A Formal Petition

[u-dog]

If the Moderator team feels you are consistently posting with disregard for our community's rules, your posting privileges will be removed.

Thanks for your help,
Nate

We have talked about this before, now I am formally requesting it!

Can we PLEASE create a seperate forum for this kind of thread? We obviously need it. Stev0 IS TECHNICALLY violating the rules, however, he is ALSO interacting with this community in good faith and the resulting thread is helpful and worthwhile. IT SHOULD BE ACCOMODATED HERE.

We will ALWAYS have visitors like Stev0 and there are people in our community who are happy to interact with them (in fact... we live for it)

There are also people (like LadyinRed) who feel oppressed by the presence of adversaries. We love Lady - she is a member of the family - and we want to protect her and others in a similar place from toxic interactions.

If we create the seperate forum -- and include the appropriate warnings -- everyone can have what they need. Moderators can be empowered to move ANY THREAD to the "toxic topics forum" at any time if they feel the content is becoming dangerous or unhelpful to people who are here primarily for sanctuary.

If posters become too toxic EVEN FOR THE TOXIC TOPICS FORUM, the moderators can enforce the letter of the law and toss them out on their metaphorical butts. But for the most part the "toxic topics" forum will be a place where the rules can be a little more flexible.

I am requesting that the moderators put their cyber heads together with the staff of Soulforce and come back with an answer to my petition.

I am including a poll to elicit the responses of other members

[dsdrane]

I agree. This forum serves two purposes: engaging friends and non-friends alike as well as providing a safe space for more intimate, "just for us" interaction.

Always the architect, I think of this in terms of a building. In any house, the front door/foyer/vestibule is the place where the public and private interact. It's where you greet people, where you invite them in or keep them out.

Perhaps that is something we could do here.

[Zerbie]

Yeah, actually, I've been wanting to, shall we say, quarantine?? - certain discussions without banning them altogether.

Jayyyyyyy-mieeeeeeeee! Can we have a forum section just for the heated topics? That way when we aren't feeling up to explaining for the 111,349,679th time that orientation is not a choice, we don't run across those discussions on the regular boards. While still accomodating them somewhere.

[andrewlittle]

I do believe u-dog is full of it, but not on this one issue. I do agree, even though lately I haven't engaged one or two of the posters that might be in question.

I think we've seen examples of how minds can be changed, or at least understanding built, by discussing issues that are contentious. I also agree that those that wish to avoid such discussion, for whatever reason, should be able to do so because they clearly know that discussion in the Toxic section could be damaging or inflaming.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

BTW, who gave u-dog the idea - he couldn't have come up with it by himself. Could he?

[Daniel]

I agree with U-dog on this issue.

That said, I can think of a reason why this might be difficult to accomplish, and it's a practical one.

Does the forum software allow for a member to be restricted to posting in a certain section only? This would be necessary, would it not? Otherwise the 'offending' party could do as he/she liked. And what would make it Ok- what would be the deciding factor- for this same party to deemed worthy enough to sally forth among the other natives? No one likes to think about the 'rights' of those who offend. But I think we'll need to think about this a little more.

The practical side of an ethical matter?

But it may be that I haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about. Wouldn't be the first time. :rolleyes:

[Zerbie]

I agree with U-dog on this issue.

That said, I can think of a reason why this might be difficult to accomplish, and it's a practical one.

Does the forum software allow for a member to be restricted to posting in a certain section only? This would necessary, would it not? Otherwise the 'offending' party could do as he/she liked. And what would make it Ok- what would be the deciding factor- for this same party to deemed worthy enough to sally forth among the other natives? No one likes to think about the 'rights' of those who offend. But I think we'll need to think about this a little more.

The practical side of an ethical matter?

But it may be that I haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about. Wouldn't be the first time. :rolleyes:

Nahhhh not quite, because mods can always MOVE threads from one forum to another. The thread would be moved if its content is deemed potentially triggering for anyone not in a "place" to want to deal with that sort of conversation.

[tdogg]

I'm leaning towards this being a good idea. My thoughts - how much more work would this be for the moderators and would they have time to sift through everything AND move it around?

[stev0]

We have talked about this before, now I am formally requesting it!

Can we PLEASE create a seperate forum for this kind of thread? We obviously need it. Stev0 IS TECHNICALLY violating the rules, however, he is ALSO interacting with this community in good faith and the resulting thread is helpful and worthwhile. IT SHOULD BE ACCOMODATED HERE.

We will ALWAYS have visitors like Stev0 and there are people in our community who are happy to interact with them (in fact... we live for it)

There are also people (like LadyinRed) who feel oppressed by the presence of adversaries. We love Lady - she is a member of the family - and we want to protect her and others in a similar place from toxic interactions.

If we create the seperate forum -- and include the appropriate warnings -- everyone can have what they need. Moderators can be empowered to move ANY THREAD to the "toxic topics forum" at any time if they feel the content is becoming dangerous or unhelpful to people who are here primarily for sanctuary.

If posters become too toxic EVEN FOR THE TOXIC TOPICS FORUM, the moderators can enforce the letter of the law and toss them out on their metaphorical butts. But for the most part the "toxic topics" forum will be a place where the rules can be a little more flexible.

I am requesting that the moderators put their cyber heads together with the staff of Soulforce and come back with an answer to my petition.

I am including a poll to elicit the responses of other members

I guess I shoulda read the terms and conditions of the forum posts and all that jazz...:confused:

sorry for all the hooplah I've caused
I just was searching the net about the subject and landed on that article that walter wrote and I had to post something about it...

[stev0]

I'm leaning towards this being a good idea. My thoughts - how much more work would this be for the moderators and would they have time to sift through everything AND move it around?

maybe it could be coded that if enough ppl hit the *warning* label on a post that the thread will be FLAGGED for a moderator to see so that it can be easily picked out and moved or deleted like my post may be. :)

[Daniel]

Nahhhh not quite, because mods can always MOVE threads from one forum to another. The thread would be moved if its content is deemed potentially triggering for anyone not in a "place" to want to deal with that sort of conversation.

I wasn't referring to threads as much as posts. If as person has access to the whole of the forum, the idea of quarantining someone is pointless. What's to stop a poster who riles the rest of the forum up from posting where he or she likes?

[u-dog]

I wasn't referring to threads as much as posts. If as person has access to the whole of the forum, the idea of quarantining someone is pointless. What's to stop a poster who riles the rest of the forum up from posting where he or she likes?


I think we are just talking about accomodating a certain kind of conversation with a certain kind of reasonable person that is technically in violation of the rules but NOT a violation of the "spirit" of this place -- while still shielding those community members and loved ones who don't wish to be exposed to the toxicity that sometimes results.

If we have a jerk who can't contain him/her self and respect those boundaries... well then... kick his (oh face it! ... they're ALWAYS guys) butt outa here!

[sailaway58]

I live for controversy. It helps me formulate my thoughts and it is good a good exercise in preparation for 3-D conversations.
I agree with U-dog

[Zerbie]

I wasn't referring to threads as much as posts. If as person has access to the whole of the forum, the idea of quarantining someone is pointless. What's to stop a poster who riles the rest of the forum up from posting where he or she likes?

I think we are just talking about accomodating a certain kind of conversation with a certain kind of reasonable person that is technically in violation of the rules but NOT a violation of the "spirit" of this place -- while still shielding those community members and loved ones who don't wish to be exposed to the toxicity that sometimes results.

If we have a jerk who can't contain him/her self and respect those boundaries... well then... kick his (oh face it! ... they're ALWAYS guys) butt outa here!

Yep. Banishment. . . muwahahahahaa!!

[BenL]

I live for controversy. It helps me formulate my thoughts and it is good a good exercise in preparation for 3-D conversations.
I agree with U-dog

I can't stand controversy. I always get tongue-tied and feel shot down. I take one look at the subject of a thread, and if I'm not interested, I don't even read it. I know that I might miss something good, but I can't risk the kind of agitation and the terrible feeling of desolation I get from some of the so-called Christian garbage that some of these people spew. There! See, I have violated the rules, and it doesn't feel good.

I come here for acceptance, not for conflict. Some of you, like Sailaway, thrive on controversy. Have at it. I don't want any part of it.

Does that mean I'm in favor of u-dog's proposal or not? I don't know.

[Emproph]

I'm leaning towards this being a good idea. My thoughts - how much more work would this be for the moderators and would they have time to sift through everything AND move it around?maybe it could be coded that if enough ppl hit the *warning* label on a post that the thread will be FLAGGED for a moderator to see so that it can be easily picked out and moved or deleted like my post may be. :)

And we already have that with the red triangle at the top right hand corner of each post (I've used it before when I see spam). If you click on it on the offending post, a page comes up with a message box and you just type in what the problem is. So it only takes one *flag* for a moderator to see it.

I wasn't referring to threads as much as posts. If as person has access to the whole of the forum, the idea of quarantining someone is pointless. What's to stop a poster who riles the rest of the forum up from posting where he or she likes?I think we are just talking about accomodating a certain kind of conversation with a certain kind of reasonable person that is technically in violation of the rules but NOT a violation of the "spirit" of this place -- while still shielding those community members and loved ones who don't wish to be exposed to the toxicity that sometimes results.

If we have a jerk who can't contain him/her self and respect those boundaries... well then... kick his (oh face it! ... they're ALWAYS guys) butt outa here!

Agreed. In that sense it wouldn't be for quarantining people per se, it would be more for quarantining certain types of conversations.

Along those lines, and as has been done before, the entire thread wouldn't necessarily need to be moved, but just the offending portion/post, and any relevant responses.

[Emproph]

I live for controversy. It helps me formulate my thoughts and it is good a good exercise in preparation for 3-D conversations.
I agree with U-dogI can't stand controversy. I always get tongue-tied and feel shot down. I take one look at the subject of a thread, and if I'm not interested, I don't even read it. I know that I might miss something good, but I can't risk the kind of agitation and the terrible feeling of desolation I get from some of the so-called Christian garbage that some of these people spew. There! See, I have violated the rules, and it doesn't feel good.

I come here for acceptance, not for conflict. Some of you, like Sailaway, thrive on controversy. Have at it. I don't want any part of it.

Does that mean I'm in favor of u-dog's proposal or not? I don't know.

Which coincides with:

We will ALWAYS have visitors like Stev0 and there are people in our community who are happy to interact with them (in fact... we live for it)

There are also people (like LadyinRed) who feel oppressed by the presence of adversaries. We love Lady - she is a member of the family - and we want to protect her and others in a similar place from toxic interactions.

If we create the seperate forum -- and include the appropriate warnings -- everyone can have what they need. Moderators can be empowered to move ANY THREAD to the "toxic topics forum" at any time if they feel the content is becoming dangerous or unhelpful to people who are here primarily for sanctuary.

I too thrive on controversy and refuting lies hypocrisy etc., and often times use inflammatory rhetoric myself in doing so. And I know that others like BenL want no part of it, and still others stay away completely because of it. My Citizenlink "Blood boilers" thread is a perfect example of what would go in the toxic thread if we had one.

I hate posting that stuff because I know how offensive it is, but as sailaway says:

It helps me formulate my thoughts and it is good a good exercise in preparation for 3-D conversations.

So for me, It's important to be able to untangle the anti-gay illogic, and to then present and share that truth in counter soundbite form/concept.

It's effective, but it's infuriating. But I hate the fact that I may be driving people away from Soulforce as a result.
~~~
The other thing is, as BenL put it:
I take one look at the subject of a thread, and if I'm not interested, I don't even read it. I know that I might miss something good, but I can't risk the kind of agitation and the terrible feeling of desolation I get from some of the so-called Christian garbage that some of these people spew.

My thinking is this, should this "toxic" section just be another forum box, or should it be on another page altogether?

If it's on the main forum, those disinclined to participate will be reminded that toxicity abounds in the forum, whether or not they click on that section. They also may be 'tempted' to click on that section out of curiosity, and curiosity by nature is not complacent, it's ongoing.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this because it seems to be the biggest challenge in this whole idea.

Technically what I'm suggesting is that to cover all bases, the toxic section would have to be a separate and somewhat 'secret' forum. Not secret in any active sense, but in the same way that we are discouraged from linking directly to anti-gay web sites.

Do you see where I'm coming from, and why? It would have to be a different web page, and not directly linkable from the main forum page, (unless perhaps from the comment rules section, or possible hyperlinks in posts).

PS,
Does that mean I'm in favor of u-dog's proposal or not? I don't know. I feel bad that BenL even needs to come to this "point" of indecision, how many others no longer, or rarely ever come here because of toxicity levels.

Given that the title of a thread is sufficient to avoid it for Ben, perhaps another forum category box would be sufficient to start with. At least then we could get the logistics of what "belongs" there and what doesn't.

PPS, sorry Ben, didn't mean to be talking past you there. ;)

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Following up with the archetectual metephor: Design is everything. I'm not sure that I want Fred Phelps at my foyer. Seems to me the toxic stuff needs to be kept at a safer distance than that--some place beyond our property line. People who come to the Forums should not have to see that there is some toxic place to go to. They should not have to look out the window of our living room and see the Phelps family with their picket signs. Many come here to escape toxic places that they encounter on a daily basis.

We've had some posters to these forums lately who give testimony to how truly damaging the toxic stuff is to their spirits. One recently expressed distress at some of the stuff they see here now. Others of us have built up a higher degree of tolerance for the poison, but we need to consider those of more tender consciences.

I guess I don't really understand why we need to invite the toxic stuff to our forums when we can go out on web most anywhere and find it at other sites.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I just cast my vote in the "full of it" category (it was the best of limited choices, in my view.)

I realize that those who want a forum more open to our adversaries are motivated by compassion for those who may be struggling towards changed hearts and viewpoints. I believe that our existing rules are being applied with some compassion and considerable tolerance for those who come here to genuinely explore thoughts different from those they already hold.

We just don't want that tolerance and compassion abused.

I believe that clear boundaries is a way of maintaining respect both for ourselves and our adversaries.

Steven

[Zerbie]

Well then, perhaps we could have a sticky - with a big red warning label on it - referencing other sites where such conversations are tolerated. ??:confused:

:disagree:

I actually like this new idea of mine much less than the idea of a sub-forum for slightly-less-than-friendly visitors. Having the links would seem to me like an endorsement of the content of those sites. Whereas simply containing the conversations would function to take talks like those with our latest, StevO, off the main pages here where regulars who don't want to run into them WON'T have to.

Sigh. I guess I'm just trying to find a way to allow those who want to interact with StevO (and future incarnations) a way to do so up to that point where, it seems, such posters are inevitably banished or storm off in fury.
Yes, it is out of concern. It would appear that most such posters are in some concern about their own possible homosexuality, and I don't want to see them immediately tossed out. I want them to meet loving, compassionate gay people who are happy in their lives. Obviously, no one else wants to toss them out instantly either because they are always invited to stay for a while, and usually left posting hurtful and offensive things probably well after they should have been stopped - but the offensive threads/posts are left in regular forum sections where we stumble onto them unsuspecting.

I still say, since it's already happening, just give it it's own proper place.

[Emproph]

I guess I don't really understand why we need to invite the toxic stuff to our forums when we can go out on web most anywhere and find it at other sites.

I just cast my vote in the "full of it" category (it was the best of limited choices, in my view.)

We just don't want that tolerance and compassion abused.

I believe that clear boundaries is a way of maintaining respect both for ourselves and our adversaries.

If this is how you truly feel, and knowing that toxicity already exists here, why would you want no action taken to separate it, especially for the very reasons you've given?

[u-dog]

I totally understand and am supportive of Steven's reservations. and for the record... I AM FULL OF IT most of the time!:) But I think I still disagree and here is why.

We are a community here. We are weak and strong in different ways and at different times and we hold each other up and kiss each others booboos and I love that about this place.

But like most communities... we have young-uns here who are growing and learning how to take care of themselves in the big bad world. I don't want to come off as condescending to any of them. Some of them are MORE THAN CAPABLE of handling themselves in a theological knife fight. For instance I would not want to encounter Austin in a bad mood in some philosophical dark alley. But life as a gay Christian in this world means you need to know how to handle yourself. You need to know how to untangle illogic (as emproph put it) how to parry a rhetorical thrust and turn an opponants own negative spiritual energy back on him/her.

How better to learn than watching it done by some of the agile minds that live here? I guess I'm thinking about Soulforce as a theological/philosophical/spiritual "dojo" a training ground for the rhetorical arts.

I hate to think about these young folks that I love going out to some other site to practice ;)

Anyway... just a thought

[u-dog]

Have you guys talked about the idea of opening a Toxic threads forum and made a decision?

if not, why not?

If so... whats the verdict?

if the verdict is no ... fine... but whats the official rationale.

if the verdict is "yes"... why havent you said anything?


Some closure on this would be helpful before the next StevO shows up

[Jamie McDaniel]

We are discussing how best to try this. It would involve a new forum, though not called "toxic topics" as users will still be banned when their posts are toxic. Access would not be granted to members by default, you'd have to specifically join the group.

Basically this new forum would be a way to allow for some bending of the guideline on anti-gay content (we already allow it to some extent in that we are purposely slow to ban someone who seems like they might be reached) while letting new members (and everyone else who doesn't want to have to deal with more LGBT oppression masked as personal opinion) better avoid those threads.

What it wouldn't be is a place for people to debate endlessly about homosexuality being a sin. I get the feeling some members in the past would have found such a forum acceptable. And that is just not going to happen as it runs counter to Soulforce's statement that the debate on the worth of LGBT people is over. Placing users on limited access for anti-gay content will still occur, though for some it might allow for more time to be engaged by our best and brightest. I do like dsdrane's likening it to a foyer or front porch. Can't come in the house and walk on the nice carpet when misinformation and prejudice is caked on the bottom of their shoes.

Also, here are the related threads:

Why we need disagreement on this board (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1698)
A Safe Place to Battle on the forums (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1106)
New Thread: Is there room for dialogue (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2047)

[u-dog]

We are discussing how best to try this. It would involve a new forum, though not called "toxic topics" as users will still be banned when their posts are toxic. Access would not be granted to members by default, you'd have to specifically join the group.

Basically this new forum would be a way to allow for some bending of the guideline on anti-gay content (we already allow it to some extent in that we are purposely slow to ban someone who seems like they might be reached) while letting new members (and everyone else who doesn't want to have to deal with more LGBT oppression masked as personal opinion) better avoid those threads.

What it wouldn't be is a place for people to debate endlessly about homosexuality being a sin. I get the feeling some members in the past would have found such a forum acceptable. And that is just not going to happen as it runs counter to Soulforce's statement that the debate on the worth of LGBT people is over. Placing users on limited access for anti-gay content will still occur, though for some it might allow for more time to be engaged by our best and brightest. I do like dsdrane's likening it to a foyer or front porch. Can't come in the house and walk on the nice carpet when misinformation and prejudice is caked on the bottom of their shoes.

Also, here are the related threads:

Why we need disagreement on this board (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1698)
A Safe Place to Battle on the forums (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1106)
New Thread: Is there room for dialogue (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2047)

I think that I could quite comfortably live with this arrangement. others?

[Zerbie]

Ja ja ja, all good. The reason I'm so heartily in favor of creating another forum to put those threads in, is we all try so much to be patient and accomodating and to "reach" people who come in posting questionable statements, that those threads have so far always wound up being mixed in with all the usual discussions. So, they've been here all along, for folks to stumble upon. I love the idea of separating them out so they don't catch anyone by surprise at a bad moment.

[Jamie McDaniel]

How to gain access to the foyer forum (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3846)