New Faith-Based Threads Rule = Mormon NON-Discussions Board

[_Dr. Shades]

I've always been in favor of allowing a thread starter to have a little bit of control over his or her thread; this new guideline merely codifies it is all. Think of it as moderators pre-emptively splitting Celestial Forum threads by having y'all do it yourselves.

It seems like very few people on either side of the aisle are in favor of this, so me, being the democratic dictator that I am, am willing to scrap it all if it proves unpopular.

As with everything else around here, THIS MOVE IS ONLY ON A TRIAL BASIS. IT IS NOT SET IN STONE. If it doesn't work out, I'll scrap all of Liz's stickies and we'll all go back to the way things were.

Once more, I doubt very many people will take advantage of it anyway. So can we give it a little time and see what happens?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Funny, I wonder if it is that skeptics can see the problem with this whereas non questioning members don't. Sure we all see the problem with MAD but not in our own land. Sweet!!

The difference here is that MAD has imposed this rule board-wide, with bannings as a real possibility if you break it. We are saying a poster may choose to implement this or not, and ONLY in the CK.

If you want to debate the existence of God, by all means, post a thread that doesn't have any parameters.

Why are threads being moved from CK then.

Having faith based forum is a parameter in itself. It is ok to say GOD EXISTS but not ok to say he doesn't. So if we want to have a CK discussion we have to pretend God exists?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Cool Shades.

[_skippy the dead]

It seems like very few people on either side of the aisle are in favor of this, so me, being the democratic dictator that I am, am willing to scrap it all if it proves unpopular.

As with everything else around here, THIS MOVE IS ONLY ON A TRIAL BASIS. IT IS NOT SET IN STONE. If it doesn't work out, I'll scrap all of Liz's stickies and we'll all go back to the way things were.

Once more, I doubt very many people will take advantage of it anyway. So can we give it a little time and see what happens?

My problem still remains. Trial or no trial, we are embracing the idea for some period of time that some opinions have more value than others, and that some things can be said and some cannot. Chilling effect. Not good as a philosophy, and I expect much more from this board. So even if we try it for one day, we've allowed ourselves to cross over the chasm.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

LOL skippy is suggesting this forum is discriminating.

[_KimberlyAnn]

It seems like very few people on either side of the aisle are in favor of this, so me, being the democratic dictator that I am, am willing to scrap it all if it proves unpopular.

It's already proven unpopular.

KA

[_skippy the dead]

LOL skippy is suggesting this forum is discriminating.

No, not discriminating. Just limiting.

[_Scottie]

...democratic dictator...

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[_KimberlyAnn]

My response to Dart on the Sticky thread:

dartagnan wrote:
I get a kick out of those who actually complain about this because they think no "discussion" can take place in these threads. What really pisses you off is that you're no longer permitted to invade and offer pithy diversionary comments.

So don't pretend you were ever really interested in "discussion" to begin with.

That's not true, Dart. I'm not an atheist. I started a thread stating my opposition to the new rule. Chris, Skippy, Jason Bourne, myself and others who oppose the new rule do not jump in the middle of threads and invade, "offering pithy, diversionary comments."

There are only a handful of posters who behave in such a fashion, and if they make posts breaking forum rules, then those posts should be dealt with on an individual basis. Otherwise, their posts should be left to stand. Chose to engage them, or ignore them. It's a choice. To me, that's better than preemptively censoring discussion.

KA

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I wasn't being serious skippy.

It depends what you mean by discriminating thought.