Toto

A recent thread (to our xtian brethern) has degenerated into complaints (or whining) about the standards in this forum, so I am starting this thread to get user input.

I am particularly looking for input from lurkers. I know how the more passionately committed feel.

This forum has always been like the wild west, open to anyone, with fairly light moderation. Christians have come here and insulted atheists and skeptics, atheists have returned the favor. Some threads have been intensely scholarly, some intensely partisan, some have been light hearted, some just bizarre. We have never closed off topics (although some have been shipped off to elsewhere.)

When Peter Kirby was a mod, he could raise the level of debate by the very magnetism of his authority and scholarship. But none of the rest of us can do that.

When I hear certain Christians complain about insults, I remember the volume of personal insults that some Christians have directed at me personally (not that I took any of it personally - they didn't know me). Christian apologists have dropped in and spewed insults or gone wild with profanity. There have been some baseless complaints about unfairness which seemed to be aimed more at getting a debating advantage. It is probably unfair to taint all theists with these sins, but there it is.

My tendency has been not to edit out this Christian misbehavior because I think it reflects poorly on the posters. But it does tend to lower the tone of the place.

My main concern here is that I think that Christians would like to control the discussion to avoid any harsh criticism of Christianity or Christian behavior under the guise of enforcing polite standards of discourse. I would reject this standard of moderation. We can say things in this forum that are not acceptable in Sunday school or in polite society, where it is not acceptable to challenge anyone's religious beliefs or delusions

It is clear that these fora are not here to cater to Christian sensibilities. They are sponsored by the Internet Infidels as part of its mission to promote non-theistic naturalism.

I think that we would all like to see more productive discussions. On the other hand, most of us would not want to force the forum to become so bland that it is boring. And the moderators have only so much time and energy to devote to the task. We edit out personal insults, but not insults to ideologies, and I think that the recent complaints have been about perceived insults to ideologies, or about certain hot buttons that some are expert in pushing.

So the floor is open for suggestions about what can be done with the resources we have, or for other feedback.

I would especially invite lurkers to chime in. Are you put off by the sniping? When does entertaining debate degenerate into bickering? Should bickering be edited out? let stand? should posters be advised to just ignore insults or threads that they find distateful?

What impression do you get from the discussions here? Do they in fact support the mission of II?

Bookman

[Responded privately. -- Bookman]

variant 13

Well seeing as I'm really new here I'll keep it short.

I don't know much of the bible, never went back to it after I got away, me being impressionable and all

But much of the discuss in the last few days has made me want to read a bit more.

There does seem to be an undercurrent of insults in the posts to and from both groups, but as beliefs are being brought into question and challenged in a very blunt and upfront manner I think it is a natural reaction.

Just wish people would lighten up a tiny bit.

Well yes, but it could be better (though there is always room for improvement ).

Overall I like the place.

joedad

I'm a dreamer, Toto. As such, my hat goes off to those posters able to muster the necessary self-control. That's all it takes in my opinion. We should not make factual discussions into contests over egos and ideologies.

The mods are the gods. Anyone who posts here has consented to that authority, and whenever that self-control has been deemed absent.

And I have no problem with that moderation because, quite frankly, I neither expect nor believe-in the myth of perfection.

Imho, there are only three posters who, as of late, have been, well, "short on ears and long on mouth." Outside of those three, things are quite tolerable.

Concerning "insults to ideologies," I prefer their removal. You can remove all insulting comment as far as I am concerned.

Yes.
When assertions go unsubstantiated.
No
I don't think there's a need for that.

rlogan

I love this place.

It blows away the "competition".

Thank you for such a great forum.

reprise

I lurk a lot in BCH (I don't post because my level of Biblical scholarship is appalling), and I enjoy the discussions which take place there - I never fail to learn something new.

I don't think there's a problem with insulting ideologies. Just because a particular ideology holds personal meaning for an individual poster should not exempt it from being held up to scrutiny. If people choose to be offended by harsh criticism of their particular sacred cows, then perhaps II is not the place for them. Substantiated criticism - however harsh - should always be allowed here. Unsubstantiated criticism - however - should either be moved elsewhere or edited out; it has no place in a forum which seeks to establish whether historical evidence exists to corroborate the claims of the Bible.

I guess one of the areas where I think more moderation might be helpful is in distinguishing posters who use junk citations to support their argument because they aren't aware of what constitutes a "good" or "credible" citation from those people who knowingly post junk references to derail the discussion. The former deserve gentle encouragement to find better citations to supoprt their argument, the latter need to be told in no uncertain terms to "knock it off".

Cretinist

I like this forum just the way it is. Whoever is bitching needs to grow a thicker skin.

Celsus

False dichotomy. Why does it have to be that editing out insults = boring? Why can't interesting discussions in which both sides of the debate are focused on learning take place to the betterment of all? Sorry, but I don't think the debate atmosphere in BC&H is conducive to anything other than partisanship.
Yes.
When posters fail to introduce new information but simply regurgitate the same old assertions for the 2536th time.
Yes.
Yes, but moderation should weigh in firmly against these, as per the II rules.
I think II only ever wanted counter-apologetics in BC&H. Scholarly discussion has never supported the mission of II.

Joel

Toto

Hi Joel:

I think II's committment to scholarship is shown in its library.

I did not mean to imply that the only dicotomy is between insults and boring stuff. But the threads that have gotten the loudest complaints from theists lately have not involved insults to persons, only hard challenges to their theology.

Almost all of what Christians post here is apologetics, even if it has a scholarly veneer, so counter-apologetics is a necessity. Otherwise we are just providing free bandwidth for Christian propaganda.

Let me give some examples of recent things that I am not sure what to do about.

1 and 2 Chronicles involves an issue that I am not very involved in. diana posted some polite comments, followed by CJD who posted some crotchety insults to II and implied diana would burn in hell. After another reply, CJD said:

I think that diana can handle herself, and CJD's blather probably does aid II in its mission. So what do I do?

Doctor X

Not that you need my advice, but you are in a bit of a "damn'd if you do/ damn'd if you don't" situation.

I do not go to "theist" boards. If people do not want their opinions challenged they should not come here.

Unfortunately, as the example given, some feel that anyone who would dare disagree with their cherished understanding of the Universe must, ipso facto, be a complete idiot.

Nevertheless, for what it is worth, this board is fairly well-mannered. Vinnie, Vork, Amaleq13, and I traded opinions on the NT so much I am no longer sure whose position is whose . . . other than that I am correct, ipso facto, of course. . . .

If you restrict those who can only respond with insults they will cry "CENSORSHIP" Unfortunately, if you do not, they will then keep pushing the "envelope of taste" until either you drive people away or you have to finally act.

--J.D.