Forum rules update

[hardalee]

Then you might like this quote:

I am both ignorant and apathetic. I neither know nor care.

Don't know who said it first, but I use it a lot.

[Gustav]

No. No individual member of sciforums provided the impetus or inspiration for any of the rules. In creating a set of guidelines like this, one must look at general considerations and types of members, not at individuals.

whatever!

I don't know what strictures you're thinking of, so I can't comment.

oh
its a, b and c answered in the affirmative by frag

a. We have discussed the term "kafir" before on the forum. Nothing has changed since then.
b. Potentially, yes. See Item I.10.
c. See Item E.4.

a - a simple yes or no would suffice
b - personal info? ok, i get it
c - i'll get back to you when i get banned for posting in eclectic


james
do you ban by committee? will you approve and have the final say in all bans proposed by your team?

if not, will you consider it? i think some form of consensus is important
also how about a thread in sfog that serves as a clearinghouse for all bans enacted? as an addendum to the ban list, the "ban reason" there can link to this thread and the relevant post

outline the offense, the violation of rule(s), your interpretation of both and the concurrence of other team members.
the airtight argument presented, the transparency, should minimize disputes.

[wynn]

if not, will you consider it? i think some form of consensus is important
also how about a thread in sfog that serves as a clearinghouse for all bans enacted? as an addendum to the ban list, the "ban reason" there can link to this thread and the relevant post

outline the offense, the violation of rule(s), your interpretation of both and the concurrence of other team members.
the airtight argument presented, the transparency, should minimize disputes.

Yes. We want an official Black List.

[James R]

cosmictraveler:

I got eye strain reading part of that rules page! Let's try and make fewer rules so that we can remember them better. I'll forget many of them due to not remembering them.

What more help do you need? There's a short summary at the top for those who find reading the complete rules too much of a strain.

Do you need a summary of the summary? "Don't be a dick" is probably not a bad one.


Gustav:

do you ban by committee? will you approve and have the final say in all bans proposed by your team?

No, and no.

if not, will you consider it? i think some form of consensus is important

We're considering it. At this stage, it is unlikely that it will happen.

also how about a thread in sfog that serves as a clearinghouse for all bans enacted? as an addendum to the ban list, the "ban reason" there can link to this thread and the relevant post

That's worth considering. I'll take it to the moderator group. At present we already have a thread like that, only it's in the Moderators forum and so not publically viewable. It's a question of whether the general membership needs more information or not.

[NMSquirrel]

i like the fact that religion is getting a little more credit, it doesn't say 'you have to behave (except in religion)' anymore..

which is a good thing.. prejudice and bigotry should not be tolerated in ANY form.

[Cifo]

I pretty much like all of the updated rules.

E16. Avoid using logical fallacies.
I think I've seen this rule on other forums, and I still cannot understand prohibiting logic on a science forum. If something's an ad hominem attack (ie, Einstein theories are wrong because he was a Jew), we should be able to call it what it is.

F5. Link to a reproduced work.
Please forgive me if I forget.

H9. Concisely quote other posts.
H9a. Yes, a pet peeve of mine, especially when quoting an epic narrative, and especially when making the first reply in a thread (ie, *of course* it's referencing the OP).
H9b. I also wish epic narratives were outlawed, especially quotes from outside this forum. One screenful on my computer is ~500 words, and you loose me when I must scroll (and scroll, and scroll, etc). I say, provide links and make your argument/point in ~500 words.
H9c. The OP must contain a question mark. No simply copy-and-pasting material from Wikipedia, science news articles, etc.

What does everyone think about this? (← notice the question mark.)

[OnlyMe]

What does everyone think about this? (← notice the question mark.)

I never read the rules.

Common sense should tell a person to carry on a discussion like it is a discussion, not a debate or argument. Take everybody at their word and as being serious.

There was an OP post a while back that was really a bit, how to say it? weak, feeble, way off track? Maybe a dozen posts into the thread it comes out it was a kid. And in that light the OP took on a different context. It had been a serious question.

You never know. Just take people seriously and don't get personal.

Enjoy life! You'll live longer.

[NMSquirrel]

i think age is critical in certain discussions, it makes a difference on how one argues..

[OnlyMe]

i think age is critical in certain discussions, it makes a difference on how one argues..

Are you trying to imply that I am old?

My point was try to discuss rather than argue. In the end it will be more productive.

[NMSquirrel]

Are you trying to imply that I am old?

ha..i am pry older than you..

My point was try to discuss rather than argue. In the end it will be more productive.

i understand the difference, but i tend to use the two interchangeably.

[leopold]

Then you might like this quote:

I am both ignorant and apathetic. I neither know nor care.

a person that doesn't know and knows he doesn't know and doesn't care if he knows is a fool.

[OnlyMe]

a person that doesn't know and knows he doesn't know and doesn't care if he knows is a fool.

That depends on what he knows he doesn't know.

I know that I don't know what the price of tea in China is, and I don't care. I'm not investing in Chinese tea, so the price is not important to me.

[NMSquirrel]

a person that doesn't know and knows he doesn't know and doesn't care if he knows is a fool.

that is only if he knows what he doesn't know,what if he doesn't know what he doesn't know and only knows what he knows?

[wynn]

Sciforums site rules, posting guidelines and advice to members have been updated today.

Members are advised to familiarise themselves with the updated rules. These are posted as an Announcement at the top of all subforums.

Questions, comments and suggestions are welcome.

Regarding -

Netiquette

* Abide by basic standards of good manners and courtesy. Remember the human who is reading your post.
* Do not insult or harass other members.
* Avoid engaging with members with whom you have a personality clash.
* Beware of the potential for discussions to become heated - particularly religious and political discussions.
* Do not flame other members.
* Do not engage in ad hominem attacks (i.e. attack the argument, not the person).
* Avoid straw-man arguments.

Some issues that in Catholicism or some traditional/conservative Hindu schools would be considered regular theological topics that are to be approached objectively, get a very different treatment in Protestantism or in ritvik schools - namely, they are considered subjective.

So, for example, a Protestant will consider the Catholic idea of referring to the disciplic/papal succession as the authority on matters of God, to be an act of trying to avoid taking responsibility for one's beliefs concerning God.
Where Catholics see an objective topic, Protestants see a subjective one.
(In effect, each Protestant considers themselves to have the same authority in matters of God as the Catholic pope does.)

As some of the discussions here at SF show, this is a real and prominent phenomenon, turning into ad hominem attacks and similar.

From the Protestant perspective, the ad hominem is justified.
From the Catholic or traditional/conservative Hindu, it is not.

What to do?

Are we to avoid all the topics that may contain conflicts between Catholicism or some traditional/conservative Hindu schools on the one hand, and Protestants, free-style theists and ritviks on the other hand?

If yes, then there is very little to talk about in the Religion forum.

[wynn]

I pretty much like all of the updated rules.

E16. Avoid using logical fallacies.
I think I've seen this rule on other forums, and I still cannot understand prohibiting logic on a science forum. If something's an ad hominem attack (ie, Einstein theories are wrong because he was a Jew), we should be able to call it what it is.

What do you think about my concern above, about Protestantism vs. Catholicism?

H9c. The OP must contain a question mark. No simply copy-and-pasting material from Wikipedia, science news articles, etc.

Not necessarily a question mark. There should be a perspective offered, possibly some illustrative material, and a summoning to discuss a particular topic.

E.g.
"What do you think about x?"

"Describe what you see as the advantages or disadvantages of X."

[James R]

Are we to avoid all the topics that may contain conflicts between Catholicism or some traditional/conservative Hindu schools on the one hand, and Protestants, free-style theists and ritviks on the other hand?

No.

[wynn]

No.

Then what about the conflicts that emerge, and where posters here who are Protestants or with Protestant leanings take it personally and do not tolerate discussion on those topics and even become hostile to those who discuss it?

A poster here who is a Protestant or with Protestant leanings has persistently called me a "troll", a "fucking idiot", "liar," dishonest" and such.
And this over a matter that I see as a regular theological topic, and so do some major religions.

It occured to me only later last night that many of the fights between that poster and others (including myself) are actually the old conflict between Protestants and Catholics on who the authority on matters of God is. (Even if I myself am not a proponent of any religion in particular.)

Bottomline, each side sees the conflict very differently: one as an objective issue, another as a subjective one.
Seeing it as subjective, though, does tie in with the application of the Forum Rules on Netiquette.


Could we work out some policy to deal with that?

For example that when someone who is a Protestant or with Protestant leanings resorts to character assassination (which in their view and from the pespective of Protestant doctrine, may be perfectly justified), be officially reminded that forum rules trump their specific religious views?

[Cifo]

Originally Posted by Cifo
E16. Avoid using logical fallacies.
I think I've seen this rule on other forums, and I still cannot understand prohibiting logic on a science forum. If something's an ad hominem attack (ie, Einstein theories are wrong because he was a Jew), we should be able to call it what it is.

What do you think about my concern above, about Protestantism vs. Catholicism?

Well then, it seems the subjective/objective disagreement becomes part of the topic.

[OnlyMe]

The problems being raised in reference to "theological" discussions/debates is a very difficult one to resolve. The basic rules of Netiquette should suffice were it not for the personal nature of the discussions. To be honest this is not limited to those types of discussion. They also rise up in discussions of science.

Part of the problem is that many of the topics discussed involve fundamental paradigms of how we see ourselves in the world. When we meet an opposing perspective, it is often perceived as a threat, personally. "If this other guy is right my world falls apart." - is perceived as a threat, not a discussion.

This is something that is not limited to the discussion of religion. I have seen it pop up in discussions of physics also.

I am not sure any "rules" can prevent this perception of opposing views where the topic is so important to an individual's self image or a similar challenge to any long held "belief" system. And as I mentioned before, this is not limited to theological discussions. Scientists, at least within the context of theoretical physics, often become so attached to a perspective or their life's work that any new idea that is in conflict with their own, can be perceived as a threat.

What was it mother told us? Never argue politics or religion!

I don't believe there are any rules beyond those already in place that can address the issues involved. Probably the best thing is to always try and remember to discuss rather than argue. Try not to take another's comments, ideas and beliefs as a personal attack on your own.

[OnlyMe]

O.K. I just read the "Summary" of the rules.

Sounds reasonable to me. Don't know what is meant by legally responsible for a post but that doesn't really concern me.

One thing I would add to the following,

"Be aware that your posts may remain on sciforums for years to come."

Is that I found this forum through a google search that linked to an old thread.

If you make a stupid, ignorant or otherwise ridiculous statement or comment it is possible the whole world may read it.

On that note there are a few things I have read in the forums I am glad I did not post. And maybe I should go back and review my own posts, to clarify anything I now find questionable.

Like I said initially, on the whole these rules seem reasonable. Be thankful the moderators are willing to put up with our occasional tragressions.