suggestion

[Lion IRC]

And there is a time just call a spade a spade.
Should all the verses that out right call some vipers, blind and so forth be posted also?

Are those examples of what you're suggesting needs to be allowed?
...calling fellow forum members vipers or fools or whitewashed tombs ...etc etc
Is that the hall pass you're hoping the Mods should give in an unmoderated sub forum?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Squabblers gonna squabble.
The homosexuality topic on CF usually includes a reminder from someone to be careful with the CF rules, you mustn't "promote" homosexuality including "encourage the acceptance" of it. It's a little annoying since I'd like to hear what those people have to say.

In making censorship rules - CF have a point. If someone came on arguing for the acceptance of homosexuality in christianity - everyones head would explode !!!!
It would be chaos as everyone (doing their duty) frantically cut & pastes endless bible verses, bits from articles they've googled and dictionary definitions to each other. haha

We could all probably improve in a few areas?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

My first thought is that the quality of lots of discussion on here is really low.

It seems to me that lots of people deliver damaging criticisms on others without seeming to have any expertise on the subject themselves. The justification for this poor treatment of others is usually "duty".

People seem to willy-nilly just throw numbers around, quote random articles that simply "confirm" their position, use questionable sources, cut/paste bible quotes without treating the material fairly - generally, hurt others without really knowing what they are talking about (that's how I see it anyway).

I would personally like to see freer discussion on here, but more than that, I'd like to see much higher quality discussion.

 

[tampasteve]

I would personally like to see freer discussion on here, but more than that, I'd like to see much higher quality discussion.

That would be wonderful, but it is also more up to the members than the moderation team. As seen in this thread, we are already seen by some as over moderating the forums, adding rules to encourage better content would only expand our moderating scope. There is a fair amount of really good conversations happening here, but it is a huge forum, and they do have to be sought out at times.

The best threads are in some of the more "subtle" forums like the sub forums in General Theology, in my opinion. The least edifying content is in the forums that tend to emotionally polarize us as a society the most.

 

[cow451]

Oxford defines censor as:

• an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security:"the report was approved by the military censors"
• 2.(in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals.

verb

• 1.examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it:"my mail was being censored"

Then we can agree that CF engages in legal censorship. I was thinking about the government censoring. Thank you for helping clarify my point.

 

[cow451]

Interesting, So rather than call someone a heretic, or maybe blind post a a verse that implies it.

That is aloud?

Quoting scripture in context is "allowed".

 

[cow451]

And there is a time just call a spade a spade.
Should all the verses that out right call some vipers, blind and so forth be posted also?

If Jesus calls me a viper, that's OK. If I call you a viper, it against CF TOS. But Jesus isn't posting here.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

That would be wonderful, but it is also more up to the members than the moderation team.

yeah it is - I'll start with myself

As seen in this thread, we are already seen by some as over moderating the forums, adding rules to encourage better content would only expand our moderating scope.

You can't make everyone happy.

There is a fair amount of really good conversations happening here, but it is a huge forum, and they do have to be sought out at times.

yeah - some members are really switched on.

The best threads are in some of the more "subtle" forums like the sub forums in General Theology, in my opinion. The least edifying content is in the forums that tend to emotionally polarize us as a society the most.

That's probably true

 

[Direct Driver]

A forum where it is not censored by the moderators to such a degree as the rest of the site is.

I used to be a member of a musician's site that had a subforum like that. What happened to it, you might ask? The other subforums went almost dark. I actually just dropped by there for the first time in months. The latest post on all the other forums was last January. But if you log in, you can see the "political" and similar subforums (there are three). Those things are a hotbed of activity.

I've noticed here that even though it is a Christian forum, if you just select the "New Posts" tab, it's amazing how much of the activity is in political and "evolution vs creationism" threads. I go to other sites normally for that sort of thing, but even here, it is difficult to not go for the bait and get into them - and I sometimes do. The Rona ones are the hardest to avoid.

Fact is, most people that like to spend a lot of time in forums are here to discuss controversial issues. That's the draw. I'm a member of a tractor forum, a lawn mower forum, a woodworking/tool forum and a Scion FR-S forum. I only go there when I'm having a problem and need a solution, or have fixed a problem, the solution to which I think others could benefit from seeing.

But political/cultural forums are for cage fighting. And it can be a lot of fun, but not really productive, other than as effective training for the REAL world. And it is that - in spades.

 

[Direct Driver]

If Jesus calls me a viper, that's OK. If I call you a viper, it against CF TOS. But Jesus isn't posting here.

The key is to not personalize it.

 

[Direct Driver]

I will throw this out: When you have a more open forum, the one rule that needs to stay in place is "no ad-hominem attacks". The beauty of that rule is that those without solid arguments are eventually weeded out of a site. I've seen it happen on a site that went from "no holds barred" to "no ad-hom attacks." One by one, the "petulant children" on the site were permanently banned. The rest, though sometimes highly disrespectful in their responses to others, kept it civil. And superior arguments had a lot better chance of being seen.

I was just telling my wife a couple of days ago that you can tell you've "won" the argument when a certain post, with link, gets no response. Not always, but sometimes responses are deafening in their absence.

I've been doing this since 1997, when it really was the "wild west".

 

[Direct Driver]

A forum where it is not censored by the moderators to such a degree as the rest of the site is.

The one thing I would like to see backed off a little bit is the "offending others" thing. Fact is, Jesus and the apostles offended all the time. If you are not allowed to offend, you really are not allowed to say anything of substance. That is actually one of the problems with the current cancel culture.

As an American familiar with our constitution and the context from which it came, I adhere to this rule:

"I may strongly disagree with what you have to say, but I also strongly defend your right to say it." For a lot of people these days. That falls on deaf ears. And when speech is tightly controlled - legally or culturally - you are looking at the soon coming collapse of your culture.

 

[coffee4u]

And there is a time just call a spade a spade.
Should all the verses that out right call some vipers, blind and so forth be posted also?

Moderators walk a tightrope, I know I have been one on various sites. They are aiming to allow discussion without it getting out of control especially when the topic is controversial - which it tends to be on this kind of forum. There are some very combustible topics on CF.

The difference is if Jesus called someone a viper we know with 100% certainty that what he said was correct. If a normal person says it, they may be incorrect.
Which is also the issue with such a board, because while you may carefully and correctly use such terms what about the other 100 who are not?

 

[Direct Driver]

Moderators walk a tightrope, I know I have been one on various sites. They are aiming to allow discussion without it getting out of control especially when the topic is controversial - which it tends to be on this kind of forum. There are some very combustible topics on CF.

The difference is if Jesus called someone a viper we know with 100% certainty that what he said was correct. If a normal person says it, they may be incorrect.
Which is also the issue with such a board, because while you may carefully and correctly use such terms what about the other 100 who are not?

I'm a very binary (black and white) thinker. It has advantages and disadvantages. In my field, computer programming, it is a HUGE benefit because I kinda think like a computer. I think I'd be a great moderator because it should be based on rules that are treated as government's laws are treated. And I'd like to see a subforum where there were really only two rules: no profanity and no ad-hom attacks. And the latter includes attacks against linked sources. IOW, if you can't respond to the actual content of what a poster or their source actually said, don't respond at all. Period.

And it is very easy for a binary mind to determine if that is happening.

 

[mnorian]

Admin hat on

This thread is permanently closed.

Hat off. ​