Ernest Angley 'Smack 'em in the forehead' thread?
Posted on 05/14/2008 9:07:05 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
In late April, markomalley and gamecock made a trial run at a “respectful dialog” category for threads on the Religion Forum. The trial failed due to the inability of the posters to agree on what is or is not “respectful.” Then in early May, several other posters appealed for the elimination of posts which seek to tear down other poster’s beliefs (iconoclasm.)
Meanwhile, the situation on the Religion Forum has been exacerbated by posters on the News/Activism forum inadvertently being exposed to religious debate as a result of choosing the “everything” option on browse instead of the “News/Activism” option.
In response to the pleas for a “respectful dialog” and/or the elimination of “iconoclasm” (attacks on other people’s beliefs) – I’m opening the floor for trial postings of a new type of semi-open thread which we shall call “ecumenic.”
Unlike the caucus threads, any poster could reply to an ecumenic thread. And the article on which an ecumenic thread is based could include contrasts and challenges of other beliefs. However, on the ecumenic thread, the poster must not argue against any other beliefs. He can only argue for what he believes – or ask questions.
While we test this new type of thread, be sure to tag every article so that posters will know when to avoid a thread. The tags during this trial run are “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” “ecumenic” or “open.”
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.
Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
When you see a post which is inappropriate for an ecumenic thread, ping me. Do not bother the Admin Moderators with an abuse report unless the situation requires immediate attention.
Ping
FYI Ping, dude!
I like it. It gives people places to go with varying degree of discussion, and clearly defines who will be booted from where.
Where are these tags found? I have seen reference to them, but nobody has mentioned where they are located.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
THANKS TONS AND TONS for all your efforts and for the above.
I think that’s a long needed refinement.
The new thread category should be a worthy effort.
Congrats on God’s wisdom at work through you.
Prayers for JimRob concerning his leg and other medical complications these days.
Also . . . for Family A and Family B in their situations and needs.
And may The Lord Strengthen our beloved RM and all the mods working their hearts out in a job full of hassles and thanklessness in these challenging times.
Bless you all.
One of the “tag” words must be used in the title of the thread. It may be enclosed in brackets, e.g. “[LDS Caucus]” - or it may be part of the title, e.g. “Prayer Thread for John Doe.”
I think people just put them in the title of the thread when originally posting, and, if it’s later determined that the “tag” is inappropriate, it’s removed by the Moderator.
So, for example, you wanted to post an article with the title, “Pope visits ground zero” and you wanted it to be a Caucus thread, you’d make the title, “Pope visits ground zero (Caucus Thread)”.
Welcome back, RM! Sorry to hear of the family illness. IMO everyone behaved exceptionally well while you were gone.
Thank You. This is a wise decision. I for one, consider myself a tolerant Catholic who thinks that all Christians, regardless of differences in some aspects of theology or interpretation, are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Most of us agree on the non-negotiable aspects of the Christian faith-—The Holy Trinity, The Incarnation, the forgiveness of sins, regeneration of the soul through the blessing of The Holy Spirit, and eternal life.
Thank you!
Good, it’ll be a welcome change from some of the venom dripping posts I’ve read on some of these religion threads.
This sounds like it may take some getting used to (especially for newcomers), but I think it could also be very beneficial.
Glad to see you back, I will keep you and your family in my prayers.
God Bless (Or whatever the preferred phrase is if you are an anonymous non-Christian RM :-) )
Ah, thanks. I was looking at topics and keywords and the like.
Thank you!
“If I knew God I’d be Him.”
Amen!
I know that there have been many times after I've been involved in one of the days-long, 1000+ post Catholic vs. Protestant debates I have to leave because I realize how resentful I'm becoming and I really don't like that feeling.
I'm not saying that we should all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I think that we all need to recognize that on most issues we are in substantial agreement.
Ping
It is a small group who are the constant "abuse button pushers" and they will quickly make themselves known.
Did you see this?
Am I doing something wrong?
I’m not sure that ANYBODY has totally figured out the new system yet.
Am I doing something wrong?
Yes, but I’m sure God knows what it is and will forgive you. :-)
Been here, done this. Found out that religious forums do NOT work, no matter what you do.
Good luck with that.
Check out the religious forums over on Anomalies.net for an example of what happened later.
Does this mean that you can now have closed caucuses for people who are "Ex-Catholic" "Ex-Protestant" "Ex-Mormon" or"Ex-Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", whatever, to discuss such things as "Why I don't believe in the Great Spaghetti Monster Anymore"?
” He can only argue for what he believes – or ask questions.”
Arguing for what one believes is very good. Too many arguments are not so much what one believes but why one doesn’t believe tenets from another’s faith.
How is asking questions to be moderated? There are certainly loaded questions that would lead to flame wars, i.e., “why don’t you think you are a devil worshipping idolater whose leader is probably the Anti-Christ?”
Respectfully, this "new thread" classification in effect nullifies the very purpose for the Reformation.
If a Catholic thread is posted saying "Mary is the co-Redeemer" (as there have been many already) how is a Protestant supposed to reply with anything other than by the negative "No, Mary is NOT a 'co-redeemer' because according to the Bible, there is ONE only propitiation for our sins, ONE mediator between God and men, ONE Redeemer, Jesus Christ?"
My belief is against that belief. It cannot be otherwise. And what the Catholic doesn't realize is that saying "Mary is a co-redeemer" is offensive to me because we are both considered Christians and yet as a Christian I do not believe that in any way. In fact, that sentence repels me.
Rules like this simply defy the last 500 years of religious history.
Additionally, this "new kind of thread" appears to reward posters who refused to learn how to post within the FR religion forum guidelines. Whining while "making it personal" apparently can pay off.
It seems that the failed "respectful thread" designation has simply morphed into the "ecumenic thread" designation, only this time the penalty for protesting error will be more severe.
Or does it just mean there is one more "protected" class?
Also, if the RM makes a call on content, what's to stop another mod from coming along later and reversing or changing that call?
An "ex" thread can however be posted as Ecumenic, but do not use mocking terms in the tag.
Loading questions in an ecumenic thread is a disruption and the poster will be booted and/or suspended.
Want to take bets that six months from now the "Town Square" dsignation will be dropped entirely as being "too disruptive?"
I vow to give it my very best effort whenever taking part.
Always for, never against....very clever.
LOL. Well, we'll have to have various sub-sets of questions and we'll have to decide which questions are respectful and which are not.
Good luck with that???
How about a "Calvinist" caucus open only to Calvinists. Or a "Reformed Caucus" or a GRPL Caucus open only to those who have applied for and been accepted on the GRPL list?
You’re doing better than me. I would gladly choose news only...if I knew where it was. :p
I’ve searched all my links in my account.
Help me......
I've been saying the same thing for a long time: the Reformation is intrinsically a negative movement built in opposition to the Catholic Church and incapable of standing on its own.
Suspended for asking questions?
I don't envy you your job.
Or every individual just post their very own caucus thread and talk to themselves, then you’ll be safe
Can I repost my "Hollow Earth Thread" which was pulled?
And could you unlock my Hare Krisha Moon-Landing Fraud thread?
Calvinist, Reformed, GRPL, etc. are all free to caucus. Remember the Caucus Threads must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of others’ beliefs.
On the “browse by forum” to the right of the main screens, select News/Activism.
>>If a Catholic thread is posted saying “Mary is the co-Redeemer” (as there have been many already) how is a Protestant supposed to reply with anything other than by the negative “No, Mary is NOT a ‘co-redeemer’ because according to the Bible, there is ONE only propitiation for our sins, ONE mediator between God and men, ONE Redeemer, Jesus Christ?”
My belief is against that belief. It cannot be otherwise. And what the Catholic doesn’t realize is that saying “Mary is a co-redeemer” is offensive to me because we are both considered Christians and yet as a Christian I do not believe that in any way. In fact, that sentence repels me<<
I guess we all have to be a little less repelled, don’t we?
So on an ecumenic thread, we could not preface that comment with "No, Mary is not a co-redeemer because...?"
Because sometimes that phrase is simply used to redefine the discussion when replying to a post from a few days earlier.
By the grace of God, no, we don’t.
I will not unlock or restore pulled threads because many of them devolved in childish behavior. If you repost a confrontational thread be sure and tag it either “ecumenic” or “open” depending on the type of posts you would like to encourage.
So there is no way to simply filter certain topics out of “Latest Posts”?
You know how to cut and paste. Cut and paste a quote and then you don’t have to redefine. Like this...
>>Because sometimes that phrase is simply used to redefine the discussion when replying to a post from a few days earlier.<<
Then reply. It’s not hard.
I really like this “only positive” idea!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.