Important Questionnaire #8: Reporting Rules Violations

[Terry Sampson]

I wonder how much I have been desensitized from years on the Topix website. There was so much that occurred there that would never be tolerated here.

Ah, yes! When the barbarians are at the gates, there's some effort to defend the walls. But when they're in the city, it's every man, woman, child, and dog for themselves. I remember once, seeing that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I guessed 1/2.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

#1. Whether or not it is offensive for someone to believe anything at all is one thing. Whether or not one may state one's beliefs in a thread is another thing. And, how many times someone may consciously choose to state one's beliefs, when the beliefs are a well-known, and/or often stated fact, when there is no hope of adding anything new, informative, or persuasive to the statement of those beliefs is third thing. It is the third thing that I object to.
#2. You wanna bet?
#3. I agree. However, as you so clearly fail to recognize, saying so, even in this most liberal of forums that I have participated in, is--I argue--a violation of Rule #9.
#4. The beliefs that one may have without breaking any rules is one thing. Whether stating those beliefs breaks a rule or not is another thing.
#5. Well said. The staff has no responsibility to judge an unstated belief. The moment a belief gets posted, however, the posting of the belief is behavior and, as such, should be judged by someone.
#6. So what? What religions they themselves have and whether or not they were "drawn" from a religion is irrelevant.
#7. The problem with your version of what folks have a right to be offended by and what folks don't have a right to be offended by is that your version suffers from the "all or none" and the "never ever"
fallacy. Ergo, you err.
#8. Sez you. We'll see about that.

What you seem not to realise are that these forums were established as meeting point for people of all faiths and none to come together and discus and debate any thing about those faiths that they wish. To make this possible a set of rules was established to smooth the way. Over time these rule have been tweaked as needed, to accommodate changes in behaviour. A few years ago, at a time when I was a mod, the forum changed hands. And it became necessary to revisit the existing rules. I found my self in the position of helping with those revisions in a fairly fundamental way. A lot of water has passed under the bridge, and the rules have been tweaked from time to time since then. At one point the forums returned to the ownership of the founder. Which is where we find ourselves today.
However the basic concept has never changed, it is a meeting ground for
People with very different outlooks and beliefs, who but for the rules would be unreconciled and be impossible to control.

Many of the concepts discussed would, in the normal way, be an anathema to one group or another. And this is fully understood by the staff. You your self are demonstrating how difficult it is to bring every one on side, in what would otherwise be a very conflicted situation. But what these forums achieve, which many others do not, is a comparatively peaceful meeting place for people of all faiths and views, to have a meeting of minds and learn about those differences and points of view.

Peace be with you.

 

[Jim]

What if the OP is the offensive post?
E.g.

Hi, I'm a member of an Abrahamic sect whose purpose is to promote love, peace, and harmony which requires that everyone who isn't a member of my sect stop taking everything in the Bible literally and believe what my sect believes, and I have a civil, respectful question for other Abrahamics who don't believe what my sect believes: Why do you take anything, much less everything, in the Bible literally, when any sane, rational, reasonable person would realize that the Bible was written two thousand or more years ago and is only useful if taken metaphorically, except the parts that confirm the superiority of my sect?

I would not give it any rating because it disparages people’s character and capacities across belief lines. If I took some parts of the Bible literally, I might try to explain why.

Saying that the Bible was written 2000 years or more ago looks like misinformation to me. I might do some research on that and post about it in some other thread, and maybe post a link to that in the one we’re considering. I disagree with saying that the Bible is only useful if taken metaphorically. I might say that and try to explain why.

Hi, I'm a recovering sex addict and alcoholic, and I want to know why so many Christians worship the Sun and celebrate Christmas.

That doesn’t look to me like disparaging anyone’s character or capacities, or vilifying anyone’s motives or intentions, so I wouldn’t see any reason not to rate it or comment on it. I might try to find out where the person is getting the idea that “so many Christians worship the Sun.” If it looks like misinformation to me, I might do some research on it and post about in some other thread, and maybe post a link to that in the one we’re considering.

Hi, I believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael before he came to Earth, was conceived in a virgin without any male human input, died, was resurrected, was raised up into heaven, and will return in my lifetime to send everybody who doesn't believe what I believe to Hell, and I have a civil, respectful question for Jews: So, tell me, why don't you believe in Jesus?

That doesn’t look to me like disparaging anyone’s character or capacities, or vilifying anyone’s motives or intentions, so I wouldn’t see any reason not to rate it or comment on it. If I were a Jew, I might try to explain why I don’t believe in Jesus, or maybe that I do in some ways but without believing everything that Christian churches say about Him. I might also start a thread “Rejecting Jesus is not really what Judaism is all about,” which would include some ways that Jews do believe in Jesus sometimes.

Hi, I believe that Jesus showed up in ancient Israel and then, again, here in North America, that he has a Father God and a Mother God, each of whom also had a Father God and a Mother God, ad infinitum, and I believe that someday I'm going to get to be a God too, and I have a civil, respectful question for Trinitarian Christians: Why do you believe nonsense?

For me, “Why do you believe nonsense” looks a little bit like disparaging people’s capacities, so I would not give that post any rating. If I thought “Trinitarian Christians” included me, I might try to explain why I think about the Trinity the way I do.

 

[Mike.Hester]

I think there should be another option ... "I don't think I've ever noticed a serious rule violation."

I've reported spam but is that 'serious'?

I agree with you. I am not interested in being a fascist stool pigeon. I endorse freedom of speech no matter how much you disagree.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I agree with you. I am not interested in being a fascist stool pigeon. I endorse freedom of speech no matter how much you disagree.

The rules are all about enabling freedom of speech in a friendly, controlled and civilised way.
The whole structure of the forums and rules were devised to that end.
Any Idea or concept that you could possibly have can be expressed some where on the forums, provided it is legal to do so.
It is only by following the rules that this freedom is made possible.

 

[Jim]

I’m thinkIng that as long as there is no frank and open discussion about the popularity of insults and personal attacks across religious and political divides, and the fact that no one who complains about that behavior ever sees it happening on their side of some religious or political divide, no amount of any kind of discussion will do anything to help change it, and maybe not even to help reduce and counteract its effects.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think that as long as there is no frank and open discussion about the popularity of insults and personal attacks across religious and political divides, and the fact that no one who complains about it ever sees it happening on their side of some religious or political divide, no amount of any kind of discussion will do anything to help change ir.

That is a little too convoluted for me to follow.
Are you saying that freedom to discuss difficult issues, is the only possible way to achieve an eventual consensus?

 

[Jim]

I’m thinking that as long as most members do not want the insults and personal attacks from their own side of some religious or political divide to stop, more reports resulting in more moderator actions will not do anything to help make the forums more friendly and fun for everyone. I’m thinking that efforts would be better spent on helping people who might be adversely affected by that behavior. For example, maybe discussions and training sponsored by the staff, to help people learn not to be confused, distracted or demoralized by that behavior, and to give friendly attention to people when they might be adversely affected by it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I’m thinking that as long as most members do not want the insults and personal attacks from their own side of some religious or political divide to stop, more reports resulting in more moderator actions will not do anything to help make the forums more friendly and fun for everyone. I’m thinking that efforts would be better spent on helping people who might be adversely affected by that behavior. For example, maybe discussions and training sponsored by the staff, to help people learn not to be confused, distracted or demoralized by that behavior, and to give friendly attention to people when they might be adversely affected by it.

The staff are all volunteers working in their own time. They are already stressed out by the amount of work.
They are neither trained as teachers nor as behaviourists, nor do they have the time to do as you suggest.
However it would certainly be useful, if some members sought help for their behavioural problems and learn how to interact with others in a friendly and meaningful way.

Most of the time the Forum is a very friendly place... but such things go in waves... I have an inkling that the present bad behaviour seen across the web, is enabled and advised by the political atmosphere, and example from the White House.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I would not give it any rating

"Rating?" What are you talking about?
The post to which you responded to was my response to something Polymath wrote, none of which spoke of or had anything to do with "rating posts".

• Polymath wrote: "NOT responding to offensive posts (except for reporting) is the best response."
• I wrote: "Uhhh, .... What if the OP is the offensive post?"
• Talking about "ratings" completely missed my point.

The fact that you do not see the offense in each of my examples assures me that the effort to explain each offense to you would not be productive. So I'm not going to.

 

[Terry Sampson]

What you seem not to realise are that these forums were established as meeting point for people of all faiths and none to come together and discus and debate any thing about those faiths that they wish.

• What you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp is that nothing in your post addresses my fundamental complaint.
• Consequently, I find myself challenged by my inability to convey to you the reason for my complaint in such a way that
  • you ultimately recognize and comprehend my reasoning and,
  • even if you don't agree with my objection,
  • you at least understand it and,
  • even more importantly, you realize that you have nothing rational and reasonable to offer to me that will persuade me to abandon my objection.
• The only thing I can think of doing is telling you a story.
  • Now, I encourage you to read my story, because:
    • After I share it with you, you will understand my objection and either agree with it or you will not agree with it. In either case, you will not post another message to me on the matter unless your post says: "I now understand your objection and agree with it."
• My story:
  • In Fall of 2018, my wife's niece, her husband, her mother, and her step-father gathered at my niece and nephew-in-law's house after dinner, and the mother brought up a recent Trump story. [Although the step-father had initially voted for Trump, he had soured on him.] I excused myself from the discussion about the story because, I explained, I was still annoyed over his meddling in the matter of football players who kneel rather than stand during the standard playing of the national anthem before a game begins.
  • To my slight surprise, the step-father opined that he thought they should stand. Silly me, I pointed out (a) that football is a fairly "recent" phenomenon and neither a federally- nor ecclesisastically mandated event; (b) that singing the national anthem before a game was not a revelation from God, but is a custom introduced several years after football became popular here in the U.S.; (c) that fans of either side often occupied themselves at refreshment stands or in restrooms, or coming in or going out of a stadium ... within earshot of the music; and (d) that I am not a sports fan of any sort. Ergo, I thought Trump's meddling did not contribute anything constructive to the "national" dispute over the matter.
  • The stepfather then proceeded to repeat his opinion, with no interesting or relevant explanations added.
  • I then pointed out that he had just restated almost exactly the same thing that he had said previously, to which he replied: "I have a right to my opinion."
  • I assured him that I agreed that he had a right to his opinion, just as much I had to mine, and now that he and I had stated our two irreconcilable opinions, there was no reason to repeat them. To which he replied: "I just think players should stand during the playing of the national anthem."
  • With some stress but considerable self-restraint, I pointed out that he had now expressed the same opinion, virtually unchanged, a third time and that mystified me. Did he think that I would change my opinion, if he repeated his often enough? I then said that I strongly suspected that when someone repeats the same opinion, slightly changed or virtually unchanged, I conclude that they are not really arguing, they're just metaphorically and intentionally urinating on my foot.
  • He looked at me and smiled at me, but before he could restate his opinion once more, my niece jumped up and stood between us, and I said no more. She later told me that she had intervened because she thought I was going to hit him. I assured her that I wasn't.
  • The evening finally ended without further altercation and shortly thereafter, following some reflection, I stopped talking with him.
• If you have read my story, do not post another message to me unless and until you are ready to explain to me why the stepfather felt that he had to tell me his opinion three times.

 

[Revoltingest]

The staff are all volunteers working in their own time. They are already stressed out by the amount of work.
They are neither trained as teachers nor as behaviourists, nor do they have the time to do as you suggest.
However it would certainly be useful, if some members sought help for their behavioural problems and learn how to interact with others in a friendly and meaningful way.

Most of the time the Forum is a very friendly place... but such things go in waves... I have an inkling that the present bad behaviour seen across the web, is enabled and advised by the political atmosphere, and example from the White House.

The most time effective tool is leading by example.
Even the best rules will fail if unobserved.
Anyone violating the spirit of the forum encourages more
of the same. We all see what passes for normal here, &
that establishes the de facto behavioral standards & limits.
So positive change depends upon everyone intending it.
Did I mention "everyone".

 

[Jim]

The fact that you do not see the offense in each of my examples ...

Not true. I saw something in every one that might offend some people.

 

[Jim]

"Rating?" What are you talking about?
The post to which you responded to was my response to something Polymath wrote, none of which spoke of or had anything to do with "rating posts".

• Polymath wrote: "NOT responding to offensive posts (except for reporting) is the best response."
• I wrote: "Uhhh, .... What if the OP is the offensive post?"
• Talking about "ratings" completely missed my point.

The fact that you do not see the offense in each of my examples assures me that the effort to explain each offense to you would not be productive. So I'm not going to.

Sorry, I misread “offensive” as “offending,” as in “offending against forum rules. I thought that what you were discussing was about responding or not responding to posts that violate forum rules. I’ve been thinking of “responding” as including ratings.

 

[Secret Chief]

Not true. I saw something in every one that might offend some people.

That is of course down to the individual. I did not feel offended by any of them.
And then the staff have to weigh up all such things.

 

[Jim]

That is of course down to the individual. I did not feel offended by any of them.
And then the staff have to weigh up all such things.

I think that insults and personal attacks, and posts that might offend some people, require different responses and need to be considered separately.

 

[Thief]

The most time effective tool is leading by example.
Even the best rules will fail if unobserved.
Anyone violating the spirit of the forum encourages more
of the same. We all see what passes for normal here, &
that establishes the de facto behavioral standards & limits.
So positive change depends upon everyone intending it.
Did I mention "everyone".

does that include you......AND the devil

how would you know?

without insult OR rebuttal
the devil can do a great deal of harm

 

[Secret Chief]

I think that insults and personal attacks, and posts that might offend some people, require different responses and need to be considered separately.

I agree ad homs should always be modded.

 

[Secret Chief]

Here is RF Training Video #1