DIR Forums Take Two

[illykitty]

Well, other than asking questions about religions, I haven't participated in the DIR that much. I tend to do a lot of reading so I guess it doesn't affect me that much. And there's already places where one can ask questions about religions and I'm sure some other arrangements are going to be made. I don't think religious people will have any issues answering questions from people outside of the religion elsewhere on the forums. I hope to keep the dialogue going!

The only thing I do find problematic is what to select. Maybe only Non-Theistic/Non-Religious Beliefs DIR. I don't really know how to define myself. I revere nature and the cosmos but am agnostic about literal deities. Don't really have a religion, per say, so at least that's simple. Been reading Buddhist stuff the past few months but I'm not committing to anything yet.

One question, which might be obvious, but some people do change religions, some leave, etc. I guess it would be a matter of contacting a moderator and ask permission for a change?

 

[Brent W]

Just a reminder that once you make your selection it can take up to ONE hour for the change to take effect.

 

[Brent W]

Well just as a potential example we've got Jews posting in Muslim DIR and vice versa, not to mention vehemently anti Muslim Christians being allowed to post in Muslim DIR, we've got Satanists signing up as Abrahamic religions, claiming Lucifer is Abrahamic, then I don't know much about the other side of pagan/ LHP beliefs etc, but it seems members are signing up to be members of every remotely Pagan/LHP DIR imaginable, the net result is way more people now have access to muck about in someone else's DIR than with the old rules, and the moderators job, policing all this, just got way more difficult?????

I am trying to not get frustrated with this type of reply but I and others have stated over and over again that we will continue to look at and address issues such as these. Please have patience. It is something we will address.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's how we tended to operate before, but a bunch of members put extremely uninformative things under "religion" or nothing there at all. That basically leaves the staff team guessing "does this person belong in this DIR or not?" We've wanted for a long time a system that forces people to identify with DIRs to remove that headache. As @columbus just said, this system makes it a lot less likely folks will post in those areas by accident. And yes, @columbus , we will definitely still be moderating folks within these broad categories that are posting in spaces they shouldn't. I already floated having more checkboxes by Brent backstage. At the very least, our DIR structure really wasn't set up for this kind of system and may need some tweaking.

The only other thing Id have to disagree with is having people to have religious names. I know it helps staff but on the moral side, it does put a strain on people who dont want to identify with "religion", seeking, have multiple religions, or wanf a name that represents their beliefs without it being a religion itself.

In this case, I favor for the audience. The DIR, well, the permission thing once you have it cleared, and how permissions are decided (maybe have a christian be a dir mod, hindu a hindu mod, etc.)

But these are ideas. Unless the RF is crashing, maybe polls on decisions may guide people. That and another person asked what the problem is. Its hard to give advice or comme t when everything is either fine letters or hidden behind the scenes.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Mainly this is for the sake of helping people not to fall afoul of the forum Dir 10 rules. A lot of new people accidentally post in dirs, and telling people "You posted in the wrong place!" is just not the best way to greet noobs. Because of that I think it will be a worthwhile change.

 

[Ekleipsis]

Huh, what is that, like some sort of " you are not allowed to talk to me " rule ?

I've had it mentioned to me twice for posting somewhere I wasn't " allowed " to post

Perhaps a large notice on the threads for idiots like myself would be helpful

 

[columbus]

Perhaps a large notice on the threads for idiots like myself would be helpful

The DIRs used to be much more clearly labeled. Lack of color coding and such came with a software upgrade, and has caused problems ever since.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I am trying to not get frustrated with this type of reply but I and others have stated over and over again that we will continue to look at and address issues such as these. Please have patience. It is something we will address.

Just so you know, things are going swimmingly for me.

 

[sun rise]

Well just as a potential example we've got Jews posting in Muslim DIR and vice versa, not to mention vehemently anti Muslim Christians being allowed to post in Muslim DIR, we've got Satanists signing up as Abrahamic religions, claiming Lucifer is Abrahamic, then I don't know much about the other side of pagan/ LHP beliefs etc, but it seems members are signing up to be members of every remotely Pagan/LHP DIR imaginable, the net result is way more people now have access to muck about in someone else's DIR than with the old rules, and the moderators job, policing all this, just got way more difficult?????

The law of unintended consequences strikes again. "The chief cause of problems is solutions"

 

[Brent W]

The law of unintended consequences strikes again. "The chief cause of problems is solutions"

Potential examples do not equal actual examples and as stated over and over and over again, that is something that will be prevented in the next few days.

 

[1137]

Just a reminder that once you make your selection it can take up to ONE hour for the change to take effect.

Mine worked, but did take several hours. Just a heads up if anyone is having issues.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Potential examples do not equal actual examples and as stated over and over and over again, that is something that will be prevented in the next few days.

Speaking of "examples," why not create a post with examples which illustrate violations of Rule 10, so people don't have to hunt and peck their way into compliance by having their hands slapped again and again for "doing it wrong." If the bulk of these violations are accidental, as you claim, why not put up some "signs" showing exactly what is "not OK."

 

[Rival]

Speaking of "examples," why not create a post with examples which illustrate violations of Rule 10, so people don't have to hunt and peck their way into compliance by having their hands slapped again and again for "doing it wrong." If the bulk of these violations are accidental, as you claim, why not put up some "signs" showing exactly what is "not OK."

Just read the rules.

 

[Vinayaka]

I just scrolled the last 80 recent posts. Not a single one in a DIR.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Just read the rules.

Rival, chill. That's twice now you've jumped in to take a subtle swipe at me in order to defend the mods. They do not need you to do that for them. I do not have it in for anybody here, nor do I have a problem abiding by the rules. But there's a "two plus two equals four" thing that you are not considering by dismissing my suggestion so cavalierly.

If merely "reading the rules" was adequately educating newbies who are accidentally posting incorrectly--apparently NUMEROUS times!--then why do the mods have to spend so much time policing posts and issuing citations to them? Creating illustrative examples of the behavior the mods are trying to correct is not an unreasonable idea.

 

[Rival]

Rival, chill. That's twice now you've jumped in to take a subtle swipe at me in order to defend the mods. They do not need you to do that for them. I do not have it in for anybody here, nor do I have a problem abiding by the rules. But there's a "two plus two equals four" thing that you are not considering by dismissing my suggestion so cavalierly.

If merely "reading the rules" was adequately educating newbies who are accidentally posting incorrectly--apparently NUMEROUS times!--then why do the mods have to spend so much time policing posts and issuing citations to them? Creating illustrative examples of the behavior the mods are trying to correct is not an unreasonable idea.

What part of "accident" do you not understand? People don't often look at which forum they are about to post in. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

 

[4consideration]

Speaking of "examples," why not create a post with examples which illustrate violations of Rule 10, so people don't have to hunt and peck their way into compliance by having their hands slapped again and again for "doing it wrong." If the bulk of these violations are accidental, as you claim, why not put up some "signs" showing exactly what is "not OK."

If I may interject here, I think that may address part of the problem...new people not understanding what behavior is expected in a DIR...but as I understand it, the current issue of "accidental DIR posting" seems to be the result of the DIR locations no longer being as visually obvious as they used to be -- so that people who do know the rules for DIRs still find themselves being in violation from simply not realizing they have posted in a DIR thread.

I think your idea of having some examples available for members is a good one -- but it would not address those that (I think) are the bulk of the concern here, and that is people that just didn't know they were posting in a DIR, and got cited for rule violations for it.

Debating of any kind, no matter who is posting, is prohibited in DIRs. So simply assuming one is posting in a debate thread, because that's what most RF threads are, and accidentally posting in an argumentative manner in a DIR could do it.

 

[columbus]

Just read the rules.

I remember some mod or another, @Debater Slayer I think, posted a poll. "Did you read the rules before clicking 'I Accept "? IIRC a handful of dweebs at least claimed to have done so. Most people were more like, "It's a forum! I've done them plenty of times before. I've signed mortgages without bothering with that much fine print."

And the DIR, as done here on RF, are very unusual. All posters are automatically given full access, but not allowed to post unless the mods determine that you qualify as the correct religion? Then they have to decide what is debate and what is discussion? I've been a mod before. The "RF way" looks like a moderation nightmare to me.
But it also facilities and encourages some of the most freewheeling discussion on the internet. Because it does enable people with hugely different views to interact pretty darn freely. I've never seen such a forum before. But that means the mods are stuck with people like me, so conservative I often appear liberal, Catholic agnostic deist, snarky, enjoys running with scissors, etc. And they're stuck figuring it all out.
So while they are often dreadfully unfair and have given me tons of warnings and infraction points. ..

I like it.
Tom

 

[Liu]

I'd just like to remind people that Syncretic DIR is a thing. It's under-utilized, in spite of us having many syncretists here. What I would suggest for folks like @Liu is to hop in on syncretist area and select one other main DIR, maybe two.

Only 2 others at most?
Well, okay, then I take pantheism and LHP, that describes me best. Updated it.

But in case I do see a good reason to post in another DIR of which I think I belong to as well, I might change that in my profile to post there - or do I need a mod's permission for that?

Btw, about the "Other Religious Movements and Practices DIR" - I suppose it's already on the to-do list, but in case it isn't: I would assume that most of its sub-DIRs should be free for all as they are about practices common to pretty much all religions (even if not practiced by everyone). The 3 sub-DIRs there which are about actual religions could be moved to the "New Religious Movements DIR" (Thelema and New Age) or, in case of Goddess Spirituality and Worship, to either the "Neopagan or Revival Religions DIR" or the "Non-Revealed Religions DIR".

The only thing I do find problematic is what to select. Maybe only Non-Theistic/Non-Religious Beliefs DIR. I don't really know how to define myself. I revere nature and the cosmos but am agnostic about literal deities. Don't really have a religion, per say, so at least that's simple. Been reading Buddhist stuff the past few months but I'm not committing to anything yet.

Sounds like this may fit into either pantheism or paganism. Both don't demand literal deities. I'm an agnostic pantheist myself.

 

[Quintessence]

But in case I do see a good reason to post in another DIR of which I think I belong to as well, I might change that in my profile to post there - or do I need a mod's permission for that?

We'd probably treat it the same way we treat members who change their religion around here - we aim to respect people's self identification unless there's good reason to call that into question (which usually means they're stirring up trouble in DIRs). What we wouldn't want to see is people checking and unchecking things as a way of bypassing/abusing the system.

This approach to things is new to us as well. Brent kicked it off, and the staff team will need to adapt to it. Our discussions about it are ongoing.

Btw, about the "Other Religious Movements and Practices DIR" - I suppose it's already on the to-do list, but in case it isn't: I would assume that most of its sub-DIRs should be free for all as they are about practices common to pretty much all religions (even if not practiced by everyone).

Yes, that's how we've treated them. That area is in an odd place right now with this new system. So is the non-theism area and the pantheism area, as neither of those are really religions, but approaches to theology. I'm mulling over how we might want to restructure some things in light of the changes.