1. 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 #21: RF Rule 3

Discussion in 'The Interview Place' started by Sunstone, Jun 6, 2020.

?
  1. I strongly disagree with the statement.

    6 vote(s)
    20.7%
  2. I somewhat disagree with the statement.

    1 vote(s)
    3.4%
  3. I neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. I somewhat agree with the statement.

    9 vote(s)
    31.0%
  5. I strongly agree with the statement.

    13 vote(s)
    44.8%
  1. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    73,473
    Ratings:
    +33,341
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

    RF Rule 3 reads in its entirety:

    3. Trolling and Bullying
    Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

    1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

    2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

    3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.


    How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 3 is reasonable."

    Please pick which one of these five options is closest to your views. If you do not see an option that suits you, please accept this poll was not designed for you, and move on.

    OPTION ONE: I strongly agree with the statement.

    OPTION TWO: I mostly agree with the statement.

    OPTION THREE: I neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

    OPTION FOUR: I mostly disagree with the statement.

    OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.
     
  2. Amanaki

    Amanaki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    8,937
    Ratings:
    +5,378
    Religion:
    Falun Gong (Cultivation path)
    I answered strongly agree, because rule 3 is important in a forum.
    I do realize i might have been on the edge of stepping over the line of this rule a few times my self in RF but i see the good in the rule.
     
    #2 Amanaki, Jun 6, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    26,594
    Ratings:
    +8,809
    I strongly agree. I only see it here from fundamentalist whose intent is well meaning aside from their evangalization techniques. So, it's a judgement call. My advice is to make sure it's not based on seniority.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson ζει

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    3,517
    Ratings:
    +2,942
    Religion:
    Creedalist Xian
    How does that work? The longer you've been here, the more rule 3 violation you can get away with?
     
  5. Eddi

    Eddi currently engaged in spiritual warfare

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,287
    Ratings:
    +837
    Religion:
    Christian - currently interested in Liberation Theology
    I voted "strongly agree"

    I like my internet forums nice and civil
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. bobhikes

    bobhikes Nowoligist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,420
    Ratings:
    +2,242
    I agree totally with Number 3 but Number 1 and Number 2 depend on peoples feelings simply stating that Jesus is not God upsets some, Printing their God's name upsets others. These people should stay solely in the Dir or discussion area's. In a debate thread it should be assumed you may be upset or offended and it is not bullying or trolling. In debating I sometimes try to get a rise out of someone to prove a point.
     
  7. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    26,594
    Ratings:
    +8,809
    There are I guess two or "seniors" who, well intentioned, do put down other people's faiths and argue (rather than debate) their positions false. To few even more so it's only open one-way-challenge.

    Say a newbie comes in with the same name, Person X. Person X and the other say the same thing. In many chats I've been to, the newbie is the first questioned. Sometimes they are warned but in some forums it's rare. A strict boot. It depends on what is said but if both were anonymous, that's pretty much the gist.

    Not sure why that is. I haven't been on many chats and forums as much as I used to years ago. I've seen it happen, though. Religious and otherwise.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. stvdv

    stvdv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    7,221
    Ratings:
    +3,970
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    I voted "I strongly agree" ...

    BUT:

    Allowing 1 to be a big jerk might be a good idea, if you see RF as a place to grow, and especially grow in "Peace" and "Love", whatever the provocations. I mean, it is easy to be in Peace if nobody ever can upset you because of strict rules.

    My Master used to say "When there is a group of people meeting in my name, and they are doing very well, then I will send a big troublemaker, just to test how they handle that. And when the group is even better, I will send them a married couple troublemakers".

    Does make sense to me. But after being in His Ashram for 10 years, it's great to have such a peaceful forum, with so many well behaved members.

    So, yes, I voted "I strongly agree":D
     
  9. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    48,052
    Ratings:
    +20,187
    Religion:
    Love
    Side nit pic. The choices in the OP were in the opposite order of the poll choices and worded differently but I got the meaning.

    As with all rules, interpretation is key. I applaud the intent but wound up thinking "what if" or "how about". So this is why I voted "mostly":

    Most people? That sounds like the old argument about "community standards". Most people on RF? Most people in society at large?

    I can't think of one right now, but I'd love to see a better word than "misrepresentation". The word "misrepresentation" is a can-of-worms word. I think people on the right continually misrepresent the left (and I'm sure the favor is returned). I find endless posts where a religion is misrepresented most likely due to ignorance.

    I could have reported quite a few instances of my opinion that some poster misrepresented the meaning of some scripture.

    This happens on a regular basis as part of the interchange between some of us in humor threads.

    I've repeatedly targeted Trump supporters with endless posts. If this was literally interpreted, I'd be considered to be a bully. Well maybe I am, but I don't think of myself as one o_O:confused:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. danieldemol

    danieldemol Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,275
    Ratings:
    +2,520
    Religion:
    Baha'i inspired liberal
    I strongly disagree with part1 about catering to the offended just because they happen to be in the majority, but agree to the rest, so i’m going with strongly disagree.
     
  11. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    6,546
    Ratings:
    +6,417
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    Although I voted 1, what you say is actually quite interesting, and I wonder how Rule 3 can be adapted to accomodate your concern.

    I generally don't think trolling and bullying are good things, which explains my vote, but I also think that it cannot be considered "bullying" to express a viewpoint which is generally debated. And it cannot be denied that in philosophical and academic circles, the divinity of Jesus, or the historicity or literal truth of the Bible, Qur'an and other texts is and has been debated for a long time.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,362
    Ratings:
    +1,157
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    Part one is problematic, but the rest of the rules important. I would also like to point out that this rule is vulnerable to the way its being applied. For example, if I say "abortion is murder", have I breached rule number 2 and/or 3? If I say "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". Have I breached the rule? Is it applied consistently and fairly?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    14,393
    Ratings:
    +6,008
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    It's a somewhat vague "rule" as it's inevitably going to be subjectively defined and applied relative to specific interactions. But I don't really see how that can be avoided. And as long as the people imposing the rules are being moderate and reasonable about it, it will work out fine.

    The thing that really matters, here, I think, is who you are choosing to interpret and apply the rules, not so much what the rules are, themselves. And so far, from what I have seen, the managers are doing a very good job.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Secret Chief

    Secret Chief Meghalayan Ape

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,594
    Ratings:
    +1,480
    Strongly agree. But of course the devil is in the interpretation and administration.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    6,546
    Ratings:
    +6,417
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    I had to change my vote, because the options in the OP were not in the same order as the options in the poll itself. So in fact, I voted 5 "strongly agree."
     
  16. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,647
    Ratings:
    +2,149
    Religion:
    none
    I mostly agree. In fact I agree with all points but it is all in the interpretation. I don't know how this could be worded less vague or if it could be done at all nor if it should be done. There has to be some wiggle room.
     
  17. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Hihg Intellajence Kwoshunt.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    166,466
    Ratings:
    +51,499
    Religion:
    Bokononist Atheism
    The order of the poll questions doesn't align with the post.
    I mistakenly picked the first to strongly agree,
    then I noticed that I was strongly disagreeing.
    I now strongly agree. That was a close one!

    Would the rule mean that people shouldn't be using "libtard",
    "deplorable", "the usual suspects", "boot lickers" & other such
    epithets to insult groups & posters in (or accused of being in) them?
    I think it should.
     
    #17 Revoltingest, Jun 6, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2020
  18. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Hihg Intellajence Kwoshunt.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    166,466
    Ratings:
    +51,499
    Religion:
    Bokononist Atheism
    You're as careless as I am?
    You should be deeply ashamed.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson ζει

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    3,517
    Ratings:
    +2,942
    Religion:
    Creedalist Xian
    Once again, I find myself having to strongly disagree with a statement saying that a rule, in this case Rule 3, is reasonable. My rationale:
    (a) Right up front, I readily agree that, if the mission of RF is to promote civil, informative exchanges of information between members then, I strongly agree that "Unacceptable behaviors and content include" the three things listed. However, IMO,
    • What if the content is itself prima facie evidence to the target of the content that the OP is, from the get-go, needlessly offensive?
    • E.g. A Jehovah's Witness starts a thread addressed to Jews that opens with the question: Why did Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah?
      • Now, I realize that one kind of has to have a clue in order to recognize the needless offense in it, but I'm a non-JW Christian and I'm telling you that that kind of question has "offense" emblazoned on it from the thread title to the last post of the OP's author. The clueless, of course, will never recognize the offense.
    • E.g. A Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness starts a thread addressed to Trinitarian Christians inviting the latter's attempt to explain and justify the Doctrine of the Trinity.
      • The clueless, again, will fail to appreciate the offense in the post. What offense, they will ask, can there be in a civil request for a persuasive presentation of the Doctrine of the Trinity?
      • Only when someone points out that, in the 170+ years since their beginnings in the U.S., the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-Day-Saints have pretty much scripted their arguments against the Doctrine of the Trinity and have a decent handle on their positions, can anyone begin to see "a clue". In other words, their very first post is about at civil as the lawyer's question to the defendant: "So, when did you stop being your wife?" They initiate a debate over a controversial subject matter with no intent to be informed or persuaded to change their minds in the slightest. They have but one goal, and it's to offend.
    • So, when is an offense an offense? When a minority or a majority see it and call it for what it is?
    • Does someone want "to redeem" Rule 3. Section 1 Require background checks. If a background check confirms that a poster had good cause and reason to know that their post was offensive, ding 'em or whack 'em, but don't let it slide.
     
  20. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson ζει

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    3,517
    Ratings:
    +2,942
    Religion:
    Creedalist Xian
    I dunno: I kinda like "boot lickers". It has a certain je ne sais quoi to it.
     
Loading...