ATTENTION -- RF Member Survey

[Dan From Smithville]

The negative frubal button.....
It would be used against me with wild abandon.
And I'd retaliate with even greater gusto.
I won't be alone in this.
How'll that work out?

That is why I do not want it.

I would get severe carpal tunnel syndrome just using it on you. Of course, I would have to go back through your entire posting history too. Can't let any of those go without judgment.

Then I would want them to allow unlimited use of it.

Can you imagine the orthopedic issue this alone would create?

 

[columbus]

The negative frubal button.....
It would be used against me with wild abandon.
And I'd retaliate with even greater gusto.
I won't be alone in this.
How'll that work out?

Do what I do.
Redefine the rainbow rating as "Ew, that is so gay!"
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Trumpish nonsense.

The offer to make it yours was made and you turned it down.
Tom

That's nice.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is why I do not want it.

I would get severe carpal tunnel syndrome just using it on you. Of course, I would have to go back through your entire posting history too. Can't let any of those go without judgment.

Then I would want them to allow unlimited use of it.

Can you imagine the orthopedic issue this alone would create?

For health reasons, it must be stopped at all costs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The negative frubal button.....
It would be used against me with wild abandon.
And I'd retaliate with even greater gusto.
I won't be alone in this.
How'll that work out?

I think this post should receive wide ratings from any passerby.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For health reasons, it must be stopped at all costs.

I think we owe it to the future to be vigilant against a negative rating button.

 

[columbus]

But mainly, there are the darned DIRs.

Which DIRs are you referring to?

I completely understand why Jewish people don't want a Muslim butting into a thread about Jewish stuff with threats against Israel. I understand why a Hindu doesn't want a Christian invading their discussion of holidays with threats of hell.

I understand why religionists don't want outsiders barging in to their personal discussions.
I understand why Religious Forums has "Discuss Individual Religion" forums. So religionists can keep their unsupported and irrational beliefs away from other religionists.

But RF has extended that privilege to political and social ideology. Like "conservative" or "feminist". I don't find that a good idea.

If feminists can't explain the difference between egalitarianism and feminism, then maybe protecting the echo chamber isn't really in their best interests.
Just a thought. I'm not PMing anybody about anything, much less a complaint against RF. I quite like RF, and all it's perfect imperfections...
Tom

 

[Daemon Sophic]

"Debater Slayer, post: 6327758, member: 29781"]This series of questions may influence forum-wide changes. Please answer them in as much detail as you can.

In this specific case, if moderation or interactions with a specific member or members are involved in your answer, please PM me the answer so that your answer doesn't violate Rule 2 or Rule 1, respectively.

- What brings you to RF? Fun (jokes etc.. threads), and politics usually, third is religious ideas. These latter two are usually in the form of wondering what various people think about items in the recent news, and that dwindling hope that I might be able to enlighten some who don’t have answers in regards to straight facts or scientific findings.

- What, if anything, would discourage you from posting on RF or make you less likely to come here? Being ban-hammered for telling facts would make me leave altogether. Not much other posters can do that would discourage me.

- What, if anything, would you like to see done differently, whether in regard to forum sections, member interactions, or moderation/the rules? Nothing really. Tis nice here.

(Again, for answers related to the last quesion, please PM me the answer instead of posting it publicly, per Rule 2.)

- If you used to be less active but have become more active, what has caused this change?
- If you used to be more active but have become less active, what has caused this change?
I am as constant as the Northern Star.

Speak your mind as openly as you want and use PMs if need be (for the reasons clarified above). This survey is important. Your answers will be forwarded to the staff for consideration unless you explicitly request otherwise. Nice job.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The negative frubal button.....
It would be used against me with wild abandon.
And I'd retaliate with even greater gusto.
I won't be alone in this.
How'll that work out?

While a mocking or insulting negative frubal would be a very bad idea, I thing that a “I respectfully disagree with you post—-frubal” would be very useful....and is lacking here.

 

[metis]

This series of questions may influence forum-wide changes. Please answer them in as much detail as you can.

In this specific case, if moderation or interactions with a specific member or members are involved in your answer, please PM me the answer so that your answer doesn't violate Rule 2 or Rule 1, respectively.

- What brings you to RF?

- What, if anything, would discourage you from posting on RF or make you less likely to come here?

- What, if anything, would you like to see done differently, whether in regard to forum sections, member interactions, or moderation/the rules?

(Again, for answers related to the last quesion, please PM me the answer instead of posting it publicly, per Rule 2.)

- If you used to be less active but have become more active, what has caused this change?

- If you used to be more active but have become less active, what has caused this change?

Speak your mind as openly as you want and use PMs if need be (for the reasons clarified above). This survey is important. Your answers will be forwarded to the staff for consideration unless you explicitly request otherwise.

Thanks in advance.

I really enjoy it here as it is, so I can't really add anything that I think would need to be changed, imo. My only real gripe here is that there are some whom are very religiously bigoted to the point whereas I was considering leaving here a couple of years ago. They would condemn an entire religion or denomination instead of sticking to discussing specific teachings.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which DIRs are you referring to?

I completely understand why Jewish people don't want a Muslim butting into a thread about Jewish stuff with threats against Israel. I understand why a Hindu doesn't want a Christian invading their discussion of holidays with threats of hell.

No argument there. But a "closed borders" policy is no solution - at least, no a solution worth the trouble, IMO.

I think that it would be ultimately far better to expect posters to be more responsible for what they say, and when. To have full voice in the DIRs or other areas, but to accept the risk of learning after the fact that they have crossed boundaries that they might prefer not to.

There are several reasons why I find that a superior situation.

1. Negative prejudice, the value of daring in the right circunstances. It is often very worthwhile to learn respectful input from people that we would otherwise expect to have nothing relevant to tell us. And it happens, fortunately very often even.

2. Positive prejudice, the responsibility of being worth of previously given consideration. This is a bit of the reverse of the above: brothers in faith can sometimes be the most obnoxious of people, and probably should not expect to be spared from criticism or other consequences simply because they fulfill whatever parameters make them adherents of the same doctrine.

3. The artificial nature of the distinctions. Any given group will have subgroups of its own, and very often there will also be frontier / transition groups of some sort with other larger groups, or even rebel groups that attempt to subvert or renew the purpose of the larger group entirely, not necessarily consciously. There is a lot of self-defeat in any efforts at promoting the continued acknowledgement of the larger group at the expense of the practical reality. That is even more true because there is also a lot of true common ground in otherwise unconnected groups - and if anything, that is particularly true of religious groups. It is quite a shame that we are not promoting the dialogue among those people as much as we could.

4. The opportunity to learn the responsibility of expression and to learn better from those that hold other views. I may be a bit optimistic here, but I sincerely see those as some of the core parts of RF's mission. The DIRs are to a large measure a stranglehold curtailing those opportunities.

5. Respect is not circunstantial. Being behind the solid walls of some sort of echo chamber is IMO no excuse to become, say, a celebrator of the death of Osama Abin Laden and pretend that he was not a real person. I for one see little appeal and less constructive defense for such an approach.

I understand why religionists don't want outsiders barging in to their personal discussions.

Sure, there is definitely a place for some sort of invitation-only discussion. But the DIRs aren't that, and I don't know that we have the means to quite implement that. Same Faith and One-on-One are the closest so far.

I understand why Religious Forums has "Discuss Individual Religion" forums. So religionists can keep their unsupported and irrational beliefs away from other religionists.

I think that you just made one of my points for me.

But RF has extended that privilege to political and social ideology. Like "conservative" or "feminist". I don't find that a good idea.

To be sure, that is a two-sided sword at best, and for many of the same reasons. There is also the fact that in politics there are even more reasons to want to reach mutual support and understanding among diverging groups than in religion, and the existence of separate areas can't help but discourage that. A related matter is that establishing who belongs to each group is unavoidably both a bit arbitrary and a form of reinforcing artificial labels that do not deserve to be lent significance.

If feminists can't explain the difference between egalitarianism and feminism, then maybe protecting the echo chamber isn't really in their best interests.

Perhaps. I honestly don't know enough to have much of an opinion there.

Just a thought. I'm not PMing anybody about anything, much less a complaint against RF. I quite like RF, and all it's perfect imperfections...
Tom

So do I.

 

[Revoltingest]

While a mocking or insulting negative frubal would be a very bad idea, I thing that a “I respectfully disagree with you post—-frubal” would be very useful....and is lacking here.

I see no need....only downside.
If one disagrees, one can post this & one's reasons.
And if someone else has already done so, frubal their post.
We've enuf negativity already.
The forum should be run to emphasize positive attitudes.

 

[crossfire]

This series of questions may influence forum-wide changes. Please answer them in as much detail as you can.

In this specific case, if moderation or interactions with a specific member or members are involved in your answer, please PM me the answer so that your answer doesn't violate Rule 2 or Rule 1, respectively.

- What brings you to RF?

Interesting discussion

- What, if anything, would discourage you from posting on RF or make you less likely to come here?

Lack of respect for the DIRs

- What, if anything, would you like to see done differently, whether in regard to forum sections, member interactions, or moderation/the rules?

Politics only forums getting opt in status like the DIRs

- If you used to be less active but have become more active, what has caused this change?

N/A

- If you used to be more active but have become less active, what has caused this change?

Lack of respect for the DIRs and politics "only" forums

 

[Revoltingest]

Lack of respect for the DIRs and politics "only" forums

I'd add that restricted forums shouldn't be used to insult outsiders,
who are prohibited from responding in the same venue.

 

[crossfire]

I'd add that restricted forums shouldn't be used to insult outsiders,
who are prohibited from responding in the same venue.

That is covered in Rule 10.2

 

[Revoltingest]

That is covered in Rule 10

This is the Rule #10 I see....
"Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums"
It's missing at least a verb, & doesn't prohibit abusing outsiders.
Perhaps some prior version of the ever changing rules covered it?

 

[Rival]

This is the Rule #10 I see....
"Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums"
It's missing at least a verb, & doesn't prohibit abusing outsiders.
Perhaps some prior version of the ever changing rules covered it?

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads.

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there.

The staff more strictly moderate Rule 10 violations where there is some other rule violation involved, such as preaching in a DIR or trolling a political forum a member doesn't belong to. More benign violations may be subject to informal reminders or moving threads to the appropriate location.

 

[crossfire]

This is the Rule #10 I see....
"Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums"
It's missing at least a verb, & doesn't prohibit abusing outsiders.
Perhaps some prior version of the ever changing rules covered it?

screenshot of this page: RF Rules

 

[Revoltingest]

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads.

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there.

The staff more strictly moderate Rule 10 violations where there is some other rule violation involved, such as preaching in a DIR or trolling a political forum a member doesn't belong to. More benign violations may be subject to informal reminders or moving threads to the appropriate location.

Where does this appear?
It's not under Terms & Rules or Rules & Guidelines.
Oh....there it is under....
Forum News and Announcements
.....just not accessible from the home page.

Ya know, having Rules in 2 different locations, & not
being linked or the same as each other poses a problem.
I thought I'd found the rules, but lo! I didn't.

 

[crossfire]

If feminists can't explain the difference between egalitarianism and feminism, then maybe protecting the echo chamber isn't really in their best interests.
Just a thought. I'm not PMing anybody about anything, much less a complaint against RF. I quite like RF, and all it's perfect imperfections...
Tom

The difference between feminism and egalitarianism is that feminism actively uncovers and critiques the cultural nomos, which feminists call "The Patriarchy." (Feminism is antinomian.)