Suggested new rule for this forum and sub-forums

[laptoppop]

I would like to propose a new rule for these forums. It would be a bit of a big change, so I wouldn't want anyone to be surprised, so I'm not just putting it into the wiki straight off. However, I think it could go a LONG way towards improving the discourse around here.

New rule:
Because we desire to have good respectful discussions, we agree to avoid all name-calling, both of each other, and of outside people and organizations. Describing outside groups as con-men, frauds, liars, etc., is not allowed, even if believed to be true. Discussions should concentrate on the data and the issues, and not speculative judgments of other people and groups.

In addition, while we recognize it might limit some discussion in the name of better expressing Christ's love, we also voluntarily limit our expressions by avoiding applying descriptions to groups of people holding beliefs, such as "evolutionists" or "YECs". Descriptions such as "YECs are ignorant of ..." will be avoided.

Think about it! We'd be forced to talk about issues, data, theology! We'd be avoiding inflammatory language and setting a great example. We might also do a lot better about loving each other.

 

[Melethiel]

I like it.
Can we also stop with the posts about TEs being godless baby-eating heathens who constantly try to tear apart Scripture?

 

[laptoppop]

I like it.
Can we also stop with the posts about TEs being godless baby-eating heathens who constantly try to tear apart Scripture?

Yes, it cuts both ways. We can still express our problems with the real issues, but it would stop it from being as personal.

 

[Gwenyfur]

put it in the WIKI

http://www.christianforums.com/t5674...-theology.html

 

[KerrMetric]

What if it known to be true? Not believed but known.

This is silly. Hitler would get a free pass under this sort of rule.

The behaviour of outside groups is often very germane to the arguments made on here.

This rule would basically make an outside group immune to characterisation in any negative sense.

Is this forum for kids?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi. Also we seem to be getting "invaded" by more Muslims, so can't we have a seperate Board for Islam?
Go to the non-Christian religion board and you can see most of the threads contain Islam/Muhammad vs Christianity.
As far as other religions, they are small insofar as members of other religions posting. Just a suggestion and it really doesn't matter to me. Thanks.

 

[laptoppop]

put it in the WIKI

http://www.christianforums.com/t5674...-theology.html

It is in the discussion area for the Wiki. I'll move it into the main part if it looks like we have some agreement around here.

 

[philadiddle]

But as KM pointed out, what if it is known to be true? Isn't it important in the discussion/debate to point out a source that is deliberatly lying? I think that is essential to the discussion. Sometimes the evidence may look like someone is lying, when really they were just mistaken. It's an important distinction that often isn't made. I think there is an element of validity to the rule, since someone may be called a liar but is just mistaken. Maybe it could be a rule that no one can be called a liar, but you can say that it appears someone is lying because of such and such.

Anyways, I'm kinda rambling.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Hi. Also we seem to be getting "invaded" by more Muslims, so can't we have a seperate Board for Islam?
Go to the non-Christian religion board and you can see most of the threads contain Islam/Muhammad vs Christianity.
As far as other religions, they are small insofar as members of other religions posting. Just a suggestion and it really doesn't matter to me. Thanks.

You can bring that up in hte non-nicene theology WIKI

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You can bring that up in hte non-nicene theology WIKI

Ok. I thought this thread concerned the whole Forum. Sorry.

 

[Gwenyfur]

no worries...just pointing you in teh right direction to get results ... or more input/ideas

 

[Dannager]

What if it known to be true? Not believed but known.

This is silly. Hitler would get a free pass under this sort of rule.

The behaviour of outside groups is often very germane to the arguments made on here.

This rule would basically make an outside group immune to characterisation in any negative sense.

Is this forum for kids?

Yeah, I'm a little worried about this as well. If I know that a given creationist organization is made up of liars, I want to be able to point that out. Credibility is an issue.

On the surface this looks like an attempt to avoid negative (but deserved) characterization of YEC groups.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Take it to the WIKI fellas...taht's where this discussion belongs...

 

[laptoppop]

Here's the link to the wiki, once again. The discussions button is at the bottom.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5674461-wiki-rules-origins-theology.html

I really need the community to weigh in on this. What is more important, cordial interactions based on respect, or being able to call folks names? Right now, the name calling seems to be winning - is this really the future of these forums?

 

[KerrMetric]

I really need the community to weigh in on this. What is more important, cordial interactions based on respect, or being able to call folks names? Right now, the name calling seems to be winning - is this really the future of these forums?

What has this got to do with external organisations YOU want to set up as sacred cows?

I'll call external organisations liars/frauds/conmen as I see fit - just as I would have no problem you doing the same.

I didn't call ICR and their so called peer review a con for no reason. I specifically cited why it wasn't peer review in the accepted sense and thus it was a con.

I just think your ears were burning and you wanted to make a sacred cow out of your heroes.

 

[theIdi0t]

Here's the link to the wiki, once again. The discussions button is at the bottom.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5674461-wiki-rules-origins-theology.html

I really need the community to weigh in on this. What is more important, cordial interactions based on respect, or being able to call folks names? Right now, the name calling seems to be winning - is this really the future of these forums?

I think that there should be no direct attacks on individuals in this forum. But I'm weary of censoring what might be said of outside sources. Like would I be censored for calling Kent Hovind a fraud? Or brining up AiG's questionable business practices? Some time ago someone brought up a famous creationist, and I pointed out that he was a racist, because he supported segregation, should I be censored?

I can understand that sometimes our reproach of outside sources might be bit too harsh, but I'm weary of such "censorship" in these forums. I've said things out of hand occasionally, and more often than not another TE or someone like Pop corrects me, and I correct my wrong. I think most individuals in this forum are capable of realizing when they have gone too far, while just a few tend to remain in the wrong regardless.

I just think it's too much to "censor" every other post, because of the behavior of a few. We should strive to deal with our problems on our own, without so much mod regulation and censorship. We're grown men, and we should be able to resolve our differences together as a community.

 

[laptoppop]

Here's the link to the wiki, once again. The discussions button is at the bottom.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5674461-wiki-rules-origins-theology.html

One of the biggest reasons I'd suggest eliminating name calling on outside groups and individuals is that they are not here to defend themselves. It is easy to make a darn good sounding case against someone, where folks who hear it nod their heads and agree. But it is a lot harder to make a case when both sides are heard. For example, if a person gives one side of an email exchange -- unless you know the whole history and both sides of the exchange you can have a horribly distorted view of the facts.

I would suggest that it is better to start with the assumption that there are good godly men and women -- intelligent and educated -- on both sides of the crevo/evo debate. To assume someone is evil because they don't agree with you or because they don't throw out their worldview because of some minor point someone tries to make, etc. is just plain wrong.

I have often seen people called "liars" because they did not agree with someone after an exchange of ideas. Sometimes people are so prideful or convinced in the power of their arguments that they just can't accept someone hearing their arguments and not accepting them.

In most legal systems, a person has a right to face their accusers. When we slander people here they do not have that right. Sometimes there is enough in the public record to respond -- but often there is a lot more private information that is not known.

 

[KerrMetric]

One of the biggest reasons I'd suggest eliminating name calling on outside groups and individuals is that they are not here to defend themselves. It is easy to make a darn good sounding case against someone, where folks who hear it nod their heads and agree. But it is a lot harder to make a case when both sides are heard. For example, if a person gives one side of an email exchange -- unless you know the whole history and both sides of the exchange you can have a horribly distorted view of the facts.

Irrelevant.

I would suggest that it is better to start with the assumption that there are good godly men and women -- intelligent and educated -- on both sides of the crevo/evo debate. To assume someone is evil because they don't agree with you or because they don't throw out their worldview because of some minor point someone tries to make, etc. is just plain wrong.

That's often the problem - it was assumed they behaved in a proper manner but some have shown they have not on many occasions.

In most legal systems, a person has a right to face their accusers. When we slander people here they do not have that right. Sometimes there is enough in the public record to respond -- but often there is a lot more private information that is not known.

Irrelevant.

 

[Dannager]

One of the biggest reasons I'd suggest eliminating name calling on outside groups and individuals is that they are not here to defend themselves.

So? We're in a debate forum. If someone brings up an external source as support for their argument, you have to allow that source to be duly criticized. The person using it as support can defend it by proxy if he so wishes, but don't act like that's an excuse to allow you to impose this "name-calling" ban.

By the way, calling a liar a liar isn't name-calling. It's the truth.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Gentlemen...if I may

Once again I'm going to suggest that instead of responding in such an unkind manner ie: liar, load of crap, meadow muffins, horse hocky, horsefeathers etc etc etc etc ....

respond instead with a source link that refutes the posted material/link

thus ELIMINATING the personal aspect of the debate