Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

This forum is non-functional

1…567911

Comments

  • #242
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Absolam wrote: »
    That's my point; thanking a post simply because it disagrees with someone you disagree with is tribalism. As is the case with those ad hominems; the content and sentiment are no more than opportunistic slurs with no merit in the discussion, they get thanked because the content and sentiment is intended to hurt a poster, and some posters are small enough to like seeing that, and want to be seen to identify with those who do it.

    Agreed pretty much, though sometimes what could technically be construed as an ad hom is no more than a bit of light slagging as we've exchanged ourselves by times in the past, and the thanks are as much an appreciation of the humour as anything tribal. A good example of this here. Part of the mods role IMHO is to distinguish between this and what is intentionally hurtful, and as such you really have to ask yourself whether you want to involve yourself in a moderated discussion if your deeply unhappy with the mods. At the same time, while not technically ad hominem, you also have to consider how you react to posts and posters that strive to polarise debate into two opposing factions. I look at JC's posts on this thread for example which amount to little more than a call to arms for all good Christians to rally against the Athiests, and see them as no better than ad hom attacks where atheists are pigeon holed, mis-characterized and attacked on that basis.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #243
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    Agreed pretty much, though sometimes what could technically be construed as an ad hom is no more than a bit of light slagging as we've exchanged ourselves by times in the past, and the thanks are as much an appreciation of the humour as anything tribal. A good example of this here. Part of the mods role IMHO is to distinguish between this and what is intentionally hurtful, and as such you really have to ask yourself whether you want to involve yourself in a moderated discussion if your deeply unhappy with the mods. At the same time, while not technically ad hominem, you also have to consider how you react to posts and posters that strive to polarise debate into two opposing factions. I look at JC's posts on this thread for example which amount to little more than a call to arms for all good Christians to rally against the Athiests, and see them as no better than ad hom attacks where atheists are pigeon holed, mis-characterized and attacked on that basis.
    Where did I attack atheists ?
    I have been trying to explain why this thread is non-functional, from a Christian perspective ... because its sadly reflective of the general state of Christianity in our wider society.
    ... and if that's some kind of call to arms 'I'll eat my hat'!!!
    You are the one polarising things with your 'over the top' comments about me ... while ignoring genuine ad hominems directed against me personally on this and other threads.


  • #244
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    MOD NOTE

    @JC and anti, any chance you could take your discussion to another thread so as to allow this thread to be for feedback on improving the forum?
    We're both trying to get to the bottom of what is wrong with Christianity in our wider society ... in an attempt to explain why this forum is non-functional ... and it's only when we have established this, that we can hope to address how Christianity in general (and this forum in particular) can be invigorated.


  • #245
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    We're both trying to get to the bottom of what is wrong with Christianity in our wider society ... in an attempt to explain why this forum is non-functional ... and it's only when we have established this, that we can hope to address how Christianity in general (and this forum in particular) can be invigorated.

    Let's try work on the forum first, then tackle society ;)

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #246
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    We're both trying to get to the bottom of what is wrong with Christianity in our wider society ... in an attempt to explain why this forum is non-functional ... and it's only when we have established this, that we can hope to address how Christianity in general (and this forum in particular) can be invigorated.

    Wow, so by implication you reckon the main reason that this forum is broken is because Christianity itself is broken? I'd be more inclined to think that Christianity is actually far more diverse than you give it credit for, so your definition of very specific notion Christianity may be very different to that held by other people who consider themselves to be Christian, and that the set of beliefs and cultural preferences held by people who consider themselves Christians is actually very broad. FWIW, the same can be said of atheists, but no surprise there.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • Advertisement
  • #247
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Let's try work on the forum first, then tackle society ;)
    The two are inextricably linked.

    Issues in society impact on the forum ... and ignoring this will mean that the forum will likely continue to be non-functional.

    There is little that can be done with the forum itself ... the mods do their best, people are free to start any thread they fancy and other people are free to post/comment/thank/cricise/support already.


  • #248
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    Wow, so by implication you reckon the main reason that this forum is broken is because Christianity itself is broken? I'd be more inclined to think that Christianity is actually far more diverse than you give it credit for, so your definition of very specific notion Christianity may be very different to that held by other people who consider themselves to be Christian, and that the set of beliefs and cultural preferences held by people who consider themselves Christians is actually very broad. FWIW, the same can be said of atheists, but no surprise there.
    i have no doubt that Christianity is diverse ... and sections of it are very active in evangelising, faith formation and apologetics.

    ... a bit like the curate's egg ... good in parts !!(pun intended):)

    However, the mainstream churches are in serious trouble ... with an ageing population of regular members and clergy ... a lot of valuable real estate ... that in many cases is a major drain on resources due to it's high maintenance cost ... and a society with significant sections that are quite ungrateful for (even quite hostile to) the very good work done down the years by many clergy ... that is now eclipsed by the sins of the few.

    antiskeptic is correct, that the Holy Spirit indwelling Christians will act to inspire them and restrain some of the worst excesses of the fallen spirits.

    ... and how this all feeds into this forum will be very interesting to watch.

    I've been to new 'independent' churches that are 'full of the Spirit' ... with congregations dominated by young married couples and their children. Great worship services ... bible believing sermons ... very active Sunday Schools ... and great singing and music ...
    ... and I've been to mainstream churches where the congregation (and the clergy) are largely in their seventies (possibly older) ... and the only children present seem to be grandchildren dragged along against their will ... by grandparents ... while their parents have a sleep in. :eek:

    ... strange ... but true.

    I also was in a Roman Catholic Church (at a baptism of one of my wife's friend's children) one Sunday recently ... and there was a young priest who seemed to be 'old style' despite his youth ... and the place was packed to the rafters with all ages including young couples and their children ... I was also at CoI wedding recently and the rector seemed to be only about 25 years old ...

    ... so perhaps the mainstream churches can make a resurgence, if they go back to basics ... and recruit more young theologically orthodox and highly motivated clergy.


  • #249
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    smacl wrote: »
    sometimes what could technically be construed as an ad hom is no more than a bit of light slagging as we've exchanged ourselves by times in the past, and the thanks are as much an appreciation of the humour as anything tribal. A good example of this here.
    Sounds a bit like the usual bully's excuse; sure it was only a bit of slagging. Take your case in point; it reads to me like someone pandering to the clique, and the thanks on it shows I'm not wide of the mark. When that humour is at the expense of someone who's not part of the tribe, and not appreciated by the person it's aimed at, you can see why I think your example falls squarely into tribalism rather than meritorious posting.
    smacl wrote: »
    Part of the mods role IMHO is to distinguish between this and what is intentionally hurtful, and as such you really have to ask yourself whether you want to involve yourself in a moderated discussion if your deeply unhappy with the mods.
    Honestly, I don't think so. Whether or not it's intentionally hurtful, it's an attack on a poster rather that engaging with the post, and adding thanks to such an attack adds weight and a semblence of acceptability to what is, in essence, bullying. Ad hominems are against the rules; it shouldn't be up to Mods to decide which ad homs are acceptable and which aren't, that just reinforces the cliques. Impartial action to moderate a discussion keeping it within the rules should mean posters aren't left deeply unhappy with mods, because they know they're dealt with equitably.
    smacl wrote: »
    At the same time, while not technically ad hominem, you also have to consider how you react to posts and posters that strive to polarise debate into two opposing factions. I look at JC's posts on this thread for example which amount to little more than a call to arms for all good Christians to rally against the Athiests, and see them as no better than ad hom attacks where atheists are pigeon holed, mis-characterized and attacked on that basis.
    Mmmm.. I think you're doing a bit of mischaracterisation yourself there. Certainly, JC is saying he feels Christians should be as supportive of each other as many of the atheists are of each other, but it's unfair to say he's calling for them to be attacked on any basis. Nor is JC (or any other posters in either forum that I've noticed) striving to polarise debate into two opposing factions. The debates in both fora tend to be driven by polar views, sure, but those are the views of the posters, no one is trying to drive them that way.
    My own feeling is it's not Christians vs Atheists, and each to their own, but more certain groups of posters who tend to either support or attack other posters often not so much based on what anyone says, but on who is saying it. It's not respectful of those they oppose or those they support, and I think it owes more to a desire to belong than a desire to participate.

    In this I agree with Peregrinus; creating a culture of respect is what keeps discussion going, which means respecting (and acting respectfully towards) those we disagree with, even when disputing what they say. Freedom to disagree should not be dependent on how much thanks a poster gets, or how entertaining they are, or how often they bow to the gestalt, it should only depend on whether their disagreement is offered respectfully and adds some dimension to the discussion. Otherwise we're all just bullies, in one gang or another.


  • #250
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The two are inextricably linked.

    Issues in society impact on the forum ... and ignoring this will mean that the forum will likely continue to be non-functional.

    There is little that can be done with the forum itself ... the mods do their best, people are free to start any thread they fancy and other people are free to post/comment/thank/cricise/support already.
    MOD NOTE

    Please keep the discussion to feedback for improving the forum.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #251
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sounds a bit like the usual bully's excuse; sure it was only a bit of slagging.

    If you wander into any forum on boards dedicated to a given topic and start posting a large volume of material which the bulk of the forums regulars consider anywhere between nonsense and mildly inflammatory, you can expect to meet some vitriolic response. Another forum I post on here is the cycling forum, where we regularly get motorists posting all sorts of nonsense that has been well covered in the past and adds zero value to ongoing discussion. They also get roasted, much as atheists posting on the Christianity forum do, it is very much par for the course. Respect beyond a certain minimum level isn't a right, it is something earned.

    And for the record, referring to Atheists collectively as a group that have more in common than not believing in a god or gods such that Atheism bears similar characteristics to a quasi-religious group is the type of behaviour that will draw derision in the A&A forum, where many regulars would consider it trolling when done intentionally on a repeated basis.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    smacl wrote: »
    If you wander into any forum on boards dedicated to a given topic and start posting a large volume of material which the bulk of the forums regulars consider anywhere between nonsense and mildly inflammatory, you can expect to meet some vitriolic response..
    Sure; and vitriol directed at a post may produce discussion, but vitriol directed at a poster doesn't. Though it does tend to accrue thanks from certain regular posters.
    smacl wrote: »
    And for the record, referring to Atheists collectively as a group that have more in common than not believing in a god or gods such that Atheism bears similar characteristics to a quasi-religious group is the type of behaviour that will draw derision in the A&A forum, where many regulars would consider it trolling when done intentionally on a repeated basis.
    What you're talking about there; 'many regulars' being derisive? That's what I'm saying is tribalism. There are most certainly posters on A&A who, like posters on Christianity, share values and characteristic viewpoints, and who act if not cohesively then at least in concert (perhaps again like some Christians), to wit, the thanking of abusive posts for one. So JC isn't at all wide of the mark... it's not all Atheists, just like it's not all Christians, but there is undoubtedly a banding together to suppress/attack/belittle opinions expressed by people who just aren't 'the right sort', and maybe would be better off not hanging round here, eh? Nobody benefits from attitudes like that.


  • #253
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure; and vitriol directed at a post may produce discussion, but vitriol directed at a poster doesn't. Though it does tend to accrue thanks from certain regular posters.

    Fair enough if we're talking about an individual post or a small number of posts, but if we're dealing with posters who are the most prolific on the forum then respondents are going to tire of responding to each and every post. Going further, if we're talking about posters who are regularly getting carded for their behaviour, it seems reasonable that they can expect a certain amount of flak. That said, part of the A&A charter is a simple be nice, and my experience is that this is largely the case.
    What you're talking about there; 'many regulars' being derisive? That's what I'm saying is tribalism. There are most certainly posters on A&A who, like posters on Christianity, share values and characteristic viewpoints, and who act if not cohesively then at least in concert (perhaps again like some Christians), to wit, the thanking of abusive posts for one. So JC isn't at all wide of the mark... it's not all Atheists, just like it's not all Christians, but there is undoubtedly a banding together to suppress/attack/belittle opinions expressed by people who just aren't 'the right sort', and maybe would be better off not hanging round here, eh? Nobody benefits from attitudes like that.

    I haven't denied there's an element of tribalism involved, but that is always going to be the the case where you have a forum dedicated to a specific interest group. The same is true of every forum here, not least the Christianity forum. Lest we forget, the central point of this thread seems very much to be that A&A regulars area nuisance and 'maybe would be better off not hanging round here'. It does rather appear to be an appeal for double standards.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #254
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    smacl wrote: »
    Fair enough if we're talking about an individual post or a small number of posts, but if we're dealing with posters who are the most prolific on the forum then respondents are going to tire of responding to each and every post. Going further, if we're talking about posters who are regularly getting carded for their behaviour, it seems reasonable that they can expect a certain amount of flak.
    I disagree. A poster should not expect personal attacks if they are prolific or if they are carded (especially if carded, that's a real 'outgroup' move). Personal attacks simply aren't acceptable. If a poster is tired of responding to each and every post they can simply not respond rather than sniping at someone.
    smacl wrote: »
    That said, part of the A&A charter is a simple be nice, and my experience is that this is largely the case.
    Seems simple, but my observation has been that there are some posters who will participate in discussions only to sneer at others, particularly so when they feel their bullying is playing to the ingroup, and others who feel that being nice is only required when the mods are nice to a poster; anyone outside the clique is fair game. I suspect your experience owes more to your own admission that to you some behaviours make posters fair game for not being nice to.
    smacl wrote: »
    I haven't denied there's an element of tribalism involved, but that is always going to be the the case where you have a forum dedicated to a specific interest group. The same is true of every forum here, not least the Christianity forum. Lest we forget, the central point of this thread seems very much to be that A&A regulars area nuisance and 'maybe would be better off not hanging round here'. It does rather appear to be an appeal for double standards.
    I got the impression that JCs central point was that Christian posters should band together and be as supportive/mean as Atheist posters. If you consider the OP, that was also about bullying, as well as attacks on Christian faith which are also against the rules. I'd say the central point would appear to be more that (some) A&A regulars 'maybe would leave everyone better off if they played by the rules'?


  • #255
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Probably best to agree to disagree on this so. My take on it is that boards is a place for friendly discussion, odd bits of advice and a chance to see what other people are up to who might have a very different world view. If I was talking so much that I was regularly being told to shut up, I'd probably consider talking less and listening more, and wait until I'd something to say that people might be interested in listening to.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #256
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I agree, it's a place for friendly discussion, and I think that's ruined when posters engage in the kind of cliquey bullying we've seen; it certainly doesn't contribute to seeing what other people are up to who might have a very different world view. I think being nice and not piling on posters with different world views isn't terribly hard to do, and will help all the R&S fora thrive.


  • #257
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I think what you're referring to as bullying is simply intolerance to soap-boxing rather than attacking people because of their world view. Respectful treatment from other posters is going to diminish over time in this instance.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #258
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Certainly intolerance, I'll agree with that. The current vogue for redefining soapboxing seems to have rendered it 'consistently expressing opinions the lads don't like and not being a good sport by giving up when we say nasty stuff about you', which I don't much care for. That said, if the original definition of soapboxing (constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it) were upheld, a lot of the 'regular posters' might find themselves having to entertain some real discussion of their views instead, which probably wouldn't go down too well.

    No, I think a bit more tolerance all round is what's called for. The Christianity forum won't benefit from adopting behaviours from A&A. If anything, it should strive in true Christian fashion to be a beacon to others, a lamp to the path as it were.


  • #259
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'd suggest that soap-boxing in the context of the A&A is treating the forum as a pulpit. No so sure about your 'light to the path' analogy, as even once you take all us feelthy heathens out of the Christianity forum, poster seem to be going in very different directions from one another with their beliefs. Anyhoo, probably doing to much soap-boxing of my own here, so I'll leave it at that.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #260
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'd suggest it's simply what the A&A Charter says it is, no real need to redefine it. A light to the path is a means of showing others the way, so you see, much like JC and the OP, I'm not suggesting taking 'all us feelthy heathens out of the Christianity forum'. Excluding and deriding posters is exactly the sort of A&A behaviour I'm saying posters in Christianity would do well not to emulate if the forum is to improve.


  • #261
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Very 'respectful' ... I must say ... are you getting paid to repeat the word 'nonsence'?
    ... or is it your strategy to throw enough mud and hope that some sticks ... or repeat the word 'nonsense' ad nauseum, in the hope that somebody will believe you ... rather than read what I post?

    ... and FYI I wasn't talking about myself ... I was talking about Christian posts in general.:(

    Your cynical personalised debating style is regrettable ... and a very bad advertisement for the Atheism you believe in.

    Rather than merely claiming that my posts are 'nonsense' ... you could try, for once, to show how this might be the case ... but of course, as it isn't the case ... you have to confine yourself to repeating unfounded personal insults against me.

    Respect is earned. You have earned none.

    Why waste my time pointing out your nonsense. What would difference would my doing it make, given that you ignore everyone else that points it out?

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Acting respectfully is not the same as respecting; behaving respectfully (or not) towards people you encounter whether they earn respect or not is a statement about your character. Whether they choose to earn your respect or not is a statement about theirs.


  • #263
    EirWatchr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 119 ✭✭EirWatchr


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Because the alleged 90% majority of Christians are merely alleged. That the true figure falling a long way short of that?

    True. It was not my figure. At last census, Christianity was at least relevant enough to 78% of the population to put it down as their religion.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The atheists may be able to drown out .. because they are giving voice to the kinds of things that a large number of people in some way or another agree with, if not themselves atheists.

    Not sure what things you are referring to, but if its questions about their religion, getting the answers to them predominantly from those who don't share their religion (rather than from those who do) seems a sure fire way to lose the relevancy of their religion in their lives.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Speaking as one who raised furious objection at one point but who was nevertheless saved..

    It strikes me that God can handle objection. For there is good reason to object if you haven't had your eyes open. You've got people (the church) wielding huge power, who, in the eyes of someone with no reason to suppose otherwise, have no more basis for their position than a superstition.

    It's difficult whatever the issue. I mean, there are widely diverging views amongst Christians on how it is a person comes to be saved.

    Good on you. Just as Saul/Paul showed, even those who once persecuted Christians can be saved through a personal encounter with Jesus, and their previous sins forgiven - that much all Christians agree on.

    And it can happen anytime in our life.

    God can handle objection, and courts no defense. However, implicit in your comment about the church is the agreement that there are people (not God) who can actually lead those searching for God away from Him. Which does prompt the question (also implicit in your comments) - where then do you go, that will not lead astray, for the full truth about God?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Dawkins, remember, does as much damage to his cause as he does good. The same goes for those who ape his irrational hatred of faith.
    The reader who wants to be informed will be thus informed, one way or the other.

    Yes, people of faith can also do as much to lead those of faith (or seeking faith) from the true path, especially if trying to do justice to deep spiritual matters of their faith and relationship with God in a garrulous forum unsuited to it.

    It is the point I made.

    A reader can only be informed by the extent of what he reads. If he (or she) sees on here only argument and contention, that is all they will understand Christianity to be - a caricature of what Christians understand our faith to be.

    Church gathering, like it or not, faulty or no, plays a necessary role in Christian life.
    ("Do this in memory of me", "on this rock I will build My church")

    The journey towards God is a lifelong search ... and more.


  • #264
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Given the subject that religious belief addresses, the nature of existence, the origin of existence, it shouldn't be suprising that those with differing views would want to question those beliefs.
    Otherwise, don't have a public forum.


  • #265
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    One of the protocols of the A&A forum is not discussing what goes on on 't'other' forum (meaning this one). It's bad form, as it denies those being discussed the right to reply (after all, they may be unaware of the conversation). Such behavior would certainly make boards.ie non-functional; instead of being an exchange of ideas through rigorous discourse, it becomes a gossip-house. Perhaps the Christianity forum would benefit from observing a similar convention? If a poster feels they are being picked on, surely the thing to do it to flag it in the relevant forum? What can be achieved by whinging about it on an entirely different forum? How does that add to the functionality of boards.ie?

    That said, if one does gird the loins and sally forth into the lions den to do battle, one can hardly complain if the lions occasionally bite. Especially if one is, yet again, peddling the same old same old, oblivious to the arguments of others....


  • #266
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    What makes a forum functional non is a lack of core concept about its aims. Instead having a base of users who accept the underlying concepts there is a constrant battle to dominate the narriative. A forum of tribal warfare of competing ideas which does not make it a fit community to attract posters. Which as a commercial entity is not in the best interests of boards.
    A model that operates on Reddit where there are clear DMZs between mutual ideological tenets and their adherents could be a model.


  • #267
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    pauldla wrote: »
    One of the protocols of the A&A forum is not discussing what goes on on 't'other' forum (meaning this one). It's bad form, as it denies those being discussed the right to reply (after all, they may be unaware of the conversation).Such behavior would certainly make boards.ie non-functional; instead of being an exchange of ideas through rigorous discourse, it becomes a gossip-house. Perhaps the Christianity forum would benefit from observing a similar convention?
    Well, the protocol is actually "Try to avoid posting in one forum about goings-on in the other -- law-abiding posters have a right of reply, so include a cross-forum link if you do want to do this". Whilst I have my doubts there is much of an attempt to have an exchange of ideas through rigorous discourse on either forum, certainly cross forum links would help if someone wants to point out something in particular (as Smacl did when he chose your post for discussion), though I'm not sure how it would create a right to reply.
    pauldla wrote: »
    If a poster feels they are being picked on, surely the thing to do it to flag it in the relevant forum? What can be achieved by whinging about it on an entirely different forum? How does that add to the functionality of boards.ie?
    To be fair, I don't think JC was looking to whinge about being picked on; he was saying Christian posters should behave cohesively in Christianity as he perceives Atheist posters to behave in A&A, in support of each others positions, so his point is in the correct forum. My own feeling, obviously, is that there is a bit more to the dynamics than that, but that both fora would benefit from a bit more thought about how posters treat each other.


  • #268
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    To improve this forum: review aspects of the charter. A four letter word can earn a user a yellow card for infringing said charter, yet another poster can deliberately write paragraph after paragraph of text that infringes the same charter and personally insults people of faith and get away with a Mod note. Hardly proportional.


  • #269
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, the protocol is actually "Try to avoid posting in one forum about goings-on in the other -- law-abiding posters have a right of reply, so include a cross-forum link if you do want to do this". Whilst I have my doubts there is much of an attempt to have an exchange of ideas through rigorous discourse on either forum, certainly cross forum links would help if someone wants to point out something in particular (as Smacl did when he chose your post for discussion), though I'm not sure how it would create a right to reply.

    Indeed, I am glad you are familiar with said protocol (was my rendition so different from what you have quoted?). Rigorous discourse is, I am sure, something we all aspire to, if not always attain; some, perhaps, will engage in pedantic wordplay, for their own ends. Others may see an opportunity for a modest display of wit, especially if it is with a poster with whom they have often engaged before. We all seek our amusements after our own fashion. Cross-forum links would, as you say, be helpful in keeping the discourse going; but I must agree with your point about how they could facilitate a right of rely. Better to have such links than not, I am sure, but perhaps addressing one's grievances directly in the relevant forum would be better?


    To be fair, I don't think JC was looking to whinge about being picked on; he was saying Christian posters should behave cohesively in Christianity as he perceives Atheist posters to behave in A&A, in support of each others positions, so his point is in the correct forum. My own feeling, obviously, is that there is a bit more to the dynamics than that, but that both fora would benefit from a bit more thought about how posters treat each other.

    If you feel that my comments in that thread on A&A were abusive, or that the 'thanks' I earned were 'pandering to a clique', I heartily invite you to take it up on the relevant thread. There is a 'Report' function that can be employed, and such responses as you may receive may also give you insight (both directly and indirectly) on whatever dynamics you suspect are at play. One cannot complain about the functionality of threads if one does not employ the functions, surely?


  • #270
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    pauldla wrote: »
    One cannot complain about the functionality of threads if one does not employ the functions, surely?

    But here lies the problem. Complaints about moderation here are directed to the moderator who is considered biased. And the mods decision is final.
    Cmods aren't worth contacting, and starting a thread? Please...


    The issue of moderation made it onto the wikipedia page about boards some time back - and it wasn't a troll edit. It is a sitewide problem so don't sit there are say that using the correct means will bring the correct solution.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    pauldla wrote: »
    Indeed, I am glad you are familiar with said protocol (was my rendition so different from what you have quoted?).
    Sufficiently so that it was worth quoting the actual rule; you did change 'try to avoid posting' to 'not discussing' and left out what posters should do when they do discuss other fora... so you erred towards the impression of prohibition rather than regulation I'd say.
    pauldla wrote: »
    Rigorous discourse is, I am sure, something we all aspire to, if not always attain; some, perhaps, will engage in pedantic wordplay, for their own ends. Others may see an opportunity for a modest display of wit, especially if it is with a poster with whom they have often engaged before. We all seek our amusements after our own fashion.
    I rather doubt we all do, but nonetheless, when the modest display of wit is at the expense of someone who doesn't appreciate it, and is applauded by the usual gang, you might understand how that feels like bullying to the butt of the joke.
    pauldla wrote: »
    Cross-forum links would, as you say, be helpful in keeping the discourse going; but I must agree with your point about how they could facilitate a right of rely. Better to have such links than not, I am sure, but perhaps addressing one's grievances directly in the relevant forum would be better?
    Well I did point out already; I don't think JC was airing a grievance at all, there was rather more than that to his point.
    pauldla wrote: »
    If you feel that my comments in that thread on A&A were abusive, or that the 'thanks' I earned were 'pandering to a clique', I heartily invite you to take it up on the relevant thread. There is a 'Report' function that can be employed, and such responses as you may receive may also give you insight (both directly and indirectly) on whatever dynamics you suspect are at play. One cannot complain about the functionality of threads if one does not employ the functions, surely?
    I don't think anyone did complain about the functionality of the threads? If JC felt sufficiently aggrieved by your post I imagine he would have reported it, though given those who thanked it he may (reasonably) feel that's not worthwhile. As for taking it up on the thread, well JC already pointed it out to you and you disingenuously tried to play your 'wit' off as an honest enquiry. Given looksee's subsequent warnings to get back on topic, I don't think it would be wise for anyone to drag it up again, do you?

    Still, your defense of your post is dragging us rather off-topic I think, both the OPs and JCs. Suffice to say I think that kind of posting is not what I think Christianity should be encouraging if it is to become more functional; posters can engage in discourse (rigorous or otherwise),enjoy pedantic wordplay and even displays of wit, I think, without disrespecting other posters, and sparing a moment to consider how respectful we are towards each other might go some ways towards making the forum a little more functional. I don't think that's a job for the Mods, I think it's a job for (all of) the posters.


Advertisement