Civility, I think is an essential requirement of interfaith dialogue.
I'd place it dead last... that way I can talk with people from entirely different countries and civilizations. Here, what is left is mostly Western thinking folks and walled gardens... it really is not too much interfaith at all.
However, I absolutely draw the line at people who want to turn CR into their own personal marketing channel. It serves the interests of a minority, and the internet allows these people to set up their own marketing in their own space, under their own rules.
I've noticed advertisements up in the banner... what gives? Why not let someone sell / talk about their book? I'd pay for the bandwidth if that were a concern. Make a thousand forums if necessary. It is like being at a wedding and the organ player or the photographer hands his business card to the next young couple. Good for them.
If I'm in a pub or restaurant, and someone starts shouting at the clients and won't calm down and generally acts disruptive, I expect that they will be ejected from the premises - else I'll be the one to leave and not return. If the behaviour is tolerated, how many people will care to visit such a place? Who will be motivated most to visit it if aggressive behaviour is openly accpeted?
At a pub or restaurant the social gatherings or conversations are private and personal. They are not public. Here, anything said is available to every computer on the internet wherein you or someone else has not blocked it. Nobody has lungs to yell that loudly that I am aware of.
I apply a similar thinking to CR - most people don't need moderater attention because they can already accept basic norms of social behaviour. If not, I will usually try and work it out with them, but there comes a point when it needs stating that enough is enough.
Niranjan's social behavior is a basic norm and it thus required less moderator attention. I found that it was upon the moderator attention that a problem really arrived, per your definition of civility.
It's never an easy call to make, but to be honest, the only reason such objections to these decisions is made is because - despite seeing people as trouble-makers from the start - I gave them tolerance enough to try and adapt to the basic acceptable norms that CR runs on. As a forum admin, I should remove trouble-makers the moment they appear, but it's precisely because I am trying to be so tolerant in what is allowed that such situations develop long enough that the resulting decisions come under scrunity.
I submit that is not true. What I see is a lack of definition for your 'civility' or 'acceptable norms'. Those are in the eye of the beholder... you. If you can define them then rebuke people when you see that cross your line and do so justly and with words that provide definition for comparison. Upon that rebuke, people can compare the language and get a feel for what you are talking about. Contrary to your belief, I submit that it is not tolerance to say NOTHING to someone like Niranjan or Juantoo3... or whoever else took part in the rant that got him expelled. Personally I think someone should have asked him to stop quoting dead people so often, but then we'd all be guilty of that on a religion forum wouldn't we. Maybe it was the unrelated Einstein quotes while trying to discuss Islam... I don't know. But whatever you don't like, it is not tolerance to ignore it. It is intolerance though to ban it, which is fine but I'm not clear at all what Niranjan said that someone like Juantoo3 hasn't said already.
A point about Bobby's writing column - I knew him from other sites a long time ago, and thought that a series of writing columns on CR offering different faith positions would be interesting to run. He writes from a moderate Christian perspective I find interesting, and think stories such as
Big Buddy have a wide appeal.
I personally think it adds... I thought Niranjan's viewpoint or the peace prophet added too though.
On that note - there's a software upgrade coming to the forums over the summer that should allow people to have their own blog sections on the forums. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this, and whether it proves useful for people.
I agree that will be interesting to see what happens.
I'll admit - I don't like the decisions I make being called into question or scrutiny, and on a personal level it I don't like it. But as a forum admin, I figure it's my responsility to allow such questions to be raised, and to be accountable for them. Ultimately, CR is only as strong as the community it develops. My priority therefore has to be to try and look after the majority interest community as I see it, to allow it to continue to grow and stregthen.
I suggest that distaste occurs in the review of many trades and social situations. I embrace it now. If a person loves me then they will judge me with words for what they believe is true and rightful. Likewise I clearly do the same.
I would say that comparing religion (CR) is only as strong as the diversity and quantity of individuals who make comparisons within their own minds. I see no community because you retain full control and because only words are exchanged across the forum. If people had discussed the fate of Niranjan before he was banned, or if people helped pay for and maintain the forum, then maybe I'd start to see a community. As it is, I think people are seriously fooling themselves by calling it a community. A community is much more than sharing viewpoints. So... interesting website but you didn't serve me anything by banning any of the people mentioned. Who here claims that it served them anything? As I see it, it served no purpose but to end a dispute between a few members who maybe couldn't end it for themselves. I wasn't one of them so maybe I just lack that vigor to have wanted anyone banned.
I find that there are a few elected governments that seem to have overlooked that the majority interest is how the majority sees it. You are opposed to rule by the people (community?) here so that is out. So I might continue to lightly press for a little more definition of civility, more rebukes from you prior to banning someone, and then mercy for the Silas or Niranjan who allegedly crosses the line. If they won't say sorry, then ban them.
-Thanks.
I know what you mean.
