Who's got the spiritual balls?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The unhappy people are still unhappy. And now there's a new group of people that are unhappy about the creation of the new forum.

Yes, but do their "unhappy" posts fill up half of either of the forums?

Being upset about the new forum doesn't give you the leeway to post inflammatory material about it in every thread the way the religous perspective, the anti-religous perspective and the "take it somewhere else" perspective allowed you to.

MÅ¥HÅRM

PS. why do you think some of those that were unhappy still are?

I think people are losing sight of the original situation that gave birth to this new forum, allow me to remind you.

Continual thread hijacking was stiring people up, turning every thread into a poster campaign for a few people's beliefs, irrespective of the subject at hand. The tension had been growing for a while and eventually others began to discuss alternatives to the situation. A few people said that the creation of a new forum would be a suitable decision and eventually Russ complied with these people's requests.

However...

The creation of this new forum was not a successful attempt to quieten the few people with no intention of actually debating. The effect it has had is to provide a segregation of debating subjects. Now, instead of being able to debate topics which may have crossovers between all manner of aspects, religion, politics, science etc. we have a seperate forum for them. There was no majority support for this, no vote for it's creation and no requests for people's suggested alternatives. Lets look at what this forum does and doesn't do:

Does
1) Encourage the original people who's poster campaigning was enciting riot to continue doing so. Difference is, now they have a forum which they can see as theirs, like they have a claim on the subject of spirituality. Result; debate becomes irrelevant.
2) Encourage the seperation of topical debate
3) Encourage certain problems within subject where a thread may be started to discuss for example the spiritual practices of ancient tribal societies or the gods of ancient Rome and will undeniably end in modern day christianity. Hijacking continues unabridged.

Does not
1) Solve the original thread hijacking problem in any way
2) Reflect sensible reaction to a problem and an informed and consultative method for solution
3) Serve any real positive purpose at all

In my opinion I can only see further problems arising and I cannot support this new thread. Ask yourself if any of the problems you had with the debates forum, prior to the creation of this new forum, have been solved. I will, unlikely as it may be, side with Cribbs on this subject. I can see no useful purpose in it's existence and would prefer it removed.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think people are losing sight of the original situation that gave birth to this new forum, allow me to remind you.

Continual thread hijacking was stiring people up, turning every thread into a poster campaign for a few people's beliefs, irrespective of the subject at hand. The tension had been growing for a while and eventually others began to discus ...[text shortened]... bs on this subject. I can see no useful purpose in it's existence and would prefer it removed.

"Does
1) Encourage the original people who's poster campaigning was enciting riot to continue doing so. Difference is, now they have a forum which they can see as theirs, like they have a claim on the subject of spirituality. Result; debate becomes irrelevant."

And

"3) Encourage certain problems within subject where a thread may be started to discuss for example the spiritual practices of ancient tribal societies or the gods of ancient Rome and will undeniably end in modern day christianity. Hijacking continues unabridged."

Are mutually exclusive, at least, the way you see them. 1) Their "poster campaigning" was the cause of much debate and will continue to be so (and all that debate will be concentrated here). 3) has me ROFLMTO...because it wont be hijacking any more...

"Does not
1) Solve the original thread hijacking problem in any way"

Nope, indeed nothing can do that. It does however provide the community at large the means to solve it for themselves.

"2) Reflect sensible reaction to a problem and an informed and consultative method for solution "

Depends, I strongly suspect that russ consulted the internet and saw how most successful forums operated...

"3) Serve any real positive purpose at all"

Do I really need to point out this is just a filler to make it 3 for each? The entirety of your post states this opinion.

MÅ¥HÅRM

Originally posted by Mayharm
Are mutually exclusive, at least, the way you see them. 1) Their "poster campaigning" was the cause of much debate and will continue to be so (and all that debate will be concentrated here). 3) has me ROFLMTO...because it wont be hijacking any more...

I'm sorry, could you elaborate on this? I've read it a couple of times over and I'm not sure I understand your opinion or how you arrived at it.

I assure you that the 3rd one in the 'doesn't' wasn't to make it symmetrical, but in retrospect I agree it is somewhat of a summary.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm sorry, could you elaborate on this? I've read it a couple of times over and I'm not sure I understand your opinion or how you arrived at it.

I assure you that the 3rd one in the 'doesn't' wasn't to make it symmetrical, but in retrospect I agree it is somewhat of a summary.

Mmph...yeah I suppose I could have done a better job, sorry.

I think there was a reason I said your perspectives were mutually exclusive, but it's proving a little slippery to remember now. I think it had something to do with one statement saying nothing would come of the forum and the other saying there would be...(in a way)

However, with regards to the details:

1) Is there anything intrinsically wrong with "poster campaigning"? I assumed by this you were refering to "preaching"?

I dont mind people preaching, freedom of speech and all that, but if there's so much of it that it overwhelms one forum that isn't dedicated to it, it becomes a nuisance. Not because they are preaching, but because then all arguments are overwhelmed by religous debate and leaves precious little room for agnostics, who then leave (NOTE:agnostics, not atheists).

So while you seem to imply that "poster campaigning" was wrong and this was intended to stop it, that isn't the case.

As for "debate being irrelevant", every religous thread or post in the debates forum caused quite a lot of argument, I dont see why them being here would stop that from happening. If it's irrelevant here, it was irrelevant there, or if it was relevant then it probably still is...


3) I assumed you meant your example to be a thread in this forum. Please explain how making a connection between two religions in a religious/spiritual forum is hijacking...

Alternatively, if you meant in the debates forum, how someone could start a thread on one of the topics you suggested and claim it isn't religous? I'm not saying this one's not possible (i.e. it could be a historical debate for instance), but if the basis for debate is not religous anyone bringing up christianity is going to look as foolish as someone bringing up how cool ferrari cars look in a debate about comparative performance of transportation in the dark ages...

Of course some people love to make themselves look foolish and we cant prevent that, but as I said in my reply to your "does not 1)", curing hijacking isn't the point.

MÅ¥HÅRM