ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Other General Discussion => Topic started by: thushan on September 24, 2012, 08:05:47 pm
-
Taboo topic, suggested by water.
WARNING: This is meant to be a constructive discussion, not an argument. If we find issues and conflicting opinions, then deal with them constructively. You could consider this as an exercise in debating without heated argument.
And if there is anyone's opinion you think is really bad or whatever, argue it CONSTRUCTIVELY. Part of the reason we can't flesh out discussion on these topics is because some of us are too scared to voice their opinion because of a fear of a backlash. This fear stifles discussion. So, do NOT judge anyone based on their opinions, please :). Argue for or against the POINT, not the PERSON.
So, let me open, what are your opinions of the AN culture?
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
eg.
- Contradicting mods/admin in religious debate threads?
- Contradicting or questioning Thushan's working or answer in a chem thread?
- Saying you enjoy VCE Physics anywhere in the forum? (not that anyone would...)
- Fear of getting mass downvoted for stating your views?
On another note, do you downvote or upvote people based on who they are?
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
I feel as if I've been brainwashed into hating Physics D:
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
I feel as if I've been brainwashed into hating Physics D:
This is a good thing :)
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
eg.
- Contradicting mods/admin in religious debate threads?
- Contradicting or questioning Thushan's working or answer in a chem thread?
- Saying you enjoy VCE Physics anywhere in the forum? (not that anyone would...)
- Fear of getting mass downvoted for stating your views?
On another note, do you downvote or upvote people based on who they are?
Very good point here. However, I do like to make myself clear, I'm only too happy to be contradicted in a Chem thread. I make mistakes too. And it's good when people contradict me, because they're challenging my view, and they're critical of what they read. THAT's what I want in an AN thread. And if their contradiction is wrong, they don't have to worry about being wrong or anything, because that's something new they've learnt, and I was a high school student getting things wrong as well. I still get things wrong.
-
Like Thushan has said, this is constructive criticism, so outside of this thread, we don't want anyone treating anybody else differently or bullying anyone as the result of what is said here.
The first issue I would like to raise is the issue of "Respect" - what is the respect system used for? In my understanding, it is used to rate how "helpful" someone is on the forums, i.e. someone with a high respect is expected to be very helpful around the forums and that is generally true - i.e. LovesPhysics and Thushan and many others have high respect counts because they are genuinely helpful.
However, one of the issues I've noticed about the "Respect" system is that respect is very often given for the wrong reasons - most notably for "being funny" or "owning somebody". I could find examples, but I won't because I don't like singling people out, but it leads me to believe that there are some people on AN who "respect-monger" - i.e. just posting funny stuff or ownage stuff in order to GET RESPECT, things which add no real meaning or purpose into the thread. It makes them look like a hero and everyone +1's them, neglecting those who are truly helpful.
I do commend members such as pi, El2012, Nisha, Laseredd and many others who give out +1's well - i.e. they give out respect to the posts which really deserve them - the posts which are genuinely helpful to other people.
The other issue is the "herd" issue, on AN, I too often see posts with a MASSIVE number of +1's or posts with a MASSIVE number of -1's leading me to think that the herd effect is at play, i.e. +1 or -1 -ing a post just because others are. Of course this is not fair and it distorts the true quality of the post.
If I were to have it my way, I would think that a different respect system would be better - where the person who asks the question rates the answer or something like that - or at least a system which doesn't reward respect-mongering.
I like those who are funny, I really do, but when those who are funny get more respect than those who are helpful, that's worrying.
Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience
-
Very good point here. However, I do like to make myself clear, I'm only too happy to be contradicted in a Chem thread. I make mistakes too. And it's good when people contradict me, because they're challenging my view, and they're critical of what they read. THAT's what I want in an AN thread. And if their contradiction is wrong, they don't have to worry about being wrong or anything, because that's something new they've learnt, and I was a high school student getting things wrong as well. I still get things wrong.
Just using an example of a mod who knows a lot about a specific subject area (one of many in your case), nothing personal haha :)
-
I think that for the most part AN has a great culture with most people willing to help others and a general sense of community, especially compared to some other forums where everyone is constant attacking others. However, my answer to LovesPhysics question is definitely yes. It seems like often in a debate whenever someone's view contradicts that of a mod/admin, they'll be immediately and viciously attacked by other certain mods/admins. They say they want a fair discussion but after a point of view has been voiced and attacked, other people won't want to back it up in case they're attacked too. I think this is something that definitely has the effect of driving people away from AN, or as far as I've noticed anyway.
-
I think the culture around here is almost always supportive, friendly and respectful. However, on occasion, especially in the 'debate' threads, people insult each other for having different opinions, as if not thinking the same way makes you deserve it somehow. That is really the only thing that stands out against an otherwise great community.
-
Good points here Paul. And cheers for the compliment.
Respect-mongering. Interesting point here. I can see this happening. I wouldn't be surprised if I was guilty of it myself a couple of times. But the effect of respect mongering is this - how seriously do people take respect, and what do people see when they see 'respect?' Does it mean much to them, does it mean to them that "this person is helpful" or "this person is popular?" If it's the former, then Paul is absolutely valid here. If it's the latter, then perhaps we could discuss this further.
Im not so sure about the herd issue here though. Could it be BECAUSE other people are negging the post, or is it because everyone simultaneously thinks its bad (the post)?
-
Very good point here. However, I do like to make myself clear, I'm only too happy to be contradicted in a Chem thread. I make mistakes too. And it's good when people contradict me, because they're challenging my view, and they're critical of what they read. THAT's what I want in an AN thread. And if their contradiction is wrong, they don't have to worry about being wrong or anything, because that's something new they've learnt, and I was a high school student getting things wrong as well. I still get things wrong.
Just using an example of a mod who knows a lot about a specific subject area (one of many in your case), nothing personal haha :)
I know :) I just wanted to make that point because that's the culture of AN that I personally want to see.
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
Somewhat. Not really 'scared' but more worried that I'm going to get attacked and ganged up upon by a bunch of well known people and/or a group of people who are close friends. I feel like if I got into a debate I would never win due to my low status in comparison to others. In my opinion..
-
The other issue is the "herd" issue, on AN, I too often see posts with a MASSIVE number of +1's or posts with a MASSIVE number of -1's leading me to think that the herd effect is at play, i.e. +1 or -1 -ing a post just because others are. Of course this is not fair and it distorts the true quality of the post.
I tend to almost always disagree what you say on this forum, but to that, I must agree. There have been many instances where I have hesitated from putting forward my view just because I fear that there is someone out there, that may ridicule my opinion, and argue not with the facts, but point out their own judgemental point of view of me.
The pressure of conformity sadly, is everywhere.
-
I think that for the most part AN has a great culture with most people willing to help others and a general sense of community, especially compared to some other forums where everyone is constant attacking others. However, my answer to LovesPhysics question is definitely yes. It seems like often in a debate whenever someone's view contradicts that of a mod/admin, they'll be immediately and viciously attacked by other certain mods/admins. They say they want a fair discussion but after a point of view has been voiced and attacked, other people won't want to back it up in case they're attacked too. I think this is something that definitely has the effect of driving people away from AN, or as far as I've noticed anyway.
I agree with you on this point.
I think the culture around here is almost always supportive, friendly and respectful. However, on occasion, especially in the 'debate' threads, people insult each other for having different opinions, as if not thinking the same way makes you deserve it somehow. That is really the only thing that stands out against an otherwise great community.
And I agree with you here. This was part of the reason why we are holding this thread, to flesh things out like this.
Do you see how far constructive talk has already taken us? :)
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
Somewhat. Not really 'scared' but more worried that I'm going to get attacked and ganged up upon by a bunch of well known people and/or a group of people who are close friends. I feel like if I got into a debate I would never win due to my low status in comparison to others. In my opinion..
And we really have a problem here when people are forced to feel this way. This is exactly what stifles discussion. We want to change this culture within the rants and debate thread, particularly in religious topics. Topics on religion have great potential for interesting discussion, but unfortunately lead to personal attacks, which should not be on. Myself, I had to try and calm people down in these topics. People have been driven away from AN because they think that their views are not respected. We don't want this. :)
-
What I'm about to say is probably very taboo.
I wonder how many people on AN lie about the study scores/ATARs they have received?
Probably more prevalent than you think.
-
I actually really like these forums. I doubt there are any forums were people are as helpful as there are on this page. :D
-
I actually really like these forums. I doubt there are any forums were people are as helpful as there are on this page. :D
That's true. It's lovely because a lot of us are competing against each other this year but yet we are willing to help each other out. I love that.
-
I don't like the respect system. As Paulsterio stated, people vote in herds, so a post which might only deserve -1 respect ends up with -20 (it has happened to me before and it is really annoying trying to get back). Also, it discourages people from expressing their opinion. I know that I have had to restrain myself from posting a lot of comments in order to keep a positive respect.
Worst of all: people can easily just go into your profile and give every single post a -1 respect. I had one guy do this to me for over 100 posts which really messed up my respect count.
-
What I'm about to say is probably very taboo.
I wonder how many people on AN lie about the study scores/ATARs they have received?
Probably more prevalent than you think.
i have always wondered about this !!
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
eg.
- Contradicting mods/admin in religious debate threads?
- Contradicting or questioning Thushan's working or answer in a chem thread?
- Saying you enjoy VCE Physics anywhere in the forum? (not that anyone would...)
- Fear of getting mass downvoted for stating your views?
no
-
What I'm about to say is probably very taboo.
I wonder how many people on AN lie about the study scores/ATARs they have received?
Probably more prevalent than you think.
As for those who get 40+ study scores, it's easy to verify their results online if you know their real names etc
But as for UMAT scores and the like, no-one really knows
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
Not really. I think there is an atmosphere where it's okay to disagree with the mods/admins.
I think the passionate religious debates on this site have ingrained themselves as part of the culture haha.
This is probably just talking about the religious debate threads as a whole. Unless I have something that I really want to say, I try to stay out of these religious threads because sooner or later they end up being locked. I also don't really like talking about personal things on public forums, so that's another reason why I try to avoid those threads.
These next two paragraphs are not expressed very well, I can't think of the best way to word it:
In terms of those religious threads, is the purpose of them to "persuade people of your beliefs" or is it facilitate an open discussion of both sides and then twist into random bits of philosophy. I think there's a slight clash between the twisting into random bits of philosophy and people trying to persuade. (the difference between an expository essay and a persuasive essay ;))
I think both sides do get their chance to speak their beliefs, and I think if people disagree with you, they're allowed to. In what way could we avoid those threads getting locked? Why do those threads get locked in the first place (the debate sinking to low levels really).
- Contradicting or questioning Thushan's working or answer in a chem thread?
This could be generalised to, are you okay with contradicting a well-known member's working out to any question.
It depends. Most of the time I know that the person would know what they're talking about and hence are probably correct.
If I can see they've made a mistake, I'd be comfortable with pointing it out. This is probably more with the maths boards where silly errors happen.
I wouldn't contradict it unless I can defend my answer. If I can't defend my answer, then in that case I'm more likely to be confused about the working out, in which case I feel more than comfortable asking them to elaborate.
- Saying you enjoy VCE Physics anywhere in the forum? (not that anyone would...)
Yes I am comfortable with saying that I enjoyed and learnt a lot from VCE Physics.
I tend to agree with what Paul has said about respect, but in terms of a solution, I'm not sure.
So we have respect enabled in the subject boards. I think we'd need to be careful with remembering that AN extends a bit more than just answering maths/science questions, so there's also respect enabled in the general education discussion boards, uni boards etc. where a lot of advice gets given out there.
We also have respect enabled in the general discussion board (like this one).
While I would like to say that the "respect" number is unimportant - it's linked to the ranking of tutors in the Tutoring section, so it affects users advertising there.
I think also with what is on-topic and what is off-topic, and how should we deal with that.
I'll point out the example of this thread here from yesterday (this is just the freshest example in my mind): OFF TOPIC: Philosophy of maths and other stuff thread
I'm not criticising the decision to split that topic (it was after all, irrelevant to the first post), but I'm more interested in, if we wanted to follow the "posting rules" where would discussion like that go? Honestly, that was probably one of the more interesting maths discussions in the past few months on AN, but it was technically off-topic.
It's clear that we can't disallow discussion like that. Yet that kind of discussion is something that springs up naturally.
Determining the point where the thread where the thread has gone off topic is hard too. Arguably, some of the earlier posts in the split part of the thread there is still on-topic to the original thread.
If you were posting, how would you know that you've gone off-topic? Where would you put your post? Would you create a new thread yourself, quoting the last post from the thread and then continue.
Is the current system okay? Just let discussion flow as it does, and then mods step in to keep the discussions relevant and coherent?
-
As for those who get 40+ study scores, it's easy to verify their results online if you know their real names etc
Unless they forgot to tick the box allowing their results to get published (this happened to a girl in my year level last year).
-
I don't like the respect system. As Paulsterio stated, people vote in herds, so a post which might only deserve -1 respect ends up with -20 (it has happened to me before and it is really annoying trying to get back). Also, it discourages people from expressing their opinion. I know that I have had to restrain myself from posting a lot of comments in order to keep a positive respect.
Worst of all: people can easily just go into your profile and give every single post a -1 respect. I had one guy do this to me for over 100 posts which really messed up my respect count.
I mean this in the most positive way possible - who really cares? It's just a number, it doesn't reflect you personally in any way - you're anonymous...
Don't you see how sad it is that that guy spent all his time voting down all your stuff? You should just laugh at the ridiculousness.
Let us remember that this site is for helping people in VCE, not a popularity contest. If someone writes a funny post, why not give them a +1? It almost sounds like your goal on this site is to get more +1s...
-
What I'm about to say is probably very taboo.
I wonder how many people on AN lie about the study scores/ATARs they have received?
Probably more prevalent than you think.
Haha. Wouldn't matter too much to us. After all, if they want to lie to themselves, let them do that.
-
I don't like the respect system. As Paulsterio stated, people vote in herds, so a post which might only deserve -1 respect ends up with -20 (it has happened to me before and it is really annoying trying to get back). Also, it discourages people from expressing their opinion. I know that I have had to restrain myself from posting a lot of comments in order to keep a positive respect.
Worst of all: people can easily just go into your profile and give every single post a -1 respect. I had one guy do this to me for over 100 posts which really messed up my respect count.
I mean this in the most positive way possible - who really cares? It's just a number, it doesn't reflect you personally in any way - you're anonymous...
Don't you see how sad it is that that guy spent all his time voting down all your stuff? You should just laugh at the ridiculousness.
Let us remember that this site is for helping people in VCE, not a popularity contest. If someone writes a funny post, why not give them a +1? It almost sounds like your goal on this site is to get more +1s...
Almost as bad as saying, if someone bullies you. You walk away.
No, you don't walk away. You punch them in the face, because they'll keep bullying you. That's what you do!
I Jest
But, there is so much superficiality, ergo, saying that statement is redundant.
-
Worst of all: people can easily just go into your profile and give every single post a -1 respect. I had one guy do this to me for over 100 posts which really messed up my respect count.
he must of been bored af and terrible at specialist LOL
-
Let us remember that this site is for helping people in VCE, not a popularity contest. If someone writes a funny post, why not give them a +1? It almost sounds like your goal on this site is to get more +1s...
If you're advertising as a tutor on the site, your advert is ranked by respect. If you've dedicated a lot of time to answering posts on the site, then really you shouldn't be outranked on the tutoring list by someone who's got their number by making jokes. I don't think this has actually come up as a problem on the tutoring list yet though, the top ranking tutors have been around for a fair while and contributed heavily to the site.
There's also the thing where if you've made a lot of posts, you'll be recognisable on the forums and people might PM you directly (e.g. not even looking at the tutor list).
I guess another possible problem with the respect system / being tied to the tutoring thingo. I haven't looked for the evidence, this is just speculation off the top of my head:
If you were really helpful on say the, the humanities boards, and that was where you only posted, could you get your respect as high as someone who only posted really helpful posts on the maths boards? Ultimately, those boards get a lot more activity.
I guess the problems I've mentioned here is that respect is tied to tutoring, but how else would we rank the tutors list? It seems that respect is doing it's job for the tutoring list too, the long-time contributors to the site are up the top of the list.
-
I don't like the respect system. As Paulsterio stated, people vote in herds, so a post which might only deserve -1 respect ends up with -20 (it has happened to me before and it is really annoying trying to get back). Also, it discourages people from expressing their opinion. I know that I have had to restrain myself from posting a lot of comments in order to keep a positive respect.
Worst of all: people can easily just go into your profile and give every single post a -1 respect. I had one guy do this to me for over 100 posts which really messed up my respect count.
I mean this in the most positive way possible - who really cares? It's just a number, it doesn't reflect you personally in any way - you're anonymous...
Don't you see how sad it is that that guy spent all his time voting down all your stuff? You should just laugh at the ridiculousness.
Let us remember that this site is for helping people in VCE, not a popularity contest. If someone writes a funny post, why not give them a +1? It almost sounds like your goal on this site is to get more +1s...
The more negative respect I have, the more people start accusing me of being a troll and dismissing everything I post without even reading it.
-
Haha I used to deal with bullying by being all chill with my bullies.
*bully comes to try jump me*
Me: "haha what's the deal here? come on now, no need for this!"
Bully: "...hahah you're my bro" (fistpump)
Bully walks away.
Worked every single time for me.
-
There is no good way to run a respect/karma system without it ultimately becoming a popularity contest or being subject to manipulation. People used to have organized karma trading circles via PM ffs, so we really think we've found a reasonable alternative. If you want to suggest an improvement there is a forum for that up top.
I don't like the respect system. As Paulsterio stated, people vote in herds, so a post which might only deserve -1 respect ends up with -20 (it has happened to me before and it is really annoying trying to get back). Also, it discourages people from expressing their opinion. I know that I have had to restrain myself from posting a lot of comments in order to keep a positive respect.
Isn't this working as intended, if you know you're going to get dozens of negative votes?
Worst of all: people can easily just go into your profile and give every single post a -1 respect. I had one guy do this to me for over 100 posts which really messed up my respect count.
Respect isn't affected until you receive +/- 3 votes. If this actually happened it's a bug and please let David know (post in the bug thread)
If you were really helpful on say the, the humanities boards, and that was where you only posted, could you get your respect as high as someone who only posted really helpful posts on the maths boards? Ultimately, those boards get a lot more activity.
Probably not. The respect system promotes people making contributions to discussion and the forum. If you want to post a tutoring ad and you want to generate some respect to get it more visibility, this seems to achieve our goal of bettering discussion, whether or not it's strictly "tutoring" related?
I wonder how many people on AN lie about the study scores/ATARs they have received?
People do this all the time, which is why you should always check tutor scores independently etc.
It's incredibly hard to verify otherwise :(
-
I think there's a big split - all things academic, this is probably the best site out there.
Moral/religious debates however, in my opinion, have been a disaster. Whilst there is the overwhelmingly respectful majority, there's an amazing disrespectful minority that I've been unfortunate enough to be on the receiving side of. I think EVERYBODY needs to understand that name calling, intimidation and insults are never acceptable. Literally everytime I have seen something that I think is personally hurtful, I have PM'd the mod who I thought was most appropriate - only once have I received a proper, helpful and mature response.
It is intimidating, to disagree with people who are both influential and highly vocal (in often overly aggressive ways). I'm lucky enough to have the self conviction to publicly disagree with what I don't believe in, irrespective of who else voices their opinion. Other people, equally as valuable people, are not so lucky. Losing these people's opinions not only diminishes intelligent discussion, but alienates members or what is meant to be a mutually beneficial forum.
Atarnotes is a genuinely wonderful place - I just wish we could keep our statements objective and polite.
-
which happened to me on that protest discussion. ended up going negative on respect :/.
-
However, one of the issues I've noticed about the "Respect" system is that respect is very often given for the wrong reasons - most notably for "being funny" or "owning somebody". I could find examples, but I won't because I don't like singling people out, but it leads me to believe that there are some people on AN who "respect-monger" - i.e. just posting funny stuff or ownage stuff in order to GET RESPECT, things which add no real meaning or purpose into the thread. It makes them look like a hero and everyone +1's them, neglecting those who are truly helpful.
I think this applies to me. A lot of the respect I would argue is probably from making funny/witty statements, but I don't say the things I do for respect but simply because this is apart of my personality and I make funny statements (i don't think I'm funny btw) in other forums as well where there isn't a respect system - whirlpool and other anime forums for example. I do however try my best to help when I have the knowledge to do so.
In terms of people liking/respecting funny posts more then helpful posts - I wouldn't say this is particularly exclusive to AN, a perfect example would be facebook: I can't tell how many times a helpful and informative status gets so little likes whilst a funny meme or status gets so many. I strongly agree with you that helpful people should get more up votes votes however.
I think the respect system should be abolished all together to be honest with you, as I don't believe it's necessary, if a post is helpful people are already going to know it's helpful. You can also have a system whereby you can +1 or -1 without having respect, so you can see who is being helpful in that particular thread. Also I don't think it reflects the quality of a tutor, for example if I were to pick a tutor I wouldn't look at respect, as helping out on an internet forum doesn't necessarily mean that you are a good tutor but it just makes you more noticed then the people with less respect who may be also good tutors and are just as qualified to teach that particular subject. The review system and the tutor info work much better in terms of finding a suitable tutor IMO then respect and are more then sufficient..
-
What Paulsterio said about respect very often being given for "owning somebody" and what abes22 said about the religious debates are the two issues that stand out most to me. Although there is one other issue I've observed: there are a lot of '0' and '1' ratings being given to certain VCE notes, usually with no rationale provided, resulting in a much lower average score than there would otherwise be. I tend to (as many people would) favour the notes with the higher average, but a lot of the scores are being skewed by such votes. Admittedly it's probably not a major issue, and I'm not sure how much it relates to the culture of AN, but I thought I'd point it out.
Edit: This one is an example: http://www.atarnotes.com/?p=notes&a=feedback&id=695
-
I think there's a big split - all things academic, this is probably the best site out there.
Moral/religious debates however, in my opinion, have been a disaster. Whilst there is the overwhelmingly respectful majority, there's an amazing disrespectful minority that I've been unfortunate enough to be on the receiving side of. I think EVERYBODY needs to understand that name calling, intimidation and insults are never acceptable.
I agree fully with both these sentiments.
The religious threads or even those have have a religious undertone have nearly all ended in petty name-calling and some regular user being warned/having massive neg respect hits/banned. And unfortunately, I feel they also add to the "mods/admin vs users" thing that a few people have mentioned in this thread. We all need to lift our games in this regard, a bit of tolerance and respect shouldn't be a problem imo.
-
I don't think there'a an Admin vs. Users issue at all, it's just that Dan and Nina tend to have the same view on many issues, Dev doesn't really ever post, so it's like always Dan and Nina vs. everyone but either way religion is a sensitive issue where many people have many different opinions. I have seen cases where the name-calling is acceptable i.e. sometimes there are people whose posts are so stupid you wonder how hard they got knocked.
Other times, however, I agree, some people have been hard done by, I saw how Abes was name-called in one of the threads and that's not on because he was actually being very reasonable.
-
I have seen cases where the name-calling is acceptable i.e. sometimes there are people whose posts are so stupid you wonder how hard they got knocked.
Sorry, I am just curious, when is it EVER genuinely acceptable to name-call someone. Surely, stupid posts to you, is perhaps, real/true to the other person. What happens then? They are warranted to be name-called simply because of your perception that their post is stupid? I don't understand, are you saying, that posts can be objectively interpreted now?
-
I suggest removing the ability to vote for respect from the religious debates.
Everyone has different beliefs it just doesn't work there.
-
I'd just like to comment on how ironic it is that abes22 had no shortage of likes to give the recent facebook statuses I made that were critical of Islam.
I guess what you're really trying to say is that we should all be very sensitive about Christianity. Other religions? Nah, no need. They're not the "one true religion".
The hypocrisy of your double standard is utterly astounding.
-
I have seen cases where the name-calling is acceptable i.e. sometimes there are people whose posts are so stupid you wonder how hard they got knocked.
Sorry, I am just curious, when is it EVER genuinely acceptable to name-call someone. Surely, stupid posts to you, is perhaps, real/true to the other person. What happens then? They are warranted to be name-called simply because of your perception that their post is stupid? I don't understand, are you saying, that posts can be objectively interpreted now?
I would make the argument that when somebody posts with the intent to cause harm (e.g. wilful misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia etc.) then harsh words are often the only response that can appropriately encapsulate the severity of their actions.
-
I'd just like to comment on how ironic it is that abes22 had no shortage of likes to give the recent facebook statuses I made that were critical of Islam.
I guess what you're really trying to say is that we should all be very sensitive about Christianity. Other religions? Nah, no need. They're not the "one true religion".
The hypocrisy of your double standard is utterly astounding.
I liked something because I agreed with it. Your quotes were objective, and true. They were not false or misrepresented, so I liked them. I have never stood for moral high ground of Christianity, if you remember correctly, I said on that evolution thread:
I have no problem with criticizing religions, I regularly make criticism of religions, including my own.
This is exactly the bahaviour I was talking about - why am i being attacked? You can make any point you like whilst remaining respectful.
-
I have seen cases where the name-calling is acceptable i.e. sometimes there are people whose posts are so stupid you wonder how hard they got knocked.
Sorry, I am just curious, when is it EVER genuinely acceptable to name-call someone. Surely, stupid posts to you, is perhaps, real/true to the other person. What happens then? They are warranted to be name-called simply because of your perception that their post is stupid? I don't understand, are you saying, that posts can be objectively interpreted now?
I would make the argument that when somebody posts with the intent to cause harm (e.g. wilful misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia etc.) then harsh words are often the only response that can appropriately encapsulate the severity of their actions.
I'm with Water on this one, if someone is causing harm to others, I see no need to descend to their level. Show them the rule book and show them the bannhammer, but there is no need to feed their hate and ruining your own reputation by being a hot-head and responding to them on their level.
Especially on a forum where many look up to other users (such as yourself, the founder of this amazing site!), going to their level of insults etc. is a pretty bad look imo.
-
"I would make the argument that when somebody posts with the intent to cause harm (e.g. wilful misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia etc.) then harsh words are often the only response that can appropriately encapsulate the severity of their actions."
Depends on what the purpose is. Is it to express your disgust, or is it to change their opinion? If it's the latter, then harsh words may not work.
"I'd just like to comment on how ironic it is that abes22 had no shortage of likes to give the recent facebook statuses I made that were critical of Islam.
I guess what you're really trying to say is that we should all be very sensitive about Christianity. Other religions? Nah, no need. They're not the "one true religion".
The hypocrisy of your double standard is utterly astounding."
Enwiabe, with all due respect, I would like to say that it's best to argue the fallacy in thinking rather than the person. :)
-
Enwiabe, with all due respect, I would like to say that it's best to argue the fallacy in thinking rather than the person. :)
Thankyou.
-
I'd just like to comment on how ironic it is that abes22 had no shortage of likes to give the recent facebook statuses I made that were critical of Islam.
I guess what you're really trying to say is that we should all be very sensitive about Christianity. Other religions? Nah, no need. They're not the "one true religion".
The hypocrisy of your double standard is utterly astounding.
I liked something because I agreed with it. Your quotes were objective, and true. They were not false or misrepresented, so I liked them. I have never stood for moral high ground of Christianity, if you remember correctly, I said on that evolution thread:
I have no problem with criticizing religions, I regularly make criticism of religions, including my own.
This is exactly the bahaviour I was talking about - why am i being attacked? You can make any point you like whilst remaining respectful.
This is precisely the hypocrisy I was talking about. Only -your- version of religious criticisms are valid. Apparently.
This also answers Thushan's point. I do like arguing the individual person's thinking. What you don't like, abes, is that I went after your own logically fallacious reasons for believing in god. You're claiming that I can't do that for whatever arbitary reason. I can only attack the scripture itself, according to you.
And then you dived for the victim card. You trotted out 3 statements I made that you claimed were personal insults.
I debunked each of them as merely critiques of your views. You did not respond to this at all, and despite my efforts to allay your concerns, you ignored it and continued to pretend that they were personal insults. You are still doing it right now and that to me is the height of duplicity.
Your double-standard is "my criticisms are the only valid criticisms". Good luck with that! :)
-
Let's cool this down before it gets heated up. Btw enwiabe that above post was better in my opinion, less personal, more attacking the thing rather than the person. :) More constructive.
-
Depends on what the purpose is. Is it to express your disgust, or is it to change their opinion? If it's the latter, then harsh words may not work.
I disagree. I think social shaming of harmful attitudes is a big part of holding people accountable. A large reason of why there is so much disgusting material on the internet is the complete lack of accountability. Honestly tell me a situation where in real life someone would tell a woman, to her face, that she is inferior to a man, and it wouldn't be followed by an angry reaction that tells him he's being a douchebag? Why is it so much different online?
-
I agree with your point, but remember that I said "is it to change their opinion?" Will they feel accountable? That is the question. Are they amenable to argument?
If it's to express your and society's disgust to, in a way, prevent others from following the same pathway, then your point is entirely valid.
-
I suggest removing the ability to vote for respect from the religious debates.
Everyone has different beliefs it just doesn't work there.
+1 ;)
Maybe it would be a good idea to disable voting on posts in the rest in the water cooler like what has been done lifestyle & entertainment and rants & debates boards?
I don't really see why "News & Politics" "Sports" and "Technology and Gaming" boards are treated differently to the "Lifestyle & Entertainment" and "Rants & Debates" boards
There are helpful posts in all those boards (okay, maybe not so much rants & debates :P), but does someone who suggests a good book to read not deserve the same thanks as someone who suggests a good protein supplement? Anyway, if I recall correctly and like previously mentioned the posts which are most oftened +1'd/-1'd in the Water Cooler seem to be the posts that owing someone who offers an alternative opinion to the majority/being witty etc.
Example (love ya epl) "Off-topic, but: I think you should have your own thread called 'Surgeon's lyf problems thread'. The amount of threads you start just about your own issues/queries is just lol-able. There are people employed at your school to answer these specific questions (i.e. Careers counselors). Sorry if I'm being too critical or harsh, but I don't think I'm the only one of this opinion." This received a whopping +44.
Does a person who expresses a majority's opinion deserve to be higher that who helps with a tricky chemistry/maths etc on the tutors list? I'm not really sure.
But disabling the up/down voting should encourage people to speak out without fear of backlash and dodgy posts can always be removed/edited by the moderators :)
Just my humble opinion 8)
-
your own logically fallacious reasons
There is a difference between attacking reasoning and attacking the person.
I'll be direct, you do both and quite successfully ;)
Depends on what the purpose is. Is it to express your disgust, or is it to change their opinion? If it's the latter, then harsh words may not work.
I disagree. I think social shaming of harmful attitudes is a big part of holding people accountable. A large reason of why there is so much disgusting material on the internet is the complete lack of accountability. Honestly tell me a situation where in real life someone would tell a woman, to her face, that she is inferior to a man, and it wouldn't be followed by an angry reaction that tells him he's being a douchebag? Why is it so much different online?
When a woman is being hurt; the ideal situation would be that a bigger person would come, protect her, and tell the guy calmly to back off, or the people around her to calmly tell that person, to back off, and protect her.
Your argument is as bad as following the herd mentality.
-
Steph, that is a great idea and I'm going to remove respect for the Water Cooler right now :)
-
This is precisely the hypocrisy I was talking about. Only -your- version of religious criticisms are valid. Apparently.
no, only objective criticism of religion is valid. i cant look at buddhists and say buddhism is peaceful. i cant look at muslims and say islam is violent.
you can only make these judgements by reading the koran/hadith/bible/torah/whatever that religion is meant to be.Depends on what the purpose is. Is it to express your disgust, or is it to change their opinion? If it's the latter, then harsh words may not work.
I think social shaming of harmful attitudes is a big part of holding people accountable.
you are very fortunate that the rest of the members are not like you.
-
Everyone here is nice, but whenever you see a religious debate sprout up
Nan and Dina will flame the crap out of the opposition in the most ridiculously unnecessary manner.
Like, we get it, you hate religion (or not? feel free to correct me, but please don't be vindictive about it) but is it necessary to really demean the members/go to that extent?
You look like the biggest immature jerks when you do it, and you're the admins of this forums. I could imagine it being pretty scary for new members who want to voice their opinion but are scared of the ban stick.
A part from mostly everyone is nice and gets along except for that occasional weirdo (there's one in every year i swear)
Shout out to:
TrueTears and pi for being the biggest bosses on this forums.
Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience
-
What about me nacho? :( Im sad. :P jks jks.
Anyway, "no, only objective criticism of religion is valid. i cant look at buddhists and say buddhism is peaceful. i cant look at muslims and say islam is violent. you can only make these judgements by reading the koran/hadith/bible/torah/whatever that religion is meant to be."
I disagree here. This is assuming that the Scripture defines the true religion. Is this entirely true? If this were the case, would there be many denominations of say Christianity and Islam? Do we classify these as the same? Or different? Do we consider Catholicism equivalent to Jehovah's Witnesses?
I think that each interpretation of scripture and values are what should be critiqued, not the scripture itself, as functionally...it's immaterial.
-
Like, we get it, you hate religion (or not? feel free to correct me, but please don't be vindictive about it) but is it necessary to really demean the members/go to that extent?
You look like the biggest immature jerks when you do it, and you're the admins of this forums. I could imagine it being pretty scary for new members who want to voice their opinion but are scared of the ban stick.
the fact that you even have to say that shows how serious this is
-
I think social shaming of harmful attitudes is a big part of holding people accountable.
I don't believe that public shaming of someone's beliefs is acceptable at all. How can someone feel accepted and valued in a community where it is okay to insult them simply because you think that their ideas are harmful? I think that your aforementioned is harmful, but does that give me the right to insult you? No, not at all.
-
You look like the biggest immature jerks when you do it, and you're the admins of this forums. I could imagine it being pretty scary for new members who want to voice their opinion but are scared of the ban stick.
Hey Mr Hyperbole, name one person that has been banned just because they disagreed with me or enwiabe
-
You look like the biggest immature jerks when you do it, and you're the admins of this forums. I could imagine it being pretty scary for new members who want to voice their opinion but are scared of the ban stick.
Hey Mr Hyperbole, name one person that has been banned just because they disagreed with me or enwiabe
(myself LOL) okay but i deserved those.
I never said you'd ban them, but when you have two admins going off their nuts because they're atheists, it can come off as intimidating to new members who don't know you too well, wouldn't you agree?
What about me nacho? :( Im sad. :P jks jks.
suck it thushan!
TrueTears and pi for admin!
:P
Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience
-
I disagree here. This is assuming that the Scripture defines the true religion. Is this entirely true? If this were the case, would there be many denominations of say Christianity and Islam? Do we classify these as the same? Or different? Do we consider Catholicism equivalent to Jehovah's Witnesses?
denominations are results of theological disputes, which means that there are many denominations that i personally, dont agree with. but for me to come out and say, <insert religion here> is wrong, i cannot base that on the actions of its followers, only on its official standing.
-
Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.
-
no, only objective criticism of religion is valid. i cant look at buddhists and say buddhism is peaceful. i cant look at muslims and say islam is violent.
you can only make these judgements by reading the koran/hadith/bible/torah/whatever that religion is meant to be.\
I disagree completely, and the evidence is in my favour. Why do so many people react so differently to religion? It's because of their psychology and innate morality. That is what I'm concerned with.
The scriptures make supernatural claims which are entirely unverifiable. There is nothing much to be learned from them beyond the moral fabric of the time period in which they were written.
Why does one Christian want to shoot up an abortion clinic, and another want to hold a woman's hand as they go through the traumatic process?
So now tell me that the debate is about the objective "truth" of the religion, and not about how individual people react to it...
It is honestly trivial to show that the religious texts are worthless pages of empty babble. What we should all be concerned about is who is taking "stone homosexuals to death" literally, and why they believe it.
-
I disagree here. This is assuming that the Scripture defines the true religion. Is this entirely true? If this were the case, would there be many denominations of say Christianity and Islam? Do we classify these as the same? Or different? Do we consider Catholicism equivalent to Jehovah's Witnesses?
denominations are results of theological disputes, which means that there are many denominations that i personally, dont agree with. but for me to come out and say, <insert religion here> is wrong, i cannot base that on the actions of its followers, only on its official standing.
Still, it's not purely based on ALL of the Scripture. The official standing will pick and choose different aspects of scripture to follow.
-
Hey admins: thread has gone a little off-topic don't you think?
-
Hey admins: thread has gone a little off-topic don't you think?
Took the words right out of my mouth.
I guess you could say that taking threads off-topic is
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
part of AN culture
http://mirrors.rit.edu/instantCSI/
-
Honestly, what i'd really like to see are proper debates on AN. For awhile, i've been thinking of getting together a subforum for proper actual debates, ones that dont degrade into slinging shit, useless arguments or insults. I can tell we have a lot of intelligent people here, who want to discuss a lot of important and interesting things but many of the topics that are of fundamental importance to humanity (and of course emotional attachment) seem to get rapidly derailed.
I think it would be great if we had some kind of AN debate/discussion subforum/club thingy with rules and maybe even some structure (can only post once and rebut etc).
Overall though, i think we have a great and encouraging culture. We have plenty of people who volunteer countless hours and time to helping people. Many of them have even more posts than enwiabe and he owns the place! That just tells you how helpful a lot of the more senior members are. I think we can sometimes have an unhealthy fixation on academics or the view that we live to work rather than work to live but besides from that, i reckon we do ok.
It gets pretty nasty in debates though, i wish it wasn't so.
- Contradicting mods/admin in religious debate threads?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img84/8891/beardsignal.jpg)
-
Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.
Don't actions speak louder than words? Has anyone ever been banned for dissenting to a religious opinion I've held? Regarding "aggressive arguing", being an admin does not preclude me from debating. I am wary that my position of "power" over regulary users could lead to an abuse of it, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's never going to.
This is simply imagined hyperbole that certain detractors of mine like to pedal. And yet, they will never be able to point to a single case of it happening ever.
-
Enwiabe, I apologize sincerely about accident-ly writing my post while trying to quote abes22.
I believe an objective judgement can be made without having to refer or delineate a religious scripture. No religion in it's entirety of it's existence has ever, and I mean ever been peaceful. There will always be disputes over each other theology.
-
Still, it's not purely based on ALL of the Scripture. The official standing will pick and choose different aspects of scripture to follow.
Was about to say this. Often, decisions are made by these in the authority that have stemmed from scripture but are not direct excerpts from it.
-
@thushan and nacho, no I do not agree. If you go back to my posts from when I was a new member you'll see I had no problems calling out enwiabe or other mods when they deserved it. I am not going to stop expressing my opinions because some unspecified member (you never provide any proof of this) has an irrational fear of being banned. Spend just a couple of days here and anyone will realise the level of moderation is very laissez-faire. The only person I can think of was that random dude in the teachers strikes thread who threw a hissy fit because his views got challenged. It was a login from the UoM IP and I'm pretty sure he's still around as a member. Most people "delete" their accounts as some sign of protest when they actually make another one straight afterwards.
-
Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.
Don't actions speak louder than words? Has anyone ever been banned for dissenting to a religious opinion I've held? Regarding "aggressive arguing", being an admin does not preclude me from debating. I am wary that my position of "power" over regulary users could lead to an abuse of it, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's never going to.
This is simply imagined hyperbole that certain detractors of mine like to pedal. And yet, they will never be able to point to a single case of it happening ever.
Again, OK you will not ban people who disagree with your opinions. Good. But will all the forumites know that? What I'm saying is that it's a valid fear to have. And it's good to understand it from their point of view.
-
Generally speaking, I think one cause for this forum's perceived cultural faults is the fact that written communication eliminates a lot of emotion, body language, tonal expression, etc. At some level, the result of this is that statements which are not necessarily designed to incense others are interpreted as such. Another, perhaps more serious result, however, is that people also don't see people's emotional reactions to what they're saying; without physical interaction, the humanity of the conversation is lost, and people too easily write things without thinking of how people are actually interpreting what they're saying; the significance of others' feelings is lost. I know this sounds wanky and everything, but hopefully the point I'm trying to make is comprehensible here.
You look like the biggest immature jerks when you do it, and you're the admins of this forums. I could imagine it being pretty scary for new members who want to voice their opinion but are scared of the ban stick.
Hey Mr Hyperbole, name one person that has been banned just because they disagreed with me or enwiabe
Nina, you know I love you and all, but honestly I think this is probably an example of unnecessary name calling within the context of debate (and also an easily misinterpretable message, in relation to tone/intent). Perhaps try reading the message from a random third person observer's perspective; hopefully you can see that even if you didn't intend it, the statement comes across as perhaps a bit antagonistic and intimidating. =/
-
If someone addresses me in an antagonistic way as nacho did, I'm going to reply in kind.
-
All I have to add is that in the time I've been on ATARNotes/VCENotes - when an admin/mod has posted in religious debates, there seems to be this perception that the admin's/mod's view is the right one (as reflected by the karma/respect given to that post). I don't think a new member's post should be considered any less than an admin's/mod's post. Everyone has the right to their own opinion - even if others think it's idiotic etc. (perception). People have the right to believe what they want to believe and whatever belief(s) they hold shouldn't be torn apart by others. This post may add nothing to the discussion, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
-
Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.
Don't actions speak louder than words? Has anyone ever been banned for dissenting to a religious opinion I've held? Regarding "aggressive arguing", being an admin does not preclude me from debating. I am wary that my position of "power" over regulary users could lead to an abuse of it, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's never going to.
This is simply imagined hyperbole that certain detractors of mine like to pedal. And yet, they will never be able to point to a single case of it happening ever.
Perception is a very powerful weapon, Enwiabe.
And it is something that ANYONE in position of power can inadvertantly wield strongly. The actions, the words and the acts of, Admins and Moderators, hold significant influence among junior members.
Who needs to actually feel they are going to be banned? When a knife is being driven down their throat? That is enough, and is almost akin to being banned.
-
no, only objective criticism of religion is valid. i cant look at buddhists and say buddhism is peaceful. i cant look at muslims and say islam is violent.
you can only make these judgements by reading the koran/hadith/bible/torah/whatever that religion is meant to be.\
I disagree completely, and the evidence is in my favour. Why do so many people react so differently to religion? It's because of their psychology and innate morality. That is what I'm concerned with.
The scriptures make supernatural claims which are entirely unverifiable. There is nothing much to be learned from them beyond the moral fabric of the time period in which they were written.
Why does one Christian want to shoot up an abortion clinic, and another want to hold a woman's hand as they go through the traumatic process?
So now tell me that the debate is about the objective "truth" of the religion, and not about how individual people react to it...
It is honestly trivial to show that the religious texts are worthless pages of empty babble. What we should all be concerned about is who is taking "stone homosexuals to death" literally, and why they believe it.
im actually super super happy with this - valid points, without aggressive personal attacks.
yes, people have innate morality, and no, scripture cant come out and set everyone straight.
of course religion is supernatural - if you accept that some almighty god exists, then of course its going to be supernatural. does that make it false? no.
why do people interpret things differently? i think many interpretations are simply wrong. with abortion:
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1corinthians 3:16.
from a purely christian perspective, abortion is wrong. i dont think its possible to argue the opposite, and i find this to be true in many other moral cases.
so now, i will tell you what i told you before. religion should not be judged by what its followers do.
all the stoning and killing and murder is in the old testament - which is no longer applicable and exists to show the contrast between before salvation and after. that is universally understood, which is why no sane person would stone anybody else in the name of christianity.
-
Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.
I agree with this, and to what nacho was alluding too somewhat flamboyantly on the previous page. Not all users are as strong as others to go against a force they know they'll be hammered by.
Everyone just needs to take a step back when religious threads and the like appear, because it isn't a good look for the site and it's leaders and senior members (not just admins and mods here) when it becomes a "who can bag the shit out of who better". As I said before, tolerance shouldn't be hard.
As for being being banned, none have occurred in recent times, but users have deleted their accounts following such threads. And in all honesty, that sends the same message.
-
@thushan and nacho, no I do not agree. If you go back to my posts from when I was a new member you'll see I had no problems calling out enwiabe or other mods when they deserved it. I am not going to stop expressing my opinions because some unspecified member (you never provide any proof of this) has an irrational fear of being banned. Spend just a couple of days here and anyone will realise the level of moderation is very laissez-faire. The only person I can think of was that random dude in the teachers strikes thread who threw a hissy fit because his views got challenged. It was a login from the UoM IP and I'm pretty sure he's still around as a member. Most people "delete" their accounts as some sign of protest when they actually make another one straight afterwards.
Hmm. I guess that the dysphemism in your arguing would come naturally when you feel really strongly about the issue...fair enough. Still, though, the perception is there. And it's real. And it should be addressed. And not everyone is fearless in their arguing.
Perhaps we want to make it clear, somehow, that people are free to voice their opinions and whilst we may disagree with them, sometimes vociferously, we will not ban them because of their opinions. I think if we are firm in that stance and SAY it (you're already showing this, but its hard to notice coz its harder to notice someone NOT doing something as opposed to someone DOING something) as well as do it, then I think this fear might be allayed, at least somewhat.
-
(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4062/4633595222_30f90dc385.jpg)
I love the fact that when the admins/moderators go off-topic it's okay but when us regular users go off-topic, instant thread lock.
-
As for being being banned, none have occurred in recent times, but users have deleted their accounts following such threads. And in all honesty, that sends the same message.
Every one of those people have come back and made new accounts almost immediately. Take from that what you will
-
I love the fact that when the admins/moderators go off-topic it's okay but when us regular users go off-topic, instant thread lock.
Sounds like "admins/mods vs users" again! Isn't that related to the AN culture? Something that this thread is addressing :)
-
It's stemmed off into an important discussion which I am sure many members would have liked to have seen. Well, i'm glad anyways its being discussed. matter needs to be dealt with
JOBE WATSONNNNN YOU SEXY MONKEY!
-
They're making a statement.
Anyways SoulKhan - this thread I think is still on-topic (with a few off-topic posts that are benign), we are talking about the idea of power, respect and opinions in debates on AN and the culture pertaining to it.
-
I think generally a lot of people are pretty nice and it's great that we're all helping each other out. BUT, there are those with greater 'authority' who may make a very valid point and counter arguments which is totally fine especially in debates, but the way they articulate themselves can be very aggressive and if I were one of the people on the other end of it, I don't think I'd be feeling too good.
Also, since you guys are in the a position where you're 'above' others I believe that some users are less inclined to post about specific topics or voicing their opinions particularly if you shoot them down straight away. So what? Someone has an opinion, get over it. You've probably said something before and a majority of people disagreed with it...
100% honesty, if someone tries to pick out what I said and turn it against me then fuck it I'm over this site. It's a very resourceful site and great learning tool, but somethings that are said on the forums are at times unnecessary and inappropriate.
I hope you will take something positive out of this and perhaps think twice before posting next time in a heated conversation.
-
Perhaps we want to make it clear, somehow, that people are free to voice their opinions and whilst we may disagree with them, sometimes vociferously, we will not ban them because of their opinions. I think if we are firm in that stance and SAY it (you're already showing this, but its hard to notice coz its harder to notice someone NOT doing something as opposed to someone DOING something) as well as do it, then I think this fear might be allayed, at least somewhat.
Done. Under "Bans" in the forum rules. Now people can stop bringing this up.
-
I'd just like to comment on how ironic it is that abes22 had no shortage of likes to give the recent facebook statuses I made that were critical of Islam.
I guess what you're really trying to say is that we should all be very sensitive about Christianity. Other religions? Nah, no need. They're not the "one true religion".
The hypocrisy of your double standard is utterly astounding.
Since i've defended both religions(i'm an atheist too, just not the same kind), i might be able to comment in your eyes then.
I've had a lot of people PM me (probably because i was defending their beliefs) who have been quite upset and this stretches all the way back to when i was a very new member (going on about 4 years ago now). In addition to causing a lot of emotional pain for people, these threads have even caused a few people to out and out leave. It's not confined to one person causing the injury either. A lot of the group think or herd mentality has a significant influence too.
It's not just one bad thread either. It's been happening as long as i've been here. It's far from a minor issue, its toxic.
Awhile back, i was involved in a huge argument with the admin team over even allowing religious discussion since it almost always seems to degrade into such a toxic and vile shitheap. I know, free speech, blah blah but it always sinks so, so, low on both sides, too.
This is a VCE and educational website and company first and foremost, we shouldn't have people leaving because of this. Worse still, we shouldn't have people feeling unwelcome or attacked by the senior people on this forum, if a user attacks you, you go to the admins, what do you do if the admins attack you?
I'm with Water on this one, if someone is causing harm to others, I see no need to descend to their level. Show them the rule book and show them the bannhammer, but there is no need to feed their hate and ruining your own reputation by being a hot-head and responding to them on their level.
I concur, insults are never warranted. We should always show the best conduct and not sink to the worst level.
Since we're on the topic of religion, maybe a little section from the Dhammapada:
Who bears within them enmity:
"He has abused and beaten me,
defeated me and plundered me",
hate is not allayed for them.
Who bears within no enmity:
"He has abused and beaten me,
defeated me and plundered me",
hate is quite allayed for them.
Never here by enmity
are those with enmity allayed,
they are allayed by amity,
this is the timeless Truth.
[Hard to read the first time, here are some explanations from the web
1. Explanation: When a person holds that he was insulted, assaulted, defeated, or robbed, his anger continues to increase. The anger such a person has no way of subsiding. The more he goes over his imaginary trouble the greater becomes his desire to avenge it.
2.Explanation: Living in human society, people often quarrel with one another. When such conflicts occur, people often keep thinking about the wrongs done to them by others. When that happens, their anger tends to grow. But in those who forgive and forget the wrongs done to them, anger quickly vanishes. They are then at peace.
3.Explanation: Those who attempt to conquer hatred by hatred are like warriors who take weapons to overcome others who bear arms. This does not end hatred, but gives it room to grow. But, ancient wisdom has advocated a different timeless strategy to overcome hatred. This eternal wisdom is to meet hatred with non-hatred. The method is of overcoming hatred through non-hatred is eternally effective. That is why that method is described as eternal wisdom.]
-
Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.
Don't actions speak louder than words? Has anyone ever been banned for dissenting to a religious opinion I've held? Regarding "aggressive arguing", being an admin does not preclude me from debating.
There's a difference between "debating" (which is constructive) and the "aggressive arguing" (which is discouraging for new users and results in locks/bans/insult-throwing).
Threads need to be more of the former, atm most are of the latter. Toning it down isn't that hard.
And it is something that ANYONE in position of power can inadvertantly wield strongly. The actions, the words and the acts of, Admins and Moderators, hold significant influence among junior members.
Who needs to actually feel they are going to be banned? When a knife is being driven down their throat? That is enough, and is almost akin to being banned.
+1, it's very discouraging.
-
Religious people are spoken to on this forum like they have some sort of intellectual disability. It's common nature on AN that religion is just a bunch of tales. I couldn't care what other people's beliefs are, but it gets tiring really quickly to have to read these smart ass comments about religion in countless threads.
Sure, if someone makes a post promoting their own beliefs then there is every right for another person to challenge their claims. But sometimes the ignorance on this board is ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure if someone blatantly criticized another person for being homosexual then there would be some sort of ban/moderating.
-
Perhaps we want to make it clear, somehow, that people are free to voice their opinions and whilst we may disagree with them, sometimes vociferously, we will not ban them because of their opinions. I think if we are firm in that stance and SAY it (you're already showing this, but its hard to notice coz its harder to notice someone NOT doing something as opposed to someone DOING something) as well as do it, then I think this fear might be allayed, at least somewhat.
Done. Under "Bans" in the forum rules. Now people can stop bringing this up.
:) Good on you Nina.
I know this must be exasperating (this is the last time I will mention this) but I also think what you wrote in the forum rules regarding opinions and debates should also be written on the main board of Rants and Debate - because (correct me if I'm wrong) many people may not read the forum rules cover to cover - and we want to make our position clear and make sure people are aware of it.
-
New policy: moderation team coherence.
"for marketing and appearance purposes, I will continue to publicly espouse the official policy that moderators are allowed to have their own opinions. Privately, please be advised that that is no longer the case."
Maybe this is one of the reasons there's a bit of a mod vs members atmosphere :P
-
New policy: moderation team coherence.
"for marketing and appearance purposes, I will continue to publicly espouse the official policy that moderators are allowed to have their own opinions. Privately, please be advised that that is no longer the case."
Maybe this is one of the reasons there's a bit of a mod vs members atmosphere :P
That thread was part of an April Fool's joke haha :P (read the whole of APRIL FOOLS 2011: ATARLeaks - the mod forum)
But nevertheless, I do still think that some sort of atmosphere exists, but this tread has been insightful so far imo.
-
Well, everyone's already said it, but yeah, religious threads are where AN shows up its worst colours. Being a religious person myself, I actually don't mind other people's views. I'd probably just say 'alright, so you're a muslim / atheist / agnostic / hindu / buddhist / jedi, hey, that's cool. I reckon its fine to accept people as they are, there's actually (gasp) no need for a religious thread on AN, in my opinion.
-
Well, everyone's already said it, but yeah, religious threads are where AN shows up its worst colours. Being a religious person myself, I actually don't mind other people's views. I'd probably just say 'alright, so you're a muslim / atheist / agnostic / hindu / buddhist / jedi, hey, that's cool. I reckon its fine to accept people as they are, there's actually (gasp) no need for a religious thread on AN, in my opinion.
It all comes back to tolerance :)
-
i would personally like to herald this thread a success :)
-
i would personally like to herald this thread a success :)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Water is a happy man ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mariy7ZHiy1qiala6o4_500.gif)
-
New policy: moderation team coherence.
"for marketing and appearance purposes, I will continue to publicly espouse the official policy that moderators are allowed to have their own opinions. Privately, please be advised that that is no longer the case."
Maybe this is one of the reasons there's a bit of a mod vs members atmosphere :P
Fairly sure that was the "leaked" threads designed for the April Fools a couple of years ago.
I think we can see from this thread (as in the thread we're posting in right now) itself that moderators are allowed to have their own opinions, and further more, the entire AN community can discuss their concerns fairly openly.
With what Thushan has been saying with getting the rules up onto the Rants/Debates board might be an opportunity to discuss what kingpomba was suggesting before (Re: The Culture within AN), with a debate forum with a more rigourous set of rules.
Something like how this thread: Forced abortion was run, perhaps, where a strict set of rules and a standard for the debate was set out.
-
:D :D :D I'm very glad I made these threads. :)
-
That thread was part of an April Fool's joke haha :P (read the whole of APRIL FOOLS 2011: ATARLeaks - the mod forum)
But nevertheless, I do still think that some sort of atmosphere exists, but this tread has been insightful so far imo.
Oh LOL, that's okay then (but it wasn't even April?).
Well, everyone's already said it, but yeah, religious threads are where AN shows up its worst colours. Being a religious person myself, I actually don't mind other people's views. I'd probably just say 'alright, so you're a muslim / atheist / agnostic / hindu / buddhist / jedi, hey, that's cool. I reckon its fine to accept people as they are, there's actually (gasp) no need for a religious thread on AN, in my opinion.
Controversial topics have to be discussed sometime, otherwise there would never be opportunity for reform.
-
I agree with abes. Religious debates never get anywhere. Everyone holds so dearly onto their beliefs. It is highly unlikely that anyone can "convert" anyone over the internet.
-
I'd also like to take this time to raise another point.
I feel the mods(not just admins) are very anti-nacho
have the plebeians of atarnotes noticed this too?
-
I agree with abes. Religious debates never get anywhere. Everyone holds so dearly onto their beliefs. It is highly unlikely that anyone can "convert" anyone over the internet.
i dont remember saying that, but sure, why not.
-
I'd also like to take this time to raise another point.
I feel the mods(not just admins) are very anti-nacho
have the plebeians of atarnotes noticed this too?
Salt & Vinegar chips all the way~
-
I'd also like to take this time to raise another point.
I feel the mods(not just admins) are very anti-nacho
have the plebeians of atarnotes noticed this too?
Salt & Vinegar chips all the way~
this is why we need upvotes (perhaps without affecting respct?)
-
I agree with abes. Religious debates never get anywhere. Everyone holds so dearly onto their beliefs. It is highly unlikely that anyone can "convert" anyone over the internet.
I don't think the goal of those debates are to try and convert people.
The religious debates usually don't start off like "Religion. Discuss." and then free-for-all from there, it's usually framed in the context of some contentious issue. I think it's worth discussing those issues (the riots across the world / in Sydney being the most recent one), and inevitably religion is deeply linked to those issues.
-
I agree with abes. Religious debates never get anywhere. Everyone holds so dearly onto their beliefs. It is highly unlikely that anyone can "convert" anyone over the internet.
It's not about converting people it's about discussing these issues, serious existential issues such as why are we here, where do we come from, what is the meaning of life, does god exist, etc. which religion attempts to answer are very deep issues and should be discussed/challenged. I don't see why you're against intellectual inquiry?
-
I agree with abes. Religious debates never get anywhere. Everyone holds so dearly onto their beliefs. It is highly unlikely that anyone can "convert" anyone over the internet.
I don't think the goal of those debates are to try and convert people.
True, but I think certain users turn it into almost that by hammering (somewhat aggressively) any other stance on the issue.
I joined AN for the supportive and friendly aspect of the site. And this darker side of it really distracts everyone from all the positives. I've said it a few times already, but I really can't see what's so hard in holding a "moderate" and toned-down stance. Keep it friendly and encourage discussion and debate, not attacking and dismissal of other people's cultures.
And if you can't tone it down, maybe argue at another forum where the primary goal isn't an academic and supportive one. It's just intimidating.
-
It's not about converting people it's about discussing these issues, serious existential issues such as why are we here, where do we come from, what is the meaning of life, does god exist, etc. which religion attempts to answer are very deep issues and should be discussed/challenged. I don't see why you're against intellectual inquiry?
There are religious forums and philosophy forums for this purpose. If you want to debate religion, feel free to go there. I quite often do and the quality of debate, knowledge and learning is miles above what goes on here. Remarkably, i've almost never seen someone insulted either.
This is a VCE forum though, its more than a forum now, its a company. Far be it from me to give business advice but i think the focus of this site should be on VCE. If you want to debate religion or discuss it, there are much more appropriate and better venues.
In theory, i'm totally for discussions here. Religion and other issues about meaning and identity are critical to the young people who hang around this site. It'd be great to discuss it, in theory. In practice, they turn into something nasty and fierce. This is why i say, its fine in theory to discuss these things here but as we've all learned (especially those of us who have been around for awhile), it rarely goes good in practice. So, in practice, they should be avoided. If we can't play nice at all, we should just never play.
-
I agree with abes. Religious debates never get anywhere. Everyone holds so dearly onto their beliefs. It is highly unlikely that anyone can "convert" anyone over the internet.
I don't think the goal of those debates are to try and convert people.
True, but I think certain users turn it into almost that by hammering (somewhat aggressively) any other stance on the issue.
I joined AN for the supportive and friendly aspect of the site. And this darker side of it really distracts everyone from all the positives. I've said it a few times already, but I really can't see what's so hard in holding a "moderate" and toned-down stance. Keep it friendly and encourage discussion and debate, not attacking and dismissal of other people's cultures.
And if you can't tone it down, maybe argue at another forum where the primary goal isn't an academic and supportive one. It's just intimidating.
People are always going to be offended when you are debating about religion no matter how much you tone it down.
-
People are always going to be offended when you are debating about religion no matter how much you tone it down.
Well it depends how it's being said. Questioning of an aspect of a belief probably wouldn't offend anyone, but attacking and dismissing it probably would.
Tolerance works both ways, everyone has to accept that there are going to be aspects of your culture that the next person does not agree with (which is why questioning or constructive debating wouldn't offend them). And if they can't accept that, then they shouldn't be involved in the thread until they can.
-
People are always going to be offended when you are debating about religion no matter how much you tone it down.
Well it depends how it's being said. Questioning of an aspect of a belief probably wouldn't offend anyone, but attacking and dismissing it probably would.
Unfortunately for some people, questioning an aspect of a belief is perceived as 'attacking' and 'dismissing' it.
-
^And that's where the "tolerance works both ways" comes into it. If you can't take a reasonable stance, then just don't participate. Blind stances are as unhelpful as aggressive ones. And there will always be those like that, but they're not the "problem" AN has seen as described by the last few pages.
-
Unfortunately for some people, questioning an aspect of a belief is perceived as 'attacking' and 'dismissing' it.
I dont think thats an issue on AN
People are always going to be offended when you are debating about religion no matter how much you tone it down.
I dont think thats warrants not trying
-
I do commend members such as pi, El2012, Nisha, Laseredd and many others who give out +1's well - i.e. they give out respect to the posts which really deserve them - the posts which are genuinely helpful to other people.
Oi cunt, what about me? I didnt upvote 3.5k of posts of shit all. :P
LovesPhysics 5089
kazdawg 3471
Hutchoo 2837
El2012 2600
I want recognition for all my serious upvoting even though pi overtook me like months ago.
And I'd have a lot more were we able to upvote in this thread, but then so would bloody pi, damn you :P
A part from mostly everyone is nice and gets along except for that occasional weirdo (there's one in every year i swear)
Pretty sure you were ours <3
Shout out to:
TrueTears and pi AND KAZDAWG for being the biggest bosses on this forums.
In all seriousness, I think we have a pretty open community here. I think its just me, but what stops me from commenting is laziness if not being intimidated by the intelligence of the people on here rather than the position of the person I'm posting in response to. That said I'm more than happy to be a lurker and sit back with some popcorn and watch the threads, upvoting the fuck out of what I can.
Cant really imagine not going on here I guess. Kinda like it here. Knowing that our generation are still capable of producing intelligent people is pretty sick and this site embodies that.
Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience
-
I'm a bit late to this party (and given that I have an exam in 7 hours, I think I have a valid excuse).
A massive thank you to Water and Thushan for getting this started. And acknowledgements to enwiabe and ninatron for biting the bait and keeping to your guns, your replies couldn't have illustrated the point better.
I wanted to raise this for a while now. I have this feeling that AN now has some of the harmful elements of BoS that catalysed AN's own inception (maybe I'm a bit off, I wasn't around during BoS). This is especially evident in the more verbal debate threads, where some people who actively participated choose to delete their accounts by the end of the thread.
Mods and admins here tend to have some pretty impressive credentials. These are very well respected by the community (and thank you for that, we are more humbled than anything else), but they also fuel a relatively fucking massive ego. I know I have trouble keeping control of that ego. Given the statuses here, I highly respect people who go against the status quo and call mods/admins out on being stupid (shout out to teewreck and abes amongst others).
I call to fellow mods and admins to apply some self-censoring to not be vindictive. Make your arguments known, offer objective criticisms, and depart. I can't think of a good reason to beat the other person to the ground, and I especially can't think of any reasonable justifications of beating the other person to the ground. I would be blind to say the views presented here represents the societal norm, or are acceptable by normal social standards (even if they are intended as 'changes-for-the-better'). Quite a few views here can even be considered as radical. If you cannot see the harm in being so strongly opinionated about something against the norm, then perhaps your sense of community is different to everyone else's.
EDIT: On second thought, I shouldn't be afraid to name names here. If it isn't already obvious, much of this is directed @ enwiabe and ninatron. Though the advice is generally adaptable to all.
-
Unfortunately for some people, questioning an aspect of a belief is perceived as 'attacking' and 'dismissing' it.
I dont think thats an issue on AN
I've seen two people leave the forum because their religious beliefs were criticized.
-
Unfortunately for some people, questioning an aspect of a belief is perceived as 'attacking' and 'dismissing' it.
I dont think thats an issue on AN
I've seen two people leave the forum because their religious beliefs were criticized.
Because their beliefs were criticized, or because they were critised?
-
Unfortunately for some people, questioning an aspect of a belief is perceived as 'attacking' and 'dismissing' it.
I dont think thats an issue on AN
I've seen two people leave the forum because their religious beliefs were criticized.
Because their beliefs were criticized, or because they were critised?
Their beliefs. Considering that religion is for many people is apart of their identity, some people can't seem to differentiate between the two.
-
Soul_Khan those two people were the same person. She PM'd me to tell me that she was quite upset, not because her beliefs were being criticised, but because her beliefs were being criticised in a very callous and degrading way. And when you criticise one's beliefs, ESPECIALLY in a religion where culture, identity, values, and religion are intertwined and are effectively synonymous, then you'd want to be sensitive about how you do it.
-
I remember there being more than one person (but I won't name names).
-
if we cant play nice then shut down all those threads for like 2 weeks or a month or so and when theyre back tell people to be nice and shit LOL just an idea
-
I remember there being more than one person (but I won't name names).
Yeah, they're all the same person (IP)
-
I'm just going to name names... aren't newton and ashjbsdhbs(whatever it was I forget) different people?
-
The biggest thing that worries me about this whole situation is the affect it has on AN as a website. Enwiabe has made an incredibly useful resource, which I think most of us greatly appreciate, and he himself is an intelligent person who's views, although in some things (such as religion) are on the extreme side, are at least, generally speaking, substantiated by evidence. I think most of us do not want to necessarily speak out against the admins, not because we're "scared" of retaliation from admins, but because these people have put in countless hours of effort into producing a resource which is predominantly for our benefit and which is clearly not being done for pure profit motives. It is for this reason that Admins are automatically given respect, and their opinions have more authority when they post them. I personally feel like if such views were delivered in a less antagonistic matter, not only would they be exponentially more persuasive but then threads such as these would not be necessary. I am in no way insinuating that Enwiabe shouldn't have opinions on things - on the contrary, I think with his position of power he can do a lot more to change people's perceptions then any regular member. I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.
-
I find it interesting that every religion thread pretty much just re-hashes every other religion thread. What compels people to keep posting when what they think on the matter is already well-documented in the archives? Or, perhaps more constructively, how can we have discussions about religion that move on from what has been previously argued about? Is there a better way to frame it than "[news story], what do you think?"
-
I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.
This is a strawman because I do actually not say the latter.
Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.
Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.
Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.
The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a valid point.
-
I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.
Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.
Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.
Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.
The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a point.
What gives you the right to tell people that they are deluded? Why are your views so obviously correct, that you feel the need to tell others that they are deluded and without any attempt at politeness?
-
I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.
Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.
Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.
Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.
The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a point.
What gives you the right to tell people that they are deluded? Why are your views so obviously correct, that you feel the need to tell others that they are deluded and without any attempt at politeness?
Because the truth is important, and the lies told by religion manipulate people to do evil things.
-
Because the truth is important, and the lies told by religion manipulate people to do evil things.
In fairness, the number of people who do "evil things" solely due to religion is very very very few. I'm not very religious myself (so I won't be able to quote scripture etc etc in this thread), but I don't buy the point that just because there are a few crazies out there from every religion that the whole idea needs to be torn apart and dismissed. Religion also has lots of positive aspects too.
-
I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.
Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.
Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.
Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.
The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a point.
What gives you the right to tell people that they are deluded? Why are your views so obviously correct, that you feel the need to tell others that they are deluded and without any attempt at politeness?
Because the truth is important, and the lies told by religion manipulate people to do evil things.
Important things don't warrant impoliteness.
-
In fairness, the number of people who do "evil things" solely due to religion is very very very few.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/same-sex-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016#votestable
---
Honestly, I can count on one hand the number of times dan has been legit out of line. He would achieve much better results with more carrot and less stick and I wish the religion debates would be higher quality...but as distasteful as individuals might find calling people hypocrites, telling them that they are deluded or refusing to back down, I don't accept that there is anything inherently wrong with that that needs to be censored. I'm sure he now appreciates that people would prefer a more balanced approach but I don't agree that he's obliged to temper his argument and tone.
I also find it vaguely amusing that a thread about how we want more politeness culminated in people being called vindictive egomaniacs, but hey.
-
In fairness, the number of people who do "evil things" solely due to religion is very very very few.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/same-sex-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016#votestable
a) The whole Liberal Party was instructed not to vote "No", so it's unfair to blame all of them for that
b) Not everyone who vote "No" was religious (eg. Julia Gillard)
c) As much as I'm disgusted by it (the decision), it's not "evil"
As for the rest of your post, I've addressed that in my comments in the previous pages, but I'll add this:
but I don't agree that he's obliged to temper his argument and tone.
I think that for the sake of the AN brand (as this is now bigger than just a forum), I think he is obliged to (and read through the thread to see those who agree here). The truth is, that having one of he oldest people on the forum aggressively beating down the cultural beliefs of members looks very immature (as nacho said), looks very bully-like and looks very petty.
Just going to reaffirm here that I don't think Dan is the sole person of issue here, and that I do love the work he has put into making this place an excellent academic resource. But the fact remains that new members do feel somewhat intimidated and "scared" and that needs to be addressed, whether you agree with it or not.
edit: typo in a) oops
-
Religious debates may not go anywhere, but it makes for fun mental masturbation. What else are we gonna do with our time?
-
Religious debates may not go anywhere, but it makes for fun mental masturbation. What else are we gonna do with our time?
Mental masturbation. LOL.
Reminds me of how one of my friends described my talk at The Age Expo - "mind sex"
-
I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.
This is a strawman because I do actually not say the latter.
Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.
Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.
Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.
The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a valid point.
Why do you have to tell people that their belief in God is a delusion? All it does is devalue your otherwise legitimate points. I also disagree with any attack on the idea is a "personal attack on their identity", many people are able to have arguments about religion with religious people, yet do so in such a way that it doesn't become an attack on the person.
Anyway... I feel like this is heading towards a debate about religion, so best stop now.
-
I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.
Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.
Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.
Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.
The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a point.
What gives you the right to tell people that they are deluded? Why are your views so obviously correct, that you feel the need to tell others that they are deluded and without any attempt at politeness?
Because the truth is important, and the lies told by religion manipulate people to do evil things.
Not all of us choose to believe in God because we've been told to by another religious party.
-
Not all of us choose to believe in God because we've been told to by another religious party.
Most people believe in God because their parents do and they've been conditioned to at a young age.
-
Not all of us choose to believe in God because we've been told to by another religious party.
Most people believe in God because their parents do and they've been conditioned to at a young age.
I agree, however from my experience with people, often the strongest belief is in the person that chooses to follow a particular faith.
-
Most people believe in God because their parents do and they've been conditioned to at a young age.
I agree, however from my experience with people, often the strongest belief is in the person that chooses to follow a particular faith.
In other cases, I would say it's usually because religion enhances meaning in life and provides assurance, comfort and a sense of community to people who are desperate (whether it be due to fear, depression, poverty, lack of purpose etc.)
-
A question: do you feel "scared" to post against the view of a prominent moderator or admin?
eg.
- Contradicting mods/admin in religious debate threads?
- Contradicting or questioning Thushan's working or answer in a chem thread?
- Saying you enjoy VCE Physics anywhere in the forum? (not that anyone would...)
- Fear of getting mass downvoted for stating your views?
On another note, do you downvote or upvote people based on who they are?
Gosh being in China for the last two weeks has made me miss out on SOOO much -_-"
Not looking through all of this thread and just answering this:
Honestly at the start I felt intimidated by just posting on AN due to my age and many people would take me seriously but over time I have started to become more 'carefree' and post on the spur since AN is about giving your opinion that woud benefit others. In terms of posting against moderators/admins... I guess you do feel some sort of discomfort posting against a person since they have massive amounts of respect compared to myself or anybody else >.<
As for downvoting and upvoting... well it depends if it's helped or not. It doesn't matter who that person is since it's all abut helping people and not having some sort of vengeance against somebody..
Note: If This has already been discussed then I am sorry.
-
I find that a lot of the work that deserves upvotes goes un-upvoted. I got wayy too many upvotes in my English sticky when the others there are probably more universally useful and they collectivelly don't have as much.
Downvoting should be removed - it's just bruised egos, and really it doesn't accomplish much. Poor Surgy and this recent guy called Heart.
Leave upvoting though, the respect system is fantastic - so long as there's no room for personal attacks or negativity. That's what the "report to moderator" function is for.
-
I find that a lot of the work that deserves upvotes goes un-upvoted. I got wayy too many upvotes in my English sticky when the others there are probably more universally useful and they collectivelly don't have as much.
Downvoting should be removed - it's just bruised egos, and really it doesn't accomplish much. Poor Surgy and this recent guy called Heart.
Leave upvoting though, the respect system is fantastic - so long as there's no room for personal attacks or negativity. That's what the "report to moderator" function is for.
i reckon thats a pretty good idea..
-
Upvoting still exists in the education-related boards
-
Another point;
Upvoting really isn't utilised that much among the education boards. I think all the VCE students in the VCE (and only the VCE education boards [i.e. not uni boards]) boards don't use the upvote function nearly as much as those in uni boards.
Half my friggin' uni board posts get +likes whilst none of the educational posts that undoubtedly and objectively deserve them much more get them.
I'm not saying that there's a problem there, I'm just pointing out a phenomenon.
Keep it as it is though - who doesn't want free respect from posting funny shit in uni boards :)
-
I agree, down voting really should be removed.
-
I disagree, if it bruises someone's ego but they learn to not be a douche about the way they post, then I don't see what's wrong with it.
Re: Reporting "douchey" to mods, what do you hope we can do about posts like that?
-
I disagree, if it bruises someone's ego but they learn to not be a douche about the way they post, then I don't see what's wrong with it.
Re: Reporting "douchey" to mods, what do you hope we can do about posts like that?
It's a fair point I guess. I'm pretty easily persuaded, but even before I kind of agreed that Surgeon was just one of those people who you genuinely would appreciate seeing suffer and failing at life.
Nah, IMO opinion changed. It does result in butthurt posters, but at least they learn not to be dicks that irritate the rest of us.
-
^ Yes whatever happened to surgeon? He has disappeared.
-
AN just wasn't what he was looking for, if you know what I mean. You see, he misread "ATARNotes" as "ATARStalk."
-
AN just wasn't what he was looking for, if you know what I mean. You see, he misread "ATARNotes" as "ATARStalk."
And old Surgy just wasn't what AN was expecting from it's members.
-
AN expected a surgeon, not a stalker.
You want AN culture? In AN culture, we don't tolerate dicks.
-
How come some peoples usernames are a little different now??
-
How come some peoples usernames are a little different now??
I had a bit of fun after being promoted to National Mod. Hehe.
-
How come some peoples usernames are a little different now??
I had a bit of fun after being promoted to National Mod. Hehe.
Oooh. Did you change them or did you give them the option to change them?
And congratulations! 8)
-
How come some peoples usernames are a little different now??
It's a huge injustice :'(
Did you change them or did you give them the option to change them?
I was given no option :'(
-
I was given no option
Ouch! *hugs*
-
How come some peoples usernames are a little different now??
I had a bit of fun after being promoted to National Mod. Hehe.
Oooh. Did you change them or did you give them the option to change them?
And congratulations! 8)
Hehe thanks! I don't ask for consent on AN. I act first and answer questions never. :P
Plus, old PhysicsIsAwesome LOVES physics. Hence his old name LovesPhysics. But that sounded too...yucky. So I made it a bit more...oomph.
Oh, he also loves Vegemite.
Don't think this is on-topic? Yes it is. This accentuates another aspect of our culture. Humour and practical jokes. :P
-
AN expected a surgeon, not a stalker.
You want AN culture? In AN culture, we don't tolerate dicks.
What did he do??
-
He realised he doesn't have a prick, so he decided to be one. He treated ATARNotes as ATARStalkGirls.
-
rofl surgeon
-
How was he caught? Was he perm banned or did he delete his account?
-
How was he caught? Was he perm banned or did he delete his account?
I caught him.
-
Hey Felicity, I improved your name a little. :P
ON TOPIC: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE NATURE OF THE MODERATORS. Practical jokers! Case in point: taiga.
-
How was he caught? Was he perm banned or did he delete his account?
I caught him.
sounds so badass.. well done! :)
-
Haha cheers.
-
Hey Felicity, I improved your name a little. :P
LOL
-
Hey Felicity, I improved your name a little. :P
LOL NICE! But... :'(
He treated ATARNotes as ATARStalkGirls.
Oh.. that explains why he was so persistent in messaging me even when I didn't reply..
-
Yeah just to make it clear, he:
- harassed girls (yes that's plural) on AN even after they asked him to stop
- harassed two of them via SMS and phonecalls
and we have proof of all that too, it's not just hearsay
-
The AN police.
-
How come some peoples usernames are a little different now??
I had a bit of fun after being promoted to National Mod. Hehe.
Hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife!
-
Hey Felicity, I improved your name a little. :P
LOL NICE! But... :'(
He treated ATARNotes as ATARStalkGirls.
Oh.. that explains why he was so persistent in messaging me even when I didn't reply..
Surgeon persistently PM'd you too?
EDIT: I want to make one more name edit - it will be my last!!!
-
How come some peoples usernames are a little different now??
I had a bit of fun after being promoted to National Mod. Hehe.
Hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife!
Too late. :P
-
Surgeon persistently PM'd you too?
[/quote]
A few times. Our conversations were really boring so I was wondering why he kept trying to talk. :o
-
what the fuuuuuuck?
is it possible to see the proof of this? what kinds of message was he sending? did he ever stalk anyone in person?
and also i'm game for name improvements. hit me up, do your worst, so long as you change it back when i want haha
-
Surgeon persistently PM'd you too?
A few times. Our conversations were really boring so I was wondering why he kept trying to talk. :o
[/quote]
That's so fucked. Now I properly understand the chat hysteria yesterday a few days back.
When was he officially banned?
-
and also i'm game for name improvements. hit me up, do your worst, so long as you change it back when i want haha
You should be VivaToKillAMockingbird
Too long :(
-
I'm also up for some name changes..
hit me with your best shot.. my body is ready
-
Lol my other screen name is TequilaMockingbird in forums that allow it, but it mostly breaks the character limit. Does it fit here?
-
I need the permission of PhysicsIsAwesome first.
-
Permission to show evidence or permission to change names? Or both?
-
I don't think any evidence should be shown. It's just disrespectful to the victims
-
Permission to show evidence or permission to change names? Or both?
To change names.
And I'm not showing evidence, it's not particularly appropriate.
-
Have you backed up / archived all of his old posts? I was trying to find his thread where he was whining the other day about failing VCE completely and being a massive screw-up when I realised he didn't have a forum profile anymore.
You can't search up banned users.
Anyway
Summary of last few pages -> -_-
/locked