Your thoughts welcomed about how to broach the topics most dear to you... It seems it is not possible to have a discussion respectively about virgin birth, resurrection, Gaza, or drawing a picture of Mohamed without infuriating or at the very least making my Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends uncomfortable respectively.
My thoughts: If you are going to be specific, be specific. Don't use a blanket to cover whatever displeases in a moment, I guarantee it will be abused. Disagreement is not by default "hate."
I have a problem with a person taking it upon themselves to educate or correct me about what I should think/believe but from the standpoint of their own religion/faith and with a lot of assumptions but only a thin wikipedia based knowledge of what I actually do think? When I try to explain to that person what I do actually believe, and that person then ignores or deliberately misunderstands what I say, or basically mocks and belittles my own beliefs as silly and illogical and mysterious etc, and then continues to post mistruths about it, accompanied by irritating smiley/wink emojis -- then I get angry, and when I get angry I sometimes say things I regret ... (edited)
With all due respect, that is a portion of the problem here. If I may have your permission to speak freely? I accept that different leaders have different styles (thinking of I,Brian and StevePame). You are in a position of leadership now, with big shoes to fill. Members look to you for guidance. What you do they feel is acceptable behavior. In effect, you model the behavior that will happen around here. If you are polite, the members will see that is expected of them. If you are blunt, members will see that is acceptable. If you are crass...you get the picture. Doesn't matter if you go back and delete what you posted if the respondee has already seen what was written. An unfortunate part of the internet is there are no "take backs," once you hit the send button it is out there. I was taught to take a breath and reread and reconsider before I hit "send." As a mod in my former life here there are many, many posts I thought better of and deleted, bit my tongue, and either found another way or let it slide (notice I did not say to forget...). Leaving me out of the equation (I do my own thing, the resident curmudgeon "Oscar the Grouch"), I've seen many times others' objections to your quick reactions. You have a temper, that is the simple reality (we all do), but as a leader it is expected of you to control that temper. It can be difficult at times to hold one's opinion, and for something really egregious you could perhaps take it to Private Message out of sight. Rule of thumb for leadership; praise in public, chastise in private. And on that note allow me to say that for someone who jumped into the deep end without knowing what he was getting into, you're doing a good job. And you are asking the right questions. With a bit of tweaking I think you can bring the ship back around.
I know, but its a bit late for that. You have good staff to back you up. I don't know where you found Cino, but you are blessed to have him/her on board. And Mohammed_Isa is a blessing too. Wil when he's around, and Thomas I will always defend. You are surrounded by good people, you simply need to suck it up and lead. That is the choice you made and the bed you slept in, so that is the role you need to fill. <edit, OMG! How could I forget Phyllis? >
I can't see it like that though. I'm not the leader. I'm not. Big boss, head prefect -- it's in other people's heads. No-one should feel that way. If more people like you would have their say, there would be no need.
We can all be grateful to anyone trying to muck-in to keep this website alive And that means YOU dear reader, lol
You can't sail a ship by committee. It's impossible. It is one thing to solicit opinions and suggestions, and I have nothing to say against that. But it is incumbent on you as the leader to hold counsel privately with your advisors (mod staff) and review those suggestions before implementing any of them. You need to weigh pros and cons. You need to look at all sides before moving forward. It can (and should!) take time. Not every suggestion is doable or worthwhile or adds to the stated goal and purpose of this site. You have stated you want this place to be for folks to be able to peacefully and politely discuss matters of religion and spirituality, and then put forward Wil's (awesome, btw!) short and sweet mission statement...but then do things that undermine those very points? You need to be consistent in your message - I don't say that in a mean sense, but a factual sense. If you want this place to turn into a free-for-all grudge match, then this place is certainly pointed in that direction (the 1 on 1 debate, no holds barred as example - that *will* spill over into the rest of the site if implemented). There is *some* time left to turn the site around (how much I don't know), but I don't see it going where you say you want it to go. That's just me being honest. You have to make some decisions, then stand by those decisions. That's not to say something cannot be changed later if it shows it doesn't work, but you need to have a firm hand on the tiller.
This isn't a ship and I'm not captain We do try None of us do. Would you like to lodge a formal report against the thread/poster in question, so I am not seen as trying to stifle debate? Again please have your say. Use the report button We are trying to make decisions by committee. I'm NOT the captain of anybody's ship. Please report content/users you find disagreeable -- including me.
Think of it this way...you've just adopted a 7 or 8 year old kid. Like it or not, you are now a Dad (again?). Are you going to guide your charge, or allow the child to roam the streets? The choice is yours.
Well who is glad to see me back now with my "how about this question" contemplations. Yes Juan you cant steer a ship by committee, but you can plan its course and destination. I worked with a bunch of clowns (literally) and magicians and jugglers and for near a decade we ran workshops for variety artists...we got world class pros as teachers and some incredibly talented and experienced students as well...this venture run by a bunch of clowns was one that dozens of entertainers have said helped change their careers. Sotto like this place. We were all just participants...elevated to leadership by happenstance....we will do what we can how we can. But back to my original question....with a twist. If we have strongfelt beliefs on a topic, so strong it drives us to say or do things we would not normally do....why cant we understand the same in others? Decades ago I had a friend die of AIDS. As his health wained I visited in the hospital often, sometimes for hours...lots of conversations lots of topics. He said he new he was gay in Jr high school as hormones got guys looking at girls, he was embarrassed but obviously attracted to men..no denying it. As he aged he saw porn and movies, and obviously had thoughts....and any thought of, any movie of men kissing women made him sick. The thought of making love to a woman was absolutely repulsive. That was incredible to me...if that is the case than why cant it be acceptable for a hetero to think gay is gross? Or that a man making love to another is repulsive to some? This is what I want to explore...good for the goose good for the gander? How can we allow ourselves to have these visceral emotions on certain topics yet not understand others when they do the same? Why do we instantly belittle and demean their belief, cause, understanding as trite, ridiculous or insignificant compared to ours?
First, I'm sorry to hear of the loss of your friend. As I've pointed to before in times past, finding a way to agree to disagree and remain friends is crucial. If you start down the road of cancelling this discussion because it causes hurt feelings, but then what about that discussion? And that one, and that one? Eventually all discussions are verboten. What's the point of a discussion board if there is no discussion? The flip side is that I don't have to participate in any discussion that makes me uncomfortable. And if I do chime in with my opinion...and I've tried multiple disclaimers out of the gate in times past - doesn't seem to matter, if I dissent I'm a hater. How does that promote discussion? Like I said, it's a delicate tightrope walk. And clown college, aka entertainer's workshop, surely had someone who footed the bills. Someone came up with the idea and promoted it. In the end, that is a very different scenario than running a discussion board where a wide variety of differing opinions are encouraged to interact. The workshop had a group with similar goals and similar references in common.
Encouraging folks to report threads that are out of line...including yours...is well and good, and commendable. But the final decision is yours. That isn't unilateral, that is you acting under consideration.
Agreed, but I see you dodged my questions. How does cancelling or labelling as hatred encourage discussion?
