-
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!
Please Read - DIR Update and Process
- Thread starter Brent W
- Start date
- Status
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I would take pantheism out because many people who are pantheist are also of other religions. Panthiesm isn't a religion. Instead, I'd put Pagan religions so that people who believe in European pre-christian religions can talk among themselves. Neopagan isn't the same nor part of European Pagan traditions. Also, there are many on this forum, myself included, that don't have a "religious title." Do you want members to have religious titles?
I mean, I can't always ask staff permission to post in the atheist DIR one day, a neopagan another, and a Dharmic another.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That's a good idea. Maybe make it a bit easier and put "questions" and members can reply just as a regular DIR. It would restrict the natural responses questioners would like to have more questions about depending on the answer, though. Unless there is a clarification of how the interfaith forums are set up so if a person asks a question and gets a response, they can comment on that response rather than a question/comment conversation. That's weird to hear in person.
Brent W
Resident Tech Guy
Right this second no. You can still post the same as before. We will be working on the terms for selecting DIRs in the coming days.
Could there maybe be a sub-forum within each DIR itself for such questions?
Brent W
Resident Tech Guy
So far this is the idea that keeps being brought up so we will look into doing that.
I'm not saying that being a paying member gives me more merit, I'm saying that if I wanted to join a Setian only forum I would have applied to the ToS.
Here's some constructive feedback. This is not a solution for moderation challenges with members who can't respect the rules. I for one as a supporting member of this site fall into many categories, and spend time in multiple DIRs reading and posting as I identify with something there. I don't fit into just one religious category at all. I can't be siloed like that. I draw from mystical traditions, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, as well as atheism, as well as theism, etc. If I wanted a site that was exclusively one religion, I'd go there. But those do not interest me as they are too univocal.
What make RF a cut above all other forums I've ever seen is the fact that it is so OPEN to all faiths, coming together in the grandest experiment of a human faith community across multiple, widely diverse religions all getting along for the most part. I mention this site to many people as a wonderful example of what we can become as a global society, and in many regards need to become. To literally dismantle and destroy this because the challenges of moderating the few who aren't quite on board yet, is a horrible price to be paid. I would consider it almost a death-knell of RF of what is has stood for.
I was a moderator for many years at another site and know far too well what herding cats looks like at the challenges of it, but blocking entry except through "special permissions" really kills the spirit of free and open access, and those "protected" areas become rather stale in time, and people leave the site. I think you guys do a great job here, but this is a move in the wrong direction to solve a management issue.
What make RF a cut above all other forums I've ever seen is the fact that it is so OPEN to all faiths, coming together in the grandest experiment of a human faith community across multiple, widely diverse religions all getting along for the most part. I mention this site to many people as a wonderful example of what we can become as a global society, and in many regards need to become. To literally dismantle and destroy this because the challenges of moderating the few who aren't quite on board yet, is a horrible price to be paid. I would consider it almost a death-knell of RF of what is has stood for.
I was a moderator for many years at another site and know far too well what herding cats looks like at the challenges of it, but blocking entry except through "special permissions" really kills the spirit of free and open access, and those "protected" areas become rather stale in time, and people leave the site. I think you guys do a great job here, but this is a move in the wrong direction to solve a management issue.
I follow three major religions, Christianity, Buddhism and Taoism, and used to practice Islam, so I'm very knowledgeable on that, and yet the moderators told me I had to pick one religion and only post in that DIR, in fact they gave me a demerit for posting in a the Christian DIR, and then I had to prove I was a Christian!!, Bunch of rubbish this is, the idea of DIRs is to keep anti posters out of the discussion, not to keep knowledgeable people that practice multiple religions out of the discussion, or is it?? If it is it just sucks.
Brent and moderators, I think this is a great idea. As it is, it remains frustrating for people in DIRs when you get irrelevant knee-jerk posts from people who don't identify with the DIR. (I've done it myself by error, and had to go delete it, on more than one occasion.) I feel sorry for the moderators, chronically cleaning up the mess. You guys do a great job.
This will not stop anyone from making a parallel type post in 'general discussion, debates, or several other places. I think people just forget some days that they can do that. Many people who start threads can opt to leave them out of the DIRs.
I do like the idea of a sub-forum for questions, but that has proved troublesome in the past as it can turn into a debate when people aren't really asking a legit question, but mere,y looking for a debate.
Thanks again for the great job.
This will not stop anyone from making a parallel type post in 'general discussion, debates, or several other places. I think people just forget some days that they can do that. Many people who start threads can opt to leave them out of the DIRs.
I do like the idea of a sub-forum for questions, but that has proved troublesome in the past as it can turn into a debate when people aren't really asking a legit question, but mere,y looking for a debate.
Thanks again for the great job.
Namaste,
I'm having remarkably strong feelings about this new direction for RF. It might be in part because, even after reading the entire thread thus far, I still am not truly cognizant of the rationale behind the decision to implement this? What exactly is the problem for the moderators which would require such a throttling of free access and interaction with our entire community?
Is it that we, as users, are not helping you police bad behavior? Or are you getting so many abusers of the rules of the forums that it's a chore to moderate them? But isn't that the duty of the mods? (Just sayin'. Do you simply need more mods? Or perhaps you are too lenient with abusers? Why give a third chance? Give 'em the boot; the rules aren't difficult.) If that's not it, please help us understand the problem. We might be able to help you come up with a viable solution.
I realize I feel heated at the moment but I need to say this, hopefully gently because I really do respect and honor the work that both the mods and tech sides of the forum do, but someone else thinking they hold the rights to my expressing my views anywhere on the planet, or in any realm for that matter, let alone an internet forum--as long as I abide by the rules du jour taking into account time, place and audience, of course--is harboring a delusion of some serious magnitude.
If I need to seek permission from any of you to state my views here in any forum of the RF community, I will reluctantly abandon my beloved community. Don't know if my contributions serve anyone, but this? This idea is counter to adharma, counter to productive dialogue between the devotees of various "religions and belief systems" (a crying need of the day!). Religions don't talk to one another, learn from each other, dig for the nuggets of Truth which might be common to all, nuggets which could provide a platform on which to dialogue peace amongst all peoples . The devotees of religions do it and you are suggesting to limit that. As I said, IMO, this is adharma and I will never support it nor anything resembling it. Thank you for hearing me out.
I'm having remarkably strong feelings about this new direction for RF. It might be in part because, even after reading the entire thread thus far, I still am not truly cognizant of the rationale behind the decision to implement this? What exactly is the problem for the moderators which would require such a throttling of free access and interaction with our entire community?
Is it that we, as users, are not helping you police bad behavior? Or are you getting so many abusers of the rules of the forums that it's a chore to moderate them? But isn't that the duty of the mods? (Just sayin'. Do you simply need more mods? Or perhaps you are too lenient with abusers? Why give a third chance? Give 'em the boot; the rules aren't difficult.) If that's not it, please help us understand the problem. We might be able to help you come up with a viable solution.
I realize I feel heated at the moment but I need to say this, hopefully gently because I really do respect and honor the work that both the mods and tech sides of the forum do, but someone else thinking they hold the rights to my expressing my views anywhere on the planet, or in any realm for that matter, let alone an internet forum--as long as I abide by the rules du jour taking into account time, place and audience, of course--is harboring a delusion of some serious magnitude.
If I need to seek permission from any of you to state my views here in any forum of the RF community, I will reluctantly abandon my beloved community. Don't know if my contributions serve anyone, but this? This idea is counter to adharma, counter to productive dialogue between the devotees of various "religions and belief systems" (a crying need of the day!). Religions don't talk to one another, learn from each other, dig for the nuggets of Truth which might be common to all, nuggets which could provide a platform on which to dialogue peace amongst all peoples . The devotees of religions do it and you are suggesting to limit that. As I said, IMO, this is adharma and I will never support it nor anything resembling it. Thank you for hearing me out.
Last edited:
Brent W
Resident Tech Guy
Everyone, our goal is not to throttle discussions or limit anyones voice. We are not going to rush into anything with this. All we have done so far is setup profile fields and are now looking at how we can use those along with a possible reorganization of the DIR forums to not only make it easier for staff to do their job but easier and more efficient for everyone to be able to post and have quality discussions within this area of the site.
More than ever.
I just scrolled down the first 40 'recent posts'. One out of that 40 was in a DIR. That says that by far most of the discussion here is outside any DIR. So that says some 95% of this forum is open to all, any time. I see no reason for anybody wishing a more open discussion to post it in a DIR. But there are some days when you just want to have a discussion with members of your own faith. It's like at home when Mom and Dad want to have a private discussion away from the children, or at a church or political arena where the people who are actually involved in decision making (i.e.. a board of trustees) needs to make a decision.
This is another sign of Trump's fascism!
We're losing our freedom to post!
Next you'll be sending our posts to the NSA!
I'm leaving the country!
I didn't pay good money only to be.....uh.....never mind.
Some thoughts.....
- I used to be allowed into the Buddhist DIR for friendly discussions. Could the "green" DIR system return?
- Will the system automatically deny us access to DIRs not ours?
- Will access to viewing only be allowed?
- Stop issuing infractions to posters who mistakenly post in the wrong DIR.
(I know that mods get paid according to the number of tickets they issue.)
I checked the options on my profile, & found no DIR I could possibly pick.
Apply loggical deduktion, I see that we're not required to select one.....yet.
I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but I wanted to respond to this bit here. When we were doing revisions to Rule 10, we had considered making DIRs exclusive areas where respectful questions would not be permitted. There wasn't enough staff input for that change at that time, so we rolled out a Rule 10 that allowed respectful questions as usual. At the same time, we created the "Religions Q&A" subforum under "Interfaith Discussion" that was intended to be the space for those respectful questions. So there is an architecture in place for this now, and it allows any knowledgable members to respond.
- Status