New Policy about DIR and 'Only' Forums

[Unveiled Artist]

I have made my point before -- agreement is the antithesis of conversation. When everybody's in agreement, what's left to talk about? So, for me, the very idea of a conversation closed to anyone who isn't already onboard is generally unproductive -- in my view.

"Agreement" groups are usually for people with the same foundation to talk about different topics they may or may not disagree with. So, an atheist can talk among a group of christians but the christians will have a better assess of their differences because they have similar foundations to formulate their discussion that with an atheist just wouldn't have.

I wouldn't see DIRs as agreement groups. Atheist Hindu and theist Hindu disagree about the existence of deities but the foundation to which both parties practice and speak their faith would be foreign to those of us not accustomed to that language, environment, and culture. So there are disagreements but they are spoken among those in the same foundational setting.

Instead of agreement groups, they just use the same criteria to derive meaning from conversations when they have their own opinions to share.

 

[Deeje]

That's how some of us (staff) feel every time we have to delete yet another post made in the wrong forum section.

If only a DIR post could be made more obvious....like a color code or some such...

 

[McBell]

If only a DIR post could be made more obvious....like a color code or some such...

My not having permission to post in it makes it pretty obvious.
At least to me...

 

[McBell]

Yawn...

I have made my point before -- agreement is the antithesis of conversation. When everybody's in agreement, what's left to talk about? So, for me, the very idea of a conversation closed to anyone who isn't already onboard is generally unproductive -- in my view.

I don't have any interest in complaining about DIRs, and this thread is not in one. I am responding to an announcement to the whole forum, which this thread is.

For the record, as a person who is essentially "liberal," I woudn't post in a "liberal only discussion." And as an atheist, I couldn't be less interested in posting in an "atheist only discussion." What on earth would be the point? We can pat each other on the back, acknowledge how right we are about our viewpoints -- and then what?

Want to learn something new? Take on a viewpoint you disagree with, listen to those who defend it, answer in your own way, and see where it leads. But sitting around agreeing with each other leads to pretty much nothing of interest -- at least in my personal opinion.

You do know you come off as though you are whining that the forum has the audacity to prevent you of all people from posting where ever you damn well please, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

You do know you come off as though you are whining that the forum has the audacity to prevent you of all people from posting where ever you damn well please, right?

Well, that is a real problem.
I have so many things to say, but can't.

 

[McBell]

Well, that is a real problem.
I have so many things to say, but can't.

I do not know that he intends to come off that way.
I also suspect he does not realize that that is how he is coming off.

Though, I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time.
I seriously doubt it will be the last.

 

[Deeje]

My not having permission to post in it makes it pretty obvious.
At least to me...

Have you never posted in DIR by mistake....I have. So a color code would have been useful.
I saw the topic and it interested me, so posted without thinking....

 

[McBell]

Have you never posted in DIR by mistake....I have. So a color code would have been useful.
I saw the topic and it interested me, so posted without thinking....

AS a matter of fact, I have.
But not in last year or so.
I do not have permission to post.
I do not even get the "Post Reply" button

 

[sun rise]

I have made my point before -- agreement is the antithesis of conversation. When everybody's in agreement, what's left to talk about? So, for me, the very idea of a conversation closed to anyone who isn't already onboard is generally unproductive -- in my view.

I don't know about conservatives, but we liberals love to fight with each other.

And if I wanted to cause trouble, which of course I don't, I'd sign up as a libertarian of the socialist libertarian persuasion which could get us into the 'true Scotsman' bundle of joy.

 

[Sunstone]

I have made my point before -- agreement is the antithesis of conversation. When everybody's in agreement, what's left to talk about? So, for me, the very idea of a conversation closed to anyone who isn't already onboard is generally unproductive -- in my view.

And we've made our point before. Have you chosen to ignore it?

Why There are DIRs, Explained...

 

[Heyo]

DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there."

As it stands in this form it isn't allowed to use a DIR for outsider bashing but it's fine in "only" subforums..You might want to add a similar prohibition to that section also.
The fear of being misrepresented was the only reason I entered a discussion in an "only" section (with permission of the OP). I don't have that option now.
Will moderators move a discussion out of an "only" section when misrepresentation happens (on request)?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Damn, I told them we should have used the juggling monkeys gif.

Don't forget the freaky one with the clashing cymbals.

 

[McBell]

As it stands in this form it isn't allowed to use a DIR for outsider bashing but it's fine in "only" subforums..You might want to add a similar prohibition to that section also.
The fear of being misrepresented was the only reason I entered a discussion in an "only" section (with permission of the OP). I don't have that option now.
Will moderators move a discussion out of an "only" section when misrepresentation happens (on request)?

You are not allowed to POST in them.
You are allowed to READ them.

And in doing so (reading, not posting) if you come across rule breaking posts, you really should report them.

 

[Heyo]

You are not allowed to POST in them.
You are allowed to READ them.

And in doing so (reading, not posting) if you come across rule breaking posts, you really should report them.

The problem is that it isn't against the rules, as they are formulated now, to bash or misrepresent others in the "only" sections. That only applies to DIR sections.

 

[Quagmire]

The problem is that it isn't against the rules, as they are formulated now, to bash or misrepresent others in the "only" sections.

Actually it is.

 

[Heyo]

Actually it is.

By which section of rule #10? I can't find it. Section (2) clearly states "DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group."
Such a restriction is missing from section (3) which reads in its entirety:
"3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there."
No restriction on bashing or misrepresenting there.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And we've made our point before. Have you chosen to ignore it?

Why There are DIRs, Explained...

I'm not ignoring it, I'm commenting (not in a DIR) about my reaction to it. That is all. Not whining, not complaining, not getting in anybody else's DIR --and not debating -- just discussing my thoughts on something posted in a discussion forum. I haven't said DIRs are wrong. I've merely said they aren't for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know about conservatives, but we liberals love to fight with each other.

And if I wanted to cause trouble, which of course I don't, I'd sign up as a libertarian of the socialist libertarian persuasion which could get us into the 'true Scotsman' bundle of joy.

You....a libertarian?
That would be like The Rock claiming to be a nerd.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not ignoring it, I'm commenting (not in a DIR) about my reaction to it. That is all. Not whining, not complaining, not getting in anybody else's DIR --and not debating -- just discussing my thoughts on something posted in a discussion forum. I haven't said DIRs are wrong. I've merely said they aren't for me.

We should try banning the word "whine" & its tenses.
I've never seen it used as other than insult.
(Your voice is too deep to even accomplish the task.)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A long overdue change, imo.