So, is the Moratorium still in effect? It seems we can discuss Christianity and Satanism with no penalty.

If not, I have doubts that people can control themselves and take responsibility for their behavior so I would say that this does not bode well if indeed the moratorium is being relaxed.

Ironworks is a nicer place religion-free if you ask me. It is evident that people do not like to have their religious beleifs questioned or challenged and take offense at differing veiwpoints causing them to lash out. Relaxing the moratorium is only going to invite this and cause hurt feelings if you ask me.

If I had a vote it would be to keep it strictly in place.

Chewie, I think the posts Memnoch and I made here state the position clearly enough. Larry and the rest of the Mods also support this position.

Basically, if a thread starts down the road of a nit-picking, "he said she said", "I'm right, you're wrong" personalised spat with religion at the centre, it will be zapped.

That's not to say any mention of the subject is taboo - it's too important to simply ignore. So if it gets discussed in a civilised manner as an adjunct to another topic, as far as I'm concerned, that's fine.

However, you all should have sufficient experience of just how quickly things can spiral out of control when religion is mentioned, so we look to you all to conduct yourselves properly when it is discussed, even in the limited manner described above.

If you cannot handle this limited freedom, then an absolute prohibition on any mention of religion will be strictly enforced and unfortunately, proper debate of some subjects will suffer.

The ball is in your court.

[ 08-27-2004, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

Ah...I see and understand. I haven't had much time or ambition to read alot here this week so I missed that discussion.

Thanks.

Chewy, let me start by saying that I agree with you - things have definitely improved since we put in the moratorium.

We're not prepared to allow you to debate religion as a subject as I still have bad memories of the last time we allowed you guys to do that - but you can mention religion as an adjunct to another topic, if religion plays a role in such a topic, but not as the CENTRAL topic.

What will NOT be acceptable is the "my religion is better than yours" debates, anything which criticises anyone's religion, religion as THE topic of debate, or any type of preaching, pontificating, soapboxing, or ramming of religious beliefs or lack thereof by people on others. The moratorium still stands as far as this is concerned.

I was concerned that some of the things I read on page 3 of the "16yo girl" thread was dangerously veering towards this ground, and commented to that effect. I haven't yet read that thread to see where it ended up, so will check that now. I'm not aware of this Satanism thread yet - I'll check it and if it contravenes the moratorium it will be locked. (EDIT: I couldn't find the thread - maybe it's already gone to the graveyard (SECOND EDIT: Found it. :D )

As Mouse said, you guys will have to use CONSIDERABLE judgment on this - the ball is squarely in YOUR courts. This will be a challenge for you guys - to see if you can all maintain self-control and manage to stay on the right side of the line, and know when to step back. But if you can do that without requiring intervention from us, then we'll have gone a long way towards maybe being able to lift this moratorium in the future.

And remember the MAIN thing we as moderators are interested in - relative coexistence and harmony in the forum. So be especially careful and tactful in ANY thread where you mention religion as any sign of discord and flaming in one of those threads will be viewed extremely negatively. So self-moderate yourselves, work together - even if on opposite sides of the ideological fence - to make sure you don't get yourselves into trouble.

In all these moderator decisions are final of course, if we lock a thread of this nature for any reason we'd rather not have rules lawyers nitpicking decisions. Remember that posting here's a privilege, not a right.

Thanks guys. Let's make sure this works. Don't let us down. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-27-2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

Sorry. I never intended for the topic to be swayed towards Satanism - it just sort of happened. I'll try to be more careful next time of what I mention, so as not to spark up any forbidden discussion [img]smile.gif[/img] .

It wasn't your fault, Jaradu, don't sweat it mate. Responsibility rests not just with who started the topic, but whoever participates/d in it. No big deal. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Did I miss something here? Was there a sudden change in Forum settings that meant Moderator posts and advice became invisible?

I've just noticed that Memnoch closed Jaradu's thread. Unfortunately, that incident only goes to show that we are far from being ready to lift the general moratorium on religious discussions. It seems that a limited number of hardcore polemicists think the rules and regulations don't apply to them. Well, here's the bottom line THEY DO!!!- and they will be enforced.

I've said before that the ball's in your court. To expand on that analogy, you are now on your second serve at match point down. Make a mess of this and it's game over.

<font color=plum>Just a personal observation here...

But I viewed the last page of <font color=red>Jaradu's</font> thread as a sort of "testing the water" experiment. A valid question was asked about Satanism in general since it had come up in relation to the thread topic and explanations were given. Of course, comparisons were made to other religions, but everything was still on a very civil basis and still (more or less) in the context of explanations.

Of course, as <font color=red>Memnoch</font> correctly pointed out, that's how most religious discussion start, but the civility rarely lasts.

This was another reason I deliberately posted a link to a 2-year old thread - to show how a discussion on religion could be conducted in a civil manner. IIRC, there were some heated moments in that thread too, but all it took was a "reminder" from the Mods about how to behave and things got back on an even keel.

Getting back to the current topic, however, I believe that it is necessary for members to "test the water" as they did in <font color=red>Jaradu's</font> thread.

The moratorium is in effect until such time as members demonstrate they can discuss the issue with civility and respect. But if they never get a chance to discuss the issue, then how can they demonstrate their ability to show respect and restraint? That's kind of like saying "You can't go into the water until you learn how to swim". And - as with any such experiment - members will invariably "cross the moratorium line" in the discussion.

Still - so long as no tempers flair and everybody "plays nice" - I believe that "crossing the line" is the only way to actually "stretch the line" towards an eventual revocation of the moratorium.

I know that religion can be discussed in a civil and respectful manner. I've seen it done on other forums and I've seen it done at IW. I still agree that we aren't back to that point yet, but I do hope we will get to that point again. Not just so we can discuss religion, but because reaching that point will mean that we are ALL showing more respect to other members in every discussion - regardless of the topic.</font>

Mouse, I'm not sure I understand your position. This statement and the post it's quoted from seems to contradict your earlier post in this thread.

I have no opinion one way or the other on discussing religion.

There is one easy solution: [img]graemlins/PM_smiley.gif[/img]

I couldn't agree more with every single word that Cerek said. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I hear what Cerek's saying, and I understand the concept behind "testing the waters", but I'd suggest an alternative option: that you can also "test the waters" using existing allowed topics in here, like homosexuality, politics, and so on.

ALL WE CARE ABOUT AS MODS IS THAT WE CAN ALL COEXIST HERE IN RELATIVE HARMONY. It's really quite simple, this thing that we want. If we're able to get along and coexist, disagreements and all, without people digging in to the point where they have to be forcibly uprooted or need a mod to intervene just so that they can save face without looking like they've backed down then conceivably there will be very little topics on this earth that you can discuss here.

Can I just say that it's really really simple what we want, this coexistence and self-respect, but really hard to give to us, it seems. Sometimes I get frustrated at how we can't achieve this simple thing, which I reckon we'd be able to do if we were in a pub discussing things face to face. [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img] I don't like having to come here and lock threads and tell people to ease off and lay the law down and all that - I'd be happiest if I never had to put my mod hat on here.

Anyway, back to the topic. If we can achieve oppositive harmony and coexistence with all the other topics, then we can draw an inference that we can do that with religion as well. Unfortunately, religion has a habit of making people get up on soapboxes and pontificate (saw it starting even now). We just need people to swallow their pride a bit and recognise other people's points of view as being valid, even if they disagree with them. So we'll have to see how we go. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-27-2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

TL, as far as I can see, I was being entirely consistent. Due to the interventions in Jaradu's post, it's original focus on prejuduce and intolerance was hijacked into a Christian -v- secular wrangle on definitions of the term "Satanist".

So as opposed to religion being an adjunct or periferal to the thread, it had become the central topic.

Thread closed. Lesson (hopefully) learned ;)

[ 08-27-2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

Jaradu, the direction the thread took was none of your doing. We are experts in thread-morphing. :D

And thanks, Mods, for allowing us the limited freedom to discuss topics connected to religion. I think it is valuable because of the effect religion has on the underlying and overt beliefs and values of most societies and even political systems.

However, I agree with Memnoch, and to a degree with Chewie. Discussions are dangerous if they are focused on religion, or if posts only deal with the religious aspects of a particular issue. It only takes a couple flamebaits to ruin a thread (and everyone's mood). The recent threads raise hope that we can discuss religion peacefully, but I have my doubts that the current spirit will last indefinitely. So I support a continued moratorium on discussions that primarily focus on religion.

Firstly- Sorry I helped derail your thread into lockdown, Jaradu. I humbly offer to delete my posts if it would get the thread re-opeened so the on-topic discussion can continue.

Secondly- I am a bit confused so I'm going lay this out:

I saw this post by a Mod:
So, I took this as a greenlight to share the webpage on the topic of Satanism. I then responded when the integrity of the information of that webpage came under question in the spirit of being "informative and good-mannered" although by replying I may have been adding to "debate against any points made" already in progress. Honestly, I had forgotten Larry's warning about debating at this point but my intention was to remain civil and keep mostly to the point of discussing the website in question.

So after my last post in the now locked thread I thought to create this one for clarification on the issue. I reviewed the thread with Satanism as a side topic and it seemed that we were blantantly breaking the moratorium, yet had permission to do so as long as we didn't debate points being made and we remained good-natured and informative. I became confused as to what I could do and couldnt do.


Was I wrong to reply as it seems Mouse's last post suggests? I didn't mean to ignore Larry by reponding to the critism of the websource I provided.

As it seems I might actually have overlooked Larry's warning- I offer an apology to Larry for overlooking and not heeding his words as a Mod in that thread.

LOL, Aerich! [img]smile.gif[/img]

It's not a problem, Chewie. After a while, the whole discussion was about Satanism, so to delete your posts would equal a dead thread. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm not sure if there was anything else to say about what the thread intended to talk about. I appreciate the offer, though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

G'day Chewy. I can understand where you're coming from - after all you started this thread. Larry posted his post when religion was NOT the central topic of discussion. The detailed posts on religious issues by yourself and Yorick took it over the edge (unintentional I'm sure, which is why both of you are still here [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

I realise that allowing people to mention religious issues as a related issue to another, bigger central topic, as Mouse initially suggested, can cause confusion with people. As he also said, it makes it very difficult for you guys to discuss Mideast issues if we don't allow you to at least state the causal factors behind certain events. I hope that my subsequent posts, statements and actions (as well as Mouse's) have clarified the position on religion, if not I'll lay them out crystal clear:

- you CAN mention religion as an adjunct to an existing topic (eg the 16yo girl thread was opened with this in mind)

- you CANNOT discuss or debate the pros and cons of any one religion, be that Christianity, Satanism, Islam, Buddhism etc. This includes discussing various aspects of these religions in and of themselves, including issues on beliefs, theology, doctrine, etc.

Hopefully this will provide some clarity. [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT: Can I just say that if you guys have behaved yourselves way back before we had this moratorium this wouldn't even be an issue. :D

[ 08-27-2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

The misbehavior never comes until a few weeks have passed and the entrenched lines have been redrawn.

<font color=skyblue>This is exactly what I was trying to express, but Aussie men are smarter than American men. Or maybe it is because my two kids have driven me over the edge of sanity. Whichever is the case...Memnoch has said what I attempted to explain earlier. That idea-stealing, booze-drinking womanizer!</font>

Care to explain the religious implications of that statement? :D [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

I think matters of faith are the most interesting topics you can discus. I think contention and conflict are also vital and important aspects of finding truth. To use an analogy, music contains harmony and dissonance. Tension and release. To have discussions that are always purely harmonious is like having bland music that is always sweet. never melancholy, never aggressive, never tense. Emotions are good. Change is often precipitated by conflict, pain, or contention.

As long as insults are avoided I think much value is in a conversation where people have investments in the topic that lead to deeper soul searching.

I honestly believe the board is worse off for not having matters of faith discussed. Color, diversity, and the tension that results from alternate worldviews meeting are beautiful, and can result in truer understanding.

I would be putting a line through personal character assasinations, but otherwise giving free reign to discussions.

If you treat people like children, they act like children. Trust is given, not earned. If you treat people like adults, they act like adults. Trust is given, not earned.

I'd vote to keep ironworks interesting by ending the morotorium. I'd also vote to remove the division between gencon and current event. Before that division there was more harmony, as heated exchanges were interspersed with light banter. Now people generally camp in one or the other. I have found it's affected my own posting style and approach to Ironworks for example, and noticed the effect on the board.

Were it my forum, I would have one nongaming general discussion forum, where people who like games can talk about whatever they like. religion, politics, their pet fish, cellphone ringtones, sushi and the death penalty. Celebrate diversity. Makes for a more interesting and vibrant board, with dissonance that moves into harmonious resolutions.

Yorick - all noted and considered. Perhaps you might like to drop in to the forum Cerek linked to in one of his posts where you may find "dissonance that moves into harmonious resolutions" ;)

Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, our experience here is that our particular mix of members is far too volatile to remove the moratorium at present. We have tried to treat adults as adults. On this issue, too often they act like children.

[ 08-27-2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

Can I ask everyone involved in what is becoming a Petition to the Mods to consider one thing please?

Is this group of people really the mix you want to discuss religion with? Do you really want to hear the opinions of ALL of us? Wouldn't you be better off on a well-moderated religious discussion board?

Look, the last time this moratorium was lifted, it was because I unwittingly posted a purely religious discussion. I was fairly new, and don't think I even knew about the moratorium. But, the mods let it pass, and things went well for a while.

For a while.

Then, we realized that the posts were definately degenerating. We all saw it firsthand. We have a mix of people here at IWF that includes EVERYTHING under the sun. And, we're pretty darn intelligent, and all of us opinionated. And, when it comes to religion, we tend to see our opposing posters and thinK: "This person is otherwise smart, so how can they be so DUMB about something so OBVIOUS?" And then we look down on them, and berate them. While they do the same to us.

No one else is really saying it, so I will: I have reservations.

I resent that! [img]tongue.gif[/img] ;)

Although I wish for the moratorium to be lifted, I can't help but agree with Timber. We're all promising to be good people and talk nicely, but eventually things WILL get out of hand. It can't be denied - bad things will be said.

Although I have not been around long enough to witness serious religious flaming in the CE forums, I've read some pretty bad stuff in the archives. Are we all 100% certain that we're not going to revert to that? Sometimes we can surprise ourselves. If we ever want the moratorium lifted, we have to prove to the moderators, and to ourselves, that we are worthy. I don't know how long this would take but I wouldn't expect anything anytime soon because its a very serious decision.

Religion, IMO, is the most interesting thing to discuss. Let's not ruin it for ourselves, eh? As the mods said, "the ball was in your [our] court"...

The paragraph above is excellent, Timber. A very good summation.

And I also have reservations about a full-on religious discussion. No wait, I don't. I'm against it, in the context of the IW CE forum.

I have nothing against religious discussions in general and I have participated in many (face-to-face, not online). The value in it is exactly what Yorick has posted - self-examination and broadening of perspective. It is also a fascinating and interesting subject (as Jaradu stated) that gets to the roots of what people believe and why they do what they do. But it's too much of a hot topic here. When I first entered the forum a few months ago, I almost left again after reading some of the old posts. Reading some of those old threads was like listening to a recording of people screaming insults at each other. Emotions run too high and posters get too personal. Period.

That's why I would restrict it to threads where it is pertinent to some other issue. Even then it can turn bad, but that's why we have to self-moderate.

Where religion is concerned, it's nice to be sitting with the person you are discussing it with. It allows cooler heads to prevail. Online, discussions get out of hand because it's easier to yell and cuss at words on a screen rather than the person in front of your face. Politics gets heated enough online, religion burns like a wildfire.

[ 08-27-2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I'm with T.L. on this one. Just look at the subsistence society discussion and the one on Missori bans gay mariage. Both of those got pretty heated and personal. Although they were entertaining there wasn't much factual discution after a while just insults. We may need more time.

At least there's no physical violence.

I was just at the NYC bike protest, and experienced how quickly a disagreement can flare into physical response, given frustration. It didn't escalate into, but a truck did start pushing some bikers. At least people can think about their responses, and walk away for 5 online.

Oh I totally deserve that last bit, it's so true! :D For those who are new- I was part of the problem that created the religious moratorium. I know firsthand where it can lead and how poorly people (including myself) can behave. Not something I am proud of, but certainly did learn from.

Thanks for the clarity Memnoch. My confusion is settled and now I know for sure what is what and where the lines are drawn. Thanks.

<font color=skyblue>Wanna know why A moderator would ever ban a topic from being discussed?

I have not seen it mentioned in this thread so I will spell it out. Because Ziroc and Memnoch do NOT want to have to use that delete button on the page that says "Remove this member from the website permanately?" (Paraphrased)

Think about it. Why the heck else would a ban on something be placed on anything? If the moderators allowed it, somebody would walk themselves into trouble...then Memnoch would remove that person from membership...then in only a month or so, that person would be either begging to get let back in, or try to sneak in under a new name. Why would he and Ziroc want to put up with all that? It is just easier to ban a topic than a person. Can anyone disagree with that? I would hope not, as the membership is much more important to this community than is a topic of debate. Better to sacrifice potential cyber-learning than lose a friend.

Besides...how much does anyone learn when being told how stupid they are for believing in what they do?</font>

<font color=plum>I lobbied long and hard for the original moratorium to be lifted - and as <font color=tan>Timber</font> pointed out - a series of events and posts finally led the Mods to give it a try. As noted, things didn't go well. [img]graemlins/verysad.gif[/img]

<font color=yellow>Yorick</font> - I know precisely how you feel. I, too, felt the moratorium represented a sad loss for IW. Religion is my absolute favorite topic to discuss on any forum. But this time - when I felt the urge to petition again for the moratorium to be lifted - I thought about the attitudes and invectives that had filled the pages of previous discussions.

That's when I decided to simply Search the Web for a site dedicated to religious discussions. Not only are the threads well moderated, but since religion is the central focus of the site, there are a much broader range of theological issues and questions available for discussion.

Dissonance within a song may be a positive thing that can be appreciated by different people, but try asking the same two people who the greatest band of all time is and watch the sparks fly. [img]graemlins/fight.gif[/img]

This is even more true with religion; where the slightest disagreement against passionately held beliefs is often viewed as a personal insult or attack. [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img] </font>

I would happily put my head on the chopping board and leave Ironworks if it meant religion could be discussed here. If you think I am the problem, I can go. Better to have people allowed to talk about faith than banning arguably the most important topic on earth. People die for faith. Faith gives people life. The search, journey and challenges to personal truth are all part of an amazing part of life that should be explored more.

I believe the banning of potential contentious topics is like the prozac epidemic. Remove the highs and lows, just keep all moderate. Yet the highs and lows are where it's at for me. Feel. Experience. Be mistaken. Risk. Be wrong.

"To live a truly creative life, we must first lose the fear of being wrong" - Joseph Chilton Pierce.

I repeat, Larry, if you think I for one, can't have a discussion without personal attacks and mayhem, I would gladly offer to leave if it means Ironworks can't have the vibrancy I am speaking about.

Aye.

It's also harder to get proper context - no body language, tone of voice, etc. Likewise more difficult to get clarifications about what a person actually means by a particular statement. Language, especially English, is darned imprecise and imperfect.

Yorick - nobody is suggesting you have to leave IW and we will keep the issue of religion under review. As for your assertion that IW is a poorer place for this moratorium, that's your opinion and I respect it.

However, a decision has been reached and I would ask that you respect it. As Cerek pointed out, there are other sites which specialise in discussions about religion that you may wish to participate in. Remember, at it's heart, this place is a CRPG board with other bits bolted on ;)

As an analogy, try thinking of IW as say a vegetarian restaurant. There may well be several things on the menu you like, but if you hanker after a chargrilled steak, you will go somewhere else. You might suggest to the owners that they add your preference to the menu, but I'm sure you wouldn't be insulted if they politely declined. I'm also sure you wouldn't expect then to allow you to take in your own steak and let you cook it in their kitchen :D

[ 08-28-2004, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

<font color=plum>That's a good analogy, <font color=red>Mouse</font>, but I view IW more like a restaurant/bar that no longer allows patrons to smoke inside.

Some of the patrons disagree with the policy, because they feel smoking enhances their experience - but the owners prohibit smoking because they and other patrons don't like the atmosphere it creates.</font>

[ 08-28-2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

@ Cerek - I can live with that..... ;)

<font color=plum>Thanks, <font color=red>Mouse</font>.

But a thought struck me early this morning in regards to the locked JW thread...while the religious beliefs of the girl were a central issue of the topic, there were side issues that could have been discussed. Issues such as:

Can a parent overrule the wishes of a 16 yr old child in Canada? In America, the teenager is considered an adult at 18, and thus the father would have had no say in her treatment if she didn't want him to. But at the age of 16, it would be a much more complex issue.

What actions should the courts take when parents have conflicting wishes regarding a teenager's treatment - and does the teenager get to cast the "deciding vote" in such a case, even though they may not be of "legal age"?

These are just a couple of issues that could have been explored if the topic had been allowed with a strict warning from the Mods to avoid attacking the validity of the teenagers beliefs themself.

The reason these thoughts ocurred to me is because the JW incident draws some very interesting parallels to a similar topic here in America that HAS been allowed on the board before - the case of Newdow vs California regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. I know the primary argument is that the Pledge violates separation of church and state - but if THAT discussion is allowed, then we ARE allowing the father's "religious beliefs" to be the central issue of the topic.

Just like the case in Canada, the father is sueing "on behalf" of his daughter. But the reality is that he is just using her as a pawn for his own motives, because her own beliefs are in conflict with his.

Well, the bottom line is that - in BOTH cases - the religious beliefs of the people involved are the CENTRAL issue, but the conflict creates several side issues that COULD be discussed within the parameters of the moratorium - at least in my opinion.</font>

Cerek, if you wish to debate the whys and wherefores of why the JW thread was locked you'd best PM Ziroc, since he was the one who made that call - there's not much point in examining it here, in my opinion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=plum>No worries, <font color=red>Memnoch</font>. I understand why it was locked. I'm just pointing out that there were other aspects of the issue that could have been discussed. ;)

While that probably wouldn't have worked in the JW thread, I was also pointing out these same issues have been discussed in other threads in which religious beliefs were at the core of the controversy.

I thought of Newdow because I heard on the radio he is going to bring yet another suit to change the Pledge of Allegiance in the near future and I thought there were a lot of parallels between the two issues.

I understand where we stand with the moratorium and I accept the limitations the Mods have put in place. I do appreciate this thread being allowed to stay open so that both sides can discuss the moratorium and make their pleas for it to either be lifted or left in place. While the decision remains, it is essential that discussion like this take place so members recognize that their opinions do matter to <font color=yellow>Ziroc</font> and the Mods.</font>

Keep it or Lift it, it doesn't matter, the discusion of religion and any insuing degradation of the discusion into the depths of namecalling squabling or "IS Too"vs."IS NOT" level is just a symptom of the problem. If it makes it easier and less hassle on the MODS let IT stand!

Hassle on the mods is an important consideration. If they don't have to police us so much, maybe they can enjoy posting more of their own thoughts.

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Yorick, this is really funny if you think about it. You can "lose the fear of being wrong" by not being afraid to find out you're wrong -- but you can also lose it by convincing yourself you are always right. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]