Islam Forum: Changes to the forum charter should be discussed here.

Hobbes

Hi,

Based on the past week or so input we have implemented the following.

1. We have updated the charter. Details updated rules, new threads and how moderators take actions on this forum.

2. We have an "Other discussions" thread for people who have no interest in Islam, but feel they need to get their point across.

3. Some cleaning up of FAQ/resources.


Why the changes?

First I want to clear up a myth.

There is a misconception that the moderation of the forum is heavy handed. Checking the history of the forum however we found that it was the same small handful of people who got warned/banned. Also the number of people banned is tiny in comparison to other forums (some ban more in a day then we have in 12 months).

So the actions of the moderators and the forum charter may have been perpetuating this myth. To that end we have detailed moderator actions and updated the charter to de-emphasize it.

Second point. As mentioned there is a small handful of the same people who generate the majority of negative traffic on this forum.

Either they have no interest in Islam at all, or their lifestyle is incompatible and no amount of debating why think they are correct is going to sway anyone (either way).

So we have set up an "Other discussions" thread. Initially we were going to make this a "Mega Thread" like other forums, but we found that people complained because while they may find subject X important, it was drowned out by Y,Z and the rest of the alphabet in the same thread.

I stress this thread is a "last resort" for people who have no interest in leaning Islam or have an anti-Islam agenda. The instructions in it are quite clear. Any such threads outside of this thread will be locked.

Lastly.. We plan to do some clean up on the FAQ and have main subjects available for people to review (external and thread links), so that same questions over and over.

This thread is for people to discuss the changes only.

MagicMarker

So basically, nothing is going to change except now there will be a thread where all the posts you don't like will be moved?

Hobbes

MagicMarker wrote: »

So basically, nothing is going to change except now there will be a thread where all the posts you don't like will be moved?

We won't be moving threads. We would expect if you have no interest in Islam, anti-Islam or your lifestyle is incompatible, but still felt the need to make a point on this forum, then that thread is for you.

As mentioned, the majority of negative traffic was the same small handful of people, which fell under the points above. Allowing them to continue to post in such a fashion is detrimental to the health of the forum.

MrPudding

MagicMarker wrote: »

So basically, nothing is going to change except now there will be a thread where all the posts you don't like will be moved?

No, not even that. You start a thread somewhere else on boards and post a link to it in that thread.

MrP

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

First I want to clear up a myth.

There is a misconception that the moderation of the forum is heavy handed. Checking the history of the forum however we found that it was the same small handful of people who got warned/banned. Also the number of people banned is tiny in comparison to other forums (some ban more in a day then we have in 12 months).

This is some majorly flawed logic. This forum gets very little in the way of traffic compared to many others, not to mention that there are people who simply dont bother to post here because they know how heavy handed the moderation is (see the "*** PLEASE READ - We want your input. (finished)" thread). The number might be smaller than other forums, but the percentage is high.

Hobbes wrote: »

Second point. As mentioned there is a small handful of the same people who generate the majority of negative traffic on this forum.

Either they have no interest in Islam at all, or their lifestyle is incompatible and no amount of debating why think they are correct is going to sway anyone (either way).

So we have set up an "Other discussions" thread. Initially we were going to make this a "Mega Thread" like other forums, but we found that people complained because while they may find subject X important, it was drowned out by Y,Z and the rest of the alphabet in the same thread.

I stress this thread is a "last resort" for people who have no interest in leaning Islam or have an anti-Islam agenda. The instructions in it are quite clear. Any such threads outside of this thread will be locked.

Is this a joke? The first step is a contradiction: "1. Find a related forum where you wish to discuss the topic and create a thread." If the thread is related to Islam, then the thread belongs in the Islam forum, thats what the forum is for. Threads critical of Atheism belong in the A&A forum, threads critical of the video games in the Games Forum, threads critical of vegetarianism belong in the veggie forum. Its amazing how these forums dont have to hide away topics they dont like in other forums so as not to "offend" their regular users.

Hobbes wrote: »

This thread is for people to discuss the changes only.

You made one change, and its barely a change at all. One of the common moderator fallacies thrown out to stifle discussion on this forum (besides "this forum is not for people to attack others beliefs") is that if you are critical of islam, you should post it on another forum. All you have done is deign to allow links to other forums discussions of Islam. You must either really love Islam (and hence dont want anything in any way critical of it) or really hate it (and hence dont want anything setting the record straight on the fallacies that ignorant people throw out).

Hobbes

This is some majorly flawed logic.

Anecdotal vs checking the statistics of the forum would suggest that you are mistaken.

Is this a joke?

I think if you want to learn more about Islam, are not anti-Islam or not just here to push your lifestyle/beliefs, then you should have no need of that thread.

The complaints of posting on other forums from Anti-Islam posters is that somehow Muslims would not be able to read them. So that solves that issue. Plus the topics won't be hidden away, because you will only need to open the thread to see the discussion links.

As mentioned, a mega thread actually eventually works against the people who would feel they would benefit from the thread, vs those who just want a trollfest.

Thanks for your input.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

Anecdotal vs checking the statistics of the forum would suggest that you are mistaken.

Did you even read what I wrote? All you said was the number of people banned/warned on this forum was low. But, as I pointed out, the number of people, full stop, on this forum is very low so the percentage remains high. Even that is without discounting the very short threads looking for some specific information (prayer locations, halal restaurants etc) that make up the majority of this forum (as a result of its anti-discussion stance).

Hobbes wrote: »

I think if you want to learn more about Islam, are not anti-Islam or just here to push your lifestyle/beliefs, then you should have no need of that thread.

The complaints of posting on other forums from Anti-Islam posters is that somehow Muslims would not be able to read them. So that solves that issue. Plus the topics won't be hidden away, because you will only need to open the thread to see the discussion links.

As mentioned, a mega thread actually eventually works against the people who would feel they would benefit from the thread, vs those who just want a trollfest.

Thanks for your input.

As I said, "If the thread is related to Islam, then the thread belongs in the Islam forum, thats what the forum is for". If someone comes here with an abusive or accusatory tone, then they aren't going to be welcome anywhere on the site, so having a thread linking to off topic posts in other forums will be entirely moot. That aside, even if all the thread does is remove all the ignorant "Mohammad was a pedo"/"Islam is violent" accusatory threads from this forum, it doesn't remove them from the site. Its pretty arrogant and foolish to complain about these type of opinions if you arent even willing to debunk them.

No-one has to post in a thread they dont want to, even one in a forum they frequent. As long as you are vigilant against people hijacking threads, and people posting threads to just accuse, with no desire for debate, then it shouldn't matter if its posted here, as it will fall off the front page quick enough anyway.

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote? All you said was the number of people banned/warned on this forum was low. But, as I pointed out, the number of people, full stop, on this forum is very low so the percentage remains high.

Relative to the number of people who have posted on this forum, the number of people who have been warned/banned is very small and the same people keep coming up again and again. Is that any clearer for you?

As I said, "If the thread is related to Islam, then the thread belongs in the Islam forum, thats what the forum is for".

Shooting forum is not a forum to complain about hunters, cycling forum is not the forum to post negative posts about cyclists. I am sure they will put up with the person for a while, but they are community forums, so the community is the priority.

If someone comes here with an abusive or accusatory tone, then they aren't going to be welcome anywhere on the site,

The "Other discussion" is not for someone who is abusive. That is not the intent of the thread.

it doesn't remove them from the site.

Right. If someone wants to voice opinion which would offend the community here, they are more then welcome to do so anywhere else on Boards. Actually they do so already, for numerous subjects across different communities.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

Relative to the number of people who have posted on this forum, the number of people who have been warned/banned is very small and the same people keep coming up again and again. Is that any clearer for you?

Then quote the numbers. Not just the officially recorded warnings mind, I'm talking about threads shut down and posters bullied with moderator fallacies of "this forum is not for attacking islam ("attacking" being whatever I decide it to be) and "take this discussion (about islam) to an appropriate forum (apparently not the islam forum)

Hobbes wrote: »

Shooting forum is not a forum to complain about hunters, cycling forum is not the forum to post negative posts about cyclists. I am sure they will put up with the person for a while, but they are community forums, so the community is the priority.

Actually they are the forums for doing that, as long as you are open to debate. Yes, they wont tolerate people just declaring that people who collect guns are nuts, or all cyclists are terrible on the road, but they will entertain anyone questioning what they do, as long as they are willing to listen. Where else would you post your concerns about cyclists if not on the cycling forum? Were else would you expect to get an serious, informed response?

Hobbes wrote: »

The "Other discussion" is not for someone who is abusive. That is not the intent of the thread.

Its a token change to attempt to make the mods and forum look more open to discussion, by hiding it away on other forums. Do you really think a shooting forum not interested in gun criticism is going to house threads on islam?

Hobbes wrote: »

Right. If someone wants to voice opinion which would offend the community here, they are more then welcome to do so anywhere else on Boards. Actually they do so already, for numerous subjects across different communities.

Did you not read the rest? "Its pretty arrogant and foolish to complain about these type of opinions if you arent even willing to debunk them." The problem, as you continuously ignore, is that, often, people choose to get offended. If someone posts an inaccuracy about Islam (without abusive tone), then why would they be offended? Either the poster is open to discussion, and then can be corrected, everyones happy, or the poster isn't open to discussion, i.e. they are trolling, and so they get banned, post is deleted, everyone (bar the troll, but who cares) is happy. Offense should never come into it, all a mod should care about is if honest discussion is occurring. You're continued effort to hide away from "offense" or "attack" negates the point of this forum, aggravates negative stereotypes about Islam, muslims and criticising thereof, and is an insult to all the posters who want to discuss the hard issues.

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm talking about threads shut down and posters bullied with moderator fallacies of "this forum is not for attacking islam ("attacking" being whatever I decide it to be) and "take this discussion (about islam) to an appropriate forum (apparently not the islam forum)

Then you are arguing the wrong thing. Please read the new charter.

but they will entertain anyone questioning what they do, as long as they are willing to listen.

Right. The same as this forum. If you are able to post an honest question, which isn't loaded to push an anti-Islam agenda (before/after), then there shouldn't be an issue.

If you want to push your views on why Islam is wrong, this is not the forum for you, but we have made a thread available if you feel that somehow posting on a public forum will make it magically disappear, or that Muslims are incapable of reading/posting to other forums.

Do you really think a shooting forum not interested in gun criticism is going to house threads on islam?

Strawman.

Well thanks for your input. If you are not capable of following the charter, there is nothing else we can do for you. Also unless your followup post is something that can add value to the forum, I am done on this line of discussion with you.

MrPudding

Wow. All change on the Islam forum...:rolleyes:

MrP

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You must either really love Islam (and hence dont want anything in any way critical of it) or really hate it (and hence dont want anything setting the record straight on the fallacies that ignorant people throw out).

Love for Islam is impossible by his side. He is hating islam to make his charter living --

Hobbes wrote:

We won't be moving threads. We would expect if you have no interest in Islam, anti-Islam or your lifestyle is incompatible, but still felt the need to make a point on this forum, then that thread is for you.

See, if someone is anti Islam or hates islam then you have no right to use force against him to make him in love with Islam -- If you think the marker of magic is writing something against islam, then you have to stop his marker by the same magic which he is using against Islam--- You aren't allowed to use force against that marker, I hope you would get the point, The charter of this foram should be based on Islamic teaching not on your personal teaching. I am very sorry to say, I don't mean to hurt you --- On the other hand your moderation is hurting feeling of many
If you don't believe me i give you reference from quran
see,

There shall be no compulsion in the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
http://quran.com/2/256

On the other hand your moderation is making compulsion in the religion, your warnings and bans and your locking of thread is very compulsion in the name of religion...... and majority of people don't know whether you are muslim or not and this effects image of islam in their minds, perhaps you there must be a procedure by which people can distinguish between muslim moderator or atheist moderator --- Even i ain't stasfied by moderation of other moderators in this foram

Right. The same as this forum. If you are able to post an honest question, which isn't loaded to push an anti-Islam agenda (before/after), then there shouldn't be an issue.

Let people discuss whatever they want, even a dishonest question loaded push an anti-Islam agenda --- I am sure that dishonest question won't effect the existence of Islam but your use of force against that dishonest question is really dangerous to Islam and in contradiction with above verse of Quran... I am sure you would understand what i am trying to say in my poor english --- You are making islam a complicated religion as media has made by brainwashing people ----

Pardon me, i don't mean to hurt your mortal feelings, even i have no feelings

Hobbes

As usual people are over analyzing. There is nothing to stop someone posting here if they have a valid interest in Islam. There is also nothing stopping them from posting if they don't. However if all they want to do is continually attack Islam, they use the thread.

You are new to the forum dead one. But lets say someone makes an anti-Islam statement and you debunk it. How long do you want to keep doing that on the same subject matter and with the same person? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Some of them here do this with frequency over the the last 6 years (how far I went back in the stats).

The other option we had was to just ban the handful of trouble makers, which would drop the continual warnings to practically 0 (and bans probably non-existant). But we felt that would be too strict, so it is funny that the option to let them to continue to push an agenda (all through a separate thread) as something negative is quite funny.

I believe you are just annoyed as you have been warned before to not be offensive to non-Muslims.

If people can't post without being offensive, I don't see why we should allow such posts.

Turtwig

Hobbes wrote: »

on-Muslims.

If people can't post without being offensive, I don't see why we should allow such posts.

Interesting, so what exactly is an offensive post? I find it depressing really, the Christianity forum is open to debate and dare I say it, dialectics on a wide range of issues. Yes, things do get heated, but isn't that to be expected of any discussion? Here we have a religion that I have defended on umpteen occasions trying to ignore questions. Let's make two things clear :

i) Not many people in Ireland understand Islam and the vast majority of those will take their understanding from popular representations and myths in the media.
ii) Islam is rightly or wrongly feared by many people. I don't post here because I consider it an utter waste of time, most discussions aren't even considered and the moderation is exceptionally heavy handed at times.

This forum is a chance to help clear up those misconceptions. Of course, there will be trolls and anti Islamic folks but really censoring or demoting all threads to a "bin thread" so to speak, is not the way to resolve this. In any forum you will get people who start "troll" threads, but you will also get those who seek to make genuine questions or critiques with the best of intentions. Yes, it might be 1,000,000 th time these threads and these questions have been asked and they may be "dumb" questions but really as the minnow and feared religion every chance you get to convince or show people that it's not the closed off religion that they fear you should take it. Some people might only lurk this forum once in their lifetimes. What kind of view will they take from this forum?

Forums aren't just about posters they are also about those who lurk and view them. As a lurker, I strongly dislike where the forum is headed, but hey that's your choice.

Hobbes

Malty_T wrote: »

Interesting, so what exactly is an offensive post?

The new charter explains that.

I find it depressing really, the Christianity forum is open to debate

Actually I read the Christian forum charter. The rules are pretty much the same as here.

The point of the Other discussions thread is for Anti-Islam posters (trolls) who feel they should be allowed to post stuff that pushes their agenda on this forum.

Hobbes

Moved thread to feedback (people banned/temp banned were not able to respond). Mods of feedback I'd appreciate if you can change the subject title so it isn't confusing. Thanks.

Hank_Jones

I'm a bit confused by the thread asking for people's input regarding the forum.

What was the point of asking for input if everything outside of what a couple of people wanted was going to be completely disregarded.

It was discussed before and it will be discussed again.

Funny word that, discuss....

Thought it was what the forums were for.

jimdeans

So the moderators were the ones who got to decide that they're not heavy handed? And they based it on some as-yet-not-described crude numbers of bans that they've compared to other forums, with no consideration to the amount of traffic in the other forums.

Brilliant :P

Overheal

First I want to clear up a myth.

There is a misconception that the moderation of the forum is heavy handed. Checking the history of the forum however we found that it was the same small handful of people who got warned/banned. Also the number of people banned is tiny in comparison to other forums (some ban more in a day then we have in 12 months).

So the actions of the moderators and the forum charter may have been perpetuating this myth. To that end we have detailed moderator actions and updated the charter to de-emphasize it.

It honestly did strike me as a little odd for the first thing in this thread basically be for the mods to make the statement they are not biased, without any qualifying remarks (ie. "We don't believe that ___"; etc.) - to at least a mild extent, it's fair for people to cross-examine moderators, and a little unfair to start by excluding that line of subject matter from the discussion: it's very relevant to the operation of any forum, how the moderators are doing. Where are the actions detailed at?

You are new to the forum dead one. But lets say someone makes an anti-Islam statement and you debunk it. How long do you want to keep doing that on the same subject matter and with the same person? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Some of them here do this with frequency over the the last 6 years (how far I went back in the stats).

I can't count on both hands anymore the strange and varying number of people I've seen trawl across the US Politics board. But I tell you I am happy everytime to discuss my opinions and to the most part have some of the same arguments. Granted we all get tired of some subjects cropping up time and again but it's not that hard to to just call back on the closing arguments of whenever the last time was that the subject was discussed.

In general it pays off. Some new guy will usually give me a headache for a week or two and either do one of three things: get banned for getting hopelessly stuck on the same topic/agenda (soapboxing), get frustrated and leave probably to find some extreme left or right-leaning website that sympathizes with their ideology, or they stick around and end up being interesting- if a little adversarial- regulars on the forum. All of which I'm perfectly OK with - because the forum is there to discuss things. When I don't want to discuss the same **** I don't. Hence why I don't spend a lot of time in AH when all I see is a bunch of the same old threads reappearing again like New. Similarly nobody forces an Islam regular to have to post in every thread for X years supporting whatever subject, they're more than welcome to step out and let a bunch of other people have the argument. Case and point, it's usually other people these days that tell other people off in AH for US-related bigotry. I have very little to do with it anymore.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you are the one making presumptions.

If the person wants to talk about how their lifestyle is integrated with Islam (eg. Homosexuality), there is no issue there. But if you don't agree with the response you get, continuing to argue with the response (even after the discussion has moved on) vs discussing other aspects is counter-productive.

Doctor DooM

Hobbes wrote: »

I think you are the one making presumptions.

If the person wants to talk about how their lifestyle is integrated with Islam (eg. Homosexuality), there is no issue there. But if you don't agree with the response you get, continuing to argue with the response (even after the discussion has moved on) vs discussing other aspects is counter-productive.

It seems to work for the Christianity forum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056384550

Mark Hamill wrote:

This should be a place where anyone can discuss Islam, regardless of point of view on it, as long as they keep it civil and sensible. This forum should not turn into a meeting place for muslims, where non muslims are only barely tolerated if they dont ask questions that some muslims dont like. Its called the "Islam forum", not the "Muslims forum".

This is a discussion forum, so if you post on here, you must expect people to take you up on what you post. Now if someone is being abrasive or rude in what they ask, then you can moderate against that, but too many times this reaction comes out to honest questions that some posters here cant or don't like to answer, so they declare it as an attack. This is disingenuous to the purpose of the forum, insulting to the poster asking the question and, frankly, only reasserts both the notion that Islam and muslims cant handle difficult questions and the notion that whatever the question is asking is actually true.

Spot on, imo.

Rev Hellfire

I think for the sake of clarity the "Other Discussions here." thread should be renamed to "Unwanted questions and discussions" because that's how it's coming across here.

Hobbes

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It seems to work for the Christianity forum.

As mentioned previously, if you read the charter both forums have pretty much the same rules.

That's an absolutely ludicrous stance to take on an Internet discussion forum.

Not if it the same person, doing the same subject continually.

I see a lot of whinging here, but I have yet to see anyone post anything in the Islam forum? Especially since a lot of what people are complaining about is imaginary persecution.

They also fail to read the charter which explains a lot better what is deemed offensive, or likely to illicit a negative response.

I think for the sake of clarity the "Other Discussions here." thread should be renamed to "Unwanted questions and discussions" because that's how it's coming across here.

While I understand your comment. The crux of it is that certain people felt "Islam forum" = "Post everything that focuses on anti-Islam" (like answeringislam spam). No interest in the religion only in seeing it destroyed.

So yes, such discussions being pushed by certain people (versus people just asking questions) is unwelcome.

The choices we had were:

Let them continue to post as normal = Muslims give up using the forum because the negative noise was much higher.

Ban them = Would solve it in the short term, but would just continue to play into the heavy handed moderator myth.

Mega Thread = Ends up turning into a bin where topics are mingled together, no way to follow the conversations.

"Muslim Only" threads = Which would also playing into "oh my they are censoring us!".

So those who want to push an anti-Islam message can still do so and that is relegated to a single thread, where Muslims can optionally read if they want, or non-Muslims can see the "other picture" as people like to call it.

Of course, if anyone has any better suggestions we are welcome to hear it.

Hobbes

Increasingly, it feels like this forum exists for certain posters to preach the Koran,

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying people are not allowed to discuss the Koran in the Islam forum?

Or if you mean "preach" as in proselytize, that has never been allowed in the forum since it's inception.

TwoShedsJackson

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by the thread asking for people's input regarding the forum.

What was the point of asking for input if everything outside of what a couple of people wanted was going to be completely disregarded.

It was discussed before and it will be discussed again.

Funny word that, discuss....

Thought it was what the forums were for.

You have to realise you're talking about Islam here, someone's SACRED BELIEF, so therefore all input and discussion is welcomed, apart from anything that questions their religious beliefs or seeks to have some sort of discussion where it is not automatically assumed that the Koran is the word of God.

Rev Hellfire

Hobbes wrote: »

Of course, if anyone has any better suggestions we are welcome to hear it.

I think you're on the right track, but a single thread does seem like you're not interested in dealing with contentious issues and simply sweeping them aside.

Lets face it the same old lines are trotted out time and time again, so perhaps create a thread or two to deal with those specifically.

Hobbes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think you're on the right track, but a single thread does seem like you're not interested in dealing with contentious issues and simply sweeping them aside.

There is nothing to stop someone posting a contentious issue on the forum.

But not everyone who posts actually wants to engage in discussion when posting. They just want to make a point. Even after the point has been debunked they continue. That is what the thread was for, "last resort" for people who engaged in that way.

It isn't sweeping them aside. Sweeping them aside would be just deleting any such threads. If anything, this underlines such posts as unlike issues that disappear over time, the sticky thread will still be there with links to all those issues.

That is why we redid the charter to detail what is more likely to offend (in the TL;DR part), or what "quoting out of context" actually is (as that is a common one that annoys).

The plan is to have the FAQ also cluster old topics on the same subject and link off to the related threads where it was discussed. A good example is "Aisha", unless new facts are found, odds on anything someone posts on that has already been asked and answered.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

Then you are arguing the wrong thing. Please read the new charter.

The new charter has nothing to do with the claim you made in the first post, that the fact that moderation on the islam forum is heavy is a misconception:
"There is a misconception that the moderation of the forum is heavy handed. Checking the history of the forum however we found that it was the same small handful of people who got warned/banned. Also the number of people banned is tiny in comparison to other forums (some ban more in a day then we have in 12 months). "

Hobbes wrote: »

Right. The same as this forum. If you are able to post an honest question, which isn't loaded to push an anti-Islam agenda (before/after), then there shouldn't be an issue.

If that was capable in the Islam forum, then there wouldn't have been a need for a change to the charter, would there? The islam forum is not open to honest critical debate of islam, thats why you have such a big problem with people complaining about the forums moderation. You take the 10/15% of critical posts that are ignorant and trolling (that every forum on the site gets, and, for the most part, manages to handle without shooting down 95% of discussions) and use it to justify coming down hard on he other 85% which are honest but just hard to answer. If this wasn't the case, then you wouldn't have had to reassess your charter.

Hobbes wrote: »

If you want to push your views on why Islam is wrong, this is not the forum for you, but we have made a thread available if you feel that somehow posting on a public forum will make it magically disappear, or that Muslims are incapable of reading/posting to other forums.

Again, this bizarre assertion that the Islam forum is not for discussion of Islam, where do you get this from? Do you think that the atheism forum is not the place to be critical of Richard Dawkins? Do you think that the PC forum is not the forum to discuss your issues of the widows OS? Why do you think the Islam forum is the only forum on the site that if you want to ask a hard question, you need to go elsewhere? Why are you incapable of doing what nearly every other forum and nearly every other moderator does? Why are you incapable of honest honest critical debate without calling oppression when hard questions are asked?

Hobbes wrote: »

Strawman.

Do you know what that actually means? Because my point is by no means a strawman, its the logical implication of what you have done. You are trying to kill all critical debate of islam by driving threads to other forums where it will most likely be closed for being off-topic, or sent back to the Islam forum, so that you can blame the moderators of other forums for their closure. The shooting forum example may be extreme, but where do you expect someone to put a thread if they are looking for a serious, honest and informed debate about Islam, if not the Islam forum?

Hobbes wrote: »

Well thanks for your input. If you are not capable of following the charter, there is nothing else we can do for you. Also unless your followup post is something that can add value to the forum, I am done on this line of discussion with you.

You have been nothing if not transparent in your facetiousness in this thread. You have even moved thsi thread to feedback to avoid having something critical on the Islam forum. Like I said, you either really love it or really hate it, and I still cant tell which.

Doctor DooM

Hobbes wrote: »

As mentioned previously, if you read the charter both forums have pretty much the same rules.

Regardless of where you cribbed the majority of the charter from, what you've said here is the exact opposite of how they act. I did not mention the charter, I was talking about how you propose to run the forum.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

I think you are the one making presumptions.

If the person wants to talk about how their lifestyle is integrated with Islam (eg. Homosexuality), there is no issue there. But if you don't agree with the response you get, continuing to argue with the response (even after the discussion has moved on) vs discussing other aspects is counter-productive.

And how do you determine that the discussion has moved on? There could be several close tangents in a thread, an OP discussing different aspects of their original post with different people, so just because some tangents come to a finish, or develop into something entirely different, doesn't mean all must finish. If they become too tangential, then you can open new threads, but unless someone is just soapboxing (either the OP or another poster), there shouldn't be a reason to stop discussions if someone still has a point to discuss.

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And how do you determine that the discussion has moved on?

Thread stops getting responded to?, or the person keeps bringing up the same point X despite them discussing it already in earlier threads.

but unless someone is just soapboxing (either the OP or another poster), there shouldn't be a reason to stop discussions if someone still has a point to discuss.

Exactly.

Hobbes

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I was talking about how you propose to run the forum.

Covered in the new forum charter.

Rev Hellfire

Hobbes wrote: »

The plan is to have the FAQ also cluster old topics on the same subject and link off to the related threads where it was discussed. A good example is "Aisha", unless new facts are found, odds on anything someone posts on that has already been asked and answered.

I understand where you are coming from, but lets face it nobody reads the faq, charters etc until after they've been smacked down.

But at least if there's a stickied thread on the issue chances are they'll post there. Its then up to people to participate or not.

Doctor DooM

Hobbes wrote: »

Covered in the new forum charter.

The Christianity forum does not behave the way you are saying is acceptable and intend to act in this thread right here regardless of how many times you mentioned you cribbed their charter. In fact, at one point, I remember the admins stepping in the disallow Christian only discussion.

Also, removing the part of my post where I said "I am not talking about the charter" only to talk about the charter... come on.

Hobbes

If that was capable in the Islam forum, then there wouldn't have been a need for a change to the charter, would there?

I am confused again. We are getting accused of not doing anything and now the same actions are to make your point.

Actually if you compare the previous charter to the current one, you will see that the previous one came across much more strict.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3201675

The new one clarifies what is most likely to offend, so that people can steer away from that when asking contentious questions.

Hobbes

Doctor DooM wrote: »

regardless of how many times you mentioned you cribbed their charter.

I never said it was cribbed, I only said it is similar and it is a *NEW* charter.

**New** ... we are discussing the new charter, not how the forum has been run previous to that.

Also, removing the part of my post where I said "I am not talking about the charter" only to talk about the charter... come on.

Do I really have to quote everyone verbatim? You made a point, I pointed out the charter has been changed to reflect that already. So I wasn't sure if you had actually read it or not.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

Not if it the same person, doing the same subject continually.

I see a lot of whinging here, but I have yet to see anyone post anything in the Islam forum? Especially since a lot of what people are complaining about is imaginary persecution.

They also fail to read the charter which explains a lot better what is deemed offensive, or likely to illicit a negative response.

I find this very disingenuous. I have not posted recently on the Islam forum (not a lot going on there at the moment besides this and not a lot of what does would be relevant to me) but I have posted in the past and I have been subject to bullying from both you and irishconvert and have diputed this with you and him in both pms and Dispute Resolution.

Hobbes wrote: »

While I understand your comment. The crux of it is that certain people felt "Islam forum" = "Post everything that focuses on anti-Islam" (like answeringislam spam). No interest in the religion only in seeing it destroyed.

People get their opinions from many sources, some are worse than others, you cant deal with that without, you know, dealing with it. Besides, I didn't see anyone here complaining about the part of the charter which says that people shouldn't quote from sites like that (I know I have no problem with it, people putting forward their own opinions always make for better discussions, than quote mining at each other).

Hobbes wrote: »

So yes, such discussions being pushed by certain people (versus people just asking questions) is unwelcome.

The choices we had were:

Let them continue to post as normal = Muslims give up using the forum because the negative noise was much higher.

To be honest, I dont shed any tears for people who are afraid of being criticised. The forum is not just for muslims. If they have a problem with being criticised, then they should open blogs, not try to take over a part of a discussion forum.

Hobbes wrote: »

"Muslim Only" threads = Which would also playing into "oh my they are censoring us!".

Except it wouldn't. With "muslim only" threads, no muslims could still open their own threads to discuss the same issue, and muslims ... adverse to criticism could ignore them in favour of the "muslim only" threads. This was suggested to you by one of the A&A mods, who pointed out that the christianity forum uses it to some success.

Hobbes wrote: »

So those who want to push an anti-Islam message can still do so and that is relegated to a single thread, where Muslims can optionally read if they want, or non-Muslims can see the "other picture" as people like to call it.

You have still not explained how you expect this thread to work. Why do you think other forums will host serious threads about Islam, when there is an Islam forum for that very purpose? Which forums do you think should house your undesirables?

Hobbes wrote: »

Of course, if anyone has any better suggestions we are welcome to hear it.

What exactly is the problem with doing what other forums do? What is wrong with "muslim only threads"? Why is it that the other forums under Religion and Spirituality can house critical threads without fear of being overloaded? Is it really that hard to merge those that overlap (and with a lot of the negative threads being based on ignorance, they will overlap). What about a sticky for "answered" or "discussed" issues (threads where discussion ended naturally) and a rule that non muslims with questions should look there first to see if their question is answered. If so no thread needed, if not they can post in the relevant linked thread asking for further clarification. Thus, you will have a database of already discussed issues, weeding out posters who only need clarification of to be corrected, and new posts will be tidily sorted into already existing threads.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

Thread stops getting responded to?,

The beauty of a forum is that the threads stay there pretty much forever, so whats the issue with people posting in old threads?

Hobbes wrote: »

or the person keeps bringing up the same point X despite them discussing it already in earlier threads.

Soapboxing, you mean? I dont remember anyone saying that any poster should be allowed to soap box or proselytize. All I see is you claiming, with not a lick of evidence, that any and all critical threads or critical posters are guilty of it.

Hobbes wrote: »

Exactly.

So why do you do it? (Look at the Dispute thread I linked to in my previous post for an example or two)

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have been subject to bullying from both you and irishconvert

You mean moderation. This thread isn't to discuss a 7 month old issue.

Except it wouldn't. With "muslim only" threads,

And what happens the second someone posts to ask a question and we say "Sorry Muslims only". 9 times out of 10 it is quite evident what is "Muslims only" from the title/subject matter. But we don't stop someone from posting on that subject.

Like I said earlier. There is nothing to stop you posting questionable issues on the forum outside of the "other discussions" but you need to be mindful as to what actually offends a Muslim when doing so. The new charter clearly clarifies that.

This was suggested to you by one of the A&A mods,

Curious, you have access to the mod religion forum?

Why do you think other forums will host serious threads about Islam,

They already do and many such threads don't give a toss about what Muslims think. If they did they would have posted in the Islam forum to begin with.

So why do you do it? (Look at the Dispute thread I linked to in my previous post for an example or two)

We are talking about the *New forum charter*, not an issue earlier in the year. If you have any recent incidents since the changes please feel free to post them.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

I am confused again. We are getting accused of not doing anything and now the same actions are to make your point.

Actually if you compare the previous charter to the current one, you will see that the previous one came across much more strict.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3201675

The new one clarifies what is most likely to offend, so that people can steer away from that when asking contentious questions.

Compared to the new charter, the changes are clearly token, i.e. they don't change anything. You still have that big conversation killer from before: "[The Islam Forum is not] FOR MUSLIMS TO HAVE TO DEFEND THEIR FAITH FROM ATTACK", but now worded it different: "[The Islam Forum] for questions/discussions about Islam, not about a person's reason for being in that religion" and coupled with a new "Other Discussions " thread. This shows that there hasn't been an attitude change from moderators, you will still declare threads you dont like as being off topic and not for the islam forum (except now they will now be moved to other forums and linked to in your new sticky, instead of closed).

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

You mean moderation. This thread isn't to discuss a 7 month old issue.

Hey, you questioned why people here haven't posted on the Islam forum. I explained why I haven't done so recently and gave a example from earlier this year of the type of moderator-power abuse that has led to this thread and the drive to change the islams forum charter and moderation attitude.

Hobbes wrote: »

And what happens the second someone posts to ask a question and we say "Sorry Muslims only". 9 times out of 10 it is quite evident what is "Muslims only" from the title/subject matter. But we don't stop someone from posting on that subject.

You could just tell them to open their own thread, as I said.

Hobbes wrote: »

Like I said earlier. There is nothing to stop you posting questionable issues on the forum outside of the "other discussions" but you need to be mindful as to what actually offends a Muslim when doing so. The new charter clearly clarifies that.

As has been explained ad nauseum, you have not shown that you can restrain yourself from heavy handed moderation when someone posts a contentious issue that some muslim poster decides to get offended at. The old charter also allowed for people to question Islam as long as they didn't offend and yet here we are.

Hobbes wrote: »

Curious, you have access to the mod religion forum?

I'm referring to Robindch's post in the "we ant your input" thread on the Islam forum, what are you talking about?

Hobbes wrote: »

They already do and many such threads don't give a toss about what Muslims think. If they did they would have posted in the Islam forum to begin with.

Examples? Because outside of AH (not the best place for a serious discussion) and A&A (should A&A really have to house all the threads that offend the religious) I cant think of a forum where it would be remotely on Topic.

Hobbes wrote: »

We are talking about the *New forum charter*, not an issue earlier in the year. If you have any recent incidents since the changes please feel free to post them.

This is a shocking level of dishonest posting from a moderator. You know full well that the issue is that the new charter (along with your new sticky) wont avoid the issues of the past, so much as displace them to other threads.

You keep saying that critical threads can still be posted in Islam, except for those that may offend muslims. The problem, still, is that its still up to the mods as before to decide whats "offensive" and you have shown nothing that indicates an attitude change to critical posts. "Critical posts are anti islam and belong on other forums" has always been your attitude and now, instead of banning and closing, you get to move them to other forums, thus making it look like the mods on the Islam forum rarely have to act harshly on their forums.

Freiheit

Hobbes,I have not continuously initiated threads on homosexuality. Reference was made to it a number of times and I responded a few times. But I only started one thread on the topic which was relatively calm.

Maybe we have different ideas on what a Moderator should be but I believe they should be impartial and not take sides. This has not been the case.

When you say that my lifestyle is incompatible with Islam you are referring only to orthodox Islam,there is many minority schools within Islam which could grow,just as they did within Christianity. But the Moderators here take sides. I simply don't believe they should. There was another lad here from Galway a year or so ago from a minority sect of Islam and Irish Convert banned him,scandalously referring to him as not a Muslim. Again if someone calls themselves a Muslim a Moderator should not call them otherwise.

Personality also is important and I think that Irishconvert is clearly low on communication skills and emotional intelligence. He has no way with words always phrases things in a very bellicose manner,rather than a gentler more diplomatic tone,more appropriate for a moderator.

I think maybe a private forum,by subscription,like sex and sexuality might be more appropriate for what the moderators want.

Hobbes

I have not continuously initiated threads on homosexuality.

Correct. Although you have a point to make regarding homosexuality, which many Muslims are going to disagree with. Continuing to argue that point with them does nothing to help.

Also previously you said the forum was homophobic, yet I didn't see any such reported posts from you prior to that. Also the new charter clearly states that everyone needs to be treated fairly.

As for the other posts, As I said this thread is not a discussion on your previous warnings/bans. There is already a system in place for that.

but now worded it different: "[The Islam Forum]

And read the part where it mentions quoting out of context.

From Charter wrote:

If you have an issue with Islam you are still free to post as long as you do so in a way which does not offend those who follow Islam. Muslims are particularly offended by insulting remarks about God (Allah), Muhammad (the Prophet of Islam), his family and early followers, and other prophets. This forum is not for people to push an anti-Islam message. We have loads of other forums where you are free to post such stuff.

Not sure how clearer we can make it for you.

Freiheit

I wasn't aware of the report 'key' until fairly recently. I shall report such in the future if I'm not banned.

Ok a majority of Muslims probably currently believe homosexuality is wrong but am I expected to ignore this message if it is continuously repeated?. Am I expected to just make my point once and never respond again regardless of what is said?. It's a useful resource for many,especially those with family members reverting to know that there is schools within Islam that have accommodated lgbt identities. They also have huge potential to grow in a changing world. This is in fact encouraged under the principle of ijtihad

jimdeans

Mr or Mrs Hobbes...if I may.

I agree with most of the posters here who say that it all seems a bit heavy in there, and a little too strict.

This is gonna be a big fight and it looks like people are very entrenched in their respective viewpoints.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't be having these types of fights for free. Why do't you just step down as the moderator and let someone else take all this flack.

I'm not saying you're not good enough to be a moderator. I'm saying it's a role that's going to take a lot of time and emotionial energy for you for little or no return. If it were me I'd just stop doing it.

Even if I was totally convinced I was right, I wouldn't be spending all this time justifying myself against a stack of people for no reward.

LoLth

just a quick question on this Freiheit: could the information not be equally useful and possibly better received if posted on a LGBT forum instead of a forum where you know, for a fact, that the majority of users would be opposed to your views ? (assuming that the majority of posters were of mainstream/majority Islamic schools of thought/belief).

Freiheit

LoLth,point taken. But if people want to learn about Islam they tend to post here,not on the lgbt forum. There has been posters on the Islam forum concerned about how a reverting family member will then relate to gay or transgender sibling etc. It's important for them to know that schools of Islam have accommodated them and as I said I can only see them growing. Such people won't look in the lgbt forum as few there would have any knowledge of Islam.

I am actually talking from experience as a first cousin is married to a Muslim.

LoLth

Freiheit wrote: »

LoLth,point taken. But if people want to learn about Islam they tend to post here,not on the lgbt forum. There has been posters on the Islam forum concerned about how a reverting family member will then relate to gay or transgender sibling etc. It's important for them to know that schools of Islam have accommodated them and as I said I can only see them growing. Such people won't look in the lgbt forum as few there would have any knowledge of Islam.

I am actually talking from experience as a first cousin is married to a Muslim.

gotcha, thanks for clarifying that for me.