Member Survey: The Balance Between Free Speech and Maintaining a Civil, Respectful Forum Environment

[osgart]

I am actually relieved that there is a specific rule prohibiting proselytizing, preaching, and stating one's personal opinions as a definitive matter of fact.

For those that do preaching, and such it is not opinion in their eyes.

Personally I don't mean to do those things. I'd rather people live as they please if they're not victimizing others.

 

[Nimos]

I think the balance is fine.

As long as people remember that there is a huge difference between having a heated discussion when it comes to opinions or views and that of personal insults.

If it is just people having a go at each other it will lead nowhere, but opinions and views shouldn't be protected from being ridiculed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am actually relieved that there is a specific rule prohibiting proselytizing, preaching, and stating one's personal opinions as a definitive matter of fact.

And who determines what is fact and what is opinion for people?

The rule makers?

Censorship is never good.

 

[Heyo]

Hi, all,

This survey is to gauge member opinions regarding the balance between free speech and maintaining a civil, respectful forum environment for debate and discussion.

Please answer the poll based on your forum experience and observation of content on the forums, including both content that aligns with your own views and content that disagrees with them.

Per Rule 2, if you have any feedback regarding specific instances of moderation, please post it in the Site Feedback forum.

Thank you.

As far as I can see, the balance is perfect.

The problem is that I can't see what is moderated. I have a problem with the intransparency, but you know that.

 

[Heyo]

Just to clarify: Deliberately misgendering another forum member, whether they're trans or cis, is considered a personal attack and is therefore subject to moderation. Using slurs to insult others or denigrate people based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc., is also against the forum rules.

Does "etc." include political orientation? I've frequently been labelled a communist (mostly by people who don't know me or what communism is). It is kind of insulting.
(I don't take offence though and wouldn't report, but I may link to your answer if in the affirmative.)

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

I think the balance is fine but the vibe problem seems to stem more from the fact that there is more threads about politics and deliberately controversial takes for engagement than religious talks, sharing or debates.
At this point it's more politics forums than religious forums and the vibe greatly shifted from there

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think the balance is fine in general, but if someone is banned for personal attacks then whatever they posted should be expunged as well.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think the balance is fine in general, but if someone is banned for personal attacks then whatever they posted should be expunged as well.

The personal attacks generally are unless something is missed (we're far from perfect). Any instances of personal attacks should be reported if you see a personal attack that wasn't removed.

As for everything that they posted, not only would that be a daunting task, it most cases, doing so would break the continuity of the thread.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Does "etc." include political orientation?

It can, depending on the specific term being used. "Communist," "capitalist," "liberal," "conservative," etc., are not slurs, even if they are sometimes misapplied or misused. On the other hand, using a derogatory term to insult everyone who subscribes to a given ideology or has a specific political orientation is a rule violation, since insulting entire groups—especially if they also include a subset of forum members—is against the forum rules.

I've frequently been labelled a communist (mostly by people who don't know me or what communism is). It is kind of insulting.
(I don't take offence though and wouldn't report, but I may link to your answer if in the affirmative.)

If someone deliberately and repeatedly attributes a position to another member that the latter has explicitly clarified that they do not hold, the attribution may be a Rule 3 violation due to misrepresenting someone else's beliefs. It can also depend on context.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The personal attacks generally are unless something is missed (we're far from perfect). Any instances of personal attacks should be reported if you see a personal attack that wasn't removed.

As for everything that they posted, not only would that be a daunting task, it most cases, doing so would break the continuity of the thread.

I'm just going on what immediately precipitated said banning, since otherwise what was said simply remains, even if not true or remains as intended - given those who join just to attack others gives them the win, in their eyes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Whatever you all decide will be fine with me. I don't mind personal attacks directed at me, I don't mind preaching/proselytizing at me, and I don't need anybody censored.

However, before joining RF, I participated in another now defunct site with essentially the same purpose, but it was much less well moderated and there were frequently verbal food fights, which was less interesting, and so, I appreciate the moderation.

 

[an anarchist]

I think the balance is fine but the vibe problem seems to stem more from the fact that there is more threads about politics and deliberately controversial takes for engagement than religious talks, sharing or debates.
At this point it's more politics forums than religious forums and the vibe greatly shifted from there

The site is worse off due to all the politics... though I'm not one to talk my name is literally political.

If that's what people want to talk about though and there are forums on this site for it... I just think more can be done to perhaps limit some of the political threads when they just devolve to pages of name calling "You're a fascist!" "Well you're a communist!" ad nauseam. Since the site update well over a year ago, the format sucks. All we have are the two sections "Forums" and "What's new". I feel the atmosphere suffers from a lack of the other tabs that used to be available. With the featured threads that used to be an aspect of this site, the moderators can steer which conversations trend by putting religious threads on the front (featured) page. Without featured threads and the other tabs, it is very easy for the name calling political threads to take up so much of the limited space. It affects the vibe and people leave. Like @Starlight haha she came back like a month ago saying "I'm back!" and noped out after a couple days. I don't know why but one might assume they didn't like how the vibes became. Maybe not, but I know others have been outspoken about their reasons for leaving this forum which is because of the atmosphere the politics have caused.

Hopefully we can move past talking about politics 24/7 and be a religious forum.

 

[an anarchist]

I think the balance is fine but the vibe problem seems to stem more from the fact that there is more threads about politics and deliberately controversial takes for engagement than religious talks, sharing or debates.
At this point it's more politics forums than religious forums and the vibe greatly shifted from there

Ultimately, it is up to us members to cultivate a pleasant and informative atmosphere. I care about this site, so sometimes when I see a front page full of heated political threads, I'll make a joke thread or open up my meditation book so I can share something with you guys. But sometimes I do the opposite and make a thread shooting spitballs at the political people and contributing to what I see as a problem. I guess I'll stop making political threads since I'm complaining about it. Well, I'm more complaining about the lack of civility that is present in the prevalent political threads from my perspective. But yea I want to talk religion so that's what I'll do for now on.

Ok that's my 2$.

 

[stvdv]

This survey is to gauge member opinions regarding the balance between free speech and maintaining a civil, respectful forum environment for debate and discussion

In short:
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom to hurt

Rules for Freedom of Speech, in my opinion:
1) "You can not always oblige, but you can always speak obligingly"
2) "Belittling others' feelings or (lack of) Faith is not our human right"
3) Belittling others is unhealthy psychological warfare (Voodoo, black magic)
3) "Jesus is the only way" implies Superiority (Supremacy) + belittling others
4) "Islam is the only true Religion", same problem
5) "Krishna is the Supreme God", same problem
6) "Science trumps Spirituality", same problem (belittling others)

Hurting others verbally means you exhibit that:
1) You lack Love
2) You lack empathy
3) You lack compassion
Not advisable behavior during your job interview or on your date. Once you realize this, why do it on RF?

Of course you are free to hurt others, but hurting others is not human Dharma, it's not your human right. It might be "demon Dharma (right)".

The Golden Rule (your conscience) tells what's right to do:
"Do (not do) unto others what you do (not) want others to do unto you"

 

[Revoltingest]

I am actually relieved that there is a specific rule prohibiting proselytizing, preaching, and stating one's personal opinions as a definitive matter of fact.

It's hard to enforce though, IMO.
When to attach the "IMO" suffix?
After every statement?
At the end of a paragraph?
Or should it be obvious that something
is claimed as opinion/belief rather than
as fact by the context?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It is not difficult for me to use the phrases "I think," "I believe," or "in my opinion," or to otherwise indicate (by using phrases such as "based on") that what I write is my personal opinions or spiritual beliefs, as well as my personal knowledge, understanding, and/or experiences. I normally write my posts in this manner, whether I'm discussing my beliefs, opinions, or personal experiences. I think that it's quite simple to include these phrases, which I hope will ensure that I am in compliance with Rule 8. Overall, I enjoy being a member of Religious Forums, and I don't want to jeopardize that by breaking the forum rules.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's hard to enforce though, IMO.
When to attach the "IMO" suffix?
After every statement?
At the end of a paragraph?
Or should it be obvious that something
is claimed as opinion/belief rather than
as fact by the context?

Qualifying one's thoughts as opinions is something that is meant for debates and discussions about religious topics, whereas other subjects don't have the same requirement. For example, this would typically be a Rule 8 violation:

[Insert religious or irreligious claim here] is just a fact. Any other view of this is false.

This wouldn't be:

[Insert political claim here] is just a fact.

Another example: If a member says that capitalism/socialism/whatever economic system is "the only way to achieve prosperity," that's not a Rule 8 violation even if it has no qualifiers of opinion (e.g., "I think," "I believe," etc.), but statements about religious topics need the qualifiers, as that is the main subject of the site and also the one where preaching tends to happen much more often and sometimes heavily disrupt or shut down discussions and debates.

One of the ideas behind Rule 8 is that for debates and discussions to be productive and engaging on a forum with a religiously diverse membership, posts that talk at other members instead of talking to them should be kept to a minimum as much as possible.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It is not difficult for me to use the phrases "I think," "I believe," or "in my opinion," or to otherwise indicate (by using phrases such as "based on") that what I write is my personal opinions or spiritual beliefs, as well as my personal knowledge, understanding, and/or experiences. I normally write my posts in this manner, whether I'm discussing my beliefs, opinions, or personal experiences.

I try to do the same except where I can justify the statement with evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Qualifying one's thoughts as opinions is something that is meant for debates and discussions about religious topics, whereas other subjects don't have the same requirement. For example, this would typically be a Rule 8 violation:



This wouldn't be:



Another example: If a member says that capitalism/socialism/whatever economic system is "the only way to achieve prosperity," that's not a Rule 8 violation even if it has no qualifiers of opinion (e.g., "I think," "I believe," etc.), but statements about religious topics need the qualifiers, as that is the main subject of the site and also the one where preaching tends to happen much more often and sometimes heavily disrupt or shut down discussions and debates.

One of the ideas behind Rule 8 is that for debates and discussions to be productive and engaging on a forum with a religiously diverse membership, posts that talk at other members instead of talking to them should be kept to a minimum as much as possible.

Good examples, but the issue is
nonetheless often subjective, which
increases the error rate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Overall I think it's a reasonable balance, with possibly a slight preference for not hurting members' feelings by truthfully stating that something is a lie.