Faith Based Threads in Celestial Forum

[_Alter Idem]

I think something does need to be done to keep the discussions in celestial from being hijacked. This "faith based" idea is worth a try.

However, if you find the "faith based" threads idea doesn't give the desired results, might I suggest what they did in the Politics folder at MADB while it was in use?
If a person was derailing or getting abusive or too heated, the mods would kick them out of the thread. They were told they could not post in that particular thread any more.
If you have a person who cannot follow the rules in celestial in numerous threads (if there are too many complaints and they are causing headaches for the mods) then suspend them from posting in celestial for a certain amount of time. If it's worth it to them to participate in celestial, they'll follow the rules.

[_Ren]

I think this idea of 'Faith Based' threads is 'aiming' for the right thing, but not going about it the right way...

I think the rule should just be to focus on the terms that are already laid out in the subtitle of the Celestial forum, without any extra 'rules'.
The main one - for me - being 'respectful' discussion. That rule (or at least the 'claim' that that is the kind of discussion the Celestial forum is for) is already in place.

If someone clearly states in an OP that - for the purposes of their thread - certain assumptions are made:
e.g.: "Assuming that there is a God, what if..."

...and somebody were to post a reply that didn't amount to much more than:
"Well, too bad - cos there isn't a God. And I'm gonna tell you exactly why"

...surely we don't need NEW rules to see the problem. Surely? I would have thought the rules which were supposed to be in place already in the Celestial Forum would cover it. It IS simply disrespectful to not have respected the wish of the person making the OP. The OP'er wasn't (necessarily) trying to force a conclusion on anybody. They weren't trying to (necessarily) make a thread where dissent was impossible.

There is also responsibility on the person starting the thread. If they want the thread to be focused on a certain 'way', they need to word their OP appropriately to make that clear. Otherwise - as has been mentioned by others - they may change the 'rules' mid-thread if they don't like what they are hearing, which I don't believe they should be able to get away with.

This [Faith Based] tag just seems like a 'Get out of Jail Free' card. I don't think that is the same thing as trying to create a forum for 'respectful discussion'.

I would say - when posting in the Celestial:
If you weren't clear enough in your OP about the 'direction' intended for the thread, then too bad. And if that's too much hassle for people, then I guess they'd better stick to the Terrestrial...

For example, imagine the reply:
"Well, even assuming there IS a God, your proposal has many issues and problems"

There should be NO threads where people 'cannot be challenged' - as long as that challenge is presented respectfully in the Celestial forum. I don't think this was actually the intention in practical terms, but the way this [Faith Based] thread idea has been presented has been a little whack in my opinion.

If you want to do something like this PROPERLY, then - like Nightingale - I suggest the creation of specific rooms to deal with specific sub-topics. My idea was 3 rooms - to match the three levels of the CK ;)

Theological, Philosophical /Scientific, and Secular.

Then, instead of a mod comment saying:
"This is intruding on a [Faith Based] thread - demoting to Terrestrial"
it could often be instead:
"Certain posts in this thread are more of a scientific argument than a theological one. Some posts have been moved into the Scientific room", or something similar. I think that would work a lot better - personally...

I've suggested it before - and I still think it's a good idea - but I don't think many other people seemed to agree at the time I mentioned it. *shrug*

[_marg]

I If a person was derailing or getting abusive or too heated, the mods would kick them out of the thread. They were told they could not post in that particular thread any more.

The problem religious individuals had in threads they wanted to be faith based was not that the threads got abusive or too heated but that their assumptions were not accepted and were challenged. And quite simply they don' t like that. The Celestial is the only place one can theoretically post without being attacked. Being challenged and being personally attacked are not the same. Some people do view being challenged as an attack, but it is not ad hominal.

Where discussions in the Celestial veer towards getting heated and/or derailed is when individuals resort to personal attacks.

The options available to the individual being personally attacked is,

1) not get drawn to the same level as the attacker but instead address anything of substance in the attacker's post. And the only response to the attack is make an acknowledgment of it as fallacious.

2) Ignore the attacker's posts completely.

3) respond to the attack politely countering it,

4) Attack back, go to the same level as the attacker, play the same disingenuous game.



# 1 doesn't seem to discourage an attacker whose modus operandi in discussion is to shift focus off issues and onto the person, especially on a forum where nothing is done to curtail them.

#2 is a good option, but then the reason the person is being ignored doesn't necessarily register with the attacker who oftentimes interprets the person lack of response as an inability to respond and so they often continue attacking, even criticizing the other person for not being able to respond

# 3 Responding to and countering politely an attack is time consuming and tends to disrupt and derail a thread.

#3) responding in like fashion, serves to disrupt and derail the discussion. Nothing gets accomplished as far as moving forward on the topic. And frankly many people do not want to lower themselves to that sort of disingenuous argumentation, so it's not even an option for them.

The way the Celestial is currently handled by moderation, if one person makes personal attacks as long as vulgar words aren't used generally nothing is done or said. But if the other responds in kind, it is then considered a heated exchange and the thread gets moved, where now all participants who previously invested time in the thread suffer because the thread is likely to deteriorate. So far at this point in time, the moderation in the Celestial does nothing to curtail the perpetrator of personal unwarranted attacks. Personal attacks, heated exchanges was not generally the main problem in the Celestial with religious type threads.

[_Tal Bachman]

To speak frankly:

It appears to be true that this board has a problem with a few of its posters, and their enablers. In the past, it has caused me so much frustration that I've gone through periods when I couldn't even stomach posting.

That problem is thread derailment, and specifically, strategic thread derailment by church defenders. If you can't compete in a conversation; if you can bring no facts, no persuasive arguments, no nothing; and that conversation threatens something which you wish to see preserved (like you're own state of mind, say, or your "faith community"), then you shout it down. If needs be, you run in wearing a gorilla suit, light yourself on fire, do whatever you can, to distract everyone, and get them to stop talking about how......you're heartbreakingly wrong.

There is no hope that respect for board protocols, or conversational protocols, will ever overwhelm the desire to protect Mr. Smith's "one true religion" for true believers. Half the time, I don't even know if the thread derailers are conscious of what they're doing. It seems entirely instinctive in some cases. For example, Dr. Amplegirth over at "The Neal Maxwell Center for the Study of Pedantry and Thought Terminating Cliches" so regularly misses the point of what is being discussed (in my view, anyway), that I've almost come to believe it isn't deliberate at all. It seems more like plain old incapacity. But the result is the same.

Still, this problem woudn't exist if most posters were disciplined enough to ignore the derailers...but (putting it in canine terms) it is hard to ignore a fat meaty bone being waggled in front of you. You just want to grab it and mangle it, no matter what else you're supposed to be doing. I think that's what happens when X or Y show up and start talking about some g******n stupid, totally irrelevant NOTHING, making NO sense, sounding like total frigging morons...we just can't resist. We can't resist pointing out how dumb they are, maybe because it makes us feel smarter. And feeling smarter, feeling good about ourselves, maybe deep down, is more important to us than getting to the heart of whatever we're supposed to be discussing.

But all this being the case, this new rule still seems like a loser, for all the reasons mentioned.

[_Nightingale]

To speak frankly:

Is this a new approach you're trying out? :P

Translation: TB seems to be a frank speaker from the get-go!

As for problems with how to run and mod a board, yeah, the underlying challenge is to get all participants to buy into, remember and follow the guidelines. Seeing as how Shades tried starting with no rules (I've heard) but now has had to implement one after the after and now they're even contemplating putting MA&D-like restrictions in some spaces or on certain types of threads, it would seem that you are correct, Tal, that 100% of the posters will not live up to the needs and expectations 100% of the time. What is kinda crazy and a downer is that the more rules you need to create, actually the more work it is to mod.

I know what you mean about people leaping in to play their favourite song whenever they get the chance. But. I also can see where the "faith-based" flag idea is desirable to some. As has been already discussed on the other main thread about this, is there not a place for posters who want to discuss certain themes without having to go through the entire does-god-exist debate over and over and over and never getting past it?

I have seen and myself tried this type of flag thing at RfM, not known for an overabundance of Christian posters discussing theology in lengthy and leisurely terms. It works out OK - but only IF all posters are willing to respect that OP's space, just for that one thread even.

There was one of these the other day where someone said something like "I still believe and I need help with... No blasting please". I have written posts with a sub line flag of "Christian content", "Christian discussion" etc. People, even at RfM that has the reputation for being rough, generally respect that (in this case "respect" indicating they might hate it or think it's stupid but they don't tread on the thread).

There is a major and understandable reason that many posters still gravitate to the exmo-based boards - it's where there is a great degree of understanding of the background of being Mormon, which you cannot get from nevermos, especially nevermo Christians, in most cases.

So, in the name of having some understanding, if not compassion, for fellow exmos, no matter what they go on to believe after leaving Mormonism, hopefully a way can be found to accommodate some stated needs.

Maybe this discussion would work better if there was a test case or a few good examples of the type of discussion that is being anticipated, etc. It's kind of hard to totally analyze something that is only theoretical at this point.

[_cksalmon]

Because it limits the threads I can participate in.

Well, maybe it is a good rule.


















[/joking]

Chris

[_asbestosman]

The real problem is democans and repulicrats. They're the ones responsible for thread derailment. It's because they tax me too much and others too little, don't let me put up monuments in favor of my religion to exclusion of others. Don't they know that they'll be sorry in the end and this nation was founded on my beliefs not those outsiders?

And polygamy is inherently evil.

The temple is oviously a sham. I mean it's located on the head which was obviously copied from other primates who got it from earlier mammals who got it from even earlier than that.

But of course evolution is a sham too because we all know that life was created when the celestial teapot spilled ice cream on an unmarried bachelor.

Oh, and there is no evidence for Cthulhu claims.

FSM

[_marg]

I fail to see why anyone should have a problem with an individual setting up parameters in a discussion in the Celestial and it being moderated so all adhere to it.

Scientists, historians set up an assumption, that the metaphysical for which there is no evidence is not considered as part of the equation in their work. Of course since their work relies upon evidence, that is the rational thing to do.

In the Spalding thread in the Celestial, which was set up for Dale, Dan and Art to discuss.."why me" was precluded from adding his ideas which invoked the supernatural. To go there would have wasted too much of everyone's time, even if his posts could have been argued against.

At least if the parameters are set upfront, it is out in the open and there likely will be less wasted time in discussing things the originator of the thread does not want to discuss.

[_cksalmon]

Related? Certainly.

Related enough? probably not.

I invite you to share my righteous and appreciative ambivalence re: Zappa, who was, for the record, the BEST improvisational guitarist of the 20th C. If this were a faith-based thread, I'd make that a point of dogma.

Chris

[_Alter Idem]

To speak frankly:

It appears to be true that this board has a problem with a few of its posters, and their enablers. In the past, it has caused me so much frustration that I've gone through periods when I couldn't even stomach posting.

That problem is thread derailment, and specifically, strategic thread derailment by church defenders. If you can't compete in a conversation; if you can bring no facts, no persuasive arguments, no nothing; and that conversation threatens something which you wish to see preserved (like you're own state of mind, say, or your "faith community"), then you shout it down. If needs be, you run in wearing a gorilla suit, light yourself on fire, do whatever you can, to distract everyone, and get them to stop talking about how......you're heartbreakingly wrong.

There is no hope that respect for board protocols, or conversational protocols, will ever overwhelm the desire to protect Mr. Smith's "one true religion" for true believers. Half the time, I don't even know if the thread derailers are conscious of what they're doing. It seems entirely instinctive in some cases. For example, Dr. Amplegirth over at "The Neal Maxwell Center for the Study of Pedantry and Thought Terminating clichés" so regularly misses the point of what is being discussed (in my view, anyway), that I've almost come to believe it isn't deliberate at all. It seems more like plain old incapacity. But the result is the same.

Still, this problem woudn't exist if most posters were disciplined enough to ignore the derailers...but (putting it in canine terms) it is hard to ignore a fat meaty bone being waggled in front of you. You just want to grab it and mangle it, no matter what else you're supposed to be doing. I think that's what happens when X or Y show up and start talking about some g******n stupid, totally irrelevant NOTHING, making NO sense, sounding like total frigging morons...we just can't resist. We can't resist pointing out how dumb they are, maybe because it makes us feel smarter. And feeling smarter, feeling good about ourselves, maybe deep down, is more important to us than getting to the heart of whatever we're supposed to be discussing.

But all this being the case, this new rule still seems like a loser, for all the reasons mentioned.

Maybe you had trouble from "church defenders" derailing your threads in the past, but that isn't the problem now. I don't believe there were any church defenders involved in the trouble which erupted on the "evidence for Jesus" thread--which led to the implementation of the new "faith based" thread policy. Yet, you still managed to use it as an opportunity to blame the Mormons, didn't you.