New Guidelines for EoG

[xorbie]

This thread is for the discussion of new guidelines that are being proposed in the interest of ensuring that this forum has a high level of discussion aimed at discussing the question of whether or not God exists. The following are the types of things that may be edited out from now on:

Any argument that focuses on an individual or group of individuals. This means not just users here but also groups of people. Even if it could be proven that all theists/atheists have an IQ of 24 or less, this is entirely irrelevent to a logical argument.
Posts which consist of no argument whatsoever. Note that this does not mean "no good argument."
Posts which consist of only sarcastic quips or one liners.

Note that nothing which was previously not allowed would not be allowed - all the old rules (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79154) still apply.

As I said above, these rules are here for discussion. Any and all input on the proposed additions or any other ones are welcome.

Joel / xorbie
EoG Mod

[The Bearded One]

Originally posted by xorbie
B) Posts which consist of no argument whatsoever. Note that this does not mean "no good argument."
C) Posts which consist of only sarcastic quips or one liners.

Just to clarify, (B) will not refer to refutations of other people's arguments, right? And (C) will not be used against reductio ad absurdum scenarios, right?

-- The Bearded One

[Afghan]

I am far from convinced about the first one. A lot of arguments hinge on just such discussions (whether or not they are valid is another matter). But certainly belief in God gets pretty good mileage as an argument for God and the converse for non-belief. Refuting either of these, even it is as shoddy an argument as "theists/atheists are stupid", depends on positing other grounds for belief. Of course, such arguments are fallacious, but there is no harm in pointing that out in open and frank discussion.

[Infidelettante]

I can live with it.

JT

[xorbie]

Originally posted by The Bearded One
Just to clarify, (B) will not refer to refutations of other people's arguments, right? And (C) will not be used against reductio ad absurdum scenarios, right?

-- The Bearded One

Naturally. For (B) I mean posts which contain no argument or refutation, my apology. And for (C) the idea is, again, to eliminate posts that don't contain any argument/refutation. If the post containts an argument such as reductio ad absurdum, it will certainly be allowed to stand.

Joel / xorbie
EoG Mod

[xorbie]

Originally posted by Afghan
I am far from convinced about the first one. A lot of arguments hinge on just such discussions (whether or not they are valid is another matter). But certainly belief in God gets pretty good mileage as an argument for God and the converse for non-belief. Refuting either of these, even it is as shoddy an argument as "theists/atheists are stupid", depends on positing other grounds for belief. Of course, such arguments are fallacious, but there is no harm in pointing that out in open and frank discussion.

Such arguments being fallacious is really the be all and end all. There is a forum for discussion of people and religion - it's called GRD. This forum is expressedly for the discussion of whether or not God exists. Arguments such as the argument from disbelief will naturally be allowed to stand, but posts which argue ad hom, interpreted about as broadly as possible, will be edited out unless they are somehow relevent.

Really, these rules aren't anything new and groundbreaking, and I just posted this thread to make people aware of the new, perhaps tighter, restrictions. This is mainly to improve the noise-to-signal ratio, and I have noticed that violations of the three things I put up tend to derail threads quite often.

Joel / xorbie
EoG Mod

[BrotherDog]

Are the new rules saying that I can't express a personal opinion like all persons who believe in god and the supernatural are superstious ding-dongs?
That's intellectual repression or something!!! :p :mad: :banghead:

[ex-xian]

Are the new rules saying that I can't express a personal opinion like all persons who believe in god and the supernatural are superstious ding-dongs?
That's intellectual repression or something!!! :p :mad: :banghead:
You can attack ideas, you can't attack people. It's as simple as that.

[ex-xian]

We, the mods, feel that the current tone in EoG is not living up to the aims expressed in the general rules and EoG forum guidelines as well as it should be, therefore, starting today, 5/2/04, we are going to place more emphasis on curbing insulting and inflammatory behaviour. We will now use editing and warnings more liberally than before, and will close threads heading towards flamewars earlier.

Thank you for your consideration of the rules and forum specific guidelines.

The Mods

ETA:
I also want to stress the importance of the "report bad post" button. If you feel that someone has broken the rules, please don't reply in kind--let us know. And if you see something edited that was similiar to something that was not, don't assume that we're playing favorites--we probably just missed it! Just report the post and someone will get to it.

[Al Kafirun]

I agree with the revised guidelines, but a forum without quips and rants ends up being rather dry. It'll spare bandwidth, though.

[pope fiction]

Takes some of the fun out of it, but I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

PF

[rad]

Hope it works, and they are applied fairly. I don't see how, if the moderator "feels" he is unbiased. That's the rule that needs to go IMO.

Rad

[Ellis14]

Hope it works, and they are applied fairly. I don't see how, if the moderator "feels" he is unbiased. That's the rule that needs to go IMO.

Rad
What exactly do you mean, rad?




(Edited to add: 18th May 2004)

(Edited to add: 1st Jun 2004)

[freewalker]

If i may comment: sometimes one liners do hold more meaning than lenthy emptiness.

[Ellis14]

If the one-line remark is an on-topic comment, refutation, or argument it can stand. Everything is judged in context.

By one-liners we usually mean irrelevant retorts, usually sarcastic, that serve no purpose and only deteriorate the thread.

Thanks

[Von Smith]

You can attack ideas, you can't attack people. It's as simple as that.


So then, saying that people who believe in God are committing superstitious ding-dongery would be OK?

[Ellis14]

So then, saying that people who believe in God are committing superstitious ding-dongery would be OK?
It might be best to think of the rules not in terms of "how close can I come to the line without crossing it?". It's a case of how to express your POV without offending people.

Would you be offended if someone said that people who don't believe in God are heartless vile evil demon-worshippers? (It has been said about us!) I bet you would. Using your example, the best way to phrase it would be: "belief in God is superstitious nonsense"; this wouldn't be edited.

[Blueskyboris]

1.* Any argument that focuses on an individual or group of individuals. This means not just users here but also groups of people. Even if it could be proven that all theists/atheists have an IQ of 24 or less, this is entirely irrelevent to a logical argument.
2. * Posts which consist of no argument whatsoever. Note that this does not mean "no good argument."
3. * Posts which consist of only sarcastic quips or one liners.


1. The first proposal I agree with. That said, I would like to make the crucial point that sometimes it is hard for a poster to control their emotions. Human beings are not Vulcans. Therefore, I would argue that the rare occurance of childish name calling, without philosophical content, should be over looked by moderators.

2. Posts which are void of philosophical argument are void on this website, since this is a website maintained by volunteers for philosophical argument. Those who want to talk about nothing should go the appropiate section in the social lounge.

3. Isolated posts which consist only of sarcastic quips or one liners should be compared against the overall contribution of that poster in the pertinent thread. One sarcastic post void of philosophical argument should not shutdown an entire thread. This is for certain. However, if that poster is simply posting sarcastic threads, void of philosophical content, over and over again, that poster should be reprimanded and/or the thread should be locked.

4. My own suggestion: Threads that stretch beyond 3-4 pages should be watched carefully by moderators to make sure the "topic hasnt died" between active posters who are now simply "talking through each other." Threads like this do occur and the topic could be better served if a 7-8 page thread is shut down and the topic started in a new thread so that "new blood'", new posters, can easily throw in their two cents. This has already occured, and I approve 100%.

[Ellis14]

1. The first proposal I agree with. That said, I would like to make the crucial point that sometimes it is hard for a poster to control their emotions. Human beings are not Vulcans. Therefore, I would argue that the rare occurance of childish name calling, without philosophical content, should be over looked by moderators.
Moderators don't make the rules, we simply enforce them. Some mods are more liberal than others in their applications, but personal remarks, no matter how "childish" or "rare" will not be tolerated.
2. Posts which are void of philosophical argument are void on this website, since this is a website maintained by volunteers for philosophical argument. Those who want to talk about nothing should go the appropiate section in the social lounge.
This is already the case.

There are no rules for allowed-topic in a forum other than this: the post should be relevant to the thread.
3. Isolated posts which consist only of sarcastic quips or one liners should be compared against the overall contribution of that poster in the pertinent thread. One sarcastic post void of philosophical argument should not shutdown an entire thread. This is for certain. However, if that poster is simply posting sarcastic threads, void of philosophical content, over and over again, that poster should be reprimanded and/or the thread should be locked.
No thread would be shut down because of one sarcastic post.

Sarcasm is a natural part of conversation, and is not always edited. Sarcasm can be personal, irrelevant and offensive at times though; this will be edited.
4. My own suggestion: Threads that stretch beyond 3-4 pages should be watched carefully by moderators to make sure the "topic hasnt died" between active posters who are now simply "talking through each other." Threads like this do occur and the topic could be better served if a 7-8 page thread is shut down and the topic started in a new thread so that "new blood'", new posters, can easily throw in their two cents. This has already occured, and I approve 100%.
Threads can very quickly jump to 4-5 pages in no time. It would be inefficient to start new threads after every couple of pages, especially when the wandering of threads is a common thing to happen.

We actually try to avoid opening multiple threads on the same topic (posters might remember the TAG discussions several months ago).

You are correct that Mods should be very vigilant about threads wandering off topic completely; we try our best not to let this happen. But is also true, and necessary, that threads meander from time to time; they sometimes have to, since many debates involve greater, lesser, or peripheral issues.


Thank you for your comments and suggestions. If you have any further, more detailed suggestions, it might be best to post them in the IIDB Conference Room, (where they will receive greater input and recognition).

Regards,

Ellis10
EoG Mod

[Kryten]

This thread is for the discussion of new guidelines that are being proposed in the interest of insuring that this forum has a high level of discussion aimed at discussing the question of whether or not God exists. The following are the types of things that may be edited out from now on:

Any argument that focuses on an individual or group of individuals. This means not just users here but also groups of people. Even if it could be proven that all theists/atheists have an IQ of 24 or less, this is entirely irrelevent to a logical argument.
Posts which consist of no argument whatsoever. Note that this does not mean "no good argument."
Posts which consist of only sarcastic quips or one liners.

Note that nothing which was previously not allowed would not be allowed - all the old rules (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79154) still apply.

As I said above, these rules are here for discussion. Any and all input on the proposed additions or any other ones are welcome.

Joel / xorbie
EoG Mod


Fair enough.
I do have a small problem though with many of these US based forums. The mod's on many forums seem to expect each person to communicate in the same way as Americans. I am not American. I come from a place where we speak our minds and are basically very direct. If something is black, we call it black. This can come across as rude to Yanks. In fact using the word "Yanks" can come across as rude too. But it is normal speech for someone such as myself.
So I ask that you try to understand that not all people speak in an American fashion. And that you understand that most posters are not professional authors. Some may never even have attended a university. Shock horror!!! :D

I just responded to another poster after he said that God had created certain levels of singing angels. I told him I would only believe it once I had their recordings. Is this considered rude?
I just don't know. Many Americans seem a bit uptight to me.

[MollyMac]

Fair enough.
I do have a small problem though with many of these US based forums. The mod's on many forums seem to expect each person to communicate in the same way as Americans. I am not American. I come from a place where we speak our minds and are basically very direct. If something is black, we call it black. This can come across as rude to Yanks. In fact using the word "Yanks" can come across as rude too. But it is normal speech for someone such as myself.


Wow! I don't think I've ever disagreed more strongly with a post! Where do you come from? Obviously not the UK!

(Obviously this isn't the right place so PM or a new thread perhaps?)

[Gawen]

The mod's on many forums seem to expect each person to communicate in the same way as Americans. I haven't seen this here at IIDB.
I come from a place where we speak our minds and are basically very direct. We would like you to speak your mind. An insult is an insult, even if one speaks their mind, however, there is a modicum of decency that people everywhere mostly adhere to.
So I ask that you try to understand that not all people speak in an American fashion. We're quite aware of this and don't hold it against anyone that is not American. I'm sure that the Mods that do not live in America don't hold it against people that post and do not live where they live as well.
I just responded to another poster after he said that God had created certain levels of singing angels. I told him I would only believe it once I had their recordings. Is this considered rude? No, it's not rude.

[y-chromo kid]

Sarcasm? Quips? C'mon, don't be so po faced. Surely there's room for a little humorous insult or two. This forum is begining to feel slightly despotic. Will I be purged for even questioning the wisdom of this clamp down?:D

[MollyMac]

What clamp-down? The one posted above in March 2004? Or has something new happened? :confused:

[y-chromo kid]

What clamp-down? The one posted above in March 2004? Or has something new happened? :confused:

I'm just a little slow on the uptake MollyMac