General Posting Rules (from May 19, 2006)

This post is to serve as a reminder that we all have agreed to abide by certain rules.

There seems to be a tendency for theological disagreements to become personal in nature. Let us all remember that we are allowed to vigorously debate the theological topic at hand and vehemently appose doctrines with which you disagree, after all this is a debate forum. BUT, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLICLY ATTACK THE CHARACTER, PERSONHOOD OR MOTIVES OF ANOTHER MEMBER.

This includes, but is not limited to, statements such as:

• "You are just too stubborn to see things any other way"
• "Your hatred for me and my view is clouding your judgement"
• "Do you even know how to read?"
• "Clearly you are just obsessed with this topic."
• "Obviously you don't believe in the God of the bible."
• "You are a liar."
• "You are a heretic."
• "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

Most of us have been guilty at one time or another of saying something inflammatory. However, we must learn to understand the difference between that which aggravates due to a difference of theological views and that which "inflames" due to personally insulting remarks or accusations.

Notice what all the statements above have in common: The word "YOU." I have found that it is very difficult to become personal if I avoid using the word "you." While that is not always the case, it does seem to be a good rule of thumb.

Additionally, with regard to the moderation of this forum, the rules actually place that expectation first to all of you, as members, to police your own remarks and to use the edit feature as needed. However, moderators are there as a last resort to edit posts and give infractions as needed to curtail such behavior. If a post is not reported do not be surprised if it is not edited by a moderator, as it is most likely not even seen or considered for moderation unless it is first reported.

If you suspect that the moderation is biased based upon theological views held by the moderators you are welcome to take your case to an Administrator. Keep in mind, however, that you may not be aware of which posters have been warned, edited, or given infractions. And understand that the reported posts are sent to ALL the moderators regardless of their theological views.

Finally, remember the age old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right." The poor behavior of one doesn't justify the poor behavior of another. You are responsible for you, just as I am responsible for me.

Here are the two rules that we need to remember as we try to show one another brotherly love, after all, "they will know us by our love."

3. Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are "earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

4. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The board has an edit button enabled. We encourage you to use it and edit your own words. Moderators and Administrators will be visibly proactive in dealing with potentially offensive situations. Posts of a violent or threatening nature, either implicitly or explicitly, will be deleted, and the poster's membership revoked. We encourage personal problems with other members be resolved privately via email or personal messaging.​

Thank you, now back to the debates and discussions...

 

I heartily agree. Good idea about restricting the use of the pronoun "you" as an aid to avoiding personal attacks. I find it extremely sad that such a reminder to us is necessary.

 

Can I use the username instead of "you" for the insult? Like instead of "You are weird" put" Skandelon is weird"?

:laugh:

 

Yes, as long as you define it like Salty.

 

well, what if a poster infers (or directly says) that one's soteriological position is directly Hitler-ite ? that one who worships God but holds to the absolute sovereignty of God in eternal salvation has a mindset like Hitler bent on eradicating those who are racially weak ? and he says it in so many "nice", educated, phrases ?

 

Excellent point brother.... unfortunately this is the kinda stuff that seems to be alluding the cops on the beat. Where are ya Krupski?

 

Been reading some of those "if you ain't ejumcated, you make Chrischuns look stoopid" type threads, have you??!!??:smilewinkgrin:

 

WHAT?!?! We can't use one of the all time greatest insults that there is??? Curse words!!!

 

I guess I would take you more seriously if you hadn't sat by day after day after day while SaturnNeptune and his various socks and "Dr"JamesAch got away with vile personal attacks.

 

Ahhhhhh Doctor Ach. Actually should be Dr. Ache cause every time I hear that name my teeth hurt.

 

Where is that guy??? Ole DocAch.

 

The latest "Spiderman" movie? :laugh:

 

Tel Aviv boobie!

for the Harvard & Oxford grads; נאַר

Or is he a Dentist from Teaneck....take your choice. We couldn't tell.

 

Then it may be purposefully inflammatory and a poor way to debate if one is concerned with his own ethics and the right goals in a debate, but it is not a “personal” attack, it is still an attack on the opponent’s position.

Your position can be seriously wrong and that might be (overly) aggressively spelled out how with the intent to inflame but such is not an attack on “your” character which then makes it personal.

The larger picture is that such may be hyperbole, rhetorical, dysphemistic, or it might even be presenting a tough moral dilemma for the purpose of giving reason to reject your claim, etc., but to take on the defense that it is personal and to start squawking about that it is personally insulting is just as much a fallacious of an argument as the one being given to purposely inflame his opponent. Unfortunately, responding to it just flames the fire which disrupts good debates. And neither approach has the right goals in mind and turns principled logical debates into meaningless *rhetorical fights.

*“Rhetoric – language used to persuade or influence beliefs or attitudes RATHER than to prove it logically.”

So you may be right to call out these methods as purposefully inflammatory and a poor way to debate, (Lord knows I don’t blame you a bit for wanting to seek resolve.) but you’d be part of the problem if trying to make an issue of it being personal and/or to purposefully take it that way (merely feeds the fire here to fight) RATHER than just continue addressing the issues and claims with the goals to *“logically” prove that your conclusion are true.

* “Logic – the branch of philosophy concerned with whether the “reasons” (NOT whether or not it was inflammatory) presented for a claim, if those claims were true, would justify accepting the claim.”

But I hear you Pinoy, few here seem interested in anything more than senseless fighting RATHER than logically debating and Lord knows it’s hard not to get caught up in the trolling actions that begin with either purposeful or ignorant unruly behavior that many here think is some legitimate form of debate RATHER than focusing on the goals of contributing to an otherwise focused conversation.

Note how quickly it happened that the trolling crash dummy tactics rolled in and were used to disrupt this thread in complete disregard of topic. Some simply started engaging in personal attacks on a former member in this very thread about refraining from personal attacks! It’s an unruly mess here for sure! These growing habitual and unregulated practices are exactly the issues that caused some of us to take part in creating a new hangout.

 

He's probably on OnlineBaptist. The morons there think he's a hero.

 

ummmmm.....
rules interfere with my first ammendment right.