simple question, complicated answers maybe

What is your thoughts or feelings about topics on Religion or "spiritual" Beliefs in P&R.

I'm dealing with how the conversations go, do they stay on topic?

Is there ever a goal reached?

Do they stay civil or are they generally known to blow up into drawn out arguements?

Do you feel you can have a civil discussion or do they all or most fall into the same rutttt,

I'm not asking for anyones personal thoughts on any particular Belief/no-Belief, Gnosticism or Agnosticism

Please Stay On Topic

*I will be Snipping or deleting posts that are not in response to this original post

It can be scary in there...

They never stay completely 'civil' nor on topic---how the hell can religion?

But, we are discussing topics often where different points of view aren't just expressions of 'opinions' but proclamations of perceived truths---the difference here is the former is accepted as subjective, while the later implies your 'opinion' is really an interpretation of an objective truth. Ergo, there mus be a right and a wrong opinion in this case. This of course leads to back and forth discrediting of the other person. I see nothing wrong with that, honestly.

I think that if you're going to take on a belief that asserts you are correct about some reality without scientific proof, it's perfectly accepted for you to have to defend that. It's one of the reasons that as a Buddhist, I am so tolerant of atheists criticizing my religion (I'm a huge fan of Richard Dawkins who doesn't criticize Buddhism, but also Chirstohper Hitchens who has been highly critical of Buddhism). I however, pretty much get annoyed by Christians who do it. I've never had a Muslim criticize Buddhism despite me being highly critical of Islam. Again, I don't think you're religion being criticized is something that you should be protected from. I question the motives of those who do it if I percieve their posts to be 'glossy' or manipulative--but I appreciate those who don't agree and are pretty explicit about it.

But any religious debate will tend to ramble. I mean, how can you discuss 'traditional marriage' from a Christian standpoint, without people going off on tangents unrelated to the original intention of the thread, but completely related from the viewpoint of respondants. Example: You post a thread about traditional marriage being a Christian value, and a respondant then posts a reply about female circumcisions in Africa being 'traditional', but is it right? The a third person chimes in about how we circumcize babie boys in the US withot any religious reasons. The before you know it, you're thread about marriage becomes a mutilated vagina and penis thread for 15 posts. I think that's natural.

Here's my take:

#1. More responsiblity should be on the OP to define what the discussion should be about.

#2. The OP should take it upon himself to state whether replies are relevant or not, and if this is ok. A moderator simply does not have the time or resources to follow every subject in detail--SNIP [Mod bashing not allowed] It's just not possible.

#3. You need more moderators, and at least one conservative and one religious one. You need more non-American. And I mean someone NOT from the Americas at all (Canada, USA, etc.)

#4. People SHOULD be allowed to criticize other people's beliefs, even with strong language. There's a difference between saying a person is saying a bunch of bullshit, and calling a person a shithead. The main issue is how sensative religion is to people. In my opinion, if you're going to jump in a P&R thread about your view of reality, be ready to defend it---atheists are more than ready.

Lastly, this is a prince fan site. This makes the fact that we expect quality out of a P&R forum comical.

My take is don't sweat it.

Is it reasonable that if someone Wiccan, wants to discuss things of that way with others who are Wiccan, that they are allowed to have a topic of discussion without having to defend it from those who don't believe in it?

OldFriends4Sale said:

Is it reasonable that if someone Wiccan, wants to discuss things of that way with others who are Wiccan, that they are allowed to have a topic of discussion without having to defend it from those who don't believe in it?

YES.

But I think they need to clearly define that in the original post.

I started a thread once really geared towards others of the Buddhist faith and it derailed even after I posted the intention of the thread, and what my expectations were.

The poster who derailed the thread claimed it his posts were relevant to what I was asking.

It's just part of the territory.

This isn't buddhism.org or wiccan.org, and obviously not christianity.org.

Folks are going to chime in. It's going to be messy.

The original poster needs to clearly define the 'debate' or 'discussin' and the parameters arond it. A moderator simply can't interpret the intention or what's acceptable for the original poster. Moreover, a moderator shouldn't be placed in a position of enforcing rigid and unenforceable rules to compensate for 'scope creep' without this being detrimental to overall discussions.

imago said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Is it reasonable that if someone Wiccan, wants to discuss things of that way with others who are Wiccan, that they are allowed to have a topic of discussion without having to defend it from those who don't believe in it?

YES.

But I think they need to clearly define that in the original post.

I started a thread once really geared towards others of the Buddhist faith and it derailed even after I posted the intention of the thread, and what my expectations were.

The poster who derailed the thread claimed it his posts were relevant to what I was asking.

It's just part of the territory.

This isn't buddhism.org or wiccan.org, and obviously not christianity.org.

Folks are going to chime in. It's going to be messy.

The original poster needs to clearly define the 'debate' or 'discussin' and the parameters arond it. A moderator simply can't interpret the intention or what's acceptable for the original poster. Moreover, a moderator shouldn't be placed in a position of enforcing rigid and unenforceable rules to compensate for 'scope creep' without this being detrimental to overall discussions.

right, I say the same, make it clear at the beginning. But people should have the right to discuss thing without being attacked. I personally like to read topics, that I might not believe in, but for the sake of learning.

Everything doesn't have to be a vicious battle in every topic

recently we had a successful run of it in thread about Atheist & Agnostics, also one on Christian Gnostics

and they both were able to stay focused

these posts are really well thought and solid.

i think you should be a P&R moderator, dan.

OldFriends4Sale said:

Is it reasonable that if someone Wiccan, wants to discuss things of that way with others who are Wiccan, that they are allowed to have a topic of discussion without having to defend it from those who don't believe in it?

actually, this is a HUGE problem, imo, in P&R.

there are a few individuals who make a mess out of topics by participating in the thread with the apparent sole intention of derailing whatever discussion is taking place.

they show up on a thread they disagree with and their only contribution is taking shots at the topic of the thread, to the point where any meaningful discussion is impossible due to the thread being loaded with bullshit posts that are, at times, personal attacks on the folks participating.

there are actually people in the P&R forum who reply to every single post with a rebuttal. no matter what the topic.

imo, this is purely attention seeking behavior and those engaging in it should be snipped and banned.

thanks for listening.

XxAxX said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Is it reasonable that if someone Wiccan, wants to discuss things of that way with others who are Wiccan, that they are allowed to have a topic of discussion without having to defend it from those who don't believe in it?

actually, this is a HUGE problem, imo, in P&R.

there are a few individuals who make a mess out of topics by participating in the thread with the apparent sole intention of derailing whatever discussion is taking place.

they show up on a thread they disagree with and their only contribution is taking shots at the topic of the thread, to the point where any meaningful discussion is impossible due to the thread being loaded with bullshit posts that are, at times, personal attacks on the folks participating.

there are actually people in the P&R forum who reply to every single post with a rebuttal. no matter what the topic.

imo, this is purely attention seeking behavior and those engaging in it should be snipped and banned.

thanks for listening.

x 100

any thread they dont like they derail with inanity.

they make these little hit-and-run posts that usually contain about 3 sentences of half-fact and rumor, and will back nothing of it up. then the thread derails and becomes about those of us who debate with thought, research, and honesty trying to show the actual facts.

and as soon as you get the thread stabilized again, they come throwing little unsourced "nuh-uh" grenades again, and repeat the process until the entire thread implodes onto itself.

[Edited 3/8/13 9:59am]

imago said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Is it reasonable that if someone Wiccan, wants to discuss things of that way with others who are Wiccan, that they are allowed to have a topic of discussion without having to defend it from those who don't believe in it?

YES.

But I think they need to clearly define that in the original post.

I started a thread once really geared towards others of the Buddhist faith and it derailed even after I posted the intention of the thread, and what my expectations were.

The poster who derailed the thread claimed it his posts were relevant to what I was asking.

It's just part of the territory.

This isn't buddhism.org or wiccan.org, and obviously not christianity.org.

Folks are going to chime in. It's going to be messy.

The original poster needs to clearly define the 'debate' or 'discussin' and the parameters arond it. A moderator simply can't interpret the intention or what's acceptable for the original poster. Moreover, a moderator shouldn't be placed in a position of enforcing rigid and unenforceable rules to compensate for 'scope creep' without this being detrimental to overall discussions.

For a long time after joining, I would not post in that forum, it felt like a disrespectful free fore all. I deeply hate discussion that consist of arguing for the sake of arguing. I like a lively debate, but many of these topics, especially in those discussion just go no where.

XxAxX said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Is it reasonable that if someone Wiccan, wants to discuss things of that way with others who are Wiccan, that they are allowed to have a topic of discussion without having to defend it from those who don't believe in it?

actually, this is a HUGE problem, imo, in P&R.

there are a few individuals who make a mess out of topics by participating in the thread with the apparent sole intention of derailing whatever discussion is taking place.

they show up on a thread they disagree with and their only contribution is taking shots at the topic of the thread, to the point where any meaningful discussion is impossible due to the thread being loaded with bullshit posts that are, at times, personal attacks on the folks participating.

there are actually people in the P&R forum who reply to every single post with a rebuttal. no matter what the topic.

imo, this is purely attention seeking behavior and those engaging in it should be snipped and banned.

thanks for listening.

'Why do some many Christians say Islam is backward/violent?'

follow this one in P&R

OldFriends4Sale said:

XxAxX said:

actually, this is a HUGE problem, imo, in P&R.

there are a few individuals who make a mess out of topics by participating in the thread with the apparent sole intention of derailing whatever discussion is taking place.

they show up on a thread they disagree with and their only contribution is taking shots at the topic of the thread, to the point where any meaningful discussion is impossible due to the thread being loaded with bullshit posts that are, at times, personal attacks on the folks participating.

there are actually people in the P&R forum who reply to every single post with a rebuttal. no matter what the topic.

imo, this is purely attention seeking behavior and those engaging in it should be snipped and banned.

thanks for listening.

'Why do some many Christians say Islam is backward/violent?'

follow this one in P&R

No thanks.

OldFriends4Sale said:

XxAxX said:

actually, this is a HUGE problem, imo, in P&R.

there are a few individuals who make a mess out of topics by participating in the thread with the apparent sole intention of derailing whatever discussion is taking place.

they show up on a thread they disagree with and their only contribution is taking shots at the topic of the thread, to the point where any meaningful discussion is impossible due to the thread being loaded with bullshit posts that are, at times, personal attacks on the folks participating.

there are actually people in the P&R forum who reply to every single post with a rebuttal. no matter what the topic.

imo, this is purely attention seeking behavior and those engaging in it should be snipped and banned.

thanks for listening.

'Why do some many Christians say Islam is backward/violent?'

follow this one in P&R

okay

purplethunder3121 said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

'Why do some many Christians say Islam is backward/violent?'

follow this one in P&R

No thanks.

lol I mean watch how quickly no matter what the OP asks in the beginning, it happens anyway

OldFriends4Sale said:

purplethunder3121 said:

No thanks.

lol I mean watch how quickly no matter what the OP asks in the beginning, it happens anyway

'Tis true...

cborgman said:

these posts are really well thought and solid.

i think you should be a P&R moderator, dan.

Agreed

Mach said:

cborgman said:

these posts are really well thought and solid.

i think you should be a P&R moderator, dan.

Agreed

Thirded

purplethunder3121 said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

lol I mean watch how quickly no matter what the OP asks in the beginning, it happens anyway

'Tis true...

If there was a way to remove and move a section of a thread that was off topic and create another thread with it would be cool. Otherwise we have to snip or delete posts to keep them on topic

purplethunder3121 said:

it would be neat if the OP had the power to 'mod' the thread, to the extent that the OP could ask, once, 'please stop derailing the thread', and then thereafter have the power to snip posts. it would completely change the dynamic around here, but would be interesting to watch what would happen.

XxAxX said:

it would be neat if the OP had the power to 'mod' the thread, to the extent that the OP could ask, once, 'please stop derailing the thread', and then thereafter have the power to snip posts. it would completely change the dynamic around here, but would be interesting to watch what would happen.

It's really an interesting dynamic in P&R as just an orger AND as a Mod ( past-Mod ) ~

VERY interesting !

XxAxX said:

it would be neat if the OP had the power to 'mod' the thread, to the extent that the OP could ask, once, 'please stop derailing the thread', and then thereafter have the power to snip posts. it would completely change the dynamic around here, but would be interesting to watch what would happen.

I've learned it's easier said than done

In most cases, I try to get another Mod to moderate a topic I'm posting in, because a Mod will ALWAYS be accused of 'abusing his/her moderator authority' Always

In other threads, it's easier, I've seen it done, whole pages just SNIPPED

Tremolia(Gnostic Christianity) as well as Toejam(Atheists) created threads recently, that we helped in keeping people on topic, It's just a matter of stating it right from the start, what are the hopes of the discussion, and then not engaging any posts that are instigating or off topic, once the engaging happens you wake up in the morning to 3 pages of stuff you're expected to Snip.

But I believe totally snipping, so no one else can reply to a post that is derailing is the way to go.

In order to help keep these topics on course, it has to be done, thanks 4 the input

Efan said:

Mach said:

Agreed

Thirded

Thanks you two

As a moderator, I would ban only the folks you deserve it, starting with all 150 of Bria Valente's alter accounts. Honestly.

I'm for free speech. If people want to question my views on anything, feel free.

People need to accept criticism. I know I do. I welcome it. I love getting criticised because it motivates me to go back and think through the issues a little deeper. Of course it's rare that anyone changes their minds in drastic ways, but I know I have changed my views on many topics in subtle ways since becoming a regular P&R junkie.

I know suspect Oldfriends thinks all the non-believers are out there waiting to attack every thread on religion, but I think it's more that we're over zealous to help. We're our own worst enemy sometimes. I know I need to try and stay on-topic a bit more, but dang it's hard when you read something that just smacks you upside the head as nonsensical, not-thought-through, or requiring further clarification.

Oldfriends said:
...as well as Toejam(Atheists) created threads recently...

I don't recall starting any such threads??

toejam said:

I'm for free speech. If people want to question my views on anything, feel free.

People need to accept criticism. I know I do. I welcome it. I love getting criticised because it motivates me to go back and think through the issues a little deeper. Of course it's rare that anyone changes their minds in drastic ways, but I know I have changed my views on many topics in subtle ways since becoming a regular P&R junkie.

I know suspect Oldfriends thinks all the non-believers are out there waiting to attack every thread on religion, but I think it's more that we're over zealous to help. We're our own worst enemy sometimes. I know I need to try and stay on-topic a bit more, but dang it's hard when you read something that just smacks you upside the head as nonsensical, not-thought-through, or requiring further clarification.

Oldfriends said:
...as well as Toejam(Atheists) created threads recently...

I don't recall starting any such threads??

I'm for free speech as well, but we also know that's not always 100% the case.

I can't go to my job and say whatever I want.

People can't come to my home and start gossiping and talking about others behind their backs, if they want to, they can scoup up their stuff and let the door knob hit em...where the good lord split em

I've said this and some others have said here as well, that some topics, in order to have some kind of order or conclusion, should be allowed to have a set idea and it be stuck too.

Your post here creates a atmospher of arguement and division. You are completely wrong in trying to set me against (non-believers),nor do you know what I believe. Since I've been a moderator, I've been completely even when it comes to any topic of religion belief or non-belief. When I first started moderating, I helped the OP of a thread on Wiccan and one for Satanists, be able to discuss what they wanted without being attacked by others. Because it was clear they wanted to talk about particular ideals or practices with others of their belief.

No it wasn't you, it was Arx who started a thread for Atheists and Agnostics:http://prince.org/msg/105/393425?pr, I was in direct communication with the OP to help ensure that his topic isn't derailled and even snipped/deleted a post by someone who posted something that was outside the scope of the OP's aim. That's not revoking anyones free speech.

You're post just exhibited why and how most threads get derailled. There are a lot of things that people will think are nonsensical, not thought through, requiring further clarification. But who is to judge that? Especially when dealing with 'beliefs/non beliefs' Your belief will ALWAYS come to that conclusion, and the same questions and challenges will ensue.

I've followed these types of threads for years before I ever posted in one, and I see the same thing happen over and over.

Some thread will be open to anyone to debate & argue, others will be for people who believe think or appreciate the same.

If someone posts Appreciation:Kiss [love this song, everything about, please post your appreciation on this song] and someone posts 'Hate it' then they are out of order for doing so and the post should be snipped or deleted.

If someone posts 'the Song Kiss' let's discuss, and someone posts 'Hate it' then they are on topic, someone else says 'Love it' then they are on topic

If people want to discuss a Star Wars movie, and someone else posts something on Star Trek movies, it does open too many avenues of debate and confusion. So the original topic, now goes into too many directions. Star Trek in that particular thread should not be allowed.

^Oldfriends, I think you're just taking this all way too seriously. Sure, there's point where threads go off-topic. And I've always admitted to my share of the blame. It's never intentional. Most of the time I just ask questions. If people don't want to answer, that's cool.

With an open forum, folks should be able to speak their mind as long as they keep to the general topic of the thread. If the thread is about war and someone wants to derail it off into abortion, that's a no-no. But you shouldn't be able to dictate "only people who agree with me can post on this thread" or "only people who say what I want to hear" for that matter.

So if someone wants to say how much they looooooooooooove the song Kiss, they should be prepared to hear the opposite side too.

It's not against site rules to disagree.

toejam said:

^Oldfriends, I think you're just taking this all way too seriously. Sure, there's point where threads go off-topic. And I've always admitted to my share of the blame. It's never intentional. Most of the time I just ask questions. If people don't want to answer, that's cool.

Don't make it too personally directed at me, I'm just being a conversation starter. This is the result of Members & Moderators. Especially members requests I've had a lot of recently and in the past.

Just getting feedback.

Also remember, while you are saying, people don't have to answer, that's cool, it's never intentional... like some recent threads (that usually follow the same patern) we(moderators) are dealing with .orgnotes and moderation requests. And having to figure out what's what.

So when you say I'm taking this way too seriously, you are not the one having to moderate things.

When it comes to certain forums, there is a reason others don't want to get involved.

The thing to remember is just because someone reports a post or thread for moderation, doesn't mean that a moderators has to comply with their wishes. A moderator's job is to look at the post and apply the site rules and determine if it broke one or not, then take action based on applying that set of rules.

When I was moderating and in doubt, I'd look back at the rules.

CarrieMpls said:

With an open forum, folks should be able to speak their mind as long as they keep to the general topic of the thread. If the thread is about war and someone wants to derail it off into abortion, that's a no-no. But you shouldn't be able to dictate "only people who agree with me can post on this thread" or "only people who say what I want to hear" for that matter.

So if someone wants to say how much they looooooooooooove the song Kiss, they should be prepared to hear the opposite side too.

It's not against site rules to disagree.

I've don't it myself, where I see a topic title and then begin to reply and think, "Oh they aren't really asking for that" and delete the post I started.

I've found, that's where it's get's sticky and usually the blurred lines always open the thread for topic derailing.

I've never of course said "it's against site rules to disagree" But like the examples I used of 'Kiss' I think people have a right to hold a discussion of like minds. I've seen it happen over and over(this gray area) where derailing a thread starts with a totally opposite post than the thread is going for.

Kiss Appreciation Thread: someone posts "I like it, Classic Prince song, but I think the drums are too stripped..." someone else posts "I totally hate the song worst Prince song from Parade"

the 1st response is within the scope of discussion the 2nd is not that's not even being legalistic but just common sense. That 2nd comment generally opens the door for trouble within the thread. If I don't like a song or an album and the topic/title says "Show some love for Peach" and I hate it, I'm not going to post in that particular thread. But if it's a general Peach song discussion, then I may post and say what I think of that song.

But topics on Religion/Belief/non-Belief, tend to follow a similar course of spiralling into chaos. If those threads are not allowed be more focused to a tighter degree(check out Gnostic Christians & Atheist and Agnostics threads), then we get the usual out of control 10 pages of straight out arguements, that many members publicly and privately have questioned to usefulness of threads on Belief/Non-Belief.

There are so many topics on the table as well as the fact that any member can start their own, that it shouldn't be an issue of 'censorship'

Thanks 4 the input, always looking for information to fine tune my Moderation.