The wording in the Sticky notice doesn't stop at "derailing".
Also, I'm a bit surprised by the rudeness of you and some other mods. Liz immediately accused me of employing a straw man when I did no such thing. Scottie declared my post "idiotic" and now you ask "What do you not get about that?"
My opposition to the new rule isn't personally directed at anyone on this board. I think it's a bad decision, but I haven't derided any particular moderator because of it. I appreciate what each of you do to keep the board running. I have not, nor will I, personally insult any moderator over this issue. If any of you feel that I have, then I apologize.
KA
KA,
The entire sticky is about derailment. Show me where you think it's not about derailment. Please quote it here and bold the portion you think is not about derailment.
She did. It's this part:
the thread is off limits as far as being challenged or derailed
See that word "or"? The thread cannot be challenged OR derailed. Let's consult our friends at Merriam Webster to see what this strange word might mean:
My friend Merriam Webster wrote:OR: used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea><sink or swim>
The two words (challenge, derail) are presented as alternatives, not exclusive of each other. So it has been declared that such threads cannot be challenged.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
I'm going to start a dialogue with you publicly if you're willing to participate. I think that one glitch in the sticky has to do with it's focus on faith based threads only. I think there should be a mirror image stipulation on that regarding Atheism as well. For example "Atheist Based" so that when Atheists begin a thread, believer's cannot come in there are begin spouting scripture if the topic has to do with lack of belief for example, Atheists comparing the rationale for their "moral thinking" (perhaps using sociological perspectives, etc.) with that of God believer's. In which case Atheists wouldn't want a God believer in there spouting the 10 commandments as proof.
I have changed the sticky in both places to read as follows:
Marg made a suggestion which the Mods have decided to incorporate into the Celestial Forum. If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.
If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as the base assumptions laid out by the OP being challenged or derailed. The following perimeters immediately exist:
If the discussion involves God, then someone shouldn't come in and start arguing the existence of God. For the purpose of that thread, God exists. That's the given. (I.e....God, Buddha, whatever the higher power being discussed is).
If the thread is discussing, for example, points of LDS doctrine, then someone shouldn't come in and start challenging the validity of LDS doctrine For the purpose of that faith based thread, LDS doctrine is valid. Or Catholic doctrine is valid...or whatever type of religious doctrine is being discussed.
As the thread originator, it is your responsibility to set the guidelines for this type of thread, and place "Faith Based" as part of the thread title. This will give participants a better understanding of the desired direction of the thread.
As a Moderation Team, we hope that this will help with derailment issues, and also allow those who desire to participate in faith based discussions an "attack free" zone to do so.
Does this better reflect the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish?]
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
The wording in the Sticky notice doesn't stop at "derailing".
Also, I'm a bit surprised by the rudeness of you and some other mods. Liz immediately accused me of employing a straw man when I did no such thing. Scottie declared my post "idiotic" and now you ask "What do you not get about that?"
My opposition to the new rule isn't personally directed at anyone on this board. I think it's a bad decision, but I haven't derided any particular moderator because of it. I appreciate what each of you do to keep the board running. I have not, nor will I, personally insult any moderator over this issue. If any of you feel that I have, then I apologize.
KA
KA,
The entire sticky is about derailment. Show me where you think it's not about derailment. Please quote it here and bold the portion you think is not about derailment.
She did. It's this part:
the thread is off limits as far as being challenged or derailed
See that word "or"? The thread cannot be challenged OR derailed. Let's consult our friends at Merriam Webster to see what this strange word might mean:
My friend Merriam Webster wrote:OR: used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea><sink or swim>
The two words (challenge, derail) are presented as alternatives, not exclusive of each other. So it has been declared that such threads cannot be challenged.
No, skippy. In the OP, KA cherry picked that one sentence. Here is the sticky in context as it read prior to Scottie's revision:
Marg made a suggestion which the Mods have decided to incorporate into the Celestial Forum. If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.
If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as the base assumptions laid out by the OP being challenged or derailed. The following perimeters immediately exist:
If the discussion involves God, then someone shouldn't come in and start arguing the existence of God. For the purpose of that thread, God exists. That's the given. (I.e....God, Buddha, whatever the higher power being discussed is).
If the thread is discussing, for example, points of LDS doctrine, then someone shouldn't come in and start challenging the validity of LDS doctrine For the purpose of that faith based thread, LDS doctrine is valid. Or Catholic doctrine is valid...or whatever type of religious doctrine is being discussed.
As the thread originator, it is your responsibility to set the guidelines for this type of thread, and place "Faith Based" as part of the thread title. This will give participants a better understanding of the desired direction of the thread.
As a Moderation Team, we hope that this will help with derailment issues, and also allow those who desire to participate in faith based discussions an "attack free" zone to do so.
I have changed the sticky in both places to read as follows:
Marg made a suggestion which the Mods have decided to incorporate into the Celestial Forum. If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.
If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as the base assumptions laid out by the OP being challenged or derailed. The following perimeters immediately exist:
If the discussion involves God, then someone shouldn't come in and start arguing the existence of God. For the purpose of that thread, God exists. That's the given. (I.e....God, Buddha, whatever the higher power being discussed is).
If the thread is discussing, for example, points of LDS doctrine, then someone shouldn't come in and start challenging the validity of LDS doctrine For the purpose of that faith based thread, LDS doctrine is valid. Or Catholic doctrine is valid...or whatever type of religious doctrine is being discussed.
As the thread originator, it is your responsibility to set the guidelines for this type of thread, and place "Faith Based" as part of the thread title. This will give participants a better understanding of the desired direction of the thread.
As a Moderation Team, we hope that this will help with derailment issues, and also allow those who desire to participate in faith based discussions an "attack free" zone to do so.
Does this better reflect the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish?]
Scottie,
As I suggested in my post just above yours, I think there should be a statement regarding Atheistic premises as well. Though premise might not be the best word for it. I gave examples in my post of situations where Atheists should be able to direct their threads without interference from believers whose comments might derail the thread.
Jersey Girl wrote:No, skippy. In the OP, KA cherry picked that one sentence. Here is the sticky in context as it read prior to Scottie's revision:
Marg made a suggestion which the Mods have decided to incorporate into the Celestial Forum. If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.
If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as the base assumptions laid out by the OP being challenged or derailed. The following perimeters immediately exist:
If the discussion involves God, then someone shouldn't come in and start arguing the existence of God. For the purpose of that thread, God exists. That's the given. (I.e....God, Buddha, whatever the higher power being discussed is).
If the thread is discussing, for example, points of LDS doctrine, then someone shouldn't come in and start challenging the validity of LDS doctrine For the purpose of that faith based thread, LDS doctrine is valid. Or Catholic doctrine is valid...or whatever type of religious doctrine is being discussed.
As the thread originator, it is your responsibility to set the guidelines for this type of thread, and place "Faith Based" as part of the thread title. This will give participants a better understanding of the desired direction of the thread.
As a Moderation Team, we hope that this will help with derailment issues, and also allow those who desire to participate in faith based discussions an "attack free" zone to do so.
C'mon Jersey Girl - that one sentence makes a world of difference, particularly when you read the sentence about assuming various religious doctrines are valid. The inability to challenge a premise severely limits a discussion. Say I want to discuss polygamy in the early LDS church. It should be expected (and welcome) for someone to discuss whether the circumstances around the origination of the practice were divinely inspired or purely the invention of a man. That's a challenge to LDS doctrine. Not a derailment. But this "sticky" policy would preclude that. I'm sure if I gave this more thought (I've given way too much time to this already today), I could come up with several more instances where the "no challenge" rule is, well, stupid (I'm giving up on trying to think up nicer words). Folks here should look at JAK's reply to the sticky up in the celestial forum for a thoughtful response.
Besides, it's really absurd for you to label the reference to that sentence as "cherry picking". It's not like this is a 400 page treatise with one irregular sentence in it. It's a short policy statement with some significant problems, one of which is embodied in that sentence as it applies to other parts of the statement.
But thanks for jumping all over people who are questioning it.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
[I've added the following to handle atheist threads as well:
Alternately, if you would like to declare a thread "Atheist based", you may detail the parameters of your assumptions as well. Such as, "Atheists have morals". Thus, any argument about atheists and their perceived lack of morals would be off limits in this thread.
]
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Jersey Girl wrote:No, skippy. In the OP, KA cherry picked that one sentence. Here is the sticky in context as it read prior to Scottie's revision:
Marg made a suggestion which the Mods have decided to incorporate into the Celestial Forum. If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.
If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as the base assumptions laid out by the OP being challenged or derailed. The following perimeters immediately exist:
If the discussion involves God, then someone shouldn't come in and start arguing the existence of God. For the purpose of that thread, God exists. That's the given. (I.e....God, Buddha, whatever the higher power being discussed is).
If the thread is discussing, for example, points of LDS doctrine, then someone shouldn't come in and start challenging the validity of LDS doctrine For the purpose of that faith based thread, LDS doctrine is valid. Or Catholic doctrine is valid...or whatever type of religious doctrine is being discussed.
As the thread originator, it is your responsibility to set the guidelines for this type of thread, and place "Faith Based" as part of the thread title. This will give participants a better understanding of the desired direction of the thread.
As a Moderation Team, we hope that this will help with derailment issues, and also allow those who desire to participate in faith based discussions an "attack free" zone to do so.
C'mon Jersey Girl - that one sentence makes a world of difference, particularly when you read the sentence about assuming various religious doctrines are valid. The inability to challenge a premise severely limits a discussion. Say I want to discuss polygamy in the early LDS church. It should be expected (and welcome) for someone to discuss whether the circumstances around the origination of the practice were divinely inspired or purely the invention of a man. That's a challenge to LDS doctrine. Not a derailment. But this "sticky" policy would preclude that. I'm sure if I gave this more thought (I've given way too much time to this already today), I could come up with several more instances where the "no challenge" rule is, well, stupid (I'm giving up on trying to think up nicer words). Folks here should look at JAK's reply to the sticky up in the celestial forum for a thoughtful response.
Besides, it's really absurd for you to label the reference to that sentence as "cherry picking". It's not like this is a 400 page treatise with one irregular sentence in it. It's a short policy statement with some significant problems, one of which is embodied in that sentence as it applies to other parts of the statement.
But thanks for jumping all over people who are questioning it.
I simply ask people to evaluate the sticky in context, skippy.
[MODERATOR NOTE: I need to clear up a few misconceptions:
This move was NOT made in order to attract TBMs. I'm not in the business of attracting one type of poster over another. I want to attract EVERYBODY, be they TBM, critic, nevermo, etc. TBM PARTICIPATION (or lack thereof) HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
This move was ONLY made in order to reduce the number of complaints we moderators had been receiving in our InBoxes. Pretty much all the complaints we'd received had to do with the goings-on in the Celestial Forum, thus indicating that people were dissatisfied with the status-quo therein. We didn't know what to do about it, then marg made a suggestion which we all thought was a good idea. THAT'S IT.
This is an EXPERIMENT. It is not "set in stone." My sole purpose is to IMPROVE MormonDiscussions.com. If this experiment proves to be a detriment, rest assured I'll return things back to the way they were without delay.]
Now, speaking as a man:
As Jersey Girl implies, yes, atheists are just as welcome to use the "Faith-based" flag as are the theists. For example, if they wish to avoid having scriptures spouted to them like Gazelam used to do--i.e., if they wish to start with the assumption that there is no God--this option is available to them, too.
In the following sentence of the original sticky, "If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as the base assumptions laid out by the OP being challenged or derailed," the choice of the word "challenged" was unfortunate. To better encapsulate what we're trying to accomplish, the word "backtracked" should've been used. As I stated in another thread:
Let's say there was a fired-up philosophy major on the board who loved to argue against the Cartesian principle of "I think, therefore I am." Let's say he denied that any of us actually exist.
In such a case, whenever anyone posted anything about any topic in any forum, our hypothetical philosopher would ALWAYS jump in with, "Why should any of us bother to respond to you, since it cannot be demonstrated conclusively that you actually made this post? Since we can only derive data from sensory input, and sensory organs can be defeated, why should mere consensus cause us to assume your existence, since majority opinions have demonstrably been proven to have been incorrect in the past?"
. . . and so it goes in EVERY post, thus causing EVERY thread to devolve into a philosophical discussion on the nature of existence or non-existence.
See what we mean?
In this light, the main problem is that whenever JAK would participate in a Celestial Thread, it would ALWAYS degenerate into whether or not God exists and/or whether the Bible is a reliable guide. NOTHING ELSE COULD GET DONE. We're merely trying to facilitate a greater breadth of discussion by allowing a thread-starter to position the starting line wherever he or she sees fit.
So, what does everyone think?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"