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

Doctor DooM

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

I think you are the one making presumptions.

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

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

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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

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

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

Exactly.

Hobbes

Doctor DooM wrote: »

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

Covered in the new forum charter.

Rev Hellfire

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

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

Doctor DooM

Hobbes wrote: »

Covered in the new forum charter.

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

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

Hobbes

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

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

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

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

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

Hobbes

Doctor DooM wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

The choices we had were:

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

Thread stops getting responded to?,

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

Exactly.

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

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have been subject to bullying from both you and irishconvert

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

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

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

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

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

Curious, you have access to the mod religion forum?

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

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

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

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

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

Curious, you have access to the mod religion forum?

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

Hobbes wrote: »

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

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

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

Freiheit

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

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

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

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

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

Hobbes

I have not continuously initiated threads on homosexuality.

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

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

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

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

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

From Charter wrote:

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

Not sure how clearer we can make it for you.

Freiheit

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

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

jimdeans

Mr or Mrs Hobbes...if I may.

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

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

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

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

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

LoLth

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

Freiheit

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

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

LoLth

Freiheit wrote: »

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

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

gotcha, thanks for clarifying that for me.

Hobbes

jimdeans wrote: »

Why do't you just step down as the moderator and let someone else take all this flack.

*shrug* The forum rarely has aggro, when it does it comes in one blob and then stops.

Am I taking flack? Just clarifying the new charter, while others are complaining about what has happened before. Yet not one has since posted to see if they will be stomped on or not (answer = probably not).

Hobbes

Freiheit wrote: »

But if people want to learn about Islam they tend to post here,not on the lgbt forum.

Right. You posted interesting details before..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056307741

But the last thread you posted to (that ended up in a temp ban), you derailed it by bringing the subject up again when the person asking the question made no mention of being gay or even wanting to know such information.

I can certainly add the earlier link to the FAQ, or if you want to do a better thread of resources in the forum and I can link that.

coffee_cake

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What exactly is the problem with doing what other forums do? What is wrong with "muslim only threads"? .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056123949

did they ever repeal that

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

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

Not sure how clearer we can make it for you.

And what has quoting out of context got to do with my point? Did you even read my post? Read the post I made after if you want it any clearer:
"You keep saying that critical threads can still be posted in Islam, except for those that may offend muslims. The problem, still, is that its still up to the mods as before to decide whats "offensive" and you have shown nothing that indicates an attitude change to critical posts. "Critical posts are anti islam and belong on other forums" has always been your attitude and now, instead of banning and closing, you get to move them to other forums, thus making it look like the mods on the Islam forum rarely have to act harshly on their forums."

Nothing in the changes you have made to the charter actually alters the fact that you can (as you have in the past) simply declare any hard line of question as an attack on islam and off topic for the islam forum. The only difference is that now you are trying to make these threads some other mod in some other forums responsibility.

Mark Hamill

bluewolf wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056123949

did they ever repeal that

I didn't realise that that type of thread had been banned. However, in your link, tags of "muslims spirited responses" or "Seeking Muslim opinions, but all comments welcome" are suggested and these would also give the effect I proposed, of information threads being separate from controversial (but honest) threads of similar topic. That way if a muslim just wants info, and not a debate, they dont have to enter a disagreeable thread.

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The problem, still, is that its still up to the mods as before to decide whats "offensive"

Again the charter. The bit after "Muslims are particularly offended by..."

"Critical posts are anti islam and belong on other forums"

No, pushing an anti-Islam agenda is very different to posting for clarification on information you found which is critical or anti-Islam.

instead of banning and closing, you get to move them to other forums,

We aren't moving anything to other forums.

bluewolf wrote:

did they ever repeal that

Repeal what? If you want to put X POV preferred in your subject, that is all well and good, but we are not going to enforce that in threads.

coffee_cake

Hobbes wrote: »

Repeal what? If you want to put X POV preferred in your subject, that is all well and good, but we are not going to enforce that in threads.

If you're going to quote me could you put my name in there

and repeal the link in my post of course

Brown Bomber

This is a list of comments (I'd gathered for a dispute resolution thread) that went unpunished in the atheist & agnostic forum. This is from just half a single thread.

People who I don't have a soft spot for:

Muslims.

a UK Muslim is far more likely to rape than a non Muslim. This is a direct result of its misogonistic, anti-woman tenor.

The vast majority of those deaths were Muslim on Muslim violence. As is the case in Afghanistan, Paksitan and any massacres one cares to mention in the Middle East carried out in the last few decades

How can anyone possibly think a religion which was created/invented by a "non peaceful man" be itself peaceful? Please please dont shy away from the question, the man was a mass murdering, rapist, paedophile who preached the destruction of all other religions......these are all FACTS.

Apologies if you are not Muslim, I just assumed as you are so resistant to facts

Muslims are many times for likely to be involved in a rape case.

I did point out the enormous detrimental effect a dedication to Islam can have everywhere.

Another thing which struck me as funny, in the opening of the debate for the motion, they use Zeba Khan. A beautiful "almost western" woman, non hijab wearing, liberal, open minded, tolerant, educated...muslim. This puts they're argument at a disadvantage immediately. Its the equivalent of bringing Megan Fox to mars and telling martians she's the average earth woman. Why not pluck some average real (percentage-wise) muslim woman from say...Pakistan?

There is a constant victim mentality (by Muslims), that reinforces and encourages the continuing cycle of violence throughout Muslim lands

In Afghanistan it is routine for women to be gang raped in Tribal justice (by Muslims)

Islam is a daily justification for violence, worldwide.

This is the kind of ignorant drivel you can expect if you give Islamaphobes the license to be Islamaphobic.

You'll get spates of made up anti-Islamic tabloid stories posted with the sole intent to offend Muslims but under the pretense of "discussing" Islam.

These stories have been shown to directly lead to hate crimes against Muslims (and brown people) up to and including murder in a study carried out by the University of Exeter: http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/emrc/publications/Islamophobia_and_Anti-Muslim_Hate_Crime.pdf

It is not the fault of Muslims on boards or the Islam mods that people have an irrational hatred of Islam. To the people who say they want to maturely and respectfully discuss Islam with Muslims your fight is not with the mods or the structure of the forum which absolutely has to be that way due to bigotry, and xenophobia against Muslims which sadly is socially acceptable but on those who irrationally hate Muslims and poison the well.

coffee_cake

The a&a forum has nothing to do with the islam forum, people post differently across different fora. Comments ok in a&a might not be ok in Christianity, and they change behaviour accordingly

Hobbes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is a list of comments (I'd gathered for a dispute resolution thread) that went unpunished in the atheist & agnostic forum. This is from just half a single thread.

Based on the comments you quoted, that would be a good example thread in the other discussions, as comments like that would lead to multiple warnings and a ban if continued.

Before people start picking the comments apart, intent is a major point and it can be avoided in language. For example.

"a UK Muslim is far more likely to rape than a non Muslim."

You could word that as "Is a UK Muslim far more likely to be raped than a non Muslim?". That would certainly be debatable. If the person stated it as fact, he would be asked to back it up with facts. (note: Stating an example, not to carry this comment as discussion in this thread).