Clarification on 'Religious discussion' rule.

[steveh_131]

All, I stand corrected. My assertion was correct that my involvement in some of the threads involving religious discussion was the cause of some of the confusion we are experiencing. Although I was not involved in the thread that is the inputs for this discussion, I have been involved in others.

I thoroughly enjoy civil discussions about the two areas that are not allowed on INGO and I must admit my guild in overstepping the rules and for that I apologize. I can only ask others to follow the same rules that I volunteer to uphold. I will do better.

TF, to answer your question about "religious discussion," that would include anything that involves a deity, places of worship, and the historical writings used in the practice of worship. I hope that helps.

By the way, don't worry about the rules update. I think we have come to an understanding and achieved better clarification.

I, for one, preferred your focus towards general civility in place of the 'zero tolerance' policies.

I would prefer that it stayed that way. Discussions have remained civil and interesting.

 

[Rookie]

I, for one, preferred your focus towards general civility in place of the 'zero tolerance' policies.

I would prefer that it stayed that way. Discussions have remained civil and interesting.

This

 

[Grizhicks]

YES, we need a better definition; I saw the warning in the church security training thread, and could not figure why it was there. I saw nothing in that thread that I would consider a religious discussion. -- Greg

 

[Mosinowner]

Only if reported IMHO

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Would hate for anyones Vagina's to get hurt.

 

[Classic Liberal]

This nanny state of a forum should allow an area of free thought. Those that may become offended are forewarned that the content may be offensive, browse at their own risk.
That's how other forums handle it and they seem to function well.
Catering to crybabies is not ideal.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Why not have a religious forum just like the political forum but is strictly for discussing religion or anything to do with religious topics. If any member doesn't want to read religious material then all they have to do is stay out of that forum. Seems simple to enough to me.

 

[GBuck]

This nanny state of a forum should allow an area of free thought. Those that may become offended are forewarned that the content may be offensive, browse at their own risk.
That's how other forums handle it and they seem to function well.
Catering to crybabies is not ideal.

You're right, it's much better to cater to the new guy that wants to troll the political forums. As far as "this nanny state of a forum", well, it works well for thousands of other people. The rules are set the way they are because it is a privately owned entity that we are allowed, by the owner, to use.

Why not have a religious forum just like the political forum but is strictly for discussing religion or anything to do with religious topics. If any member doesn't want to read religious material then all they have to do is stay out of that forum. Seems simple to enough to me.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

You're right, it's much better to cater to the new guy that wants to troll the political forums. As far as "this nanny state of a forum", well, it works well for thousands of other people. The rules are set the way they are because it is a privately owned entity that we are allowed, by the owner, to use.

It's called being politicaly correct for the sake of people not getting butt hurt. Last I checked, most of us are adults. People are going to have differing views. As long as people do not push said views onto others, what's the problem? That's right, someone might get offended. I would hate for that to happen.

 

[esrice]

Ok a few notes here. . . .

We didn't ban God, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Christianity or any other religion. We didn't even ban "religion". We simply banned the discussion of those topics. Why? Because when we tried the "just debate civilly" route, members couldn't do it. We spent 90% of our modding time dealing with grown adults acting like children about religion. It gets tiring. The folks that want a clearer rule want it so they can get as close to the line as possible without stepping over. We've played that game before and it never works out well for them.

The enforcement of this rule does come with some amount of moderator discretion. Its very necessary. You want to discuss carrying at church? Fine! We didn't ban the word "church". As long as the focus of the topic is carrying, no issues. But as soon as the discussion focus turns to "What does the Bible say about carrying?", then that's when people can't control themselves, and when the ban on religious discussion comes into play.

How do we expect you to know where the line is? First, we tell you in the rules to not discuss religion. Then, if you cross that line because of a lack of understanding, we'll politely remind you with an in-thread warning, or by removing the thread (in such a case where the OP is inherently religion-based). That's how you'll know. If you ever wonder "I wonder if this post is crossing the line?", then my advice is to not post it, because it probably is.

The internet has lots of forums, and I'm certain there are forums out there where religious topics can be debated ad naseaum. This, being a firearms forum for Hoosiers, just isn't one of those places.

 

[esrice]

This nanny state of a forum should allow an area of free thought.

Umm... we're not a state. We're a web forum that is privately owned and offered under terms that you accept before membership is granted. I do sometimes feel like a nanny though.

It's called being politicaly correct for the sake of people not getting butt hurt. Last I checked, most of us are adults. People are going to have differing views. As long as people do not push said views onto others, what's the problem? That's right, someone might get offended. I would hate for that to happen.

You're flat wrong-- about everything.

We don't have the rule for political correctness. And people can't just "act like adults".

We have the rule because history has proven the opposite-- people, even adults on INGO, can't discuss religion without it breaking down into insults. It takes up too much of our time dealing with these "children" than its worth. If debating religion is important to you, I'd recommend checking out the forums that are specifically dedicated to religious debate. Not a gun forum.

 

[Classic Liberal]

You're right, it's much better to cater to the new guy that wants to troll the political forums. As far as "this nanny state of a forum", well, it works well for thousands of other people. The rules are set the way they are because it is a privately owned entity that we are allowed, by the owner, to use.

First off, you will have to do a bit better than that. Define troll, then show instances of me being such. You are labeling me to discount my posts. I do not fit the definition of troll, so please don't call me such.

If you are the owner, then good for you...I agree, it is your choice. But seeing as how new members have in the past, joined in and also complained due to the subject matter and got the ownership to change rules, simply for speaking up...why would you now think my idea is trolling and not true thoughtful input?

 

[GBuck]

It's called being politicaly correct for the sake of people not getting butt hurt. Last I checked, most of us are adults. People are going to have differing views. As long as people do not push said views onto others, what's the problem? That's right, someone might get offended. I would hate for that to happen.

You couldn't be more wrong.

People have proven time and time again, that they cannot discuss their "views" on this site without turning to insults, pushing their agenda or bigotry. It happens every time these conversations are started.

The difference is that people want to be able to discuss their religion freely, but feel that it is okay to bash the religion of other people. That is why religion is verboten.

 

[GBuck]

First off, you will have to do a bit better than that. Define troll, then show instances of me being such. You are labeling me to discount my posts. I do not fit the definition of troll, so please don't call me such.

If you are the owner, then good for you...I agree, it is your choice. But seeing as how new members have in the past, joined in and also complained due to the subject matter and got the ownership to change rules, simply for speaking up...why would you now think my idea is trolling and not true thoughtful input?

It's trolling because you're "fighting" for something that has been discussed and struck down MANY times. Sure, some rules may change, however, this is not one of them, I'm sure.

As stated earlier, if you want to discuss these things, feel free to join a forum where that is the topic. This is a gun forum, for gun owners. How much participation, other than trying to hock a gun, have you had involving firearms on this forum?

 

[Classic Liberal]

It's trolling because you're "fighting" for something that has been discussed and struck down MANY times. Sure, some rules may change, however, this is not one of them, I'm sure.

As stated earlier, if you want to discuss these things, feel free to join a forum where that is the topic. This is a gun forum, for gun owners. How much participation, other than trying to hock a gun, have you had involving firearms on this forum?

Look at my history, I'm fairly active in discussion. You tell me

 

[Roadie]

Sure, I can go somewhere else and "debate religion", but where can I go to discuss gun ownership and how it relates to religious beliefs, carrying in church, the Founder's beliefs, etc?

Maybe I am completely off base here, but my observation is that usually it's a NON religious person that comes into, say, a discussion about carry in church, and makes a snide, off topic comment about how stupid religion is..

IMO that is a classic example of Trolling, and would be against the rules regardless of the content of the discussion.

If there were a "Religion and Guns" section, and someone went into that Forum with the clear intent of trolling, then wouldnt it be EASIER to "Moderate" rather than harder?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Unfortunately, my "other suggestion" is not terribly polite nor constructive, so I doubt it will be implemented. It involves everyone not being offended little sissies as the general gist, and - well - that's it. That's all there is to it.

 

[GBuck]

Sure, I can go somewhere else and "debate religion", but where can I go to discuss gun ownership and how it relates to religious beliefs, carrying in church, the Founder's beliefs, etc?

Maybe I am completely off base here, but my observation is that usually it's a NON religious person that comes into, say, a discussion about carry in church, and makes a snide, off topic comment about how stupid religion is..

IMO that is a classic example of Trolling, and would be against the rules regardless of the content of the discussion.

If there were a "Religion and Guns" section, and someone went into that Forum with the clear intent of trolling, then wouldnt it be EASIER to "Moderate" rather than harder?

Actually, from what I've seen, it is not the irreligious people that cause most of the problems. It is people of different religions causing problems. In other words it's the, "I want to peacefully talk about my religion, but bash other religions," crowd that causes the problems.

 

[lovemachine]

Just an FYI, even on all the religious forums I have visited, adults act like lil kids too, always bickering.

 

[GBuck]

Just an FYI, even on all the religious forums I have visited, adults act like lil kids too, always bickering.

Wait, you mean that people act like children over something that WARS have been fought over for centuries? Say it ain't so!