A&A Feedback

robarmstrong

Turtwig wrote: »

Is this some sort of test case post for us to advise how we should moderate or something?

Saying that grass is green is a claim (essentially that it isn’t true) and then going onto hyperlink articles on how colorblind people “cannot see that grass is green” in the same post along with the denial of what’s been proven by scientists umpteen times over since the very basics of science class...

No, it is absolutely not a test case post, I have put that user on my ignore list.

guy i know only a mod can see reported posts i was being mischievous, it was in fact clever and charming (fact not opinion)

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“Grass is green” is also a claim. There is nothing which makes that statement a fact, and there is no way to determine one way or the other whether the grass is actually green, or whether the grass being spoken of may be neither green nor blue, but purple or even orange -

The assertion that "grass is green" is a statement that predominantly holds true in the objective sense. That there may be exceptions, such as your species of blue grass, or that the neighbour's cat may have pissed on my lawn causing it to yellow somewhat, do not make this false. If I'm colour blind, or entirely blind for that matter, and I can't personally perceive that the grass is green this does not change the colour of the grass. The grass still reflects white light at a wavelength of 560–520 nm and appears green to those who are not visually impaired.

I think the moderators of this forum are attempting to construct the charter in a largely rule based manner such that it is free from their own subjective bias, which in my opinion, is commendable. My personal opinion is that in this forum we should able to support our arguments with broadly objective truths from reputable sources, which do not incidentally include the bible or koran. When we talk about laws, standards of decency and basic human rights, they are those of our society and not the dictates of a fading church.

I'd sincerely suggest to those* wishing to base their argument on the rule of God, or an anachronistic morality derived from 2,000 year old Middle Eastern textbook, that the grass might appear greener on the other side of the fence. As for the ruling that we cannot use words such as 'bigoted' when referring to a post that claims homosexuality is a sin and all homosexuals will go to hell unless they stop being homosexuals, I'll leave it to the mods. For my part, if I can use robust yet entirely accurate language in response to what I consider to be hateful and intentionally incendiary posts, I, and I guess many others, will simply stop responding entirely. As mods though, you might ask yourself is this the net result that you're hoping to achieve.

(* not directed at you OEJ, more a reference the the peak LGBT nonsense thread)

smacl

As an example of objectivity versus nonsense, I'd ask the mods how they'd deal with the a post such as the following;

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights

Respond, report or ignore? Does posting this statement on an atheist forum constitute trolling? Does the post display an obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices?

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

As an example of objectivity versus nonsense, I'd ask the mods how they'd deal with the a post such as the following;



Respond, report or ignore? Does posting this statement on an atheist forum constitute trolling? Does the post display an obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices?

For me that post is more ignorant than trolling if i'm feeling generous. YMMV.

smacl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

For me that post is more ignorant than trolling if i'm feeling generous. YMMV.

Perhaps, if taken in isolation. Given the poster has a long history of posting in this forum, one might reasonably expect they understand what the word atheist means (even if they can't spell it), and so I don't believe this constitutes ignorance so much as obstinacy. I'm also of the opinion that it illustrates prejudice against atheists. Now there's a perfectly good word for acting with obstinate prejudice but apparently we can't use it as it might cause offence.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps, if taken in isolation. Given the poster has a long history of posting in this forum, one might reasonably expect they understand what the word atheist means (even if they can't spell it), and so I don't believe this constitutes ignorance so much as obstinacy. I'm also of the opinion that it illustrates prejudice against atheists. Now there's a perfectly good word for acting with obstinate prejudice but apparently we can't use it as it might cause offence.

Well i did say if i was feeling generous. As you say the history of that poster would lead me not to be generous at all.

Faith

smacl wrote: »

As an example of objectivity versus nonsense, I'd ask the mods how they'd deal with the a post such as the following;



Respond, report or ignore? Does posting this statement on an atheist forum constitute trolling? Does the post display an obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices?

If I were you, I’d report that post. I would agree that it’s very objectionable, in the same way that I’d expect a post to be reported in the Christianity forum that claims the Bible is a work of fiction or similar. It might be a view that a person holds, but it’s not the appropriate forum to make those kinds of statements.

I’d also argue that it’s factually false, as we have many objective sources of basic human rights, created by the people, of the people, for the people.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

As an example of objectivity versus nonsense, I'd ask the mods how they'd deal with the a post such as the following;

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights

Respond, report or ignore? Does posting this statement on an atheist forum constitute trolling?

Feel free to report it, but as much as the forum mods might believe that sentiments like this are trivially false, that's not going to stop the fairly sizeable number of religious people who believe that it's true.

My own personal view is that posts like that should be tackled head-on and shown to be the nonsense that they are, instead of the view which held in other forums, that views should be banned because they might offend the religious or other sensitivities of some posters. Also, banning sentiments like that simply plays into the hands of religious pot-stirrers who claim that religious views are being oppressed or suppressed - religious people suppress religious views and it seems wiser not to follow that lead.

In any case, that particular sentiment has been posted here in A+A many times and it's been beaten away each time. I think it would be better to continue to show it up for the rubbish it is.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

Feel free to report it, but as much as the forum mods might believe that sentiments like this are trivially false, that's not going to stop the fairly sizeable number of religious people who believe that it's true.

My own personal view is that posts like that should be tackled head-on and shown to be the nonsense that they are, instead of the view which held in other forums, that views should be banned because they might offend the religious or other sensitivities of some posters. Also, banning sentiments like that simply plays into the hands of religious pot-stirrers who claim that religious views are being oppressed or suppressed - religious people suppress religious views and it seems wiser not to follow that lead.

In any case, that particular sentiment has been posted here in A+A many times and it's been beaten away each time. I think it would be better to continue to show it up for the rubbish it is.

By all means start a thread discussing that sentiment, as you have pointed out there have been a few in the past. But isn't the issue in that example that the statement is at least wildly off-topic for the thread it's in? The context was that smacl said that discrimination was against basic human rights and the response (a day and a half after smacl clarified that they were talking about internationally agreed human rights, mind) was to claim that atheists have no objective basis for basic human rights.

To throw that in the middle of an entirely separate discussion that it has no bearing on is facetiousness at best (if not just outright enflaming). It would be like me posting for a while in the Christianity forum, discussing e.g. women becoming priests and then just suddenly throwing in "but the bible is fake anyway".

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Feel free to report it, but as much as the forum mods might believe that sentiments like this are trivially false, that's not going to stop the fairly sizeable number of religious people who believe that it's true.

My own personal view is that posts like that should be tackled head-on and shown to be the nonsense that they are, instead of the view which held in other forums, that views should be banned because they might offend the religious or other sensitivities of some posters. Also, banning sentiments like that simply plays into the hands of religious pot-stirrers who claim that religious views are being oppressed or suppressed - religious people suppress religious views and it seems wiser not to follow that lead.

In any case, that particular sentiment has been posted here in A+A many times and it's been beaten away each time. I think it would be better to continue to show it up for the rubbish it is.

Believing something to be true is not any indicator that it is true, particularly when the truth is predicated on religious belief, even more so in the context of an atheist forum. Even then, I would suggest that the number of religious people who think "an atheist is someone who hasn't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights" is a tiny, extreme and rather confused minority among the number of religious people out there. Respecting someone's right to hold a belief is not the same as having to respect the belief.

As per my previous post here the bulk of the posts in this forum are actually more of a secular than atheistic nature, an polarising posters on the basis of being religious or atheistic is a mistake. As recent referendums have shown us, most religious people in this country are also secular.

By not sanctioning religious pot-stirrers, while concurrently restricting the language that may be used to address their posts for fear of offending them, I would suggest that it is actually you that is playing into their hands. We've already had two regular posters (kingmob and ohnonotgmail) tell us they're leaving this forum out of frustration. If this keeps up, we'll have nothing but the shít-stirrers left. I'm not suggesting you ban anyone, but like others here, I'm finding this forum to be an increasingly unpleasant place to hang out.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

By not sanctioning religious pot-stirrers, while concurrently restricting the language that may be used to address their posts for fear of offending them, I would suggest that it is actually you that is playing into their hands.

Good lord, where did I say that people posting religious nonsense were not going to be actioned out of fear that they might be offended? I agree with you that this would play entirely into the hands of posters who enjoy playing politics, as opposed - say - to posters who prefer discussing ideas (which is the stated aim of the forum after all).

What I am saying is that I don't think that religious points of view should be prohibited simply because some non-religious people don't want to see them. For better or worse, and it's mostly worse imho, these ideas are out there in society, lots of people believe them, lots of people have to deal with them - in some cases - on a regular basis. The best way to neutralise these silly ideas is for people who are up for the challenge to dispose of them in whatever way presents itself - either by dismemberment or humor. Visitors to the forum can see what's going on and one hopes that they'll be introduced, even only fleetingly, to the notion that there are people out there disposing of religious nonsense.

In the fourteen years it's been going - and with the exception of JC's creationist rubbish which was confined to the creationism thread - this is the first time that I recall that A+A posters are looking to prohibit religious ideas.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But isn't the issue in that example that the statement is at least wildly off-topic for the thread it's in?

That's what happens in a discussion - it leads from one topic to another, exploring many highways and byways in between - nothing wrong with that, I believe.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

That's what happens in a discussion - it leads from one topic to another, exploring many highways and byways in between - nothing wrong with that, I believe.

There are discussions naturally progressing across different tangents and then there is nonsense posted to suddenly derail or enflame.

Like I said, a thread started with that subject would be fine, or one about atheism in general developing into that. But to drop that in a thread about the Rugby player being fired for being a homophobe, a thread that is essentially secular, would be like me (to repeat the supporting example you ignored) posting for a while in the Christianity forum, discussing women becoming priests and then just suddenly throwing in "but the bible is fake anyway".

robarmstrong

Can anyone on the mod team confirm that the charter is set in stone now and the wording of such cannot be edited? Is the feedback now fully taken on board or is this still an ongoing discussion?

Sorry just didn't see any announcements or anything and just want to know where we stand is all.

Neyite

Robarmstrong, charters will never be set in stone.



Changes may be made in good faith to reflect what best suits the forum and get the best out of it for the users but if a rule isn't working then it's fair game for discussion on it changing or tweaking it for you all.



For the moment and in order to be fair to everyone, it's still in a draft format and when mods and users are happy with the final draft, a forum announcement will be made to all, drawing attention to the new rules to be aware of, with perhaps a date that the charter comes into effect.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

In the fourteen years it's been going - and with the exception of JC's creationist rubbish which was confined to the creationism thread - this is the first time that I recall that A+A posters are looking to prohibit religious ideas.

Is saying that "an atheist is someone who hasn't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights" a religious idea or merely an opinion intended to raise ire from atheists in an atheist forum? Aside from being expressed by someone who is religious, is there anything to suggest the idea is religious? My opinion is that the post is clearly prejudiced against the intended audience in this forum. If this is intentional, which I believe seems likely, it constitutes trolling. This is why I think it deserves sanctioning, not because I am, or would, seek to prohibit religious ideas.

Faith

Just to add to Neyite’s post, the wheels are moving (slowly) on adding mods, which will probably impact the final form of the current charter too. Feedback continues to be welcome.

robarmstrong

Faith wrote: »

Just to add to Neyite’s post, the wheels are moving (slowly) on adding mods, which will probably impact the final form of the current charter too. Feedback continues to be welcome.

wen do i start i have my qualfacashins?

Thank you for the update, Faith & Neyite, it's greatly appreciated. I do have further feedback that I'm more than happy to share but as I've just reported the posts as I feel they're detrimental to discussion, would it be okay to hold off on providing the feedback until moderator action is taken (if any is taken) - or I could PM either of you the offending posts outlying why they're detrimental to discussion and are just serving to "stir the pot" - as there has been enough name & shame done across this thread and others.

Calina

Recidite's ongoing semantic loophole diving in defence of eotr in the abortion thread tells me absolutely nothing has changed in terms of moderation.

It is regrettable.

Faith

Calina wrote: »

Recidite's ongoing semantic loophole diving in defence of eotr in the abortion thread tells me absolutely nothing has changed in terms of moderation.

It is regrettable.

I would say that

1. report the posts that you find objectionable (it’s much easier to moderate when several people report posts for the same reason - but please don’t abuse the reported post function)

and

2. Please have patience while we add new moderators. Robindch is awesome, but cannot be online 24/7 reading every post of every thread here, and he’s currently the only active moderator on a day-to-day basis.

recedite

Just wait till I get my moderator's hat.

end of the road

Calina wrote: »

Recidite's ongoing semantic loophole diving in defence of eotr in the abortion thread tells me absolutely nothing has changed in terms of moderation.

It is regrettable.

how has nothing changed. we have a new charter, we have had a large forum review, and we will have a couple of new mods, and the existing mods and c-mods have given their time to this thread. and yet people are still not happy?

amcalester

end of the road wrote: »

how has nothing changed. we have a new charter, we have had a large forum review, and we will have a couple of new mods, and the existing mod and c-mods have given more time to the thread here then they needed to in my opinion. and yet people are still not happy.
what exactly were you looking for?

Proof will be in the pudding, we’ll see what happens the next time a poster makes contradictory statements, refuses to back up claims with supporting evidence or acknowledge that statements made as fact were actually nothing more than opinion.

end of the road

amcalester wrote: »

Proof will be in the pudding, we’ll see what happens the next time a poster makes contradictory statements, refuses to back up claims with supporting evidence or acknowledge that statements made as fact were actually nothing more than opinion.

those things have always been against the charter and have always been dealt with accordingly where and when they actually happen.

im still on the borderline of believing there is some grand experiment or piece of performance art taking place here tbh

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

im still on the borderline of believing there is some grand experiment or piece of performance art taking place here tbh

ah come on, this is conspiricy theory stuff tbh.

Turtwig

smacl wrote: »

The assertion that "grass is green" is a statement that predominantly holds true in the objective sense. That there may be exceptions, such as your species of blue grass, or that the neighbour's cat may have pissed on my lawn causing it to yellow somewhat, do not make this false. If I'm colour blind, or entirely blind for that matter, and I can't personally perceive that the grass is green this does not change the colour of the grass. The grass still reflects white light at a wavelength of 560–520 nm and appears green to those who are not visually impaired.

I think the moderators of this forum are attempting to construct the charter in a largely rule based manner such that it is free from their own subjective bias, which in my opinion, is commendable. My personal opinion is that in this forum we should able to support our arguments with broadly objective truths from reputable sources, which do not incidentally include the bible or koran. When we talk about laws, standards of decency and basic human rights, they are those of our society and not the dictates of a fading church.

I'd sincerely suggest to those* wishing to base their argument on the rule of God, or an anachronistic morality derived from 2,000 year old Middle Eastern textbook, that the grass might appear greener on the other side of the fence. As for the ruling that we cannot use words such as 'bigoted' when referring to a post that claims homosexuality is a sin and all homosexuals will go to hell unless they stop being homosexuals, I'll leave it to the mods. For my part, if I can use robust yet entirely accurate language in response to what I consider to be hateful and intentionally incendiary posts, I, and I guess many others, will simply stop responding entirely. As mods though, you might ask yourself is this the net result that you're hoping to achieve.

(* not directed at you OEJ, more a reference the the peak LGBT nonsense thread)

I don't think the poster was talking about the properties of grass, rather the properties of colours themselves.

The argument goes something like the this:

Put on a pair of orange tinted glasses:
What colour is grass? Now put on a purple tinted pair? Assuming you never take off the glasses the colour green will always look the same to you. You can easily recognise it, see it, interpret all visible wavelengths of it but how you interpret it is markedly different from someone else wearing a different tinted pair. Or at least, that would seem a fair assumption to make.

Colour is a subjective thing. Let's put this simply: describe the colour green. What does green 'look' like. My 'green', your 'green' might actually be different. How do I even describe my 'green' to you.

Along the spectrum we have defined colour as a definite wavelength of light. That still tells one another nothing about what we actually 'see' when we see 'green'. The same can be said for taste, sounds, touch, feel.

Are these experiences subjective, or does there exist somewhere an objective form of these experiences by which all can be independently described and attributed?

This brings us along nicely to objective nature of facts. A snappy definition I like is that a fact is something that is independent of the observer. The question that follows though is there such a thing as observer independent opinion or experience? In simplest terms do triangles exist or do they only exist because humans do? If I say "triangles definitely exist" is that a fact or an opinion?

grass is green this does not change the colour of the grass.

It doesn't change the colour but what matters a hell of lot is whether the colour is same to everyone and everything.

Turtwig

smacl wrote: »

As an example of objectivity versus nonsense, I'd ask the mods how they'd deal with the a post such as the following;



Respond, report or ignore? Does posting this statement on an atheist forum constitute trolling? Does the post display an obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices?

This is heavily context sensitive.

Consider a topic of moral relativism discussing whether an objective moral reality exists?
If stated in the context such a thread discussion that post wouldn't be one bit actionable. It's been argued that atheists don't have an objective source of morality, law, ethics etc

Heck as an atheist, I kind of agree with it to a point. It'd be too long and irrelevant to this thread to go into where I draw the distinctions and disagree and past posters in forum have articulated it way better than I ever could dream.

However, if a poster just decided to go
blah blah you atheists have no morals and cannot possible have a moral compass
you're subhuman
or similar

then yeah, it's inflammatory and actionable. However, usually in the past the forum itself kind of handled those posts with exceptional sarcasm and wit that acting on them seemed like we were providing the posters a mercy.

In the context of morality, law or ethics. In my opinion, unless it was intentionally meant as a wind up or dig then's acceptable and benefit of doubt will always be given.


It's important to point out stating atheists haven't objective standards to be moral, doesn't mean they can't or aren't moral.

amcalester

end of the road wrote: »

those things have always been against the charter and have always been dealt with accordingly where and when they actually happen.

If that was the case we wouldn't have needed a change to the charter.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your future evidence based posts on these matters. I'll skip those that are based on opinions because these have been shown to be widely inconsistent, often taking completely opposing views, depending on the topic being discussed.