Suggestions for Improvement

Status
Not open for further replies.
this thread has turned quite hostile

i...i think i'll be going now
 
Thrawn said:
is humor banned in this board?
Click to expand...

wtf is this?

Suggestions for Improvement should be something taken seriously. This isn't Mindless Junk or even some discussion about something. It's a suggestion topic on what to make this forum better, and nonconstructive comments such as yours don't do anything to help this place.
 
Refrigerator Kirby said:
Dr. Murder said:
Baby Luigi said:
Even if they're guidelines, they still need to be enforced at points
Click to expand...

Rules exist to be broken, remember.
Click to expand...
No that's *bleep*ing and you are stupid for saying that if you make a rule and don't enforce it then why the *bleep* would it be a rule
Click to expand...

Please. You're not just saying I'm stupid. You are calling masses of the population, and famous people stupid. Half of the world thinks like that.
 
Dr. Murder said:
Refrigerator Kirby said:
Dr. Murder said:
Baby Luigi said:
Even if they're guidelines, they still need to be enforced at points
Click to expand...

Rules exist to be broken, remember.
Click to expand...
No that's *bleep*ing and you are stupid for saying that if you make a rule and don't enforce it then why the *bleep* would it be a rule
Click to expand...

Please. You're not just saying I'm stupid. You are calling masses of the population, and famous people stupid. Half of the world thinks like that.
Click to expand...
And there all stupid for thinking that
 
This may seem like a stupid suggestion. Hell, I don't even know of it's possible. Regardless, I think it may be helpful to have a small notification when your next post is about to start a new page. Toho Kingdom has a feature like this.
kvELlYhl.jpg

A lot of times, if you have the first post on a new page during a discussion, it may be hard to see what that person is referring to. If people know they are about to start a new page, they can add a quote of whatever they are responding to.

Again, maybe pointless, but it could be helpful.
 
I would like to propose the addition of the following rule:

Do not use your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to demean another person or group of people. This includes statements such as "God does not love (x) because (y)", "God does not exist and (x) is (y) for believing it", "(x) is a sinner for (y)", "(x)'s god is false", "(x) will go to hell for (y)", as well as implying your beliefs make you better than everyone else. This does NOT include the discussion of religious subjects when it is generally appropriate and expected.
Click to expand...

The reason I would like to see this added is because these are a specific sub-category of insults that can fly under the radar of the "no flaming" rule for not being as "hard" as other flames while serving the exact same intent.
 
The no flaming rule (rule 8) says "show respect to all members" though, and doesn't that technically fall under trolling too since it would provoke people to respond inappropriately?
 
Technically, yes. But as I explained, the no flaming rule is so ambiguous it's possible to wriggle yourself free from it if you stick to backhanded implications in favor of outright insults, and often applying the rule in this context at least seems to stretch it so much it becomes questionable.

By making this a definite rule that does not need to be stretched in order to apply, it would become much harder for these groups to spread hate and dodge the repercussions.
 
Miles Prower said:
I would like to propose the addition of the following rule:

Do not use your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to demean another person or group of people. This includes statements such as "God does not love (x) because (y)", "God does not exist and (x) is (y) for believing it", "(x) is a sinner for (y)", "(x)'s god is false", "(x) will go to hell for (y)", as well as implying your beliefs make you better than everyone else. This does NOT include the discussion of religious subjects when it is generally appropriate and expected.
Click to expand...

The reason I would like to see this added is because these are a specific sub-category of insults that can fly under the radar of the "no flaming" rule for not being as "hard" as other flames while serving the exact same intent.
Click to expand...
...is there some recent event that brought this about?

EDIT: Oh wait, I found it. Never mind.
 
Guys, the purpose of this rule is not to ban religious debates. In fact I actually noted that civilized discussion of religious matters is not affected by it at all.

The purpose of this rule is to prevent people from lording their religious or atheistic beliefs over the general public to elevate themselves, or use those beliefs to justify the persecution of individual people or groups, user or non-user. This can and in a few cases actually has already happened completely outside of religious debates.

This is not a reaction to something that has happened recently. Past events (not only recent ones) do factor into it, I cannot deny that. But the main reason for this proposal is future-oriented. I wish to establish this rule before it becomes necessary, so it may discourage people from ever making it necessary.

I generally feel like this is a subject that needs clearer coverage in the rules, and furthermore I feel it is a subject that will become relevant in the future. Especially if left unchecked.
 
LakituderSchnell said:
I shall be quoting my suggestion again since this thread is great in burying things.

Lakitu de Vlot said:
The mobile version seems to lack a "Mark [topic] unread" button. Is it possible to add that?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
i thought our mobile version was for like flip phones and whatnot
 
Miles Prower said:
Guys, the purpose of this rule is not to ban religious debates. In fact I actually noted that civilized discussion of religious matters is not affected by it at all.

The purpose of this rule is to prevent people from lording their religious or atheistic beliefs over the general public to elevate themselves, or use those beliefs to justify the persecution of individual people or groups, user or non-user. This can and in a few cases actually has already happened completely outside of religious debates.

This is not a reaction to something that has happened recently. Past events (not only recent ones) do factor into it, I cannot deny that. But the main reason for this proposal is future-oriented. I wish to establish this rule before it becomes necessary, so it may discourage people from ever making it necessary.

I generally feel like this is a subject that needs clearer coverage in the rules, and furthermore I feel it is a subject that will become relevant in the future. Especially if left unchecked.
Click to expand...
So in other words, don't go ott with debates
 
War Doctor said:
Miles Prower said:
Guys, the purpose of this rule is not to ban religious debates. In fact I actually noted that civilized discussion of religious matters is not affected by it at all.

The purpose of this rule is to prevent people from lording their religious or atheistic beliefs over the general public to elevate themselves, or use those beliefs to justify the persecution of individual people or groups, user or non-user. This can and in a few cases actually has already happened completely outside of religious debates.

This is not a reaction to something that has happened recently. Past events (not only recent ones) do factor into it, I cannot deny that. But the main reason for this proposal is future-oriented. I wish to establish this rule before it becomes necessary, so it may discourage people from ever making it necessary.

I generally feel like this is a subject that needs clearer coverage in the rules, and furthermore I feel it is a subject that will become relevant in the future. Especially if left unchecked.
Click to expand...
So in other words, don't go ott with debates
Click to expand...

Partially, but not entirely. You can make the most calm, collected, and seemingly reasonable post ever and still sneak in a jab at someone's spirituality somewhere if you know how to word it.

If that happened, a "don't get too over the top in debates" rule wouldn't cover it, but this one would.
 
Miles Prower said:
War Doctor said:
Miles Prower said:
Guys, the purpose of this rule is not to ban religious debates. In fact I actually noted that civilized discussion of religious matters is not affected by it at all.

The purpose of this rule is to prevent people from lording their religious or atheistic beliefs over the general public to elevate themselves, or use those beliefs to justify the persecution of individual people or groups, user or non-user. This can and in a few cases actually has already happened completely outside of religious debates.

This is not a reaction to something that has happened recently. Past events (not only recent ones) do factor into it, I cannot deny that. But the main reason for this proposal is future-oriented. I wish to establish this rule before it becomes necessary, so it may discourage people from ever making it necessary.

I generally feel like this is a subject that needs clearer coverage in the rules, and furthermore I feel it is a subject that will become relevant in the future. Especially if left unchecked.
Click to expand...
So in other words, don't go ott with debates
Click to expand...

Partially, but not entirely. You can make the most calm, collected, and seemingly reasonable post ever and still sneak in a jab at someone's spirituality somewhere if you know how to word it.

If that happened, a "don't get too over the top in debates" rule wouldn't cover it, but this one would.
Click to expand...
I'm for it. I DESPISE people who think they're superior to me just because they "love" God, whereas I dislike him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back