Important Questionnaire #27: RF Rule 9

[Sunstone]

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 9 reads in its entirety:

9. Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission
The mission of Religious Forums is to provide a civil, informative, respectful, and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate. Content members create while debating and discussing must be done in the spirit of productivity. Bashing other forums, creating unproductive content or responses to others, attempting to use this site as a platform for campaigning for or against or furthering a personal agenda, and attempting to undermine the forum mission may result in moderation.

How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 9 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 somewhat agree with the statement.

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

OPTION FOUR: I somewhat disagree with the statement.

OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.

 

[sun rise]

I agree given the careful wording about "may" result in moderation. We campaign for/against and promote personal agendas all the time but the rest of the rule, the first two sentences, gives needed perspective.

 

[bobhikes]

I agree with the statement, I dont think enforcement is done without bias on the forum.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree given the careful wording about "may" result in moderation. We campaign for/against and promote personal agendas all the time but the rest of the rule, the first two sentences, gives needed perspective.

"May" is problematic.
"Personal agendas" are why we're here.

I strongly agree with.....
"The mission of Religious Forums is to provide a civil, informative,
respectful, and welcoming environment where people of diverse
beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate. Content members
create while debating and discussing must be done in the spirit
of productivity."

 

[Kenny]

or furthering a personal agenda,

I'm not sure what that means. Atheists agenda almost always is a personal agenda to get someone to question one's faith when dealing with religion- a personal agenda. Religious people's agenda towards atheists is almost always to question their position - a personal agenda.

HOWEVER,

I don't think I have ever seen that to be a problem.

So, just my musings.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure what that means. Atheists agenda almost always is a personal agenda to get someone to question one's faith when dealing with religion- a personal agenda. Religious people's agenda towards atheists is almost always to question their position - a personal agenda.

HOWEVER,

I don't think I have ever seen that to be a problem.

So, just my musings.

What irks me is when things become uncivil, eg,
misrepresenting the other's views, personal attacks.
But someone's personal agenda....that's fine.

 

[Rival]

"Personal agendas" are why we're here.

To me, a personal agenda is when someone is here only to post continually about one topic. So it would be those folks who only ever start threads about how bad Islam is; or look what the socialists are doing now; or their 58374th proof of G-d. We all know these posters.

 

[Revoltingest]

To me, a personal agenda is when someone is here only to post continually about one topic. So it would be those folks who only ever start threads about how bad Islam is; or look what the socialists are doing now; or their 58374th proof of G-d. We all know these posters.

If they're civil, the best response is to ignore such posts & threads.
The problem is being repetitive & uninteresting.
To prohibit such posts seems a cure worse than the disease.
We all need our personal agendas, eg, bacon, capitalism, ham,
atheism, pork chops, libertarianism, chocolate, ham hocks.

 

[Heyo]

"May" is problematic.
"Personal agendas" are why we're here.

I strongly agree with.....
"The mission of Religious Forums is to provide a civil, informative,
respectful, and welcoming environment where people of diverse
beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate. Content members
create while debating and discussing must be done in the spirit
of productivity."

^ This.

 

[Kenny]

What irks me is when things become uncivil, eg,
misrepresenting the other's views, personal attacks.
But someone's personal agenda....that's fine.

I think that is covered in another area for moderators?

LOL... I remember teaching... "Don't put too many laws. The more laws you have, the more you have to watch and the more you have to correct."

Grace is better. And principles.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that is covered in another area for moderators?

LOL... I remember teaching... "Don't put too many laws. The more laws you have, the more you have to watch and the more you have to correct."

Grace is better. And principles.

The very existence of laws can create
crimes out of ordinary behavior.

 

[Kenny]

The very existence of laws can create
crimes out of ordinary behavior.

This is true... though laws are good, it awakens crimes. When mom said "Don't get a cookie", something awakened and my hand reached into the cookie jar.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is true... though laws are good, it awakens crimes. When mom said "Don't get a cookie", something awakened and my hand reached into the cookie jar.

I was thinking of a different mechanism.
Example....
Campaign finance laws have created such a complex environment
that very many politicians violate them without intending to or even
knowing they did.

 

[Kenny]

I was thinking of a different mechanism.
Example....
Campaign finance laws have created such a complex environment
that very many politicians violate them without intending to or even
knowing they did.

True.... true.