Happy with moderation here?

[James R]

Since Cris has stopped moderating this forum, leaving me as the sole moderator, I thought now might be a good time to poll users to find out what you think of the current level of moderation here, and the way it is done. So, please any post comments and/or suggestions here.

I am not promising that I will implement all suggestions, or change the way I moderate this forum, but I do promise to seriously consider all comments which are made.

Some things to think about:

* Is the current level of moderation too lax/too strict?
* Are there any kinds of threads which you think are not appropriate on the Religion forum?
* Where do you think the line should be drawn between religion and politics, and how can we tell if a thread falls on one or other side of the line?
* Should posts which are critical of a particular religion or its believers be allowed here? What about flames (e.g. "All Christians are just deluded!")? How do we draw the line between legitimate criticism and flaming?
* What other issues are important in moderating this forum?

 

[Proud_Muslim]

Thanks James for your post, it is must needed.

I have very important comment to make, your moderation depends on your 'western' perception of certain behaviour, for example, you allow the bashing of one religion but you dont allow personal bashing !!

Coming from the Middle East ( different culture than yours ), bahsing religion is very very serious and dangerous matter, you can bash me personally, but you cant bash my religion ( the opposite to your preception ), we Muslims get offended when we see ignorant haters posting all kind of BS and lies against Islam and the prophet Muhammad (pbuh ), it is very serious matter.

So, I would appeal to you to moderate anti-Islam threads which are deemed racists and hateful, I dont mind serious criticial questioning of Islam, but ranting and quoting from hate sites should be looked at more seriously.

As regarding to your questions, here is my answer:

* Is the current level of moderation too lax/too strict?
=====================
I think it is lax.

* Are there any kinds of threads which you think are not appropriate on the Religion forum?
====================
I dont think so.

* Where do you think the line should be drawn between religion and politics, and how can we tell if a thread falls on one or other side of the line?
===================
Again, you cant draw this line, Religion is the motivator of politics, they were always connected...In Islam for example, we dont have such thing as the separation between the Mosque and the state. Islam governs our lives socially, economically, culturally and politically.

* Should posts which are critical of a particular religion or its believers be allowed here? What about flames (e.g. "All Christians are just deluded!")?
==================
There is a difference between being critical and insultive, insultive threads against any particular religion or its believers should be deleted..You cant for example start a thread bashing Jesus or Prophet Muhammad, this is demonising and insultive.

How do we draw the line between legitimate criticism and flaming?
==================
THE SOURCE....some haters here go to well known hate sites and copy and paste from them..it is very easy to indicate the hate sites, those sites tend to discredit everything to do with specific religion, they tend to defame and attack this specific religion's symbols and teachings....so you should be aware of them.

* What other issues are important in moderating this forum?
================¨
Realizing the Cultural Differences between the posters and their perception of certain issues and taking into account these cultural differences when moderating.

 

[(Q)]

Quite frankly, I see no patterns or consistency in moderation of this forum or any other forum here. It's impossible to tell who and what will be moderated next.

 

[(Q)]

This is true:

you cant bash my religion... we Muslims get offended

This is BS:

I dont mind serious criticial questioning of Islam

 

[Flores]

Thank you James for doing this. I think this thread might be a good sticky, where we can report live examples and possible learn from them.

* Is the current level of moderation too lax/too strict?

You can't measure if something is too lax or strict without establishing a datum to measure from. Moderating literally means balancing the discussions and dicouraging extreme ends by bringing them to the center. I think you need to redefine the center for us again and your need to practice the moderate balanced views that you preach when you post on this site.

Also, instead of banning and deleting posts and thus further angering the posters.... I suggest that we introduce a probation period for individuals that insist on a non acceptable style of establishing their arguments. Placing someone on probation would include the moderator reviewing the posts belonging to that person and offering comments before posting them.

* Are there any kinds of threads which you think are not appropriate on the Religion forum?

Yes....but how do we establish what is appropriate and what is not appropriate? I think the answer is in establishing standard formatting for posting....For example, the starter of each thread must indicate objective...Subject.....Conclusion.....and supporting evidance. Many of the threads on this forum lacks the objective, which the the most crucial aspect of any subject. Without setting our objective clearly, we are in the business of throwing random ideas that clearly doesn't belong to religion forum and should be posted in free thoughts.

What is the objective of calling Mohammed a liar? What is the objective of saying that Jesus doesn't exist? I'm sure there is some objective and it would help us all if the Authors started by stating their intent.

* Where do you think the line should be drawn between religion and politics,

This is easy. Religion is pure philosophy...Politics is applied philosophy. The application of religion should not be discussed on this forum...true waste of time and wild goose chase hunt..For example,

"France sucks for asking muslims to take Hijab off" is clearly politics.
"Bush being a christian" is clearly politics
"Muslims Jihad and wars" is clearly politics
"Pictures of palestenians and women in Hijab" is disgusting and should not be showed here....Please don't allow that emotional appeal crap.

Now, discussions regards the phylosophical reasoning behind any of these things above is religion....For example.
" Why do muslims wear Hijab".....is clearly religious
* What is the meaning of the word Jihad"...could be religion
" Proof that god is a trinity".....could be religion...but again, I would love to see the objective behind the claim.

and how can we tell if a thread falls on one or other side of the line?

That's easy....when the Palestine pictures and Hijab pictures start flying off, ship our dear friend PM back to politics. When the British muslims slogans start, then it's politics.

* Should posts which are critical of a particular religion or its believers be allowed here? What about flames (e.g. "All Christians are just deluded!")? How do we draw the line between legitimate criticism and flaming?

If we have an objective to such claim, then by all mean keep the thead. For example, what could be the objective in claiming that christians are just deluded? See choices below.
_ To enlighten the world....that's not acceptable, because to do that you must bring a viable alternative that is better than christianity.
_ To piss off christians....that's not acceptable.
- To expose the truth....That's not acceptable, because the truth is defined as something that could independantly stand on it's merit, not merely a random attack.

* What other issues are important in moderating this forum?

Many many more, I would love to get Raithere's and Tiassa's two cents

 

[Raithere]

I thought now might be a good time to poll users to find out what you think of the current level of moderation here, and the way it is done.

First off a liberal dose of what might be seen as ass kissing; I think you are doing a good job of moderating what is probably the most contentious and complex forum topic, except maybe for politics.

Is the current level of moderation too lax/too strict?

While I would like to see the level of debate improve I don't think that stricter moderation will help too much, though I do have one possible suggestion below.

Are there any kinds of threads which you think are not appropriate on the Religion forum?

I don't really see any being posted and I think you'd quickly move the thread if the subject were not about religion.

Where do you think the line should be drawn between religion and politics, and how can we tell if a thread falls on one or other side of the line?

I think a thread should only be moved if it contains no valid reference to religion. Aside from that religion affects every aspect of peoples lives so even if the primary subject of a thread is, let's say, political or scientific in nature it should remain as long as it draws a valid reference to religion.

Should posts which are critical of a particular religion or its believers be allowed here?

No.

What about flames (e.g. "All Christians are just deluded!")? How do we draw the line between legitimate criticism and flaming?

I distinguish a flame by it's lack of content. If, for instance, your example topic contained only a bald assertion without evidence or argument I would consider it a flame, not legitimate criticism.

What other issues are important in moderating this forum?

The area where I think there might be some improvement is the elimination of what might be viewed as spamming. Where someone creates multiple threads about the same subject or simply posts a reference with no substantial commentary or attempt to direct consideration of the reference. For example, threads which post a news article and then comment, "What do you think" or "Proof that Muslims are violent" (which would be more of a flame thread).

For example, consider Proud Muslim's thread "France has become institutionally racist" which contains in it's initial posting no commentary, direction, or argument and whose title is markedly inaccurate (France is legislating religious bigotry not racial bigotry). All things considered here I don't even find that its reference to religion is valid, it's incidental.

Compare this to Tiassa's thread "The Price: War on Terror hurts America's Faithful" which contains a similar reference but then provides commentary and topics of consideration to direct and promote a constructive discussion that relates directly to the topic of religion.

The former thread I consider to purely be a flame. There is no content. PM is merely posting a news article under an inflammatory thread title. The latter adds content and establishes the beginning of a discussion regarding politics and religion.

Final Thoughts:

Primarily I would like to see the members do more to moderate this forum themselves. If a topic or post is an obvious flame it should be ignored or responded to with a calm and well considered counter argument, not responded to in kind. If someone is incapable of carrying on a legitimate discussion they should be ignored. I prefer to see a flame or spam thread die because no one will respond to it than require James to come in and kill the thread or remove someone.

This should be particularly true for those of us who have been here a while and have a vested interest in maintaining an interesting and productive online culture. The strength of this forum lies in the diversity of those who are willing and able to table discussion or debate in an open and reasonable manner.

~Raithere

 

[Flores]

Primarily I would like to see the members do more to moderate this forum themselves. If a topic or post is an obvious flame it should be ignored or responded to with a calm and well considered counter argument, not responded to in kind. If someone is incapable of carrying on a legitimate discussion they should be ignored. I prefer to see a flame or spam thread die because no one will respond to it than require James to come in and kill the thread or remove someone.
~Raithere

Words of wisdom...I wish this site can have a Raithere's pop ups words of wisdom for everytime our fingers start getting itchy.

 

[(Q)]

Flores

What is the objective of calling Mohammed a liar? What is the objective of saying that Jesus doesn't exist?

Quite simple. This is a forum for discussion and those are topics of discussion - whether they are true or not is immaterial. The fact that you may be offended by these topics does not qualify their censorship.

 

[Flores]

Flores

What is the objective of calling Mohammed a liar? What is the objective of saying that Jesus doesn't exist?

Quite simple. This is a forum for discussion and those are topics of discussion - whether they are true or not is immaterial. The fact that you may be offended by these topics does not qualify their censorship.

I suggest you use two drops of VISINE fresh tears, wipe your eyes, and read again.

Did I say don't post these threads? All I ask for is for thread starters to state their objective/intent clearly so that we can respond effectively. I think thread starters should be held to higher standards than regular posters.

 

[15ofthe19]

Such a slippery slope. I'm just glad it's not my job. I think you've been doing a fine job James. Nobody wants to read flames all day long, but sometimes one must make rather pointed criticisms of perceived flaws in a given religion in order to support one's argument. Depending on the grammatical skills of the poster, these could be viewed as personal insults when no intent was present for it to be so. That's the nature of having a forum where many people are posting in a language not native to them. So I would urge caution in that respect.

 

[spidergoat]

What is the objective of calling Mohammed a liar? What is the objective of saying that Jesus doesn't exist?

Well, what both these men and others have said spawned religious and political movements that effect everyone on the planet. We should be asking the same questions about them that we ask of politicians, did they lie, were their words and meaning distorted, did they have alterior motives like gaining power and riches, were they insane, motivated by revenge, or like they claim, pure and good. After all, they have conflicting messages, and they can't all be right, so someone, or all of them, are lying.

What is the objective of those who oppose critisism? Is their system of belief so fragile that it would collapse like a house of cards if questioned?

 

[spidergoat]

Repetitive posting should be moderated. If you want to hear the same thing over and over, go to church.

 

[Aaron Rider]

I voted for "about right" because I haven't seen anything I thought should have been moderated, mostly, or noticed anything moderated that shouldn't have been.

And while I don't enjoy reading about misguided people hating on Christians, moderating such things would lead to a whole lot of moderation. It would also keep us from defending our religions.

One more thought: you might consider editing some profanity.

--Aaron

 

[SnakeLord]

I have run several forums, and have always encouraged man's right to freedom of speech. The exception to this rule was always hatred in the forms of racism, sexism and other such styles of hatred that are inflicted solely for the purpose of inflicting hatred. I never had a problem with some moderate usage of swear words. I can only assume everyone who is here on this forum is of an age where some mild swearing wont cause any long term damage.

Now, in PM's case with the "France.." thread, I fail to see too much of a problem. He found an article that is, in one way or another, related to religious issues. Maybe his intention was to condemn French people, or maybe not, but it can still lead to worthwhile and interesting discussions for everyone.

* Should posts which are critical of a particular religion or its believers be allowed here?

I fail to see why not. It would probably leave this forum empty of posts Criticism towards something about someones religion is the only way anyone can learn and progress. I'm certain the majority here are fully capable of standing up for their beliefs. Of course, you'd have to distinguish between viable criticism and outright bashing.

What about flames (e.g. "All Christians are just deluded!")?

That's culture bashing, and I think all of us become guilty at some stage. I think as long as it isn't a constant and personally set out form of attack, that it can be excused. If it is just outright bashing, then it shouldn't be excused.

How do we draw the line between legitimate criticism and flaming?

You'll notice the difference when you see it Check out any forum site with a flamers lounge... that's where people just stoop low to insult and berate other people. Criticism is merely bringing up an issue about someone's claims, or a firmly held belief, and questioning issues you have concerning it. Flaming is discernibly different.

* What other issues are important in moderating this forum?

Personally I would make people aware of the lack of worth of using constant caps, large colourful letters, and outright preaching.

Edit: Oh, also don't allow people to use the words "fact" and "proof" where they don't belong

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

* Is the current level of moderation too lax/too strict?
A bit too lax? Maybe?
* Are there any kinds of threads which you think are not appropriate on the Religion forum?
Threads which are more relevant to science than to religion. Arguments on evolution are questionable, though I think that they belong more in science than in religion. Also, there's the occasional thread that belongs in paranormal/pseudoscience.
* Where do you think the line should be drawn between religion and politics, and how can we tell if a thread falls on one or other side of the line?
If people are talking about separation of church and state, I think that's politics. If its theme is questionable... I think it belongs in politics.
* Should posts which are critical of a particular religion or its believers be allowed here? What about flames (e.g. "All Christians are just deluded!")? How do we draw the line between legitimate criticism and flaming?
It depends on the context. If somebody makes a post outlining why Christians suck or are stupid, it should be edited or deleted. If it's inside a post, I think in some cases it's OK, at least to the point of things like "All Muslims are evil", or insults directed not just towards a religion but towards a certain individual who practices it.
* What other issues are important in moderating this forum?
Any topic started by those dirty pagans should be deleted instantly! Oops.

:m:

 

[Flores]

I'm not always here, but I'm noticing a drastic improvement in the quality of postings since this thread have been made a sticky. It's like people are all of sudden afraid to be used as examples.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

* Is the current level of moderation too lax/too strict?

It is only a forum. Moderate away. The opposite is also true. No moderation would be equally fine.

* Are there any kinds of threads which you think are not appropriate on the Religion forum?

Threads that have nothing to do with religion.

* Should posts which are critical of a particular religion or its believers be allowed here? What about flames (e.g. "All Christians are just deluded!")? How do we draw the line between legitimate criticism and flaming?

Yes, these threads should be allowed. If not then you should be consistent. It would also not be allowed to be critical of atheism or for instance the theory of evolution. It is equally disrespectful. Hence it might be easier to allow for critique since mots discussion in this forum seems to resolve arounf being critical.

* What other issues are important in moderating this forum?

Make it flow.

 

[Flores]

An example of political thread making it's way to a religious forum:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33293

 

[alain]

i think the moderation is good, but people sometimes flood forums with personal arguments
Proud muslim said "So, I would appeal to you to moderate anti-Islam threads which are deemed racists and hateful" Whatever protection you give to Muslims, you should give to all religions

 

[Flores]

The forum has truly degenerated to a historic record breaking levels. I have no urge to either post or read other people posts. It's all becoming a boring repetitous cycle of unproductive monotone low grade discussion. Highly predictive stuff. I could leave this site for a month and never miss a beat. The same old cheap shots, the same old cheap posters, the same old cheap logic...Just recycling of the same set of garbage over and over again and calling it a "thread".

This is worst than Donahue "Live uncut raw".

Credit to James for allowing this to happen.