Revised Religion Forum Guidelines

June 4, 2008 | Religion Moderator

[Religion Moderator]

The floor is open.

[EarthBound]

Thanks for laying it out. Pinging Quix, cause I figure she’d be interested.

[newheart]

You have an extraordinarily difficult mission. My hat is off to you.

[Tennessee Nana]

Thank you RM

[Irish Queen]

Thank you for all the work you do a moderator. Your guidelines are thoughtful, logical and fair to all concerned.

[colorcountry]

New Rules!

Ping

[greyfoxx39]

I saw the new rules. I’m afraid that just seeing my screen name on a thread will “antagonize” someone though...what about you?

[netmilsmom]

LOL!
I think that’s a lot of us!

I know I’ve been thought of as the Poo in the Punchbowl on a few threads.

[xzins]

I think you do a splendid job, RM.

I would have put a “for example” in front of “gross error.” That would make other similar types of comments in the articles eligible for discussion.

I’d also include a disclaimer for most historic documents. Obviously, a Luther sermon should be expected to be hard on his adversaries. Likewise, sermons/articles from those of that era responding to Luther would likewise be hard.

[al_c]

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.

On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

How sad that religion discussions fall prey to such exchanges.

[sevenbak]

I like the additions. Thanks again for doing such a difficult task, sometimes with a target on your back.

[sevenbak]

I know I’ve been thought of as the Poo in the Punchbowl on a few threads.

Man, I could have gone all day without thinking about that. And I just made Kool Aid for the kids too!

[netmilsmom]

>>Man, I could have gone all day without thinking about that. And I just made Kool Aid for the kids too!<<

I’m so sorry....

[Godzilla]

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. The term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic.

Now I am confused on this point. Up front you state that

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.

Yet it seems that you are exempting the opening article. That seems to be inconsistent with your stated purpose up front - they are closed to antagonism.

I am also desirous to have this clarified - if the origional poster is allowed leeway

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

This seems to be mighty subjective - I guess I may have to see how this pans out in practice.

[Petronski]

The replies cannot be antagonist, only the article itself.

[wagglebee]

So, we are now using “RelgionForum v2.1”, is there a “patch” we can install or should we just read the instructions? :-)

[Godzilla]

The replies cannot be antagonist, only the article itself.

Riiiigggghhtt.

[Religion Moderator]

The opening article is not exempt but it is granted more leeway than the replies.

For instance, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

This seems to be mighty subjective

It is because it follows the presumption that "if there's smoke, there's fire." When hostility has broken out on an ecumenic thread, I will search out the cause of it.

[Religion Moderator]

LOL!

[trisham]

No problem. A chip will be implanted in our brains.