Use of "Christians Only" subject lines.

prinz

monosharp wrote: »

We all know the reason why they want these tags here. They don't want to hear anyone disagree with them, they want to hear people of the same mindset.

Intentional example of exactly the kind of posting that brought about the subject line caveat to begin with?

As others have said there are plenty of threads where Christians and non-Christians can discuss things to their hearts content. Agreeing with, disagreeing with etc. Hooray.

On the other hand one of the reasons I got interested in this forum was because I knew if I had a question on something, and felt that I needed help from someone with a better understanding of Christianity it could be gotten here. This is an important avenue for some people. There are not many people I know personally who I could approach to do likewise without getting scoffed at and having the piss taken. The benefit of coming to a forum like this was the ability to ask a question/discuss a topic without having the piss taken constantly, or having to scroll through post after post of people with no interest in Christianity, by the end of the thread the original question/topic has been forgotten/thread has been locked because of trolling etc and it hasn't been any help whatsoever.

I don't see how having certain threads designated Christian only etc differs at all from having to be "pre-approved" to post in the Soccer forum. Can anyone explain why that is ok? What if the Christianity forum became one where you had to be approved by the Mods and could be banned from same?

The type of muppetry that wouldn't be accepted in many another forum on this site is now something that the people who post here should have to put up with 'just because'? I find the reasoning bizarre when this forum is compared to some others which are operated on a far stricter basis, Soccer, Politics, Personal Issues, Relationship Issues etc. Perhaps it would be fine to remove the Christian Repsonses Only tag, if the moderators were given free reign to ban posters like they do in Personal Issues if they are deemed too 'off topic' etc... although I understand that would put a burden on the mods here. Sorry guys.

Zombrex

28064212 wrote: »

Isn't the last paragraph a perfect example of why it's not needed? Motors doesn't have "Pro-Golf posters only" subject lines

If someone comes onto the Christianity forum spouting "It's all ****e, doesn't exist, blah blah blah" I'd expect them to be banned, whether the thread asked for Christian responses or not. It's explicitly banned by the charter.

I don't see what a "Christian responses only" line adds to the forum that isn't either covered by the charter or specifically to stifle viewpoints that the thread starter doesn't agree with

Yeah that example above is actually a terrible example of why it is needed, as you say that sort of behavior is rare and covered by the charter.

The Christian Only tag was original proposed (by me I think) because regular Christian posters were saying that the types of discussions they wanted to have with each other about specifics of Christians doctrine were becoming lost in theological and philosophical debates with non-Chrisitans who, while not approaching anywhere near the charter breaking examples above, were still questioning and querying a lot of the aspects of what was being said, sending the threads into more general areas of discussion.

A better example would be something like this

Christian 1 - What do people think Paul meant by this passage in the Bible

Atheist 1 - You know it is doubtful that Paul even wrote that.

Christian 2 - We have historical evidence of Paul's letters back to the 1st century

Atheist 2 - Nonsense, the oldest remaining documents date from the 3rd century

Christian 1 - I really don't think that is true, the finds from the Middle East point to ...

etc etc etc

The Christian Spirited responses tag would probably have stopped Atheist 1's comment in its tracks.

To be honest these tags were as much for other Christians as they were for non-Christians.

It takes two to tango as they say, and threads on this forum derailed as much because Christians were happy to debate and argue with off topic atheist comments like the one from Atheist 1 as much as atheists were happy to make the comments in the first place. The tag makes it clear to both parties that these discussions are not the purpose of the thread.

While I still think the tag is useful, since it was introduced the vast number of threads that Christians claimed were being suppressed by off topic debate and discussion haven't materialized, so I take claims that this is strongly needed with a pinch of salt.

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

This is where I would object. In my capacity as a boards.ie member, for whatever that is worth. :rolleyes: I object to the fact that you would seek to exclude me from a discussion on this site due strictly to the fact that I am not a Christian. This isn't the first time you have expressed such an opinion either. I find it more than a little unsettling to be honest Jimi.

Well I make no apology for it. Most of the Christians here don't seem to hold my opinion on this anyway, and the compromise was this Christian spirited thing. Which I can live with. Sometimes, IMO, Christian 'spirited' is not enough. Unfortunately the paranoia kicks in with some posters who feel they're posting 'rights' are being impaired, thinking its a 'lock down group-think'. When really its just a question specifically aimed at Christians. Simple as that. It unsettles you? Well, what can I say. It seems a bit tin foil hat to me.

The concerns you have put forward in relation to 'secularism' don't seem to be consistent when you are standing on the other side of the fence man.

I don't know what you mean?

28064212

Wicknight wrote: »

The Christian Only tag was original proposed (by me I think) because regular Christian posters were saying that the types of discussions they wanted to have with each other about specifics of Christians doctrine were becoming lost in theological and philosophical debates with non-Chrisitans who, while not approaching anywhere near the charter breaking examples above, were still questioning and querying a lot of the aspects of what was being said, sending the threads into more general areas of discussion.

A better example would be something like this

Christian 1 - What do people think Paul meant by this passage in the Bible

Atheist 1 - You know it is doubtful that Paul even wrote that.

Christian 2 - We have historical evidence of Paul's letters back to the 1st century

Atheist 2 - Nonsense, the oldest remaining documents date from the 3rd century

Christian 1 - I really don't think that is true, the finds from the Middle East point to ...

etc etc etc

The Christian Spirited responses tag would probably have stopped Atheist 1's comment in its tracks.

To be honest these tags were as much for other Christians as they were for non-Christians.

It takes two to tango as they say, and threads on this forum derailed as much because Christians were happy to debate and argue with off topic atheist comments like the one from Atheist 1 as much as atheists were happy to make the comments in the first place. The tag makes it clear to both parties that these discussions are not the purpose of the thread.

While I still think the tag is useful, since it was introduced the vast number of threads that Christians claimed were being suppressed by off topic debate and discussion haven't materialized, so I take claims that this is strongly needed with a pinch of salt.

See, to me, that example breaks rules 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the charter, and arguably 6 and 7 as well, and probably the general boards rule on off-topic posting too. Maybe it's just that a more "heavy-handed" approach from the mods in such instances (although I appreciate that would have to be considered in light of the workload increase).

prinz

28064212 wrote: »

Maybe it's just that a more "heavy-handed" approach from the mods in such instances (although I appreciate that would have to be considered in light of the workload increase).

The problem is when the mods are "heavy-handed" with regard to infractions and bans and what-not they are just as quickly accused of trying to 'stifle' discussion and of picking on certain people, conspiring to ban non-Christians, and we're back to square one.

Fanny Cradock

28064212 wrote: »

See, to me, that example breaks rules 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the charter, and arguably 6 and 7 as well, and probably the general boards rule on off-topic posting too. Maybe it's just that a more "heavy-handed" approach from the mods in such instances (although I appreciate that would have to be considered in light of the workload increase).

Frankly, I don't want the extra workload - the pay isn't as good as it used to be. Besides, the upshot of any stricter application of the rules will undoubtedly lead to people accusing us of being heavy-handed because we can't hack the opinions of dissenters. Exactly what is happening now. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Zombrex

28064212 wrote: »

See, to me, that example breaks rules 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the charter, and arguably 6 and 7 as well, and probably the general boards rule on off-topic posting too. Maybe it's just that a more "heavy-handed" approach from the mods in such instances (although I appreciate that would have to be considered in light of the workload increase).

I wouldn't say it breaks the charter. Other views and non-believers are allowed on the forum. If you want to discuss whether Paul actually wrote his letters that is not breaking the charter.

The problem is that this could be argued was not the "spirit" of the original question

Clarification of what spirit the question is asked in I think is helpful.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say it breaks the charter. Other views and non-believers are allowed on the forum. If you want to discuss whether Paul actually wrote his letters that is not breaking the charter.

Good point. I can't help but feel there is growing momentum behind the opinion that people aren't allowed to say that Paul didn't write this or that or whatever. Most of what we do here is debate with non-believers about God, Scripture, history etc. By way of example see here.

Wicknight wrote: »

Clarification of what spirit the question is asked in I think is helpful.

Well that can be tightened up at a later stage. But that all really depends if such tags are permissible in the future.

28064212

prinz wrote: »

The problem is when the mods are "heavy-handed" with regard to infractions and bans and what-not they are just as quickly accused of trying to 'stifle' discussion and of picking on certain people, conspiring to ban non-Christians, and we're back to square one.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Frankly, I don't want the extra workload - the pay isn't as good as it used to be. Besides, the upshot of any stricter application of the rules will undoubtedly lead to people accusing us of being heavy-handed because we can't hack the opinions of dissenters. Exactly what is happening now. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Fair enough, not going to pretend modding Christianity isn't a delicate balancing act

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say it breaks the charter. Other views and non-believers are allowed on the forum. If you want to discuss whether Paul actually wrote his letters that is not breaking the charter.

True. But discussing it on a thread which is about the meaning of the passage is. If someone wants to start a thread asking whether Paul wrote the letters, that's completely different. To give your example a different spin:

Christian 1 - What do people think Paul meant by this passage in the Bible
Christian 2 - You know it is doubtful that Paul even wrote that. My particular interpretation of Christianity doesn't agree with it
Christian 1 - We have historical evidence of Paul's letters back to the 1st century
Christian 2 - Nonsense, the oldest remaining documents date from the 3rd century
etc. etc.

Even though that may be a valid "Christian response", it's no more relevant than the atheist response. I would expect both to be infracted for off-topic posting. I don't see what a "Christian response only" tag would add to the forum

georgieporgy

What we need is a Pope to settle matters......

FruitLover

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I assume you have forgotten where you are. Because otherwise I can only assume that this is deliberate childish provocation

Are Christians incapable of humour? Or did you simply mistake what was most likely a tongue-in-cheek comment for 'provocation'?

Is the Christianity forum to be one of those 'ultra-serious' forums now, where the merest hint of a play on words is to be pounced upon immediately, and the utterer banished from the realm?

And here I was thinking Christians were supposed to be the thoughtful, patient, understanding ones...

JimiTime

I think this thread is a wonderful example of how we need the 'Christian only' tag.

Scofflaw

This is a very tricky issue, much as any attempt to balance the right of free speech with the right of free practice of religion is always going to be.

It seems to me that the Christians are in a position where they can't realistically kick back against DeVore's position, because any claim that they make that the tag doesn't suppress non-Christian input is obviously going to be more than a little open to the accusation of bias.

I hate to say it, but probably the solution is to turn the other cheek, so to speak, and try to settle the matter by asking the atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians whether they feel it excludes their input. If they don't feel it does, then DeVore's argument is nullified.

cordially,
Scofflaw

28064212

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is a very tricky issue, much as any attempt to balance the right of free speech with the right of free practice of religion is always going to be.

It seems to me that the Christians are in a position where they can't realistically kick back against DeVore's position, because any claim that they make that the tag doesn't suppress non-Christian input is obviously going to be more than a little open to the accusation of bias.

I hate to say it, but probably the solution is to turn the other cheek, so to speak, and try to settle the matter by asking the atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians whether they feel it excludes their input. If they don't feel it does, then DeVore's argument is nullified.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tbh, I'd feel it does. I'm not a huge contributor to the Christianity forum, but I do post on occasion when a thread interests me. If I came across one that said "Christian responses only", I would be less likely to post (or be inclined to take a more 'agressive' stance, which would be counter-productive).

Example of the other side of the coin: The thread on the Manhattan Declaration. It asks for Christian responses only. But Wicknight posted a perfectly reasonable response that had nothing to do with their leanings and contributed to the thread overall.

Posts should be evaluated against the charter on their own merits, same as everywhere else on boards

Rev Hellfire

28064212 wrote: »

Posts should be evaluated against the charter on their own merits, same as everywhere else on boards

If that was the case posts which deride Christianity would not be permitted or at best restricted to a single off-topic thread.

It seems as if people treat this forum at times as an A&A forum, but one which happens to have Christian posters. imho etc etc.
(I include myself in that to a degree as well btw)

28064212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If that was the case posts which deride Christianity would not be permitted or at best restricted to a single off-topic thread.

It seems as if people treat this forum at times as an A&A forum, but one which happens to have Christian posters. imho etc etc.
(I include myself in that to a degree as well btw)

But there's a big difference between a thread which starts "What do you think of the Christian position on contraception?" and "What's your interpretation of this Bible passage on contraception?". The former is an open discussion that can include criticism of (for example) the RCC position, the latter is a theological discussion where off-topic posts would be deserving of infractions

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Example of the other side of the coin: The thread on the Manhattan Declaration. It asks for Christian responses only. But Wicknight posted a perfectly reasonable response that had nothing to do with their leanings and contributed to the thread overall.

Indeed, Wicknight was respectful, and had the saavy to realise what the intentions of the thread were. Also, he actually posted that before 'Christians only' was edited into the title.

I don't think anyone believes that a non-Christian automatically brings unrest to a thread etc. However, its a very simple method in focussing a thread. That thread was to seek Christian opinion. It was primarily focussing on Christian teaching etc, and if the declaration in question was something the Christians here agreed with, or if they had any concerns in the context of Christianity.

It basically says to posters, 'Axes to be left at the door'. There are certain posters who have the saavy to realise a threads intentions without putting 'Christian only' in the title, but others who don't. It really is not about stifling debate, but rather focussing it. It says, 'this thread assumes that you operate on the common ground that God exists. Jesus Christ is his son and our saviour, and the bible is authentic and authoritive.'

People have to realise that axe grinders, or even genuine seekers, can pull a thread in a multitude of directions.

Christian: Such and such is sinful.
Non-Christian: No its not.
Christian: Well Acts chapter 5 verse..........
Non-Christian: The bible is fiction, desert nomads, simple minded etc etc

All of a sudden we are into a debate about the bible etc.

Posts should be evaluated against the charter on their own merits, same as everywhere else on boards

This way works better. Its that simple. Its not abused by the locals neither. You'll find if anyone starts a thread to abuse atheists or something, and uses 'Christian only' in such an abusive manner, the mods will be down on them.

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is a very tricky issue, much as any attempt to balance the right of free speech with the right of free practice of religion is always going to be.

I think it's less to do with a freedom of religion and more to do with the freedom to discuss a topic of interest without the accompanying muppetry which so frequently appears on the forum. The politics forum is run along the same lines AFAIK in that posters are expected to post with a certain amount of decorum and an actual interest in politics rather than posting edited pictures and jokes of the day for the 'lolz' as that is what AH is for to a degree. I don't see why the Christianity forum should be different.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes that a non-Christian automatically brings unrest to a thread etc. However, its a very simple method in focussing a thread. That thread was to seek Christian opinion. It was primarily focussing on Christian teaching etc, and if the declaration in question was something the Christians here agreed with, or if they had any concerns in the context of Christianity.

So what about a thread about Mary that has a "Catholic-only" request? Or a thread about creationism that has an "atheist-only" request? Or "1st-Western-Methodist-Reformed-Presbylutheran-church-only" requests?

JimiTime wrote: »

It basically says to posters, 'Axes to be left at the door'.

You think Christians don't have axes to grind with each other?

JimiTime wrote: »

There are certain posters who have the saavy to realise a threads intentions without putting 'Christian only' in the title, but others who don't. It really is not about stifling debate, but rather focussing it. It says, 'this thread assumes that you operate on the common ground that God exists. Jesus Christ is his son and our saviour, and the bible is authentic and authoritive.'

Which is covered in the charter

JimiTime wrote: »

People have to realise that axe grinders, or even genuine seekers, can pull a thread in a multitude of directions.

Axe grinders are axe grinders, regardless of their beliefs. Genuine posters are genuine posters, regardless of their beliefs

JimiTime wrote: »

Christian: Such and such is sinful.
Non-Christian: No its not.
Christian: Well Acts chapter 5 verse..........
Non-Christian: The bible is fiction, desert nomads, simple minded etc etc

All of a sudden we are into a debate about the bible etc.

And again, just replace "Non-Christian" with "Christian of a different branch"

prinz wrote: »

I think it's less to do with a freedom of religion and more to do with the freedom to discuss a topic of interest without the accompanying muppetry which so frequently appears on the forum. The politics forum is run along the same lines AFAIK in that posters are expected to post with a certain amount of decorum and an actual interest in politics rather than posting edited pictures and jokes of the day for the 'lolz' as that is what AH is for to a degree. I don't see why the Christianity forum should be different.

But you are looking for the Christianity forum to be different. The politics forum doesn't have "Greens-only" subject lines. And they definitely have to deal with (more than) their fair share of trolling and muppetry

prinz

28064212 wrote: »

But you are looking for the Christianity forum to be different. The politics forum doesn't have "Greens-only" subject lines. And they definitely have to deal with (more than) their fair share of trolling and muppetry

.....and they can ban and infract at will on that forum. When the Mods here have had to take action it is usually followed by accusations of abuse of power/an inability to answer some pointless question or other/a sign that God doesn't exist etc etc. Plus as has been pointed out many fora here have similar rules about posting being 'restricted'.

Zombrex

28064212 wrote: »

But you are looking for the Christianity forum to be different. The politics forum doesn't have "Greens-only" subject lines. And they definitely have to deal with (more than) their fair share of trolling and muppetry

The Politics forum isn't the Greens forum. If it was I would imagine a similar system would be in place. Likewise if the Christianity forum was the Religion forum the tag would probably not be necessary.

philologos

28064212 we've actually had Catholic-only threads in this forum before if you do a search. The rest of us have obliged them by not trying to debate the legitimacy of such doctrine in those threads.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

So what about a thread about Mary that has a "Catholic-only" request? Or a thread about creationism that has an "atheist-only" request? Or "1st-Western-Methodist-Reformed-Presbylutheran-church-only" requests?

Well in principal I see nothing wrong as long as its not abused. If a catholic wants to discuss Marian devotion without having non-catholics invading and telling them that their doctrine is wrong, then fair enough. I'm sure you can reductio ad absurdum it, but in practice, its worked very well.

You think Christians don't have axes to grind with each other?

Some do, some don't. At least there is a common ground though.

Axe grinders are axe grinders, regardless of their beliefs. Genuine posters are genuine posters, regardless of their beliefs

And having a common ground for discussion is very beneficial to the value of certain discussion.

And again, just replace "Non-Christian" with "Christian of a different branch"

Not so, not so at all. Believe it or not, you exemplify the issue at hand with that. A 'christian of a different branch' still has the common ground to appeal to. In fact, it is one of the issues that some of us have addressed to some Roman Catholic posters who move from the common ground of the bible, to the non common ground of the RC churches magesterium. We are Christians of all sorts of denominations here, and the only way it can work, is if we appeal to what we have in common.

But you are looking for the Christianity forum to be different. The politics forum doesn't have "Greens-only" subject lines. And they definitely have to deal with (more than) their fair share of trolling and muppetry

I really think this is a poor line to go down. If it works, it works. Whether or not its done in politics or whatever. There is plenty of discussion here between all, and sometimes its requested for the sake of clarity and focus that we stipulate the common ground.

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

.....and they can ban and infract at will on that forum. When the Mods here have had to take action it is usually followed by accusations of abuse of power/an inability to answer some pointless question or other/a sign that God doesn't exist etc etc. Plus as has been pointed out many fora here have similar rules about posting being 'restricted'.

Actually, virtually every mod action on the Politics forum is greeted with cries that we're biased against whatever the politics of the poster is, that we're establishment lackeys, party shills, unable to counter the poster's arguments, power-tripping saddos, etc etc.

Nor is it possible to discuss any green political issue without having to deal with the usual chorus of people ranting on about tree-hugging hippies and how climate change is a scam. And it's not possible for me to simply ban everyone involved without producing a flood of DR threads accusing me of bias - which would be in some senses quite legitimate, since the posters concerned probably wouldn't have overstepped any of the usual lines.

There is a point where 'free speech' stifles some forms of debate through the actions of a vocal minority. I should like to discuss issues like 'cap and trade', possible successors to Kyoto, movement towards a green economy, etc - but I have to face the fact that there is no point in attempting to do unless I have some way of making it clear that participants are not welcome to start blethering on about solar cycles and emails.

However, if I can do that, what's to stop someone posting a thread in which they wish to discuss Fianna Fáil 'respectfully', or say that participants are only welcome to post if they support the position that Fine Gael are the worst political party in history, or that Sinn Fein are all murderers who shouldn't be allowed to stand for the Dáil?

cordially,
Scofflaw

28064212

prinz wrote: »

.....and they can ban and infract at will on that forum. When the Mods here have had to take action it is usually followed by accusations of abuse of power/an inability to answer some pointless question or other/a sign that God doesn't exist etc etc.

Have you seen the Feedback and Help Desk/Dispute threads about the politics forum? The mods are constantly accused of suppressing free speech and political bias. Scofflaw is apparently a Green that bans anyone who disagrees with him

EDIT: :pac: Or what he said himself ^^

prinz wrote: »

Plus as has been pointed out many fora here have similar rules about posting being 'restricted'.

Do you mean the soccer forum rules about being pre-approved? I don't see the relevance, the soccer forum is a lightning rod for masses of trolls and personal abuse from 'one-post' posters. It is most definitely the exception on Boards rather than the rule.

Or do you mean restrictive charters on other forums like the Islam and Vegetarian ones? As far as I can see, everything that the "Christian responses only" tag is supposed to restrict is already covered in the Christianity charter

philologos

As Wicknight has already posted, the Politics forum and the Christianity forum are not really comparable. Different solutions of moderation have to be applied to different forums and the Christian-only thread solution has worked well here already since 2007. It's not a new change.

Edit: Here is the original suggestion. I was actually quite a big proponent of the idea as was JimiTime. This will give a better idea as to what the intention behind it was.

28064212

Wicknight wrote: »

The Politics forum isn't the Greens forum. If it was I would imagine a similar system would be in place. Likewise if the Christianity forum was the Religion forum the tag would probably not be necessary.

If it was the Green forum, you would have a charter that banned talk saying Green policies are stupid (or don't exist)

JimiTime wrote: »

Well in principal I see nothing wrong as long as its not abused. If a catholic wants to discuss Marian devotion without having non-catholics invading and telling them that their doctrine is wrong, then fair enough. I'm sure you can reductio ad absurdum it, but in practice, its worked very well.

It's already against the charter

Jakkass wrote: »

As Wicknight has already posted, the Politics forum and the Christianity forum are not really comparable. Different solutions of moderation have to be applied to different forums and the Christian-only thread solution has worked well here already since 2007. It's not a new change.

I didn't raise the comparison with Politics

I think I should clarify my stance: I have no problem with someone posting that they would like to hear Christian opinions. What I do have a problem with is restricting discussion to only Christian opinions on no other basis than that's what the OP wants. An atheist who studies theology has a more valid opinion on a thread about, say, the Bible's statements on contraception than a Christian who hasn't read it. If posters go off topic or insult other people's doctrines, they should be treated the same, regardless of their personal leanings

It's not done anywhere else on Boards (AFAIK), and, to my mind anyway, it's a dangerous precedent

philologos

Actually, most Christians would disagree. Even if an atheist is studying theology doesn't mean that they necessarily know what is best from a Christian perspective. Living a relationship with God is more important, because God is the only one who will really open up the Scriptures to people. A lot of times atheists can offer an interesting perspective, but sometimes there are threads where Christians want to ask other Christians about things to do with their walk of faith. That's where the tag is important.

prinz

28064212 wrote: »

Do you mean the soccer forum rules about being pre-approved? I don't see the relevance, the soccer forum is a lightning rod for masses of trolls and personal abuse from 'one-post' posters. It is most definitely the exception on Boards rather than the rule.

You should stick round this forum for a while...it often attracts one-hit wonders too :pac:

While every Moderator is going to be accused of bias etc when they take action, the point I was making was that generally the posters on politics abide by the charter, and warnings etc. On this forum it is apparently your "right" to break the charter. When you post in a particular forum IMO there should be a reasonable expectation to get a response from someone who can deal with your query with some relevance, in most cases it is not really needed that you have to ask for that. So if I have a query on Speech Disorders I should be able to post my query on that forum and have people in the know respond. I should be able to do likewise in the Christianity forum. What would happen if threads in the Speech disorder forum were being filled with 'lol @ stammers/lisps etc', fairly soon I would guess that people would add a request for 'serious replies only' in their posts. I don't see why a similar request is beyond the pale when it comes to this forum.

In the Christianity forum it does seem to be because for some reason it acts as a magnet for people who must have nothing better to do.

28064212

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, most Christians would disagree. Even if an atheist is studying theology doesn't mean that they necessarily know what is best from a Christian perspective. Living a relationship with God is more important, because God is the only one who will really open up the Scriptures to people. A lot of times atheists can offer an interesting perspective, but sometimes there are threads where Christians want to ask other Christians about things to do with their walk of faith. That's where the tag is important.

Which is why I made the hypothetical thread about the "Bible's statements on contraception". Now, if the thread was about "What do you think God would want us to do about contraception?", then an atheist can obviously have no opinion on that

prinz wrote: »

You should stick round this forum for a while...it often attracts one-hit wonders too :pac:

prinz wrote: »

While every Moderator is going to be accused of bias etc when they take action, the point I was making was that generally the posters on politics abide by the charter, and warnings etc. On this forum it is apparently your "right" to break the charter. When you post in a particular forum IMO there should be a reasonable expectation to get a response from someone who can deal with your query with some relevance, in most cases it is not really needed that you have to ask for that. So if I have a query on Speech Disorders I should be able to post my query on that forum and have people in the know respond. I should be able to do likewise in the Christianity forum. What would happen if threads in the Speech disorder forum were being filled with 'lol @ stammers/lisps etc', fairly soon I would guess that people would add a request for 'serious replies only' in their posts. I don't see why a similar request is beyond the pale when it comes to this forum.

In the Christianity forum it does seem to be because for some reason it acts as a magnet for people who must have nothing better to do.

But there wouldn't be a request for a "serious replies only" tag. There would be a request for either a stricter charter or stricter moderation, the same as every other forum on Boards

Rev Hellfire

28064212 wrote: »

But there wouldn't be a request for a "serious replies only" tag. There would be a request for either a stricter charter or stricter moderation, the same as every other forum on Boards

The thing is, the system here has actually worked quite well up until this point.

The forum has remained open to dissenting views while also providing a mechanism to ensure that topics don't get bogged down on the usual bug-bears trotted out by the non-religious, allowing dialogue to happen.

MrPudding

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The thing is, the system here has actually worked quite well up until this point.

The forum has remained open to dissenting views while also providing a mechanism to ensure that topics don't get bogged down on the usual bug-bears trotted out by the non-religious, allowing dialogue to happen.

I agree, up to a point. I actually think the tag is useful, but it can be frustrating when a point is made that I would really like to discuss, but to discuss it would go against the convention relating to the tag, or possibly the charter. It might seem like a good idea to open a thread in A&A to discuss a point raised in a tagged thread, but this seems to be frowned upon, or at least was when I did it previously.

In short, I am supportive of the tags in general, and whilst I do feel that they can stifle debate I think that the positive aspect of having them, allowing christians to have a sensible conversation about a particular subject, outweighs the negative argument against them. That said, it would be nice if there could occasionally be a spin off thread where people of a non christian persuasion could discuss the topic with christians thart were willing to engage with them outside the confines of the christian only thread.

MrP

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

I agree, up to a point. I actually think the tag is useful, but it can be frustrating when a point is made that I would really like to discuss, but to discuss it would go against the convention relating to the tag, or possibly the charter. It might seem like a good idea to open a thread in A&A to discuss a point raised in a tagged thread, but this seems to be frowned upon, or at least was when I did it previously.

In short, I am supportive of the tags in general, and whilst I do feel that they can stifle debate I think that the positive aspect of having them, allowing christians to have a sensible conversation about a particular subject, outweighs the negative argument against them. That said, it would be nice if there could occasionally be a spin off thread where people of a non christian persuasion could discuss the topic with christians thart were willing to engage with them outside the confines of the christian only thread.

MrP

Why not post a new thread in the Christianity forum and simply link to it in the 'Christian only' thread. You'll find no-one will care about that. I don't think posting a thread over in A&A about a thread here, or vice versa, is frowned upon unless its perceived as a bitching session about 'the other sides' thread.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

As Wicknight has already posted, the Politics forum and the Christianity forum are not really comparable. Different solutions of moderation have to be applied to different forums and the Christian-only thread solution has worked well here already since 2007. It's not a new change.

Edit: Here is the original suggestion. I was actually quite a big proponent of the idea as was JimiTime. This will give a better idea as to what the intention behind it was.

Fair play for diggin up that thread:) love the title:D

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Why not post a new thread in the Christianity forum and simply link to it in the 'Christian only' thread.

Well, that is what I was suggesting, I just wasn't sure if it was something that everyone would be happy with...

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

I agree, up to a point. I actually think the tag is useful, but it can be frustrating when a point is made that I would really like to discuss, but to discuss it would go against the convention relating to the tag, or possibly the charter. It might seem like a good idea to open a thread in A&A to discuss a point raised in a tagged thread, but this seems to be frowned upon, or at least was when I did it previously.

In short, I am supportive of the tags in general, and whilst I do feel that they can stifle debate I think that the positive aspect of having them, allowing christians to have a sensible conversation about a particular subject, outweighs the negative argument against them. That said, it would be nice if there could occasionally be a spin off thread where people of a non christian persuasion could discuss the topic with christians thart were willing to engage with them outside the confines of the christian only thread.

MrP

If a discussion runs contrary to the charter then you are in the wrong forum.

While I'm in favour of keeping the tag, I also recognise that there may be a need to better define its purpose and it's appropriate usage. If this means modifying the tag, all the better.

The result, I hope, would be that believers get to have the type of discussion that they want - i.e. something other than the usual "There is a God/ No there isn't" type of argument. While, hopefully, non-believers can enter the discussion as a type of thought experiment and perhaps gain a unique insight in the process.

As for spin-off threads, I don't have any major objections to them. This said, it wouldn't do to have multiple threads running concurrently, just as it wouldn't do to have the forum littered with tagged threads. So this would need to be addressed.

Cross-forum threads usually then to be bad form. This is because they are often started with a degree of bitterness due to the original not going to plan.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: Here is the original suggestion. I was actually quite a big proponent of the idea as was JimiTime. This will give a better idea as to what the intention behind it was.

Now there is a blast from the past.

lmaopml

I think DeV may have forgot.....:), Shhhh....

...or else he just wanted to see how the thread develops and is really really patient...

I think he was just expressing an opinon rather than quick drawing the admin stick in the Christianity forums direction...? Could be wrong though.

Actually, fair play..most of the Atheists who are very regular posters on the Christianity forum seem to have no problem whatsoever with the tag...and in fairness, most of them 'do' start up another thread and link it as a follow on to discuss or clarify a point that was raised on the original thread...

DeVore

I DO do other things... Including trying to move house in this weather!!

I'll read back over the last few pages tonight, I always like to get the feedback of the community but there are times when the admins have to enforce a site wide rule too.

DeV.

Fanny Cradock

You may want to check the admin clinic then.