[StarSlayer]

An item that might be worth discussing is the tendency towards "collateral offense" during a discussion or debate.  The community has a very vocal contingent of socially progressive/scientific viewpoints and tends to sometimes dog pile on subjects or members that run counter to those views.  Granted this typically occurs as a foil to a particularly vociferous poster, however, better throttling of the response would be beneficial.  Just because a particular member of a group spouts something disagreeable should not trigger general attacks on that group or affiliation.  It's a difficult urge to suppress I know, one that I can't claim to always succeed at.  However, it is something I've noticed occurs and I feel that member alpha who shares a religion, political view or nationality with member bravo shouldn't feel like they are unwelcome because bravo is a pain in the ass and gets the communities' hackles up. 

[Luis Dias]

I second that statement, InsaneBaron brought it up on the other thread:

If tolerance of homosexuals is required on HLP, why is tolerance of Christians optional?
I'm not attacking homosexuals in this post, I'm simply pointing out that there's a double standard here. If it's wrong to chew people out for their sexual orientation, it should be equally wrong to insult people or call them names because of their religious views. This came out in the Ham/Nye thread as well, where we got a lot of "Religious people are idiots and here's why" posts. This goes against the very principles that were discussed in the forum guidelines.

[The E]

An item that might be worth discussing is the tendency towards "collateral offense" during a discussion or debate.  The community has a very vocal contingent of socially progressive/scientific viewpoints and tends to sometimes dog pile on subjects or members that run counter to those views.  Granted this typically occurs as a foil to a particularly vociferous poster, however, better throttling of the response would be beneficial.  Just because a particular member of a group spouts something disagreeable should not trigger general attacks on that group or affiliation.  It's a difficult urge to suppress I know, one that I can't claim to always succeed at.  However, it is something I've noticed occurs and I feel that member alpha who shares a religion, political view or nationality with member bravo shouldn't feel like they are unwelcome because bravo is a pain in the ass and gets the communities' hackles up. 

This is certainly something to look out for for us moderators, but I am not sure how to codify it into a coherent rule.

[StarSlayer]

When debating another forum member over a contentious issue (such as religion, nationality or politics) please attempt to address the member and their specific points and when possible avoid general attacks on a particular group they maybe affiliated with.  Consider whether the content of your post may offend or otherwise alienate other members due to a lack of specificity and unwarranted scope.


Something similar to the above?  I'm not of the opinion this needs to be a hard and fast rule.  I do think its something that requires some consideration though. 

[General Battuta]

I second that statement, InsaneBaron brought it up on the other thread:

If tolerance of homosexuals is required on HLP, why is tolerance of Christians optional?
I'm not attacking homosexuals in this post, I'm simply pointing out that there's a double standard here. If it's wrong to chew people out for their sexual orientation, it should be equally wrong to insult people or call them names because of their religious views. This came out in the Ham/Nye thread as well, where we got a lot of "Religious people are idiots and here's why" posts. This goes against the very principles that were discussed in the forum guidelines.

In general I'm in favor of tolerance, but most criticism of religion on HLP takes the form of 'here are logical , scientific, and political problems created by religious ideology', not 'religious people are literally bricks of ****'. This isn't against any kind of principle, and frankly trying to equate it with homonegativity is an untenable position.

Christian belief is open to criticism for the same reason Scientology is: it is a club you choose to join, and individuals can choose which parts of the doctrine to adopt. I've been vocal in my defense of religion against some of the more radical atheists on HLP, despite being a total monist atheist myself, so I understand the position. But this here is a false equivalency.

I am not worried about scientific dogpiles. History is the story of empirical evidence dogpiling ignorance.

When debating another forum member over a contentious issue (such as religion, nationality or politics) please attempt to address the member and their specific points and when possible avoid general attacks on a particular group they maybe affiliated with.  Consider whether the content of your post may offend or otherwise alienate other members due to a lack of specificity and unwarranted scope.

Something similar to the above?  I'm not of the opinion this needs to be a hard and fast rule.  I do think its something that requires some consideration though. 

This seems pretty okay to me, I guess.

[InsaneBaron]

The problem I was aiming at was that HLP seems to have more Liberal members than Conservatives like myself, and this sometimes leads to a double standard, even on the part of the moderaters. Anti-Christian attacks seem to slip through the system more often than they should.

To begin with, the rules do mention the variety of "Spiritual" viewpoints. It would make sense to include "Religious attacks" in the list of "crimes" in order to stress the point.

A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."

Lastly, I don't agree with many things that were said in the other thread, but I'm glad that at least most of us recognize that respect is essential to any communication. I don't hate anyone here or elsewhere, even if I disagree strongly with them.

@Battuta: I'm not concerned so much with legitimate discussion/debates like you and I had for a bit during the Ham/Nye thing. I'm more concerned with a tendency on the moderators part to let a swipe at religion go when similar swipes at homosexuals (etc) are rapidly shot down.

There's a big difference between making fair arguments against a position (fair =/= correct, just respectful and logical) and just insulting it. Problem is, fair criticism of Liberal viewpoints often gets shot down as if it were an offensive message, while insults aimed at Churches/Religions/Conservatives get tolerated as if they were fair arguments.

[Luis Dias]

@Battuta

Well most of these issues are impossible to make "equivalencies" of unless you are willing to give a bit of leeway. They are always pretty specific in themselves. I'm also in agreement with StarSlayer's wording on this.

[General Battuta]

The problem I was aiming at was that HLP seems to have more Liberal members than Conservatives like myself, and this sometimes leads to a double standard, even on the part of the moderaters. Anti-Christian attacks seem to slip through the system more often than they should.

To begin with, the rules do mention the variety of "Spiritual" viewpoints. It would make sense to include "Religious attacks" in the list of "crimes" in order to stress the point.

A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."

Lastly, I don't agree with many things that were said in the other thread, but I'm glad that at least most of us recognize that respect is essential to any communication. I don't hate anyone here or elsewhere, even if I disagree strongly with them.

I moderately to strongly disagree with this post. Opinions should be debated. Criticism of organized religion is criticism of a theory about the world, a theory that makes consequential social prescriptions. I suspect most of the 'anti-Christian attacks' referenced here are people talking about consequentiality, and frankly, consequentiality is Real. It is empirical.

Like, consider this:

A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."

Attacks on viewpoints are great! That's what discussion is all about. People attack viewpoints they dislike and they say why.

What's important and what should be retained from InsaneBaron's feedback is the need to stay focused on the issues rather than individuals. When criticizing Christianity, leave room for the variance between believers and the compatibility between magisteria.

HLP should not assume an explicit political stance of any sort. Some kind of attempt at a quota system is a political stance.

[InsaneBaron]

The problem I was aiming at was that HLP seems to have more Liberal members than Conservatives like myself, and this sometimes leads to a double standard, even on the part of the moderaters. Anti-Christian attacks seem to slip through the system more often than they should.

To begin with, the rules do mention the variety of "Spiritual" viewpoints. It would make sense to include "Religious attacks" in the list of "crimes" in order to stress the point.

A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."

Lastly, I don't agree with many things that were said in the other thread, but I'm glad that at least most of us recognize that respect is essential to any communication. I don't hate anyone here or elsewhere, even if I disagree strongly with them.

I moderately to strongly disagree with this post. Opinions should be debated. Criticism of organized religion is criticism of a theory about the world, a theory that makes consequential social prescriptions. I suspect most of the 'anti-Christian attacks' referenced here are people talking about consequentiality, and frankly, consequentiality is Real. It is empirical.

Like, consider this:

A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."

Attacks on viewpoints are great! That's what discussion is all about. People attack viewpoints they dislike and they say why.

What's important and what should be retained from InsaneBaron's feedback is the need to stay focused on the issues rather than individuals. When criticizing Christianity, leave room for the variance between believers and the compatibility between magisteria.

HLP should not assume an explicit political stance of any sort. Some kind of attempt at a quota system is a political stance.

I should clarify. We're looking at two different definitions of "attack". I'm defining "attack" as an offensive post, you're defining it in debate terms as an argument in general. Instead of attack, I'll use the term "offensive post".

I'm not asking for a quota. Just for fair treatment for everyone here, including minorities.

In summary, if two people want to discuss whether or not God exists on HLP, fine. But if one starts insulting the other, not fine. I'm concerned that the moderaters are more likely to let it go if the Liberal attacks the Conservative rather than the other way around.

EDIT: I'm honestly not sure what your point is regarding consequentiality. I don't think it's what I'm refering too.

[General Battuta]

Oh, definitely. But more of the active moderators I can conjure off the top of my head are explicitly Christian than any other faith or belief. I don't think you have much to worry about.

You're also drawing a weird and simplistic picture of 'liberal' and 'conservative' - the political beliefs in play on HLP are way more complex than that, and there's no clear dyadic tie to religious conviction there either.

[StarSlayer]

I'm not advocating a censure on well formatted debate, I want to make that clear most adamantly.  "I disagree with X, Y or Z because of A, B and C" is perfectly legit.  Any restrictions in that regard I disagree with vehemently.

I'm wary of the occasions when comments are not proving a point and are just offensive, such as "Members of Group C are all X".   I've noticed that occasionally unnecessarily belligerent comments get lost in the shuffle because they conform with the overarching momentum of the community.  I don't really care if forum poster B is being a pain in the ass, it shouldn't be carte blanche to be abusive to an entire group.  If members of the forum haven't done anything to brook offence they shouldn't be generically labeled then made to feel alienated.

At the end of the day this is a forum about Freespace modding and we should be as tolerant and inclusive as possible.

[Goober5000]

This balance was what I was trying to strike with my paragraph that began "HLP is a large community with diverse views from all points on the political, social, and spiritual spectra..."  This covers liberal/conservative, authoritarian/libertarian, and athiest/Christian difference without being too explicit about it.

And yes, dogpiling does happen.

[General Battuta]

There's nothing inherently wrong about dogpiling. Some opinions are wrong and unsubstantiated. Some beliefs are immoral. These deserve social sanction. As long as the dogpile's content abides by the other forum restrictions - substantive, articulate, debates the point rather than the person - there's no problem.

[Goober5000]

Just so we're clear, then, how would you define dogpiling?

[InsaneBaron]

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85410.msg1708103;topicseen#msg1708103

Prime example. Nakura gets banned for supporting Ben Carson in a non-offensive way, those who support him are warned off by The E and Karajorma. MP-RYAN does the same thing, more offensively, from the other end of the spectrum, and gets away with it.

EDIT: What Nakura did was post an article that took a side in a political debate, and then explain that he supported it. Same thing that whoever started the Nigeria thread did. And I'm not the only one who saw a double standard in the way things turned out.

Look, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of misbehavior. I'm asking that

A. The forum guidelines make it clear that offensive posts are not to be tolerating whether their targets are homosexuals, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Fox News, or whoever (and the guidlines already indicate that, although an explicit "this applies to both sides" would be nice).

and
B. The moderaters work to apply these rules consistently.

Because there have been multiple cases of a double standard here, and Nuke, Lorric, Luis Dias, and Dragon have all called it out as well.

[StarSlayer]

There's nothing inherently wrong about dogpiling. Some opinions are wrong and unsubstantiated. Some beliefs are immoral. These deserve social sanction. As long as the dogpile's content abides by the other forum restrictions - substantive, articulate, debates the point rather than the person - there's no problem.

If its a focused and targeted debate that's fine.  It's just sometimes there is a tendency for it to lose scope and devolve into a generic attack.  If someone decides to be a dick and post some confrontational bull**** about religion and sexual preference by all means pile on like water pressure on a sub at crush depth who's designers skimped on HY80.  That said, some UU doesn't need to look in the thread and see folks commenting on people being stupid because they have faith.  That's what I'm worried about. 

I'm not religious and I'd like to think social progressive on most issues.  So when I feel sometimes like people are swinging an axe at the entire tree when all that needs doing is snipping off a twig its not because I'm worried mother church or my party is being attacked. 

[General Battuta]

@Goober

Oh, I see your point - a lot of people jumping on someone with fairly minimal content, just to say 'you're wrong and you should feel bad'.

Yeah, I think that is different from someone making a point and getting reamed by nineteen articulate and well-informed posters (something I strongly encourage and always enjoy seeing), but I don't think it's something we see much of. In any case, the requirement to debate the post, not the poster and our push for higher-content posts already covers that territory, doesn't it?

We don't need rules about 'fair teams' or anything like that. People should be free to absolutely demolish an argument, en masse and in great numbers, as long as they are doing so with civil, constructive, well-informed posts.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85410.msg1708103;topicseen#msg1708103

Prime example. Nakura gets banned for supporting Ben Carson in a non-offensive way, those who support him are warned off by The E and Karajorma. MP-RYAN does the same thing, more offensively, from the other end of the spectrum, and gets away with it.

EDIT: What Nakura did was post an article that took a side in a political debate, and then explain that he supported it. Same thing that whoever started the Nigeria thread did.

False equivalence. The merit of opinions is not purely subjective. MP-Ryan tore apart ****ty journalism; Nakura went to bat for an ignorant, hateful polemicist.

Frankly I think this accusation of a double standard on your part is an illusion. You are viewing things from a very slanted angle. You want bad arguments and untenable positions to be treated the same way as solid arguments backed by empirical fact and education, and this simply isn't going to happen. Young Earth creationists (for example) are never going to get respect on this forum, because their opinions can and will be demolished trivially. But they can be treated just like any other user when they aren't talking about Young Earth creationism

[NGTM-1R]

Prime example. Nakura gets banned for supporting Ben Carson in a non-offensive way, those who support him are warned off by The E and Karajorma.

There is no possible way you can "support...in a non-offensive way" what was posted, because it is itself offensive, and as Battuta noted, itself ignorant and hateful. When you express support for something offensive, no matter how you do so, you are yourself being offensive. The same goes for being ignorant and hateful.

Supporting inflammatory content is inflammatory action. Film at eleven.

Now, we have had occasions where people have launched wide-scale attacks on religion et. al. I'm pretty radically atheist myself, to the point atheist is probably not a good description since I think that if divine beings existed we would have a moral obligation to attempt their destruction, but some of the things that have been said in the past as broad-based attacks on the very concept of faith are disgraceful. Those who have made them, however, are no longer active participants for the most part. Their behavior is similarly covered by existing rules.

[Luis Dias]

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85410.msg1708103;topicseen#msg1708103

Prime example. Nakura gets banned for supporting Ben Carson in a non-offensive way

He was trolling there. He did that kind of thing several times, and it was getting annoyed already. He likes to do that kind of thing, posts a very provocative idea, post, link, quotes, whatever, knows he's going to rile up a lot of people with it and then before he presses "post" he adds a line "Discuss" or something to that effect.

This is not appropriate posting and Nakura had been warned of this several times before (nevermind that the very first posts he made were exclusively this sort of thing, probably weeks if not months before he posted about anything other, people were even suspecting he didn't even know what Freespace was in the first place, he just wanted a place to rile up people and laugh at it).

The ban was appropriate and welcomed. It's not a good example.

[InsaneBaron]

Battuta, I respect you when I say this, but you have your own "slant" in a different direction.

Unfortunately, it looks like enough people dislike Nakura that they reject my example, despite the fact that there was nothing hateful in what he quoted. Same with this thread:

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84920.0

He does the very same thing MP-Ryan did: bring up a article he likes. No hate in this essay either. Is it or is it not allowed to bring up political issues and articles/essays supporting them on HLP? Because right now it seems that you can do it IF the HLP majority and the moderators in charge like your viewpoint.

I've heard it said that all Nakura did was GenDisc. Assuming that's true (I can't substantiate), is he somehow required to take part in discussions he doesn't choose? Granted it's unusual, but it's not wrong.

Just look at this from Joshua:

tl;dr: Your essay is full of factual inaccuracies and misinterpretation of sources, it's very bad, and you should feel bad. You should also not own a handgun, as you are clearly delusional. Moving on...

Or how Nakura responds to MP-Ryan:

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. This is not for a grade at all, but rather a quick essay I wrote up in about 45 minutes to send to a friend of mine. I never intended it to be formal to begin with, I should have stated that to begin with, sorry.

Ultimately, I don't want to get overly distracted with whether Nakura was a good person or not. I'm asking for something simple: that the moderators avoid applying a double standard.