• 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 #8: Reporting Rules Violations

Please See OP Before Responding to Poll

  • I report all or almost all of the serious rules violations that I notice.

    Votes: 10 23.3%
  • I report more than half of the serious rules violations that I notice.

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • I report half or roughly half of the serious rules violations that I notice.

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • I report less than half of the serious rules violations that I notice.

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • I report none or almost none of the serious rules violations that I notice.

    Votes: 19 44.2%

  • Total voters
    43

Jim

Nets of Wonder
"Rating?" What are you talking about?
The post to which you responded to was my response to something Polymath wrote, none of which spoke of or had anything to do with "rating posts".
  • Polymath wrote: "NOT responding to offensive posts (except for reporting) is the best response."
  • I wrote: "Uhhh, .... What if the OP is the offensive post?"
  • Talking about "ratings" completely missed my point.
The fact that you do not see the offense in each of my examples assures me that the effort to explain each offense to you would not be productive. So I'm not going to.
Here are some offenses that I saw in your examples:
- Insinuating that some people are not sane, rational, and reasonable.
- Insinuating that many Christians worship the Sun.
- Saying that Jesus will send some people to hell.
- Insinuating that some people believe nonsense.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I misread “offensive” as “offending,” as in “offending against forum rules. I thought that what you were discussing was about responding or not responding to posts that violate forum rules. I’ve been thinking of “responding” as including ratings.
LOL!
  • X posts an OP.
  • I see and read the OP.
  • The OP offends me.
  • The Forum Mission Statement is:
    • Screenshot_2020-05-13.png
    • For emphasis, note that the mission statement says: "our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming"
      • "where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate religion"
      • "while engaging in fellowship with one another."
  • Forum Rule #9 forbids "Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission."
  • If an OP offends me, does it subvert/undermine the Forum Mission?
    • If I decide to ignore the OP and do not respond, the OP stands, I move on, and the world turns.
    • If I respond to the OP and offend the OP author, the thread deteriorates in civility, information-value, respectfulness, AND welcomeness, AND the Forum Mission is subverted/undermined, wouldn't you agree?
  • Polymath's advice was: Ignore offensive posts.
  • My question to Polymath was: What should I do if an OP offends me and I don't want to ignore the offense?
  • Rival said: "Report it."
  • Nobody, except perhaps you, has fussed over rating it or not rating it.
  • IMO, your answer is no answer.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The staff are all volunteers working in their own time. They are already stressed out by the amount of work.
They are neither trained as teachers nor as behaviourists, nor do they have the time to do as you suggest.
I wasn’t thinking of the staff doing the training. I was thinking of some other members doing it with their approval.
 
Last edited:

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The most time effective tool is leading by example.
Even the best rules will fail if unobserved.
Anyone violating the spirit of the forum encourages more
of the same. We all see what passes for normal here, &
that establishes the de facto behavioral standards & limits.
So positive change depends upon everyone intending it.
Did I mention "everyone".

Absolutely. and I have no knowledge of anyone acting as is they are "above" the rules.
However the rules are broken from time to time, and people find themselves excluded for a period of time or even permanently. It is usually the case that such people do learn to conform to the ethos of the forums.

Provided a large majority do share the same ethos and transgressors are duly excluded. it becomes the prevailing and established ethos going forward.
Consistent application of these rules and reinforcement of that ethos, has kept these forums the happy place it is. This is no small achievement when you consider the diverse membership.

However it must be remembered that what passes for normal good behaviour here, is a standard rarely achieved elsewhere. It takes a little while for new members to fall into line.
Even during our lowest points we are usually better behaved than can be found on many forums.
  • What you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp is that nothing in your post addresses my fundamental complaint.
  • Consequently, I find myself challenged by my inability to convey to you the reason for my complaint in such a way that
    • you ultimately recognize and comprehend my reasoning and,
    • even if you don't agree with my objection,
    • you at least understand it and,
    • even more importantly, you realize that you have nothing rational and reasonable to offer to me that will persuade me to abandon my objection.
  • The only thing I can think of doing is telling you a story.
    • Now, I encourage you to read my story, because:
      • After I share it with you, you will understand my objection and either agree with it or you will not agree with it. In either case, you will not post another message to me on the matter unless your post says: "I now understand your objection and agree with it."
  • My story:
    • In Fall of 2018, my wife's niece, her husband, her mother, and her step-father gathered at my niece and nephew-in-law's house after dinner, and the mother brought up a recent Trump story. [Although the step-father had initially voted for Trump, he had soured on him.] I excused myself from the discussion about the story because, I explained, I was still annoyed over his meddling in the matter of football players who kneel rather than stand during the standard playing of the national anthem before a game begins.
    • To my slight surprise, the step-father opined that he thought they should stand. Silly me, I pointed out (a) that football is a fairly "recent" phenomenon and neither a federally- nor ecclesisastically mandated event; (b) that singing the national anthem before a game was not a revelation from God, but is a custom introduced several years after football became popular here in the U.S.; (c) that fans of either side often occupied themselves at refreshment stands or in restrooms, or coming in or going out of a stadium ... within earshot of the music; and (d) that I am not a sports fan of any sort. Ergo, I thought Trump's meddling did not contribute anything constructive to the "national" dispute over the matter.
    • The stepfather then proceeded to repeat his opinion, with no interesting or relevant explanations added.
    • I then pointed out that he had just restated almost exactly the same thing that he had said previously, to which he replied: "I have a right to my opinion."
    • I assured him that I agreed that he had a right to his opinion, just as much I had to mine, and now that he and I had stated our two irreconcilable opinions, there was no reason to repeat them. To which he replied: "I just think players should stand during the playing of the national anthem."
    • With some stress but considerable self-restraint, I pointed out that he had now expressed the same opinion, virtually unchanged, a third time and that mystified me. Did he think that I would change my opinion, if he repeated his often enough? I then said that I strongly suspected that when someone repeats the same opinion, slightly changed or virtually unchanged, I conclude that they are not really arguing, they're just metaphorically and intentionally urinating on my foot.
    • He looked at me and smiled at me, but before he could restate his opinion once more, my niece jumped up and stood between us, and I said no more. She later told me that she had intervened because she thought I was going to hit him. I assured her that I wasn't.
    • The evening finally ended without further altercation and shortly thereafter, following some reflection, I stopped talking with him.
  • If you have read my story, do not post another message to me unless and until you are ready to explain to me why the stepfather felt that he had to tell me his opinion three times.

The step father probably repeated himself three times because he felt that he was not getting through to you. the final time because he wanted the last word.

People do repeat themselves constantly. it seems to be a normal human failing. why it afflicts your
stepfathers is another matter entirely, and one I am not privy to, but it can not be thought unusual or unexpected.

In most cases repeated repetitions are as harmless as they are irritating.
It is the stock in trade of Politicians at every level.
It is one of the foundations of effective advertising and campaigning.

I am surprised that you are so sensitive , offended and so put out by it.

However in relation to the rules of these forums "repetition" has never been in any way a matter of concern, and would be impossible to legislate for.

On another level entirely, nearly all the topics we see on these forum have been repeated endlessly . Every crop of newcomers start the same threads, repeat the same arguments, and attack the same people and faiths in the same way as their predecessors have always done. we become inured to such repetition.
It take a little while for newcomers to understand how this forum works, and it is only when the light dawns on them, that they move on to become useful contributors.

It soon becomes clear to us that not all members operate at the same level of education or understanding, or indeed the ability to tolerate the same level of criticism or contradiction. and we must all make allowances for those aspects we find irritating, or indeed unacceptable in others.
At times we are all offended by what we read, but rules can not legislate for our personal feelings, especially when it is impossible to define what individuals might be or might not be offended by.

New faces are the life blood of any forum, and is the powerhouse of advancement and change. This forum is like a living thing. it grows and changes all the time. new members eventually become new members of staff. new ideas inform new rules... and new sub forums... life goes on.

The forum founder Owner, like God, sits unseen (mostly) in the background, and is the final arbiter of all things RF... No doubt the Administrators know more about the direction he wishes the forum to move in, than a mere ancient member like myself.
However we should never forget that this is a privately owned forum, it is not a democracy.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
That is a little too convoluted for me to follow.
I agree ad homs should always be modded.
I see that I’m making some distinctions that other people might not be aware of at all:
- Insults and personal attacks: disparaging people’s character and capacities, and vilifying their motives and intentions.
- Popular stereotypes, which can sometimes do long term psychological damage to people.
- People calling what other people say “offensive,” or saying that they feel offended by it, which has become a popular way of intimidating people, and a popular excuse for censorship and oppression.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
the final time because he wanted the last word.
Ahhh, ... there ya go. "The last word." And that's the bane of my existence: I'm surrounded by knuckleheads who shed no light, lift no spirits, give no consolation; folks who do not entertain, nor enlighten, nor comfort, nor befriend, but will move heaven and earth to have the last word.
I easily concede the last word to the wounded, the deranged, the uninformed, and the young, but I have an abiding intolerance for those who insist that they know everything that needs to be known and insist on having the last word.
In most cases repeated repetitions are as harmless as they are irritating. ... However in relation to the rules of these forums "repetition" has never been in any way a matter of concern, and would be impossible to legislate for.
"Never been in any way a matter of concern"???
"Impossible to legislate for"???
Then, pray tell, what say you to this?
  • X posts an OP.
  • I see and read the OP.
  • The OP offends me.
  • The Forum Mission Statement is:
    • 45545_e898c8a2e2b9b819331222369a14337e.png
    • For emphasis, note that the mission statement says: "our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming"
      • "where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate religion"
      • "while engaging in fellowship with one another."
  • Forum Rule #9 forbids "Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission."
  • If an OP offends me, does it subvert/undermine the Forum Mission?
    • If I decide to ignore the OP and do not respond, the OP stands, I move on, and the world turns.
    • If I respond to the OP and offend the OP author, the thread deteriorates in civility, information-value, respectfulness, AND welcomeness, AND the Forum Mission is subverted/undermined, wouldn't you agree?
  • Polymath's advice was: Ignore offensive posts.
  • My question to Polymath was: What should I do if an OP offends me and I don't want to ignore the offense?
  • Rival said: "Report it."
Seems to me that some repetitions might, indeed, fall within the realm of matters that the Forum Mission is concerned with and proscribes.
However we should never forget that this is a privately owned forum, it is not a democracy.
That fact is ever in my mind; your reminder is unnecessary and irrelevant.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I see that I’m making some distinctions that other people might not be aware of at all:
- Insults and personal attacks: disparaging people’s character and capacities, and vilifying their motives and intentions.
- Popular stereotypes, which can sometimes do long term psychological damage to people.
- People calling what other people say “offensive,” or saying that they feel offended by it, which has become a popular way of intimidating people, and a popular excuse for censorship and oppression.
Aye, committing the ad hominem fallacy is fundamentally just an error.
It should be a rule violation only when abusive.
Otherwise, one need only point out the informal logical fallacy.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’m thinkIng that as long as there is no frank and open discussion about the popularity of insults and personal attacks across religious and political divides, and the fact that no one who complains about that behavior ever sees it happening on their side of some religious or political divide, no amount of any kind of discussion will do anything to help change it, and maybe not even to help reduce and counteract its effects.
That is a little too convoluted for me to follow.
Are you saying that freedom to discuss difficult issues, is the only possible way to achieve an eventual consensus?
That isn’t what I was thinking, but I’m close to agreeing with it. I think that problems can be sokved much better if there is eough freedom for everyone to be able to find out what everyone else is thinking.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
LOL! That happens???

Uhhh, .... What if the OP is the offensive post?

If the OP is offensive, report it. Don't respond in thread; it just makes our job harder.

E.g.
  • Hi, I'm a member of an Abrahamic sect whose purpose is to promote love, peace, and harmony which requires that everyone who isn't a member of my sect stop taking everything in the Bible literally and believe what my sect believes, and I have a civil, respectful question for other Abrahamics who don't believe what my sect believes: Why do you take anything, much less everything, in the Bible literally, when any sane, rational, reasonable person would realize that the Bible was written two thousand or more years ago and is only useful if taken metaphorically, except the parts that confirm the superiority of my sect?
  • Hi, I'm a recovering sex addict and alcoholic, and I want to know why so many Christians worship the Sun and celebrate Christmas.
  • Hi, I believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael before he came to Earth, was conceived in a virgin without any male human input, died, was resurrected, was raised up into heaven, and will return in my lifetime to send everybody who doesn't believe what I believe to Hell, and I have a civil, respectful question for Jews: So, tell me, why don't you believe in Jesus?
  • Hi, I believe that Jesus showed up in ancient Israel and then, again, here in North America, that he has a Father God and a Mother God, each of whom also had a Father God and a Mother God, ad infinitum, and I believe that someday I'm going to get to be a God too, and I have a civil, respectful question for Trinitarian Christians: Why do you believe nonsense?

All of your examples could have material that could be moderated, depending on where they are posted. Remember the rules are different for DIRs (where no debate is allowed) and debate forums (where we expect disagreement and debate).

So, the first would, possibly, be edited to remove the phrase about 'sane, rational, reasonable person'.

The second, in a debate thread, would likely be allowed: let those who disagree argue it out. We'd keep a watch to see how the debate goes.

The third would be problematic in the Jewish DIR, but might be allowed in a debate thread, possibly edited to remove specific mention of Jews.

The fourth would clearly be a problem in a Christian DIR, and the 'nonsense' would probably be moderated against other places.

Now, this is my perspective. Any moderation decision takes the agreement of three mods, and we often have disagreements on what and how to moderate. We will also go back and change decisions, at times, when challenged in Site Feedback: https://www.religiousforums.com/forums/site-feedback.344/, which is where such challenges should be made (NOT in open forum).
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
LOL! That happens???

Uhhh, .... What if the OP is the offensive post?
E.g.
  • Hi, I'm a member of an Abrahamic sect whose purpose is to promote love, peace, and harmony which requires that everyone who isn't a member of my sect stop taking everything in the Bible literally and believe what my sect believes, and I have a civil, respectful question for other Abrahamics who don't believe what my sect believes: Why do you take anything, much less everything, in the Bible literally, when any sane, rational, reasonable person would realize that the Bible was written two thousand or more years ago and is only useful if taken metaphorically, except the parts that confirm the superiority of my sect?
  • Hi, I'm a recovering sex addict and alcoholic, and I want to know why so many Christians worship the Sun and celebrate Christmas.
  • Hi, I believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael before he came to Earth, was conceived in a virgin without any male human input, died, was resurrected, was raised up into heaven, and will return in my lifetime to send everybody who doesn't believe what I believe to Hell, and I have a civil, respectful question for Jews: So, tell me, why don't you believe in Jesus?
  • Hi, I believe that Jesus showed up in ancient Israel and then, again, here in North America, that he has a Father God and a Mother God, each of whom also had a Father God and a Mother God, ad infinitum, and I believe that someday I'm going to get to be a God too, and I have a civil, respectful question for Trinitarian Christians: Why do you believe nonsense?


Here's a challenge: how would *you* moderate each of these? Which rules do you see as being violated? What should the penalty be? How would your decision change depending on where the post was made?
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I see that I’m making some distinctions that other people might not be aware of at all:

It wold be difficult indeed to find any such distinctions that the Staff have not been able to consider under the rules as they now exist. They were all considered in great detail at the last major revision of the rules.
You will notice, if you read the rules carefully, that most of them are open ended and not detailed, this is to prevent loopholes in them.
Rule 9 is the catch all than can be used to cover all bad behaviour that is judged to be the detriment of the forum.

- Insults and personal attacks: disparaging people’s character and capacities, and vilifying their motives and intentions.

This falls under rule 3 and 9 and is a very common infringement.

- Popular stereotypes, which can sometimes do long term psychological damage to people.

The use of popular stereotyping is more difficult,and depends more on context and intent. But if used as an personal attack would fall under rule 3. (some stereotyping can fall foul of racist and sexist laws.)

- People calling what other people say “offensive,” or saying that they feel offended by it, which has become a popular way of intimidating people, and a popular excuse for censorship and oppression.

Bullying and intimidation and oppression is covered solidly under rule 3
However saying something is offensive to you, carries no weight in itself, but as part of an attack or a hounding, it most certainly could be. so context would be important.

Members have no ability to censor, and staff do not do so, however they do remove content that flouts the rules.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
  1. Now, this is my perspective.
  2. Any moderation decision takes the agreement of three mods, and we often have disagreements on what and how to moderate.
Your #1. Duly noted and understood.
Your #2. Understood.

For the record, my examples were intentionally exaggerated. Rarely, if ever, would any similar OP be posted.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
  1. Here's a challenge: how would *you* moderate each of these?
  2. Which rules do you see as being violated?
  3. What should the penalty be?
  4. How would your decision change depending on where the post was made?
Ha! Yer gonna make me work, eh? Okay, challenge accepted. Gimme a couple of ... hours.
 
Top