PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I got a better one. The DIR DIR, when one DIR in the name and the limits on disagreement, just isn't enough.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Important Questionnaire #19: Rule 1
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I got a better one. The DIR DIR, when one DIR in the name and the limits on disagreement, just isn't enough.
Point taken. Thank you!
Heyo
Veteran Member
Not an easy task. But as a suggestion:
1. a) Name calling
Never use an attribute that a user hasn't used her/himself. I.e. "You are ..." (she is) should only be followed by an attribute the user has agreed to be.
The same goes for protected groups of people.
Use "your position seems to be ..." or similar.
1. b) Never talk behind other peoples backThe same goes for protected groups of people.
Use "your position seems to be ..." or similar.
Make use of the "@" function when talking about other users. [Description on how to]
1. c) Moving a tangent to a new discussion/debateWhen a subject comes up that doesn't fit under the current header, create a new discussion/debate. Cite the relevant passage and invite participants using the "@" function in the new OP and/or make a note with a link in the old OP. Make sure all participants have access to the new OP. (Better not move to a (different) DIR)
Rule #1 is fine as written.
But as with laws, there is de juro & then there is de facto.
These 2 aspects of the rule are at odds far too often.
Moreover, the de facto version is a moving target, ie,
a changing ill defined line which shall not be crossed.
And dare I say it.....some are exempt from the rule.
If RF is to be a place where the spirit of the forum is honored,
then the rules must apply equally at all times to all who post.
Further affiant sayeth naught, lest lines be crossed.
But as with laws, there is de juro & then there is de facto.
These 2 aspects of the rule are at odds far too often.
Moreover, the de facto version is a moving target, ie,
a changing ill defined line which shall not be crossed.
And dare I say it.....some are exempt from the rule.
If RF is to be a place where the spirit of the forum is honored,
then the rules must apply equally at all times to all who post.
Further affiant sayeth naught, lest lines be crossed.
What about saying "a certain user said so and so", "there was a user who said x"?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Good question. You could use that when the message is important and the source is not, especially when you can't find the source. It's somewhat like "A wise man once said". Generally you should always give credit when using quotes but that's for academic writing in general and doesn't need to be included in the forum rules.
I'd put that on an advice or "best practices" page.
Let's consider insults which target groups instead of individuals.
Rule 1 doesn't apply, but I argue that it should because this too
causes hostilities. We see frequent use of the terms "boot lickers",
"whining", "retarded", "trolling", "libtard" etc.
We also see posters criticizing mischievous hypothetical responses
eg, "Inb4 the usual suspects come here MAGA". This is a pre-emptive
attack on any who might disagree. Should they get away with it
simply no individual is named?
Certainly, this raises hackles, & interferes with civil discussion.
Rule 1 doesn't apply, but I argue that it should because this too
causes hostilities. We see frequent use of the terms "boot lickers",
"whining", "retarded", "trolling", "libtard" etc.
We also see posters criticizing mischievous hypothetical responses
eg, "Inb4 the usual suspects come here MAGA". This is a pre-emptive
attack on any who might disagree. Should they get away with it
simply no individual is named?
Certainly, this raises hackles, & interferes with civil discussion.
Last edited:
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Where is the line to be drawn?
The Has Greta studied this? thread is nothing more than an attack on Greta.
I don't remember that thread well at all.
But a personal attack on someone not a member would be different.
I imagine that there should be a limit on abusing even non-members.
That would require some thought.
Members should be protected more though.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
I am not presenting an argument.
I am merely wondering where the line should be drawn.
And I agree that attacking someone who is not a member is different.
Mainly because they are not able to defend themselves.
And I only used that particular thread because I had just looked in on it right before that particular post of mine.
I didn't think you were arguing.
It was an interesting question.
I see a need to treat members with greater respect.
Insulting outsiders has far less deleterious of an effect on civil discourse here.
But of course, too much hatred for outsiders can also adversely affect things here.
Limits on outsiders....I don't know how to define what would be appropriate.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
I have to wonder how much of the disrespect transfers.
I mean, if we are allowed to say whatever we want about nonmembers how much of that spills over onto members?
Regarding figures that posters like, eg, politicians, religious figures,
it does create some animosity. There is an ad hoc rule against
posting drawings of the Prophet Muhammed with a bomb on his head.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
don't get me wrong, I am not saying that members should not be allowed to voice their opinions about celebrities, politicians, etc.
I just can not help but wonder where the line should be drawn.
Though I suspect that there should be more than one line.
with loop holes and previsions and quid pro quos....
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
There's a civil, stern way to object to offensive behaviour without resorting to personal attacks. Every member should be allowed to engage other members civil and stern.
I'm not a believer in vengeance. It's the responsibility of every member to be forthright to other members. Anything less is unacceptable.
Gaslighting is devious.
I'm not a believer in vengeance. It's the responsibility of every member to be forthright to other members. Anything less is unacceptable.
Gaslighting is devious.
Accusations of it on a discussion forum are more so.
Disagreements about perceptions & issues are not an attempt to induce insanity.
