Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Sticky: Community Guidelines
7 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2007 - 10:29AM #1
AndyF
Posts: 375
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]A short rewrite of the previous community guidelines:

Any registered Beliefnet member is welcome to post here provided the content does not violate the ROC. This is a debate forum, used to debate the validity and relative merit of various beliefs, practices, and hot topics. Participants should expect various, and often times conflicting view points to be discussed, analyzed, supported, and refuted.

Posts that malign the character of other members will be removed. This includes accusing or implying drug use, mental deficiency, or mental disorder. Abbreviating names for convenience is fine, but malicious distortion is not.

Accusations of lying, hypocrisy, or bigotry must be explicitly substantiated.  These types of claims are very serious...think carefully about making them.

Attempts to turn a topic into an unrelated debate will also be removed.

Posts dedicated to criticizing spelling and grammar will be removed for being off-topic and disruptive, however, sincere requests for clarification are encouraged in case of confusion.

AndyF
Community Host
[/FONT]
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2007 - 11:36AM #2
BobGreen
Posts: 630
And the rules of ROC applies to all of us, right? Not jut some of us.
How come becca97 gets away with calling anyone she likes an ARE. Animal right extremists are those engaged in illegal and criminal activities, how come this is not an attempt to malign character of others?
She then goes on and accuse others of attacking her personally?
Is she above the law in this board?
How come she can call anyone she likes an ARE ???? She just called Solfeggio ARE (two times) today???
She calls mindis1 ARE in almost every post she disagree with him.
She has called me ARE.
How come she can do whatever she wants and gets away with it?
How could I make this complain to Belief Net  staff directly?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2007 - 12:08PM #3
AndyF
Posts: 375
Complaints can be sent to community@staff.beliefnet.com
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2007 - 2:06PM #4
mindis1
Posts: 7,766
Andy:

Hypocrite.

Stop being such a bigot.



Do the ROC allow these personal attacks?

You can find them in [COLOR="Red"]post #38[/COLOR] and [URL="http://community.beliefnet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1460&page=7"][COLOR="Red"]post #125[/COLOR][/URL.][COLOR="Black"]. [/COLOR]
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 01, 2007 - 7:47PM #5
becca97
Posts: 2,562
I'm not sure how much experience any of you have at moderating or administrating an internet forum, but i have quite a few years worth now on a daoist forum i admin for a friend as well as a few other places a few things one learns very quickly on busy forums are:-

* It is hard for a busy mod/host/admin to always be up to date with every post.

* Members of forums do use or try to use staff to fight their battles, so do make accusatiosn against members they dislike in the hopes of causing trouble for or even driving away the members they dislike. Persoanly i try hard not to do this i'm sur i do not always succeed being human and all, but it does put immense preasure on the host/mod/admin.

* something one person finds offensive, someone else does not, there has to be a certain amount of compromise to get any discussion done at all.

To some the terms animal hater are acceptable to use to refer to anyone who is not a hardline AR, for others ARE is acceptable for refering to those who are very hardline AR.

Who gets to judge what is or is not acceptable? The very, very busy host who does the best they can to cater to common sense as well as individual members interpretations.

beccaxx
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 01, 2007 - 7:54PM #6
d_p_m
Posts: 9,898
Interesting how Bob and Min have problems with being accurately labeled as being on an extreme fringe of the animal rights spectrum, but have no problem with themselves or their cronies calling those they disagree with child killers, rapists, animal haters, stupid, uneducated, and a host of other terms.
"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 01, 2007 - 8:33PM #7
DesertKat
Posts: 436
I wonder, has it ever even occured to you that perhaps the best way to interact with, say, the host of a forum is NOT to call them names?
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Winston Churchill
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2007 - 11:03AM #8
AndyF
Posts: 375
An updated version of the Rules of Conduct has been posted by Beliefnet Staff.  Please review it.

[FONT="]http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp[/FONT]
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 10, 2008 - 11:07PM #9
AndyF
Posts: 375
Addendum...

Accurate descriptions of hunting and dressing are allowed, but as a courtesy, please add a short disclaimer if your description contains graphic or gory details. 

Thank you for your patience.
AndyF
Host
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 14, 2008 - 3:25PM #10
AndyF
Posts: 375
Recently, several members were up in arms over being referred to as extremists because they were offended by assuming an automatic association with religious fundamentalists and terrorists.

At the same time, some of these same members have no qualms about intentionally associating their debating partners with the mentally deficient, demons, psychopaths, ku klux klan members, nazis, rapists, serial killers, "murderous beasts", blah, blah, blah.

Despite this hypocrisy and use of the logical fallacy, "bad analogy", my opinion is that this outrageously ridiculous tactic is being used for a combination of the following:

1.  An attempt to guilt debating partners into changing behavior (a form of proselytizing which violates the rules of conduct)

2.  An attempt to vilify the debating partners (which also violates the rules of conduct).

3.  A quick ego trip by publicly elevating yourself above others.

If the rules of conduct, the community guidelines, public warnings, private infractions, or the "civility is required" reminder are too complex to comprehend, please contact me and I can further explain it.

AndyF
Host
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook