PI Charter

Fanny Cradock

Hi guys,

Given the response from Beruthiel in this post, might I suggest that it would be a good idea to update the PI charter to reflect that PI is a secular forum (like A&A) and no advice relating to God or religion is tolerated (unlike the A&A forum). While I feel that such a rule ignores those who can and do find resolutions to their problems through their belief (and I'm not talking about any belief in particular), I also acknowledge the minefield of arguments and trolling that could follow otherwise.

Overheal

Thats a grey area. I'm not religious either but have suggested exploring faith as an option to OPs in the past, and I've seen great analogies used that brought up god. Definitively though saying things like "You cannot have it all without knowing God. God is the only thing that bring happiness" is a stretch beyond suggesting somebody explore religion.

seamus

It doesn't need to be said that lecturing someone about god on PI is not advice.

If someone doesn't understand that, that's their problem, not PI's.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

PI is a secular forum (like A&A) and no advice relating to God or religion is tolerated (unlike the A&A forum).

LOL!

Beruthiel

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hi guys,

Given the response from Beruthiel in this post, might I suggest that it would be a good idea to update the PI charter to reflect that PI is a secular forum .

I see no reason to change the charter.
It only takes a bit of cop on to know that not everyone is interested in having religion shoved down their throat as a solution to all their life's problems.
If the OP in that thread wanted religious guidance, they would have gone to anyone of the religious forums on this site.
I consider it nothing short of presumption to think that the OP should follow Gareth37's particular god instead of another.
I expect most people posting on Boards to 'get that'. In all my years modding PI, this is the very first instance where a member (Gareth37) didn't.

Overheal

Dades wrote: »

LOL!

Oh yes, BIG WIN. :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

LOL!

I demand a thanks!

Adam

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I demand a thanks!

whore...

Nerin

Mirror wrote: »

whore...

Of babylon?

I'm thinking i agree with ruthie,but also with fanny (that sounded odd aloud)
People want religious advice,take it to the religious forums. But i don't think religion should be totally banned from pi. My 2c.

Dades

Overheal wrote: »

Oh yes, BIG WIN. :rolleyes:

Your use of the dreaded rolleyes confuses me greatly, as do the accompanying words.

Fanny Cradock

Beruthiel wrote: »

I see no reason to change the charter.
It only takes a bit of cop on to know that not everyone is interested in having religion shoved down their throat as a solution to all their life's problems.
If the OP in that thread wanted religious guidance, they would have gone to anyone of the religious forums on this site.
I consider it nothing short of presumption to think that the OP should follow Gareth37's particular god instead of another.
I expect most people posting on Boards to 'get that'. In all my years modding PI, this is the very first instance where a member (Gareth37) didn't.

I certainly don't agree in the manner gareth37 went about giving advice. The word 'tactless' springs to mind. However, PI is not a forum of absolutes. What works for one person might not work for another.

Yes, a poster could go to the appropriate religious forum. However, you could apply the same reasoning to somebody who is overweight - they should go to the fitness forum not PI.

The notion that one post constitutes having religion shoved down people's throat is hyperbole. His is an opinion, however inappropriately expressed, that's all.

As for him presuming that his advice is correct, don't many people proffer their advice on the PI with the same certainty?

Listen, I want to clear up that I'm not having a go at you or how you go about your business, Beruthiel. I believe that I can appreciate what a difficult job modding the PI forum can be. Added to this, I also realise that you want to avoid the inevitable problems of trolling etc. It's just that I am confused. Is the mention of all things metaphysical banned in PI?

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Your use of the dreaded rolleyes confuses me greatly, as do the accompanying words.

Let us form an unholy alliance and get him, Dades!

Nevyn

There is a difference between a helpful suggestion that if the op is religious/spiritaul to look for help or guidance and preaching and proselytism.

One has it's place in PI the other does not.
One is respectful of what ever religion/spirituality or lack there of a person has the other is onetruewayism which is not acceptable and many consider it offensive.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let us form an unholy alliance and get him, Dades!

* cue rockin' 80's guitar riff *

Fanny Cradock

"Back in the summer of '69...."

Fanny Cradock

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is a difference between a helpful suggestion that if the op is religious/spiritaul to look for help or guidance and preaching and proselytism.

One has it's place in PI the other does not.
One is respectful of what ever religion/spirituality or lack there of a person has the other is onetruewayism which is not acceptable and many consider it offensive.

I agree that there is little place for proselytising, but that is separate issue from mentioning the possibility that some manner of metaphysical belief could have positive effects.

metrovelvet

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hi guys,

Given the response from Beruthiel in this post, might I suggest that it would be a good idea to update the PI charter to reflect that PI is a secular forum (like A&A) and no advice relating to God or religion is tolerated (unlike the A&A forum). While I feel that such a rule ignores those who can and do find resolutions to their problems through their belief (and I'm not talking about any belief in particular), I also acknowledge the minefield of arguments and trolling that could follow otherwise.

Except AA uses a lot of references to God and the higher power.

Wibbs

AA = alcos anon, A&A = atheists and agnostics forum. Can see the confusion though.

Marksie

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree that there is little place for proselytising, but that is separate issue from mentioning the possibility that some manner of metaphysical belief could have positive effects.

Thaed isn't disagreeing with you, neither am I.
But look at the post..in particular the last paragraph.

Its fine to say xyz works for me you should consider it.

Its the last paragraph that is the issue. PI is not teh place for it..we have relgion and spirituality forums where the op could explore further and find a path that suits him or her

Funnily enough,I doubt it was the intention of the poster to proselytise.
I'm thinking that it just a case of the poster bursting with the joy of the Lord and genuinely wanting to spread it around.

I get the impression that some people into that,get into a trance like state sometimes in their need to spread the word.That post, though short,was downright free presbyterian in it's ott esque response to the Op's dilemma and ergo out of place.
In PI I'd imagine posts like that are rare though as religous people aren't likely to want to be corrupted by some of the immoral filth that posters there seem to get up to

LolaDub

I find myself agreeing with fanny here. While i am catholic and would welcome advice regarding reading a scripture to feel better during a difficult time, i understand many people would not. I imagine the original poster was posting something they believed, in contrast to the a&a views on the forum. I don't see a problem with religious beliefs being offered as advice. I do see a problem with religious beliefs being shoved down someones throat, the same problem i would have with an atheist shoving their belief down mine. I think people looking to discuss religion would post in religious forums, people looking for fitness tips would post in fitness and people with a problem or feeling down would post in P.I. regardless of religion.

Fanny Cradock

Marksie wrote: »

Thaed isn't disagreeing with you, neither am I.
But look at the post..in particular the last paragraph.

Its fine to say xyz works for me you should consider it.

Its the last paragraph that is the issue. PI is not teh place for it..we have relgion and spirituality forums where the op could explore further and find a path that suits him or her

Indeed, and as I've pointed out, I'm certainly not defending his post. I want to leave that behind and look more at the generality of the warning. This has caused my confusion and prompted this thread.

PI is a secular forum.
Please don't discuss god in here again, not everyone believes or is interested in religion.

If PI has banned all mention of God (all of them :pac:) so be it. I certainly wouldn't agree, but I'm not going to start getting pant wettingly hysterical at this decision. However, I would think that the charter needs to be updated to reflect this.

I dunno, maybe I'm unintentionally backing you guys into a corner here when you normally play these grey areas by ear.

Orion

There's a reason hostage negotiators don't allow priests to be brought in ...

Overheal

I Am Charter, Hear Me Roar.

Had to be said

Toto Wolfcastle

While it's fair to say that not everyone believes in God or is interested in religion, there are people who do and who are.

Therefore an outright ban on mentioning/discussing God could be seen as unfair.

Considering the way in which that post was worded, I can understand why the poster was warned. However, I believe that constructive advice that involves religion can be helpful. That is, as long as it's offered as an option and not presented as the be-all and end-all.

So I don't think telling someone not to discuss God is really fair.

LolaDub

LolaDub wrote: »

I think people looking to discuss religion would post in religious forums, people looking for fitness tips would post in fitness and people with a problem or feeling down would post in P.I. regardless of religion.

In my experience some mods though often tend to get fed up of moving posts to the relevant fora.
They sometimes instantly blame the user for posting in the wrong place as if they should know better.
Mods to be honest should remember that ordinary users aren't like mods.They are not automatically aware of this most of the time regardless of how often they post here.Some of them are and a lot of them aren't
Having to move posts from time to time takes seconds and if it annoys mods to have to do this,they shouldn't be mods.
Just an observation on your point.

Nerin

From what i see,i think banning ridiculous "god is the only way" posts is fine,but allowing religious answers that aren't in yore face would be ok. For example-if someone posted saying they were stressed,and someone replied maybe try meditating to such and such a buddhist cd. Would that answer be banned? Also-did this problem come about due to a user that some people think is fundamentalist and others think was trolling?

Marksie

Nerin wrote: »

From what i see,i think banning ridiculous "god is the only way" posts is fine,but allowing religious answers that aren't in yore face would be ok. For example-if someone posted saying they were stressed,and someone replied maybe try meditating to such and such a buddhist cd. Would that answer be banned?

No.
If they said "they had lost their soul"... and terminology alonmg those lines. Yes

Nerin wrote: »

Also-did this problem come about due to a user that some people think is fundamentalist and others think was trolling?

Well look at the concurrent feedback thread started by said user and make up your own mind

Nerin

Lollers I'll go with yes thanks for clearing that up marksie

Dudess

Helpfully recommending/suggesting an exploration of the spiritual is one thing, preaching to someone about how nobody is truly happy until they find god (like the post in question) is quite another.

Toto Wolfcastle

Dudess wrote: »

Helpfully recommending/suggesting an exploration of the spiritual is one thing, preaching to someone about how nobody is truly happy until they find god (like the post in question) is quite another.

Yup, exactly.

The only real problem that I see is that the wording of Beruthiel's warning suggested an outright ban on talking about God, etc.

As long as it's not overboard, like the offending post, it should be grand.