27 Nov 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59hehe, i want to live in your world. seems filled with puppies and rainbows and ponies, the magical kind.
Respect for the mod would be voluntary.
If nothing else it will reveal more about certain people's character.
alright, i will participate in this experiment with the utmost respect for the whole 5 minutes it will last until someone breaks it (i promise it won't be me)
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by CalJustRelax, the atheists started this with the express motive of making all Christian (or other theist) argument moot.
I'm happy to assist in this experiment.
My only condition would be that the [b]Frame of Reference of the debate be established first.
(Edit: If both parties chose as their "Common Ground" logic and science, that would be ideal, but you will hardly find that on this Forum!)
In other words, where is the common ground?
In matters of doctrinal ...[text shortened]... ke any sense? Could one actually define such mutually acceptable parameters before a discussion?[/b]
I say let them play with themselves in the corner. We don't have to get involved in their little tea party.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by FMFAnd if Christians get bashed, they get bashed?
There are some people complaining that they are not having a good time of late. They should just ignore threads and posts by the people whose posts they don't like. Attempts to police or micro-manage the community's goings on will not work. There have been formalized debates here before and they have worked well. People should start threads and set terms of reference for them if they want to. If they work they work.
Sorry, count me out.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by FMFAnd I would add, If they don't work, they don't work.
There are some people complaining that they are not having a good time of late. They should just ignore threads and posts by the people whose posts they don't like. Attempts to police or micro-manage the community's goings on will not work. There have been formalized debates here before and they have worked well. People should start threads and set terms of reference for them if they want to. If they work they work.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Yeah, well, you can probably make the argument that "Arbeit Macht Frei" was a good idea, too.
All I can say is that [b]anything will be an improvement on the current state.
We are not going to make anything worse with this experiment!
With regard to parameters the mod can PM the OP for clarifdication or make their own call.
Mods ... you are God![/b]
Usually, the side crying for Moderation has already lost the fight.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by Suzianneactually, the side crying for moderation might be tired sifting through countless posts saying the same thing/not saying anything at all/ not saying anything on the subject/ lying/ etc.
Yeah, well, you can probably make the argument that "Arbeit Macht Frei" was a good idea, too.
Usually, the side crying for Moderation has already lost the fight.
i still say a moderator must be given the right to remove posts, but i for one am willing to give this a go. you could just not participate if you don't trust the moderator proposed.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziWho's going to do the "muting", or removing posts deemed "offensive?
how would you do that?
can you remove posts on this forum?
can you mute someone?
can you mark a post in a pretty pink to mark it as waaaay offtopic. green for caustic insulting? blue for rambling? white for using youtubes filled with unsubstantiated nonsense?
if you can't, then we already moderate ourselves as much as we can. without muting rjhinds ...[text shortened]... same argument over and over without reacting to their opponents, how do you plan on moderating?
You?? Me??
No, arguments restricting rights usually fail. Unless they can fool the masses into voting for them.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziI already don't participate if I consider the thread beyond redemption, which would be most, if not all, of these "moderated" threads.
actually, the side crying for moderation might be tired sifting through countless posts saying the same thing/not saying anything at all/ not saying anything on the subject/ lying/ etc.
i still say a moderator must be given the right to remove posts, but i for one am willing to give this a go. you could just not participate if you don't trust the moderator proposed.
I still say, Who gets to decide? That's why a moderator, any moderator, is a bad idea on the face of it. This forum is full of discussions (and posters) already heavily biased. More of the same isn't going to "fix" anything, especially if it's not broken.
27 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59There are already particular posters in this forum who have actually admitted that they cannot have respect for people expressing opinions contrary to their own.
Respect for the mod would be voluntary.
If nothing else it will reveal more about certain people's character.
So good luck on that.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by Suzianneit could work.
Who's going to do the "muting", or removing posts deemed "offensive?
You?? Me??
No, arguments restricting rights usually fail. Unless they can fool the masses into voting for them.
someone creating the thread may have the option of appointing himself as moderator. that thread would be marked as "moderated by X" and by participating in that discussion, you agree to trust X will be impartial and fair.
if dasa creates a thread with himself as moderator, you simply don't attend it.
i would in fact submit this as a site idea.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneBlimey. I can't think of even one who admitted such a thing. Who are you talking about?
There are already particular posters in this forum who have actually admitted that they cannot have respect for people expressing opinions contrary to their own.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by divegeesterOriginally posted by wolfgang59
This whole idea is misconceived; what are the moderation rules? What's to stop the usual suspects misbehaving as they usually do?
Respect for the mod would be voluntary.
If nothing else it will reveal more about certain people's character.
To pick up on Suzies comments and misgivings, this experiment should probably be run in the Debates (or General?) forum, since Spiritualty convictions are normally pretty emotional, and it would be my conviction against yours. When I feel that my strongly held (even arguably subjective) values are being belittled, there are no winners.
The way I could see this working, would be if it were run like a regular debate. I.e. a proposition and counter -proposition are formulated, and two parties each pick a position.
Party A would get to post first, then party B refutes. Party A gets to respond and Party B concludes. Then it would be for the Moderator to sum up and the general audience can vote as to whose case was the strongest.
As I said before, this could work with a subject like Capitalism vs Socialism, or even Gay Marriage, but certainly not any serious religious topic (Divinity of Christ, inspiration of the Bible, Immaculate Conception, even YEC as we have long ago found out.)
Unless, as I mentioned before, both parties have some common frame of reference. An example here would be JWs and other Christians using basically the same Bible. ( But we have seen where those discussions went.....)
So back to the OP. Wolfgang, seems some guidance is required on your suggestion!
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneThe moderator would not participate beyond the 5 points I suggested in the other thread on this. The moderator is required to be even handed, obviously nothing else well work. I'd suggest you give it a chance. If you are concerned about atheists moderating why do you not volunteer yourself?
There are already particular posters in this forum who have actually admitted that they cannot have respect for people expressing opinions contrary to their own.
So good luck on that.
After sleeping on it, if people want me to I will moderate a thread - but only one at a time please.