. The review of my appeal took two weeks with very little feedback and finally the appeal was closed with only a brief explanation.

However, as I indicated, I was asking for specific guidelines on what is and what isn't a rule 5 violation. Otherwise I cannot know before I post if I am breaking the rules or not.

As for your challenge: I accept! I have been preparing a very long post for UT for some time now. It will take a week or so for me to get it straight and to vet it. I might even email it to some of my OC friends in UT in advance to get some preliminary feedback. As a brief rundown, the post I have been preparing (and fearing) to post has the follwing elements:

1. It presents a concept that most OCs disagree with, however, one may hold to this viewpoint without compromising OC beliefs.
2. The rebuttal of this concept would be a severe blow to LDS beliefs.
3. It presents a combination of Biblical and historical evidences.
4. It anticipates major retractions and deals with them.
5. It is closed in scope, looking at only historical practices and does not question whether those practices are valid for today or not - although these could be easily addressed at a later stage.

My purpose in posting it would be to see how airtight my arguments are. Effectively "let's see if this boat will float!"

Personally, I expect it will be deleted and earn me my ninth warning.

Still, thanks for your willingness to dialogue. It is not my intention to be a rules lawyer here, however, it seems I MUST be if I want to contribute without being banned.

I respect the rules of this forum and it is only my intention to abide by them. One OC poster told me once if I was so sure of my arguments I could use them to proselyte. I replied that it would be against the spirit if not the letter of the rules on this forum. I have never posted with the intention of attempting to convert someone to the CoJCoLDS. A reading of my posts will confirm that. I seek to promote understanding and an exchange of viewpoints. Sometimes I will attempt to persuade others to a different viewpoint as long as the viewpoint itself is not considered unorthodox in and of itself.

 

[Swart]

It is not an exceptional or surprising claim that a debate won in this way "promotes" the religion being debated. So. I think we should either admit that we have no interest in genuinely open debate on these issues, or grant an exemption to Rule 5 within the context of debates in UTD. I don't think there's any other way to accomplish this.

If indeed our goal is to promote the orthodox faith, I think we must accept the risks; lack of debate just makes us look like our faith can't stand up to scrutiny.

Excellent points Seebs.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Well, thanks for removing the warning. (By my count that makes seven).

I wasn't aware we could discuss specific moderator actions in an open forum, but since you mentioned it, never at any time were logical fallacies mentioned as the reason for the thread removal. I am well versed in formal and prepositional logic and I would welcome a technical critique of the things I have posted. The review of my appeal took two weeks with very little feedback and finally the appeal was closed with only a brief explanation.

However, as I indicated, I was asking for specific guidelines on what is and what isn't a rule 5 violation. Otherwise I cannot know before I post if I am breaking the rules or not.

As for your challenge: I accept! I have been preparing a very long post for UT for some time now. It will take a week or so for me to get it straight and to vet it. I might even email it to some of my OC friends in UT in advance to get some preliminary feedback. As a brief rundown, the post I have been preparing (and fearing) to post has the follwing elements:

1. It presents a concept that most OCs disagree with, however, one may hold to this viewpoint without compromising OC beliefs.
2. The rebuttal of this concept would be a severe blow to LDS beliefs.
3. It presents a combination of Biblical and historical evidences.
4. It anticipates major retractions and deals with them.
5. It is closed in scope, looking at only historical practices and does not question whether those practices are valid for today or not - although these could be easily addressed at a later stage.

My purpose in posting it would be to see how airtight my arguments are. Effectively "let's see if this boat will float!"

Personally, I expect it will be deleted and earn me my ninth warning.

Still, thanks for your willingness to dialogue. It is not my intention to be a rules lawyer here, however, it seems I MUST be if I want to contribute without being banned.

I respect the rules of this forum and it is only my intention to abide by them. One OC poster told me once if I was so sure of my arguments I could use them to proselyte. I replied that it would be against the spirit if not the letter of the rules on this forum. I have never posted with the intention of attempting to convert someone to the CoJCoLDS. A reading of my posts will confirm that. I seek to promote understanding and an exchange of viewpoints. Sometimes I will attempt to persuade others to a different viewpoint as long as the viewpoint itself is not considered unorthodox in and of itself.

If you want to discuss mod actions, you can use the PMs. We will see what your arguments are.