Clarification on 'Religious discussion' rule.

[Steelman]

This is why we need negative rep back Make them pariahs with red badges

In this company, I would wear mine with pride. I also remember a group that was required to wear badges, Herr Bunnykid. Sounds like you have your solution finalized.

 

[GBuck]

In this company, I would wear mine with pride. I also remember a group that was required to wear badges, Herr Bunnykid. Sounds like you have your solution finalized.

LOL, Wut?

A) Are you admitting to being a bigot and proud of it?

B) You're going to try to use something bigots did to compare the giving of negative rep to bigots? Classic.

 

[Bunnykid68]

In this company, I would wear mine with pride. I also remember a group that was required to wear badges, Herr Bunnykid. Sounds like you have your solution finalized.

 

[GBuck]

This is why we need negative rep back Make them pariahs with red badges

In this company, I would wear mine with pride. I also remember a group that was required to wear badges, Herr Bunnykid. Sounds like you have your solution finalized.

Also note, BK's assertion would be more along the lines of a "Scarlett Letter" of past.

 

[Bunnykid68]

My point was the bigots and the haters would end up with red badges, but maybe I am just stupid

 

[Steelman]

LOL, Wut?

A) Are you admitting to being a bigot and proud of it?

B) You're going to try to use something bigots did to compare the giving of negative rep to bigots? Classic.

LOL Wut? Indeed.


I was saying that I would be proud to wear something that would differentiate myself from the "Infidel patch crowd".


The rest was me antagonizing him for bringing up badges or patches in a bigotry discussion. Kinda like walking into that glass door you should have opened.


Saw you changed your location since last we spoke.

 

[Steelman]

My point was the bigots and the haters would end up with red badges, but maybe I am just stupid

OK. There is the confusion!



Whenever someone brings up neg rep, it is usually a response to an INGO member acting beyond the young Republican template.


Sorry!

 

[Expat]

 

[Bill of Rights]

This is why we need negative rep back Make them pariahs with red badges

When we had neg rep, people who got it for stirring the pot were not pariahs, but rather were lauded by others who had had similar.

Good thought, but unfortunately, looking good on paper doesn't, in this case, translate to working in the real world. Some people seem to have problems disagreeing without being disagreeable. FTR, no, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

When we had neg rep, people who got it for stirring the pot were not pariahs, but rather were lauded by others who had had similar.

Good thought, but unfortunately, looking good on paper doesn't, in this case, translate to working in the real world. Some people seem to have problems disagreeing without being disagreeable. FTR, no, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.

Blessings,
Bill

Yeah, I know. Sounds good in theory with no real world application.

 

[jd4320t]

I believe it should be up to the mods to decide and also enforced if someone reports the thread. A thread can be going great and turn ugly from just one post. I've seen it too many times on here. We should treat INGO like it's our workplace. We can talk about pretty much anything but if we take it too far we run the risk of getting in trouble. To be honest, it will surprise me if even this thread doesn't turn into a debate on religion.

With all due respect, if you have to ask then that's your answer.

 

[lucky4034]

Actually, from what I've seen, it is not the irreligious people that cause most of the problems. It is people of different religions causing problems. In other words it's the, "I want to peacefully talk about my religion, but bash other religions," crowd that causes the problems.

+1 to that....

 

[lucky4034]

"Too long... didn't read" I know, but entertain me a little bit.

Religion is a tough subject to dance around.... and as a moderator/admin/owner on many different forums, I can tell you that it is a tough subject to moderate as well. This is going to be an extremely long post... but I believe Que invited suggestions for a better system so here it goes. Hopefully this gets read, because it took me a long time to type this out

There is an inconsistency on the boards when concerning different religions or belief systems. If anything, I'd like to see a better effort of keeping a level playing field. It seems that you can push as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Once someone starts to get offended, then I've seen the moderators doe a fantastic job of coming in and doing their jobs. They usually put an end to it pretty quick..... so kudos to them.

The problem I SEE (concerning religion anyways)... is that, being where we are located, this forum is probably 75% Christian 2% Islamic, 3% other and 20% agnostic/atheist and therefore it is so much more likely to find Christians who are sensitive/reactive about Christianity than it is to come across upset Muslims.

You can literally say "I wish we would just bomb that whole region of the world and wipe them all out"... (referring to Muslims)... and it would go completely unnoticed. Hell, its even likely that you get repped for such a comment. Yet say the same thing about Christianity and Christians... and because of the religious makeup of this forum... the HORNETS NEST WOULD EXPLODE. (and you would likely get warned/banned) Angry responses would be pouring in like Beiber fan mail.

Atheism and Evolution are also in that same category.... but they don't get monitored in the same light. If someone opened a thread about Ancient Aliens and Christians or Atheists got in the thread and made fun of the OP and claim on how "debunkable" the Ancient Astronaut theory was... would there be bans handed out?

Sadly no.... probably not. Yet it is a belief system... every bit as viable as Christianity or Islam, just not as mainstream.

My qualm is that if you are going to "protect" the feelings of some... just don't make it the majority. The goal of the rule is to create an environment where ALL feel welcomed. Not just the majority or the mainstream. I don't think that moderators are to blame for the inconsistency. From what I've seen, overall... the mods do a great job here. This is one of the best forums I've been to.

BUT I FEEL THIS CONVERSATION IS NECESSARY AND ITS A LITTLE DISCONCERTING THAT SOME OF THOSE IN CHARGE SEEMINGLY WANT TO BRUSH THIS UNDER THE RUG.

With that said... the thought of making ALL religious content strictly forbidden would be a travesty. Being proud of who you are is what America is all about. The freedom to choose belief systems and formulate your own ideas and values is the whole reason this country was founded..... I just can't see how you could erase religion completely from this forum and expect the community to carry on as if religion/belief systems don't exist? You can try it, but religion is just to ingrained in society to pretend it doesn't exist. The best discussion I've had on this forum was a topic on evolution vs. creationism.

Personally, I think the current rule is restrictive, yet left to interpretation. It would be so much easier if the rules stated:

"Religion Bashing will NOT be tolerated. Religious discussion is a sensitive subject and will be monitored closely by our staff. INGO staff is committed to providing a constructive and welcoming environment for all members regardless of their belief system. Bashing or trolling of religion in any form will not be tolerated and will be met with disciplinary action left to the discretion of our staff. Warnings will be issued to minor infractions by our moderators and temp bans will be used for gross blatant infractions or habitual offenders, and will be reviewed and discussed by our Admin on a case-by-case basis to determine the proper disciplinary course of resolve. Consider this your first warning.

Guidelines: (obviously these need better thought about than I'm gonna do)

-No direct bashing of any religion or belief system
-No bashing of any "followers"
-etc....
-(I would also make or reconstruct the rule about opening new threads solely for the purpose of religious discussion. There isn't a Religious sub-forum and I don't really see a need for one because it would open up a completely new animal.... Allowing religious discussion evolve in a thread is ok and can work well... and allowing new "themed" threads would probably be ok in the right forum... but opening threads to discuss the validity of a religion is just inviting trouble.

For example: (new threads opened)
OK - "Vatican takes stand against gun prohibition"
OK - "Rick Santorum says religion should be taught in school systems"
Not OK - "Are Christians more radical than Muslims"
Not OK - "Why would God take 7 days to do something he could have done in 1millisecond if he is truly omnipotent?"​

Anyways, you get the idea.... but this goes WELL BEYOND RELIGION!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The real problem as I see it)

This of course is just my two cents.... But this entire forum needs a different approach taken to eliminate problems of all kinds. My guess, without researching, is that this forum was created a few years back and started as a small community, but it didn't take long before it BLEW UP. Probably expanded faster than anyone expected and as thousands of new members flood to this place every year, its getting harder and harder to moderate. I keep hearing about how busy the mods and admin are. As a consequence, topics like religion, which are sensitive create a work load that the mods just can't keep up with and I understand. But I don't necessarily think regulating topics is the best way to go about fixing this problem. This is the mentality being used in Chicago concerning gun control right? Take away guns and no one gets shot... Yet 10 people were shot and killed this weekend and yet there are douchebags every week that continue to violate the rules. What are you going to do when the population doubles again?

IMO you should consider coming up with a new strategy. One in where the community becomes more self regulating. Chicago could give everyone a gun and it would be a deterrent, but douchebags will still commit crimes!! History proves that. Besides on a forum, you can't give everyone the ability to ban people. The best strategy is to create a system that reduces the number of douchebags and develop an environment that doesn't lend itself to the production/creation of new douchebags.

What I've found in the past is that if you set up expectations that give the community the opportunity to behave and carry themselves a certain way, THEY WILL RESPOND. And if you are consistent across the board, then eventually veteran members will be the ones that do the majority of regulating without the need for moderators to ALWAYS step in.

If you place expectations on veteran members and encourage them to set the tone they will gain a sense of ownership and invariably the junior members will follow suit. Think of your Rep system and your visible Post Counts as a ranking system of sorts and then translate that to how the military rank/respect system works. The new service members behave and strive to meet the criteria/examples given to them by the higher ups. If they stray from those expectations they get reminded. If they blatantly break rules, they get reprimanded and if they go off the deep end or can't get back on track... they get discharged.

There is NO REASON why religious discussion or any other discussion can't work in this system.

The unfortunate thing is I don't see ^ happening much at all on this board. Some of the veterans cause as many or more problems than new members. They set a bad example and its easy for new members to fall right into line. (and this goes well beyond religion by the way!!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe I'm way off base? However, I've had pretty good success in the past.

From what I can see, this forum has all the tools in place to make a pretty easy transition. The main forum is very focused and the off topic forums are pretty well defined. By the looks of things you have a very comprehensive ACP and obviously some talented Admins to run it. Best of all you have a passionate group of WELL ESTABLISHED, DIVERSE veterans who call this place home.

"Easier said than done... how do you propose we get we get a DIVERSE group of veterans to play along?"​

I'm happy you asked!! Simple really... you trick them. And trust me, they will be easily tricked!! They ALREADY WANT TO BE INVOLVED they just don't know it yet. Anyone willing to invest the energy to post 100,000 times in this forum wants attention!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it were me.... I would create a limited access sub-forum. For now lets call it "The VIP Lounge" to make things simple(though I wouldn't call it that btw... and I have reasons why).

The VIP Lounge would be an all exclusive hangout for the select chosen few. The top of the top.... There are no automatic qualifications... YOU HAVE TO BE CHOSEN to get access.

Imagine for a second.... In the VIP Lounge, there is NO rank, NO mods, NO admin. Everyone voted in is equal. It is a place of relaxation, an escape for those chosen to get away from the general population. The rules are very relaxed which is ok because everyone chosen is likely trusted to be able to converse like an adult right? Probably has a private classified section which makes buying and selling so much more reliable because everyone in the VIP section is likely trustworthy.

Imagine the appeal!! The veterans will definitely want in... after all they refer to INGO as home right? Future veterans will want to get in.... hell, they are posting like crazy to gain acceptance anyway. Besides, I'm sure the staff would like a place like this... who wouldn't?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But wait... what in the hell does this have to do with tricking veterans to change the atmosphere here on INGO?"​

Here is where the "trick" occurs.... You sell this private forum as an incentive! , but really, the main purpose is to get everyone on the same page and you can't do that through PM's and you can't do it in the main forum.

When a new "inductee" visits the VIP Lounge for the first time, they will be directed to an explanation of why it was created and what is its purpose and this is where you start to instill the values you want to be passed along to the general population. The incentive to use the VIP section is the privacy... but its PURPOSE isn't to just be a good ol' boys club. That would make it too elitist and that is DEFINITELY what you don't want (and this is why I frown on the name VIP Section... trust me, been there and done that).

The VIP Lounge serves a few purposes, but all are geared towards the same goal... to reconstruct the atmosphere of the forum (which means less work for the staff and a cleaner, more structured environment for the members.​

And this is how:

A.

The VIP section gives INGO staff a way to communicate with the chosen veterans. They set up the VIP Lounge as a fun and relaxed environment where "WE ARE ALL EQUALS." And then go on to explain that "this section wasn't solely designed for entertainment... that by agreeing to take part in the VIP section you have become part of an IMPROVEMENT TEAM which will be vital in the future development of INGO. yadda yadda yadda"

What this does is it gives the Veterans clear expectations and a sense of ownership and involvement. Once the veterans understand their role, like magic, they will become outstanding citizens and will start to help keep INGO cleaner.

Say you are riding a public bus and the guy in the seat across you spits sunflower seeds on the floor. In your mind you think... "don't do that" but you might not say anything to him. Now let that guy spit sunflower seeds on the floor of your BMW... would you say something? They will set the tone​

B.

For the Veterans who weren't chosen. They will want access and when they evaluate how the Inducted got chosen, they will begin to evaluate what path they need to take to get chosen. If they didn't get chosen because they were antagonists, then they will either change... or leave. (either way.... they will no longer inspire others to become antagonists)​

C.

Future Veterans will strive for fame and fortune like always, so they will gravitate towards inducted veterans and use them as examples which is exactly what you want.​

D.

New members will show up to a different environment and will get in where they fit in.​

E.

Troublemakers will either get with the program or get shunned by the population (or removed by force).​

Either way, there isn't a whole lot of drawbacks. The only word of caution is that initially there will be a lot of discussion about whats going on in the private section, so you will have to be prepared for that. But like Vegas... what happens in the VIP should stay in the VIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyways, this has taken up enough of my time, and if you were unfortunate enough to make it this far, then it has taken up enough of your time.... but Que asked for a suggestion and this is mine. Again, there is no reason why certain discussions need banned or why the staff has to be overloaded.


Cheers,



-Mike-

 

[GBuck]

"Too long... didn't read" I know, but entertain me a little bit.

/snip/

-Mike-

Great post Mike. I don't know that it holds "the" answer, because you're right, a lot of times it is "veteran" members who are just as guilty as new members in causing issues. The other thing I see is whether or not it would be too "clique"y and viewed as a negative instead of something to strive for.

Either way, great post, and rep is being sent your way.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Great post Mike. I don't know that it holds "the" answer, because you're right, a lot of times it is "veteran" members who are just as guilty as new members in causing issues. The other thing I see is whether or not it would be too "clique"y and viewed as a negative instead of something to strive for.

Either way, great post, and rep is being sent your way.

I wonder when you are going to get enough rep and/or quality posts to be a Veteran Member?

 

[GBuck]

I wonder when you are going to get enough rep and/or quality posts to be a Veteran Member?

The rep I've got, the quality posts..... That will probably never happen. I'm too stoopid.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The rep I've got, the quality posts..... That will probably never happen. I'm too stoopid.

(Little black square...)

 

[GBuck]

(Little black square...)

Better now?

 

[lucky4034]

Great post Mike. I don't know that it holds "the" answer, because you're right, a lot of times it is "veteran" members who are just as guilty as new members in causing issues. The other thing I see is whether or not it would be too "clique"y and viewed as a negative instead of something to strive for.

Either way, great post, and rep is being sent your way.

Yeah the clique part is the hard sell to the rest of the community... Thats why its important that this private area stay pretty tight lipped.

(and also why I suggest you do not call it VIP anything)

Call it "The WarRoom" "Kaizen Team" "Area 51" "Development Team"...

To the general public you want them to think that the main purpose is for the greater good of the community.... not some kind of elitist hideout.

This is also why I caution that initially there will be a lot of questions asked and you should be prepared for it.

 

[Expat]

I have been struggling with posting my opinion on the matter. No matter what I say there will be a couple people that it will inflame. So I will just say that I think the ban is probably for the best. We have a group that always stands at the ready to make nasty (to me blasphemous) comments, any time a person of faith posts any position based upon Biblical principles. I will not post again in this thread.