Thoughts about "Open comments to group re: Socrates"

[Alien]

I read the opening post in the "Socrates" thread with some hope. Here was a Christian, no less, effectively apologising to non-Christians for the debating style of one of "his own".

Regrettably, my optimism was not well founded. I took the trouble to make a count of those that participated in the thread and came up with the following:

Against Socrates: 9 (all non-Christians, apart for the originator of the thread).

Defending Socrates: 5 (all Christians).

Appeals to moderation: 4 (one Christian, three non-Christians).

(NOTE: The categorisations of "Christian" and "Non-Christian" I make above may be incorrect in some cases. I just made a quick judgement in cases where it wasn't totally obvious.)

ONE solitary rebuke from a moderator (well done, Dee Dee). I'll quote it because it bears repeating:


Now Gamble and Socrates, everyone knows you do not like each other. Your posts to each other have now got to improve past the name-calling whether warranted or not because it is simply making posting here in this section unpleasant for others. It is simply too much.

So, where am I going with this?

First a little personal background. I'm an atheist who has hung out mainly on alt.atheism.moderated for many years, and also spent some time on a British Christian group. I have been here a few weeks only.

I participate in internet debate because I enjoy discussion. I suffer under no delusion that anyone ever changes religious affiliation as result of this ... but I do get to learn a lot about the people that hold opposing views to my own (and often conclude that they are not so totally silly as I first supposed, :) and maybe occasionally succeed in getting the same idea about me across to those that I debate).

I was recommended to this group by a Christian friend. Admittedly, she was specifically recommending the one-on-one debates, which I have to admit are normally quite civilised.

As for the rest of what passes for debate here ... With some notable exceptions, it tends to contain the very rudeness, name-calling and aggression that BrianB was complaining about. Socrates is certainly an extreme example, but some of his opponents are far from blameless themselves.

To those that indulge in this stuff: What purpose do you think it serves? You all know that you won't convince the other side and possibly don't care what they think of you, but have you no wish to have your arguments read and considered by those that might be prepared to give them a fair hearing? I am personally totally put off by this kind of approach and tend to discount anything else the writer has to say. I sometimes get the feeling that Socrates might have some reasonable points to make, but he's made me dislike him so much that I can't be bothered to pursue them. Is this what he wants?

To the moderators: Is this how you wish the site to be perceived? Silly people squabbling and insulting each other? You have the answer in your own hands if you wish to apply it. I saw a ray of hope in Dee Dee's post. How about the rest of you? You have the power of God here. :) Use it. Please.

To everyone else: If the cap I just described doesn't fit you, my apologies if you find my remarks offensive. I don't mean you, really!

A further note for the moderators: The British Christian group I mentioned above managed to avoid this stuff reasonably successfully by a process of moderation that progressed via mild warnings and severe warnings to positive moderation of the miscreant's posts (I don't know if your software allows this) and finally in extreme cases to actual banning of a member. I saw the last happen once only while I was there. You may find it interesting that their "unforgivable sin" was suggesting that another member was not a "real Christian".

Thanks for your patience. I offer these comments in an attempt to influence what could be an excellent site (and in many ways already is). I hope they will be read in the same spirit.

[TheFiveSolas]

Alien,
Good balanced post :cheers:

[garthoverman]

Hello, Alien.

Please read the TWeb RULES (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=decorum). Especially pay attention to #4...
Do not post on the board, in Private Message or email any content that are primarily for self-promotion or the advertising of any website, business, ministry, event or other entities such as a website link without prior consent of a moderator or administrator. Advertisements such as a website link including a brief description is welcome in profiles, journals and signature lines. Thank you for your attention to this.

Yours,
Garth

[Captain Ochre]

I didn't follow the other thread very far from its inception.
It doesn't bother me to read insults, but posts of pure insult deserve to be moderated, imo.
Alien, some cultures thrive on a form of challenge-riposte, and from what I can tell, most of our vociferous types are borne of those cultures (Australia's one of them).
You might consider overlooking insult when there's content to match, in the interest of tolerance. If you find posts which rely exclusively on insult for their content, then I would support your protest to a moderator, and I would encourage the TWeb moderators to use their mighty powers against the gratuitous insults that are plainly prohibited in the site rules and guidelines.

A good, creative insult is a wonderful thing. Rhapsody Angel has a bound volume of Shakespeare's collected insults. It's great reading.

[TheFiveSolas]

Captain wrote:


Alien, some cultures thrive on a form of challenge-riposte, and from what I can tell, most of our vociferous types are borne of those cultures (Australia's one of them).
You might consider overlooking insult when there's content to match, in the interest of tolerance.


That was along the lines of a comment I made in another Thread.
:thumb:

[rogerthomas]

That was a nice link! What a welcome change from sites such as this one and II! I will see you around there soon. I lurked here for a very long time, and only registered to ask socrates to tone down the objectionable content of his posting, but it was in vain I fear. There are so few decent boards to discuss ministry with, and most are so appalling to visit that I only go infrequently. I wonder that I never ran accross the CARM one before, but I am glad you linked to if for us. Many thanks! I think I will leave this for the bitter ones who would not try and rise above their petty jealousies and the like.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Alien!!! Hello, my ears must have been burning :).

Yes, your post is received with a good spirit and I think in the spirit in which it was intended. I am going to get down to brass tacks and be honest here....if what anyone is looking for is a board where the Moderators are going to be Politeness Police and sterilize everything into a forced veneer of "civility" that does not accurately reflect the nature and tone of spirited and passionate debate, then frankly this may not be the board for you. If suggesting someone is not a Christian and being prepared to back it up is thought to be an unforgiveable sin, you will not find that kind of politically correct enforcement here. I personally have told persons claiming to be Christians that I do not believe that they are, and have been prepared to back up my case with Biblical facts. I have also apologized when I realized I may have said such things in error. We are seeking to have real life and real world discussions on issues that arouse great passions and freedom is given to all sides. Voices may get raised (proverbially speaking) but... things should not degenerate into an absolute zoo. If there are posts that are clearly out of line there is a procedure to report them and voice complaints to the forum moderators who cannot be everywhere at once. In reality, very few posts are reported. There is also the option to place any member on ignore. Various members on both sides of the issues have been told to cool it a bit and there will be heavier moderator involvement in this sectoin as some threads have gotten simply out of hand, and it is not all Socrates and I am finding the villification and singling out of him getting to be a bit old (and yes Alien I do acknowledge that you mentioned others). He has certianly at times crossed the line and has been given moderator warnings and personal warnings by me, but he is not the only one, and proponents of the other views have their share of antagonists.

Bottom line though, I agree the conversations have been consisting more of names and not substance, and that will stop. Lively challenge, riposte, and proper satire will not, as that is not what we are seeking to achieve.

And I thank you gratefully for the compliments you included with the criticisms. I too hope that my words are recieved in the spirit in which they were intended.

[garthoverman]

Hey, Dee Dee,

Sorry about my post. It didn't even occur to me that it was advertisement and against the rules to be so. I really just wanted to share some info with the topic originator. I suppose it would have been more appropriate for private communication.

You'll not see that again from the likes of me.:dufus::whip:

Yours,
Garth

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
garthoverman:
Please read the TWeb RULES (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=decorum). Especially pay attention to #4... Thank you for your attention to this.


I find myself puzzled by this. I read rule 4 most carefully (it prohibits advertising) then reread my post and could find no hint of advertising anywhere in it. My only thought is that you are referring to my casual mention of a certain atheist usergroup. The group in question is in no way commercial, so that meaning of "advertising" seems not to apply to what I said. If you are suggesting that the rule prohibits a mere recommendation of another (non-commercial) site, then I suggest that you reread what I wrote - I didn't even say anything positive about the group, just mentioned that I had been there. What if I posted something to the effect that the Mirriam-Webster site is an excellent way to look up the dictionary definition of words while one is online? Would that constitute "advertising" and be forbidden?

If the simple mention of another group or site in a post is forbidden, then I once again find myself puzzled, as people include links to other sites all the time (to support their arguments, for example) and I have never seen them rebuked for this.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain exactly how my post broke rule 4?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Alien:

That confused me as well to be honest with you but I figured it out. Pilgrim (the Moderator) was refering to Garhoverman's post which was edited out. It was not referring to you at all, and I apologize for any mistaken impression that it was.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you Garth, it's all cool.

[Alien]

Today @ 10:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
garthoverman:
Hey, Dee Dee,

Sorry about my post. It didn't even occur to me that it was advertisement and against the rules to be so. I really just wanted to share some info with the topic originator. I suppose it would have been more appropriate for private communication.

You'll not see that again from the likes of me.:dufus::whip:

Yours,
Garth

Now I'm completelu lost.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Alien, Garth had posted a link in his post which was edited out by Pilgrim and Pilgrim posted instead a reference to the no advertising rule. But the way it stood it looked like Garth was rebuking you for a rules violation. I again apologize for the confusion. The rule was inserted by Moderator Pilgrim in place of a deleted link by Garth. Does that clear things up?

[Alien]

Today @ 10:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear Alien:

That confused me as well to be honest with you but I figured it out. Pilgrim (the Moderator) was refering to Garhoverman's post which was edited out. It was not referring to you at all, and I apologize for any mistaken impression that it was.


Phew! I thought I was going crazy there for while! (Or to be more honest I thought you guys were :) ).

Thanks for the explanation.

I have a lot to say in reply to your other post (and those of others that have kindly replied), but I'm really supposed to be working now, so it will have to wait for a (hopefully short) while.

[Dee Dee Warren]

If you have cruised the Science section a bit, I think you will see that Pilgrim and I have been quite involved and are going to be laying the law down on the completely out of line antics. Perhaps you may want to reserve your comments for a bit.

[wienerdog]

Phew! I thought I was going crazy there for while! (Or to be more honest I thought you guys were :) ).

:rofl:

[garthoverman]

Alien,

I've sent you a Private Message that describes the nature of my post that got deleted. I apologize for the confusion.

Dee Dee,

I thought it was you who had deleted my post, and for that reason my apology was directed at you. Regardless, my apology can stand to all of the moderators. Thanks for helping clear things up with Alien and Pilgrim.

Yours,
Garth

[Dee Dee Warren]

Wienerdog!! I had not seen you in a while.. I was gettng ready to write you....

[India]

I'm the one who referred Alien here, and in fact I had been hesitant about referring him here (and to The Other Location, before TWeb began) because of the very sorts of things he brought up. While I know that he's intelligent enough to not reject Christianity just because he's offended by the behavior of some Christians, it would be nice if that didn't have to be a source of concern.

While there is a place for satire and calling a spade a spade, given that many posters and lurkers are going to be concerned and/or turned off by it, I suggest that people think twice before they go there. Perhaps those who often engage in "challenge/riposte" could add a disclaimer or link to one in their sig, such that new people will understand their intent and that they're not trying to be unduly vicious?

As Alien pointed out, people aren't going to listen to those they feel are being mean and insulting. If you're going to use sarcasm/insult to make a point, is what you hope to accomplish worth the cost of offending and alienating others?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey India... there have been some blatant over the line comments made in the past few, and I have been lurking in this section that I often do not hang out in and thumping heads where necessary (that is a joke guys!!). I have great faith that the behaviour will improve from all sides concerned. It takes quite a bit before I am provoked, and it has gotten to that point. I already see an improvement and I thank everyone for that.

[Alien]

Replying also to TheFiveSolas, who said something similar ...


Today @ 12:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=57359#post57359)
Captain Ochre:
Alien, some cultures thrive on a form of challenge-riposte, and from what I can tell, most of our vociferous types are borne of those cultures (Australia's one of them).

I lived in Oz for two years in the sixties. Yes, Australians (then, I have no current experience) did tend to favor, er, plain speaking. They also adhered to the following logic: "I say its black, you say its white. If I hit you really hard in the nose, that proves its black".


You might consider overlooking insult when there's content to match, in the interest of tolerance.

I might, but I probably won't. Why should tolerance be in one direction only?

Its not that I have some wimpy fear of insults, its just that I find rational debate goes out of the window when they enter the door (so to speak).

Man enters room and is greeted by a stream of abuse. He says "I came here for an argument!" The guy replies "I'm sorry, this is abuse. Try 13A next door".
(Monty Python)


A good, creative insult is a wonderful thing. Rhapsody Angel has a bound volume of Shakespeare's collected insults. It's great reading.

Yes, insults can be amusing. I don't see their place in debate, that's all.

"I've never been so insulted in my life!"
"You should get out more."
(Benny Hill)

[Dee Dee Warren]

That Benny Hilll comment was funny. :rofl:

[wienerdog]

Yesterday @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58168#post58168)
Dee Dee Warren:

Wienerdog!! I had not seen you in a while.. I was gettng ready to write you....

You should get out more. :teeth: I've been all over the place.

[Alien]

Dee Dee,

I just want to clarify a few things, then maybe we can put this to rest (until the next time, heh,heh).


Yesterday @ 09:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58033#post58033)
Dee Dee Warren:
I am going to get down to brass tacks and be honest here....if what anyone is looking for is a board where the Moderators are going to be Politeness Police and sterilize everything into a forced veneer of "civility" that does not accurately reflect the nature and tone of spirited and passionate debate, then frankly this may not be the board for you.

It may be that you think I am looking for some warm and fuzzy, everyone agrees really so lets not be nasty kind of debate. Not at all.

Debate is (or IMO should be) essentially a search for truth. To that end, illogical and just plain incorrect ideas should be exposed as such and if someone is so emotionally attached to their position that they get upset when it is challenged, then too bad. Equally, debate on the Internet has always been somewhat ... forthright? ... and a thick skin is probably a prerequisite.

That said, there is a line between attacking someone's ideas and attacking the person that should not be crossed, partly because it is offensive, but mostly because it removes any benefit that the debate might otherwise have had.

So that's what I was getting at.


If suggesting someone is not a Christian and being prepared to back it up is thought to be an unforgiveable sin, you will not find that kind of politically correct enforcement here. I personally have told persons claiming to be Christians that I do not believe that they are, and have been prepared to back up my case with Biblical facts. I have also apologized when I realized I may have said such things in error.

I just threw that one in for your interest. The group I was talking about had a much wider spread of membership belief within the Christian "umbrella" than I have seen here. There were all sorts, from "hellfire and damnation" fundamentalists to extreme liberals and everywhere in between. I guess they felt that the rule was necessary in order for everyone to have at least some chance of getting along. :)

Let me pause to make something else quite clear. This is your (the moderators) site. You can run it anyway you wish. I have no wish to attempt to "take over" or suggest that you make any major changes to anything here. Its simply none of my business. I may already have gone too far in that direction.


Bottom line though, I agree the conversations have been consisting more of names and not substance, and that will stop.

Excellent.


Lively challenge, riposte, and proper satire will not, as that is not what we are seeking to achieve.

Also excellent! :)


And I thank you gratefully for the compliments you included with the criticisms. I too hope that my words are recieved in the spirit in which they were intended.

Absolutely.

I applaud the way you have received my thoughts without getting defensive. I look forward to a happy stay here. :)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Alien:

Thank you. Please know that you can always address concerns to me, and I will tell you honestly and straightly what I think and what can or will be done. We look forward to your continued and valued participation and contribution here.

[Pilgrim]

Me too! Me too!