Freethought & Rationalism Archive

steve_bnk · 01-17-2013, 05:49 PM

This forum is obviously more susceptible than the others due to the nature fo the conetent.

In the management forum debate there were some who wanted those who started an OP have the autoriity to imit users. The TOU was updated to put reponsibly on the OP creator to keep thngs relevant and require assertions to be supported. It is a violation to start a thread and not be able to support the OP.

I do not post here much because I do not want to make the effort to do the research to heep up with the detailed debates.

I think moderation has worked fairly well here. Other sites are far more restrictive.

If a user is violating the TOU penalize, if they ignore warnings ban.

What I have obseved is a tendency by some who don't get the respnses they want start multiple threads on the same OP.

I think the BCH forum needs to be broken into subforums. It will make it easier to manage. Mayve have a section for more formal resrtrictive debate.

Chili · 01-17-2013, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

I think Toto has done a great job here over the years (I've posted here under other handles since 2003). A lot of the time Toto has been the only active moderator with countless hobby horses and personalities to deal with.

Another fairly active and even minded Mod or two might help.

Totally true as one of the few around here

Chili · 01-17-2013, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I would like see those people who engage in personal attacks like the following be given a public MODERATOR WARNING.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

I am here for my own pleasure

Ever thought of trying porn? You see this is a forum where other people have to read your masturbatory musings. It gets in the way of the rest of our discussions. Porn at least doesn't necessarily involve people watching you pleasuring yourself. Or maybe the institution which takes care of you has strict restrictions on what you can view.

Ty, but no problen for me, I am untouchable and far above that.

spin · 01-17-2013, 06:35 PM

The solution I proposed many years ago was to have a subforum which had stringent requirements, including scholarly and personal conduct. This would allow the BC&H we know and hate to exist with all its hobby horses and refusals to engage intellectually, yet still get into topics in the subforum which require evidence, reasoning, clear references, efforts to accommodate others' ideas (knowing that they are based on evidence and rational argument). It is always the investigation rather than committedness that brings about fertile discussions.

In such a subforum references are important: when someone says something based on primary (or even secondary) sources, the exact references to those sources are expected to be supplied in serious discussion otherwise it is not worth mentioning. Having seen someone say something in some documentary doesn't really cut it for usefulness. It would be acceptable in BC&H these days, but not in serious discussion. Off the wall views such as Jesus is Caesar or there is a single astrotheology behind all religions might be ok for BC&H. And scholarship is no longer interested in championing literal interpretations of texts whose significance does not fit well into the historical record.

The problem with this idea of a more scholarly subforum has always been the need for heavy moderation. Some posts, whose content doesn't seem to relate directly to a topic or whose attitude regarding other posters is not convivial, would have to be pruned.

Stephan for example might perhaps enunciate his sexual proclivities in BC&H or elsewhere and his scholarly musings in the subforum.

Drum bangers are more interested in what they have to say than in investigating topics to evaluate them.

BC&H is so adversarial, so full of rocks which are fixed and unchanging, so filled with sniping, it is stultifying to any scholarly investigation.

My solution to BC&H's quality issues is still to have a subforum with strict scholarly guidelines, leaving BC&H to be a freer context.

steve_bnk · 01-17-2013, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I would like see those people who engage in personal attacks like the following be given a public MODERATOR WARNING.

Ty, but no problen for me, I am untouchable and far above that.

Yea, those who make loud noises about about the debate can be very insulting.

stephan huller · 01-17-2013, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Stephan for example might perhaps enunciate his sexual proclivities in BC&H or elsewhere and his scholarly musings in the subforum.

I'm just taking advantage of this being an atheist forum. I'd be thrown out of a faith-based forum. Besides it's better than going here:

steve_bnk · 01-17-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Stephan for example might perhaps enunciate his sexual proclivities in BC&H or elsewhere and his scholarly musings in the subforum.

I'm just taking advantage of this being an atheist forum. I'd be thrown out of a faith-based forum. Besides it's better than going here:

I believe this would be a derail that has nothing to do with the thread....

thief of fire · 01-17-2013, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

My solution to BC&H's quality issues is still to have a subforum with strict scholarly guidelines, leaving BC&H to be a freer context.

Sounds like a good idea. I was thinking something similar.
I think there is a chance that the BC&H forum might wither, as people would possibly want to be in the more prestigious forum.

We'd have to make sure we left room in the "better" forum for those who might not have grasp of the scholarship but were genuinely seeking answers or help with religion in some way, as it relates to texts.

Horatio Parker · 01-17-2013, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hello BCH:

I've been around here for over a decade. At one point, there were highly academic discussions here, involving well read people with extensive backgrounds. Most of our more literate Christian apologists have moved on, and the more academic debate has moved to a few blogs. I think this forum still serves a purpose, but we need to tighten things up a bit.

The following has been proposed as a new set of guidelines for this forum:

Participants in the Bible Criticism and History Forum are expected to comply with the FRDB Terms of Use as any other FRDB registered Members benefiting of posting privileges on FRDB. Please, consult our Guidelines before participating.

1) BCH participants are expected to source or/and document their stated position in order for discussions to meet the intended purpose of the FRDB Mission :

http://www.freeratio.org/misc.php?do=showrules#mission

"Freethought & Rationalism is a privately owned, educational information provider established for freethinkers -- especially for (but not limited to) atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and similar -- to promote rational thought as a better means to access truth."

2) Preaching/proselytizing is prohibited across FRDB. Please, make sure to include your personal commentary when quoting scriptures. Moderators will be removing posts which lack the presence of a personal analysis of the quoted scriptures.

3) In thread FRDB Staff Warnings and Notices are not to be dismissed. Dismissal of such official FRDB Staff Communications may result in a thread locking.

We do not want to overly stifle the discussion, or discourage honest posts or questions. But there is too much noise, too many posts that do nothing to advance the debate.

Your input is requested on:

1. Civility - the rules have never forbidden profanity or disrespect. However, constantly labeling something as "horseshit" does nothing for rational discussion.

2. Hobby horses - in particular the constant repetition of a claim that has been soundly defeated or rejected. (Discussing a new aspect or new evidence is not included here.)

3. Chili - what is he talking about?

As a relative newbie, I don't know how the forum has changed.

I'm not sure why a new forum is needed. What can be done in another forum that can't be be done in this one?

And if you want to understand Chili, read him. (I can't think of any other way...)

For my part, he's an interesting character even if I don't always understand or even read his posts(especially the long ones).

Perspicuo · 01-17-2013, 07:54 PM

This thread is muy divertido. Please continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

My solution to BC&H's quality issues is still to have a subforum with strict scholarly guidelines, leaving BC&H to be a freer context.

Sounds like a good idea. I was thinking something similar.
I think there is a chance that the BC&H forum might wither, as people would possibly want to be in the more prestigious forum.

We'd have to make sure we left room in the "better" forum for those who might not have grasp of the scholarship but were genuinely seeking answers or help with religion in some way, as it relates to texts.

You forget that everyone is an expert on the web. No, really: Do you think someone will refrain from posting because of that?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2013, 05:49 PM	#51
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	This forum is obviously more susceptible than the others due to the nature fo the conetent. In the management forum debate there were some who wanted those who started an OP have the autoriity to imit users. The TOU was updated to put reponsibly on the OP creator to keep thngs relevant and require assertions to be supported. It is a violation to start a thread and not be able to support the OP. I do not post here much because I do not want to make the effort to do the research to heep up with the detailed debates. I think moderation has worked fairly well here. Other sites are far more restrictive. If a user is violating the TOU penalize, if they ignore warnings ban. What I have obseved is a tendency by some who don't get the respnses they want start multiple threads on the same OP. I think the BCH forum needs to be broken into subforums. It will make it easier to manage. Mayve have a section for more formal resrtrictive debate.

01-17-2013, 06:35 PM	#54
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The solution I proposed many years ago was to have a subforum which had stringent requirements, including scholarly and personal conduct. This would allow the BC&H we know and hate to exist with all its hobby horses and refusals to engage intellectually, yet still get into topics in the subforum which require evidence, reasoning, clear references, efforts to accommodate others' ideas (knowing that they are based on evidence and rational argument). It is always the investigation rather than committedness that brings about fertile discussions. In such a subforum references are important: when someone says something based on primary (or even secondary) sources, the exact references to those sources are expected to be supplied in serious discussion otherwise it is not worth mentioning. Having seen someone say something in some documentary doesn't really cut it for usefulness. It would be acceptable in BC&H these days, but not in serious discussion. Off the wall views such as Jesus is Caesar or there is a single astrotheology behind all religions might be ok for BC&H. And scholarship is no longer interested in championing literal interpretations of texts whose significance does not fit well into the historical record. The problem with this idea of a more scholarly subforum has always been the need for heavy moderation. Some posts, whose content doesn't seem to relate directly to a topic or whose attitude regarding other posters is not convivial, would have to be pruned. Stephan for example might perhaps enunciate his sexual proclivities in BC&H or elsewhere and his scholarly musings in the subforum. Drum bangers are more interested in what they have to say than in investigating topics to evaluate them. BC&H is so adversarial, so full of rocks which are fixed and unchanging, so filled with sniping, it is stultifying to any scholarly investigation. My solution to BC&H's quality issues is still to have a subforum with strict scholarly guidelines, leaving BC&H to be a freer context.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.