Proposition 2: Change the way the PRSI sub-forum works.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 66217, Nov 11, 2008.

  1. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #1
    OK, at the end of this thread, The Parallel Bible, I started a little proposition. I named it number 2 because there is already a number 1 (The original PRSI rules).:)

    After being part of that thread, I reached to the conclusion that we were going nowhere.

    In one side, there is religious people that say what they believe in, in the other side is people who say they are wrong. And after that, all the posts are written with a clearly critical and quite un-respectful way from both sides (religious and non-religious, I include myself also).

    And I see the same happening in the rest of the threads that have two sides discussing. You can clearly see how most posts are made with the intention of making the other person look silly and stupid.

    What I propose is:

    1- Back our post with founded cites, facts and personal opinions. Meaning that you can't just come and say: "Hey, you are completely wrong! So wrong that I'm not even going to answer you."

    2- Ban insults completely. I consider an insult when someone says: "Your beliefs are completely childish, and only uneducated people can believe that".

    3- Finally, how about making of this sub-forum a better knowledge center. I mean, instead of just saying "I'm right, you are wrong", let's try and always add something that might be useful, at least for increasing our cultural knowledge.


    I know there is already rules concerning this sub-forum, but it seems we have forgotten them, and this has lead to a series of discussions were nothing is gained, and may I say, much is lost.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    The nature of discussion between believers and non-believers is that it is hardly ever going to result in anyone being persuaded to change their belief (or non-belief). The best one can hope for is a refinement of the arguments on either side. The same applies to most political discussion - and indeed to almost any peer review process. Hypotheses are advanced, objections are voiced, arguments are fine-tuned, possibly some of the more extreme or ill-conceived aspects may be abandoned. Nothing wrong or surprising about that, as far as I can see.
     
  3. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3
    With all due respect and I appreciate the time you've taken to put together your thoughts, but this is a bit pointless.

    This forum is not a debating chamber; it's partially a place to vent. There are people posting here with a wide range of abilities in written expression and posts shouldn't have to meet a certain quality threshold.

    No thread has to reach a conclusion or settlement. No mod is going to police these rules and the community often doesn't even follow the forum rules. So let's just stick to the loose rules we have for this forum which have served pretty well, and try not to straightjacket expression.

    This is the least important forum on MacRumors. Sometimes, and particularly over the past few weeks, it gives us more than enough to consider, when other work around the site needs doing.

    If people would like to adopt a voluntary code of conduct, there is no harm in that. But from my own experience and without 100% compliance, this well-meaning idea will collapse within days, possibly hours.

    The best thing to do, is to ignore those who vex you — put them on your ignore list — and reply to and debate with the forum members that treat you and others with respect and provide quality posts. Reciprocate with quality material and this will then raise the bar.

    Cheers. :)
     
  4. 66217 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #4
    I know. Let's just accept that fact and make the discussion a little bit more intellectual. I mean, take the thread of "The Parallel Bible", it took less than a dozen of posts for it to go in the wrong direction.
     
  5. noaccess macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    #5
    That would probably require the mods to pay a lot more attention to the PRSI. I guess they have enough on their plate as is.

    I think we should achieve 3 without going through 1 and/or 2. Don't really know how.

    An admin/mod could... place a big message right above the thread list advising members to ignore trolls/inflammatory posts/attention-seekers of any kind, maybe? Or just make this message more obvious somehow. - would be one idea
     
  6. 66217 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #6
    This is what I had in mind. By no means giving you mods more work to do.:)

    I know it may be a lost cause, but well, I had to make at least an effort.:eek:
     

Share This Page