ATTENTION -- RF Member Survey

[crossfire]

Be careful....it sounds like a joke,
but I've been wrong about that here.
We need a <confused> frubal, eh.

It is true, but I chose those words purposefully not only because it very much fits in the metaphorical sense, but to also give a bit of humor to a sensitive subject.
See more here: What is Feminism, and how does it relate to Animus Individuation?

Sorry for the wandering post--hopefully this will close this tangent.

We can take this tangent to a new thread I started for this purpose:
Third Wave Feminism is Basically Vivisection of the Cultural Nomos

 

[Rival]

Wondering how people would feel about adding personal forums?

The way they work is that each member would have the option of creating their own forum and inviting whoever they like. They're basically just a place for you and your friends to hang out in between debates etc.

They're sort of like DIRs only with a social focus.

A forum site I belonged to before I found RF had this feature and it was nice.

I don't see why not. We could at least try it.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?
Enjoy debating theists/deists. To a lesser degree, debating political and social issues

- What, if anything, would discourage you from posting on RF or make you less likely to come here?
Too restrictive an environment and a push to discourage language or ideas that are deemed "politically incorrect".

- What, if anything, would you like to see done differently, whether in regard to forum sections, member interactions, or moderation/the rules?
I would like to see the ability to do live one on one chats with another member and have the ability do do them either publicly or privately.
Besides the regular moderators, have "guest moderators" who moderate for a short period of time. This gives others a chance to see how moderation works, and for RF to "test run" potential moderators.
Also, can the entire forum be made searchable with key words???

(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 find the same arguments from the same group of individuals coming up over and over when the argument has been countered successfully numerous times already.

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.

 

[Milton Platt]

Wondering how people would feel about adding personal forums?

The way they work is that each member would have the option of creating their own forum and inviting whoever they like. They're basically just a place for you and your friends to hang out in between debates etc.

They're sort of like DIRs only with a social focus.

A forum site I belonged to before I found RF had this feature and it was nice.

I've never thought of that...I like the idea....but I'm not a moderator, so we'll have to both wait and see what happens.....

 

[Koldo]

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.

1) I am interested in religion, philosophy and politics. The ability to, mostly, freely speak about those subjects is what makes me come back.

2) If only DIRs existed I would leave for good.

3) I would love to see the gap that allows people to play around the rules to be closed. Let me be more specific on what I mean. It is completely against the rules to say that a member is an idiot. However, it is completely acceptable to say that someone's post is the most retarded thing one has ever read. Out of here though, those two things are entirely equivalent. People have been using irony and sarcasm to attack others for ages due to this gap.

 

[Rival]

It is completely against the rules to say that a member is an idiot. However, it is completely acceptable to say that someone's post is the most retarded thing one has ever read.

One can attack ideas, not members.

 

[Koldo]

One can attack ideas, not members.

Depending on how you attack the ideas, you ARE effectively attacking the member.
Tell someone's book seems like written by a 5 years old, in their face, and see what happens next.

 

[Rival]

Depending on how you attack the ideas, you ARE effectively attacking the member.

Not really. If someone attacks your faith and you percieve that as a direct attack on you, then you need to chill out.

 

[Koldo]

Not really. If someone attacks your faith and you percieve that as a direct attack on you, then you need to chill out.

Yes, really. I am not even talking about attacking someone's faith. I am talking about recklessly attacking what someone has said. This is distinct from making proper criticism.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

3) I would love to see the gap that allows people to play around the rules to be closed. Let me be more specific on what I mean. It is completely against the rules to say that a member is an idiot. However, it is completely acceptable to say that someone's post is the most retarded thing one has ever read. Out of here though, those two things are entirely equivalent. People have been using irony and sarcasm to attack others for ages due to this gap.

The second one would also most likely be moderated, but under rule 3 rather than rule 1. But I see what you're saying, and it's totally true that there are people who attempt to revise their statements in just such a way to skirt the rules. Such as changing 'you are lying/a liar' to 'you're being dishonest/that statement is dishonest.' And I much dislike having to deal with the nuance of when it becomes too much over the line. But that's the job. To make that sort of judgement call.