• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Forum Changes (1/17/18)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,433
Reaction score
35,283
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The moderation team has concluded a thorough review of the various sections of the forum relating to Religious and Philosophical beliefs. In the early days of Debate Politics, the two topics were found in a single joint forum. Over time, they have been split apart and rules have been put in place with the hopes of better facilitating different topics of debate and discussion. However, in recent months we’ve identified a number of issues relating to our goals with these two sections.

If we enforced the rules in each section too stringently, then legitimate debate between belief and disbelief would be stifled, which would run counter to our original goals of facilitating more diverse debating topics. However, by not enforcing them in a very narrow fashion, we found that both sections still too often found their threads being derailed from their theological / philosophical foundation into the more standard back and forth fight. As such, the team has noted growing discontent within a varied portion of our user base, and conflict in terms of this forums goals.

Due to this observation, the moderation team is instituting a realignment and alteration to the sections of the forum focused around these kind of discussions. We believe this realignment will best provide venues where all manners of these kind of debates can occur. The follow realignment will occur as follows:



1. The Philosophical Discussions, Religious Discussions, and Religion and Politics sections will be closed and archived

2. A section will be created under the “Non-Political Forum” titled Beliefs and Skepticism
- Description: “For debating and discussing matters relating to beliefs from a skeptical and/or faith-based standpoint.”
- Purpose: General free-for-all discussion forum anything relating to systems of belief, or the lack there of. A place for those desiring to debate these topics with those from a wide variety of foundational standpoints.
- Rule Set: Standard Forum Rules.

3. A subsection will be created under Beliefs and Skepticism entitled Philosophy
- Description: “Discussions and debate regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence from a non-religious basis.”
- Purpose: A place to discuss philosophical matters free from those relying on faith in the divine, scripture, or other religious basis.
- Rule Set: Threads and posts that are critical of disbelief, or are focused on attacking religion/spirituality, are not allowed. Posts/threads from a religious basis, or deemed overly antagonistic towards non-belief, will be considered “trolling”.

4. A subsection will be created under Beliefs and Skepticism entitled Theology
- Description: “Discussion of religion and spirituality from a theological, faith-based foundation.”
- Purpose: A place to discuss religious matters from a religious mindset and free from any sort of derailment or focus on disbelief from a non-religious stand point.
- Rule Set: Threads and posts that are critical of religion or its spiritual aspects in a broad fashion, or are focused on attacking non-belief, are not allowed. Skeptical posts/threads from a non-religious basis, or ones deemed overly antagonistic towards religious beliefs, will be considered “trolling”.

5. Both the Philosophy and Theology sub sections will adhere to 2-4-6 method of section suspension/bans, similar to in the Abortion and Conspiracy Theory sections of the forum
This means that your second infraction or thread ban within a year in one of these sections will result in a one week suspension from that section. Your fourth instance within a year will result in a month long suspension form the section. Finally, your sixth violation within a year will result in a permanent banishment from that section. These totals are tied to the specific section (i.e. violations that occur in Theology aren’t counted towards your violation totals in Philosophy and vice versa. Likewise, a suspension in Philosophy does not restrict your participation in Theology and vice versa).



To begin, we will leave this thread open to answer any general questions people may have. Please note that rule 6a DOES still apply, and that the purpose of leaving this thread open is to help clarify matters regarding the change and not simply as a means for any poster to air their grievances with the forum, these rules, or other posters. If the thread begins to go down that path it will be closed.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to the entire mod team for these changes. I'm certain this took a lot of time and hard work to achieve, and it is very much appreciated.
 
The moderation team has concluded a thorough review of the various sections of the forum relating to Religious and Philosophical beliefs. In the early days of Debate Politics, the two topics were found in a single joint forum. Over time, they have been split apart and rules have been put in place with the hopes of better facilitating different topics of debate and discussion. However, in recent months we’ve identified a number of issues relating to our goals with these two sections.

If we enforced the rules in each section too stringently, then legitimate debate between belief and disbelief would be stifled, which would run counter to our original goals of facilitating more diverse debating topics. However, by not enforcing them in a very narrow fashion, we found that both sections still too often found their threads being derailed from their theological / philosophical foundation into the more standard back and forth fight. As such, the team has noted growing discontent within a varied portion of our user base, and conflict in terms of this forums goals.

Due to this observation, the moderation team is instituting a realignment and alteration to the sections of the forum focused around these kind of discussions. We believe this realignment will best provide venues where all manners of these kind of debates can occur. The follow realignment will occur as follows:



1. The Philosophical Discussions, Religious Discussions, and Religion and Politics sections will be closed and archived

2. A section will be created under the “Non-Political Forum” titled Beliefs and Skepticism
- Description: “For debating and discussing matters relating to beliefs from a skeptical and/or faith-based standpoint.”
- Purpose: General free-for-all discussion forum anything relating to systems of belief, or the lack there of. A place for those desiring to debate these topics with those from a wide variety of foundational standpoints.
- Rule Set: Standard Forum Rules.

3. A subsection will be created under Beliefs and Skepticism entitled Philosophy
- Description: “Discussions and debate regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence from a non-religious basis.”
- Purpose: A place to discuss philosophical matters free from those relying on faith in the divine, scripture, or other religious basis.
- Rule Set: Threads and posts that are critical of disbelief, or are focused on attacking religion/spirituality, are not allowed. Posts/threads from a religious basis, or deemed overly antagonistic towards non-belief, will be considered “trolling”.

4. A subsection will be created under Beliefs and Skepticism entitled Theology
- Description: “Discussion of religion and spirituality from a theological, faith-based foundation.”
- Purpose: A place to discuss religious matters from a religious mindset and free from any sort of derailment or focus on disbelief from a non-religious stand point.
- Rule Set: Threads and posts that are critical of religion or its spiritual aspects in a broad fashion, or are focused on attacking non-belief, are not allowed. Skeptical posts/threads from a non-religious basis, or ones deemed overly antagonistic towards religious beliefs, will be considered “trolling”.

5. Both the Philosophy and Theology sub sections will adhere to 2-4-6 method of section suspension/bans, similar to in the Abortion and Conspiracy Theory sections of the forum
This means that your second infraction or thread ban within a year in one of these sections will result in a one week suspension from that section. Your fourth instance within a year will result in a month long suspension form the section. Finally, your sixth violation within a year will result in a permanent banishment from that section. These totals are tied to the specific section (i.e. violations that occur in Theology aren’t counted towards your violation totals in Philosophy and vice versa. Likewise, a suspension in Philosophy does not restrict your participation in Theology and vice versa).



To begin, we will leave this thread open to answer any general questions people may have. Please note that rule 6a DOES still apply, and that the purpose of leaving this thread open is to help clarify matters regarding the change and not simply as a means for any poster to air their grievances with the forum, these rules, or other posters. If the thread begins to go down that path it will be closed.

That makes so much more sense than the last setup.
 
A place where believers won’t be derailed, a place where skeptics won’t be derailed, and a place where believers and skeptics can hash it out? Sounds good to me.
 
Thanks to the entire mod team for these changes. I'm certain this took a lot of time and hard work to achieve, and it is very much appreciated.

*currently looks sickly, as if he hasn't eaten or drank anything for days and days*

Meh, it was nutin'. *sickly smile*


















:mrgreen:
 
A place where believers won’t be derailed, a place where skeptics won’t be derailed, and a place where believers and skeptics can hash it out? Sounds good to me.

Stop being more succinct than me :D
 
Great way to break this debate topic down. Looks to be a nice and very positive change.
 
*currently looks sickly, as if he hasn't eaten or drank anything for days and days*

Meh, it was nutin'. *sickly smile*


















:mrgreen:

I believe it! :lol:
 
Actually I didn't do much. Gave my 2 cents for what was proposed is all. There are far smarter people than me on the Mod team after all. I'm just average. :)

So am I!
 
Actually I didn't do much. Gave my 2 cents for what was proposed is all. There are far smarter people than me on the Mod team after all. I'm just average. :)

If youre the average one then who is below you? :2razz:
 
So, to see if I'm getting this straight, we now have a main forum in which sceptics and those of faith can continue to have at each other (all within the overall-governing forum rules, naturally).

and

two sub forums where they may not, both those forums governed by practically the same rules that existed (individually) in the previous "religious discussions" and "philosophical discussions".

Main difference to the previous set-up being that all of it is compressed into one space (forum) and now with a specific outline of penalties published.

???

Not to be misunderstood, the advantages of re-alignment are obvious, especially wrt to making moderation somewhat easier (methinks), but what's actually the difference beyond that?
 
So, to see if I'm getting this straight, we now have a main forum in which sceptics and those of faith can continue to have at each other (all within the overall-governing forum rules, naturally).

Correct

two sub forums where they may not, both those forums governed by practically the same rules that existed (individually) in the previous "religious discussions" and "philosophical discussions".

Yes, with the caveat there being the "practically" part. The rules in both of those forums are tightened up a bit, and specifically give mods a little more latitude for dealing with posts that previously skirted the line but were clearly meant to be antagonizing towards the baseline purpose of the given section.

Since there's now a place where skeptics and believers CAN hash it out (within the forums rules), attempts to do it in the respective sub sections are likely to be dealt with in a less lenient fashion.
 
Correct



Yes, with the caveat there being the "practically" part. The rules in both of those forums are tightened up a bit, and specifically give mods a little more latitude for dealing with posts that previously skirted the line but were clearly meant to be antagonizing towards the baseline purpose of the given section.

Since there's now a place where skeptics and believers CAN hash it out (within the forums rules), attempts to do it in the respective sub sections are likely to be dealt with in a less lenient fashion.
Right.

Thanks for the explanation.
 
Dungeon Masters. They reside in the nether regions of DP after all. :duel :fueltofir

:alert

:bolt

The toughest area require the best people.
 
Refreshing change, thank you all.
 
Thank you very much for making this change, it was very needed, and may result in less demerit point close calls for me...hehe.. :)

Seriously, a very elegant solution, great work DP Team, you are why this place survives.

:applaud
 
Since there's now a place where skeptics and believers CAN hash it out (within the forums rules), attempts to do it in the respective sub sections are likely to be dealt with in a less lenient fashion.

But f'rinstance, two believers could conceivably hash it out between their two respective religions, yes? A Jewish person could debate a fundamentalist Christian on, say perhaps, the reasons why Jewish people should not necessarily be regarded as "Christians who haven't been perfected yet" and if it was in the Theology forum, it would be kosher?

Did I get that right or did I screw it up and miss the whole point again?

PS: I would urge mods to apply the thread warnings liberally at first until all groups get used to the changes, but I'm small potatoes, and that's just a serving suggestion.
 
But f'rinstance, two believers could conceivably hash it out between their two respective religions, yes?

Correct, debating the differences between two religions, from a religious foundation, would be a suitable type of thing for the Theology forum.
 
I don't feel there is really a practical distinction between theology and philosophy. In many of the discussions I've had with others in the past, online or in person, we visited many overlapping themes between the two. With simplified discussions it's easy to put topics into column A or B but I'm concerned that the rare advanced discussion may tread into blurry territory. I trust that the moderation team will use due diligence when assessing?

My interpretation is that two themes have been artificially separated because skeptics and believers have trouble exercising self-control and respect.
 
Kudos to the mods for this. I think it will be a better solution.

I don't feel there is really a practical distinction between theology and philosophy. In many of the discussions I've had with others in the past, online or in person, we visited many overlapping themes between the two. With simplified discussions it's easy to put topics into column A or B but I'm concerned that the rare advanced discussion may tread into blurry territory. I trust that the moderation team will use due diligence when assessing?

My interpretation is that two themes have been artificially separated because skeptics and believers have trouble exercising self-control and respect.

Yes, that's exactly the reason. But I think in the context of trying to moderate a very large forum, on a subject that can easy turn heated for a lot of people, it serves the community better to have what is perhaps a more regimented solution that allows for smoother functioning, because ultimately, that's the only way any degree of nuance will ever be even vaguely possible with this number of people, some of whom are a bit hot-headed on the subject. It does the forum no good to not have a way to deal with the people who would just show up in every thread tossing out drive-by a/theist hate posts (and we have had those people, which is the entire reason the religion/philosophy forum got divided in the first place). It's not always infractable on other grounds, and even when it is, the damage is done, as far as the integrity of the thread is concerned.

Would but the internet were filled with entirely reasonable people, but unfortunately it isn't, and DP is big enough to suffer for it if certain steps aren't taken.

But really, if you want to try for those nuanced discussions, I don't see what's wrong with putting it in the Beliefs and Scepticism main sub, so that whatever discussion happens there will be acceptable.
 
And Stephen Fry is neither of these things,so your point IS?????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom