[akaslickster]

If a group would like to have a private thread, is there a private chat room for only selected individuals?

[rookie1ja]

1. pm

2. public chat on my site http://brainden.com/chatboard.htm

3. I could create password locked forums

4. I could create special permissions set (eg. only a few can create blog/gallery for now) and new forum section where only the ones with special permission set can "show/read/create topics/reply ..."

preferred options are 1 and 2 ... I see no sufficient reason for options 3 and 4

[Guest]

I think this is a great idea, Slick. It would be nice to be able to have a discussion with people of common interests without a constant barage of anti-subject matter being posted by those who don't like the topic. As I found out the hard way, you cannot request that those people post elsewhere or you get reprimanded. I was told that because this is a public forum there's nothing the OP or other posters can say or do about the unwanted thread attacks (other than report them to a moderator, but I'm not exactly sure what that would accomplish if every thread is supposed to remain wide open for anyone and anything to be posted.)

Rookie...The public chat is a great idea. I clicked on the link you gave but it sent me to a site that was not in English and I was very confused as to where to go from there. Did I do something wrong? However, my concern still is that anyone who wants to come in to the chat can come and spam it with off-topic or even insulting posts. I understand that this site was created for Puzzles, Riddles and the like...chatting was never intended. However, BD has evolved a great deal and many of the regulars have made friendships and enjoy conversing via this site. I would greatly appreciate your help to design a way for those of us who would like a closed discussion to keep it closed (or at least to moderate the thread to keep people from posting who refuse to stick to the OP or who want to insult the subject instead of lend to it.)

THANKS!!!!

[unreality]

If you're talking about your Theism Discussion, I think certain threads should be allowed to be restricted. Ie, I had "atheists and agnostics only please" for my Atheist Discussion topic (which came first the Theism Discussion was a total ripoff of mine, hehe), and it worked out fine, nobody complained, until Martini posted and said theists could post if they wanted to. However, NM did that from the beginning on the Theism Discussion (my personal theory is that he was trying to make contrast with the "atheists & agnostics only please" of my topic to someone cast theists as nice, open people or whatever, lol, but that's just a little irking suspicion I had ;D) and that was a mistake, since ADParker is very militant and he technically wasn't doing anything wrong, but he effectively disrupted the Theism Discussion, which was unfortunate. So I think that it should be allowed for certain topics to be "restrictive" in a broad sense, if they relate to the category. For example, Democrats should be able to make a Democratic Discussion thread without any Republicans spamming it and arguing, albeit following the rules. It should be enforceable by moderators, but in this way: a Republican posts. If it contributes to the Democrats' conversation, is polite, doesn't cause a debate, etc, no need to delete. But if they argue a point, the Democrat can contact a moderator and have it deleted. So it's not entirely restricted, only to a certain confinement. That's why I tried to not turn the Thiesm Discussion into a debate, and I think I was getting along fine, then ADP showed up - completely following the rules, he didn't do anything wrong - and essentially started a debate. That's why I think the rules should be changed

[Guest]

That's why I tried to not turn the Thiesm Discussion into a debate, and I think I was getting along fine, then ADP showed up - completely following the rules, he didn't do anything wrong - and essentially started a debate. That's why I think the rules should be changed

I was thinking not only of the Theism thread, but also Peace Club, War Club, and Peace Club Discussion. I was not just eluding to ADP, but he certainly was at the forefront of my thoughts. I have no problem with an open thread if people will respect the OP. In the Thiesm thread the OP was that anyone may post, but that it would be with the pre-supposition that God DOES exist, and also that it stay a discussion and not become a debate. The thread started out very peaceful and interesting until the athiests began using argumentative language and debating points. If I wanted to enter that kind of debate I would return to the Religious Debate thread. Eventually it got to the point where I just decided that the thread was no longer anywhere near the OP so I stopped posting. I just think it's unfortunate that there isn't a way to have a discussion with other members without others insisting on disturbing the peace.

[rookie1ja]

see my comments in red below

Rookie...The public chat is a great idea. I clicked on the link you gave but it sent me to a site that was not in English and I was very confused as to where to go from there. Did I do something wrong?

If you log into the chat room from here (choose your nick, gender and press Enter), then you should see black chat window ... majority of the text is in English (a few other details are in Czech) - you just enter your text in the line at the bottom and press enter and you chat with others.

However, my concern still is that anyone who wants to come in to the chat can come and spam it with off-topic or even insulting posts.

the first one to enter chat is automatically admin and can kick out spammers with a short command

I understand that this site was created for Puzzles, Riddles and the like...chatting was never intended. However, BD has evolved a great deal and many of the regulars have made friendships and enjoy conversing via this site. I would greatly appreciate your help to design a way for those of us who would like a closed discussion to keep it closed (or at least to moderate the thread to keep people from posting who refuse to stick to the OP or who want to insult the subject instead of lend to it.)

1. for real time conversation, you can try the chat board ... pm the ones you want to invite at a specific time and you can be admin of the chat

2. threads are moderated quite well as far as spam and off-topic posts are considered (which you mentioned)

THANKS!!!!

[Guest]

see my comments in red below

Off-topic posts ARE allowed. I was told very specifically that they were allowed and that I was not allowed to suggest that the subject be taken elsewhere.

[rookie1ja]

Off-topic posts ARE allowed. I was told very specifically that they were allowed and that I was not allowed to suggest that the subject be taken elsewhere.

having different view on 1 topic is not off-topic ... pm martini and me which posts are off-topic

[akaslickster]

1. pm

2. public chat on my site http://brainden.com/chatboard.htm

3. I could create password locked forums

4. I could create special permissions set (eg. only a few can create blog/gallery for now) and new forum section where only the ones with special permission set can "show/read/create topics/reply ..."

preferred options are 1 and 2 ... I see no sufficient reason for options 3 and 4

Thanks a bundle. I was mainly curious. Peace.

[akaslickster]

I was thinking not only of the Theism thread, but also Peace Club, War Club, and Peace Club Discussion. I was not just eluding to ADP, but he certainly was at the forefront of my thoughts. I have no problem with an open thread if people will respect the OP. In the Thiesm thread the OP was that anyone may post, but that it would be with the pre-supposition that God DOES exist, and also that it stay a discussion and not become a debate. The thread started out very peaceful and interesting until the athiests began using argumentative language and debating points. If I wanted to enter that kind of debate I would return to the Religious Debate thread. Eventually it got to the point where I just decided that the thread was no longer anywhere near the OP so I stopped posting. I just think it's unfortunate that there isn't a way to have a discussion with other members without others insisting on disturbing the peace.

It would not be appropriate to have a Peace Club in a private room as I thought about it by myself. Although, if we are at work with something special to us only, and do not want to be intruded upon by just any type of post, then yes, it would be nice to have the privacy. I will check out the chatboard.

I finally threw in the towel, while trying to keep out the religion and keep a mild discussion rather than a major debate. It went far beyond what the founders intended. Then came the post competitors. I will pop in and out of those threads but, I'm too old for baby-sitting it. Everyone wants to do what they want to do anyhow. Nice while it lasted. Time for different things. I'm still in "Mobsters" @ myspace.

[Guest]

As I found out the hard way, you cannot request that those people post elsewhere or you get reprimanded.

That's right. Posters should not take it upon themselves to tell posters to stop posting. If anyone finds a post inappropriate, report it.

I was told that because this is a public forum there's nothing the OP or other posters can say or do about the unwanted thread attacks (other than report them to a moderator, but I'm not exactly sure what that would accomplish if every thread is supposed to remain wide open for anyone and anything to be posted.)

You know better than this. Yes, anyone can post, but no threads are "wide open for anything to be posted".

since ADParker is very militant and he technically wasn't doing anything wrong, but he effectively disrupted the Theism Discussion, which was unfortunate.

How did he "disrupt" it any more than you did? You started posting arguments in your second post in that thread and there were complaints about you because of this.

The OP wrote this:

"We're here to talk about theism and explane, or debate, how the world around us could in fact be the result of ID "

Isn't it best to hear from people from both sides of the fence if the point is to debate the world around us being the result of ID? Hardly fair to complain once someone opens their mouth and does that, is it?

For example, Democrats should be able to make a Democratic Discussion thread without any Republicans spamming it and arguing, albeit following the rules.

Posters posting opposing views is not spamming. Do you know any message boards that discriminate in this way? Any that don't allow posts unless they agree with the OP? What happens when the OP posts further views in that thread that you don't now agree with? Do you have to keep your mouth shut lest the OP or someone else complain that you're breaking message board rules? Do you want these threads to be moderated like this: "Sorry Poster, but it appears that your views are leaning pretty heavily toward Republican. Please refrain from posting any further in this thread as the Democrats in this thread would like their views to go unchallenged. It makes them feel much better about their beliefs." I know of no message boards that don't allow views that conflict with the OP's, and if there are any, I don't want to know about them

It should be enforceable by moderators, but in this way: a Republican posts. If it contributes to the Democrats' conversation, is polite, doesn't cause a debate, etc, no need to delete. But if they argue a point, the Democrat can contact a moderator and have it deleted.

Okay, I do want to know about them. Find me one message board that works this way. Moderators aren't here to answer complaints by posters that someone actually went ahead and argued a point.

Anyone who wants to belong to a message board like should probabaly find one that caters to his beliefs, e.g., a Christian message board, a Republican message board, etc., or go the chat room route.

I have no problem with an open thread if people will respect the OP. In the Thiesm thread the OP was that anyone may post, but that it would be with the pre-supposition that God DOES exist, and also that it stay a discussion and not become a debate.

Anyone can post, but they have to suppose that God exists? Doesn't make much sense, does it? That's basically saying, "Atheists, you're free to post, but if you say anything that goes against the idea of God existing, you're breaking my rules". It takes at least two to debate. If you don't want to argue with someone that has arguments for what's been said- then don't. Continue to only reply to those you agree with and refrain from arguing if it's not your thing.

Off-topic posts ARE allowed. I was told very specifically that they were allowed

You were told no such thing. If you have any more complaints about moderator action, DO IT IN PRIVATE.

[Guest]

In the Thiesm thread the OP was that anyone may post, but that it would be with the pre-supposition that God DOES exist, and also that it stay a discussion and not become a debate.

The difference being?

Ha! That was interesting; I just put "discussion" into wikipedia and it redirected me to the article on "Debate."

Also this from Dictionary dot com:

Debate: 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints.

Discussion: an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

It seems you only wanted to converse with people that shared your opinion, that would not disagree with you. To be honest I don't see the value in that, unless you just like having your ego stroked. We only improve through argument, through disagreement. That is how we weed out the chaff from the wheat.

The thread started out very peaceful and interesting until the athiests began using argumentative language and debating points.

You mean; disagreed with something you said

That is how a discussion generally works otherwise its just a diatribe of ones thoughts. Its like talking to a bunch of yes men, no progress can be made that way. All it amounts to is someone like this:

person A: I believe X

B: That's nice.

C: I believe X too.

D: I don't believe X but believe Y (but have no interest in arguing why - that would be a debate, can't have that!)

A: Okay then, that about raps it up then I guess.

The minute anyone says why they disagree with X, or why one is using poor reasoning for their belief in X - everyone cries foul.

And as it happens in the theism thread at least; it was only your prior experience that revealed any of us to be atheists, none of us argued that god does not exist or anything. I for instance merely pointed out certain errors and flaws in reasoning. You did not like that at all did you? How dare anyone correct you! Why on earth not? Don't you want to be clear of faulty thinking? I know I have appreciated it when the same has been done for me - yes I said "for me"; I saw those cases as people trying to help me out by correcting the mistakes I made. Reminds me actually of the story Richard Dawkins told of a professor of his who held to a particular theory: When a (young) quest lecturer gave a talk explaining how the theory was false; with tears in his eyes, the old professor strode up to the lecturer, took him firmly by the hand and said "Thank you, I have been wrong these past 15 years, thank you." And the hall exploded in a volley of cheers - for the professor of course

If I wanted to enter that kind of debate I would return to the Religious Debate thread. Eventually it got to the point where I just decided that the thread was no longer anywhere near the OP so I stopped posting.

It (the Theism thread that is) is still going strong actually, and is very much a discussion on theism. It has gone a bit ID and anti-evolution though. And that direction was set by the OP.

I just think it's unfortunate that there isn't a way to have a discussion with other members without others insisting on disturbing the peace.

You could have just ignored me you know

You wouldn't have been close to the first theist who has used the "Ignore anything that disagrees or challenges my position in any serious way" technique.

[itachi-san]

If you don't want to argue with someone that has arguments for what's been said- then don't. Continue to only reply to those you agree with and refrain from arguing if it's not your thing.

This is exactly what I was just going to post here. Well said Martini.

PG, if you don't want to argue, no one is forcing you to. If you and Slick and other Theists want to talk amongst yourselves on a Thread, then by all means do so. If someone posts about an idea that you do not care to discuss, don't discuss it and continue on with your previous conversation. There can be multiple conversations going on in one thread. For instance, in the Theist thread, you and slick could respond to each other and unreality and ADParker could respond to each other. There is no rule saying you have to make a retort for everything posted on a thread in which you are involved. Frankly, I don't see the problem or the need to take your religious conversation elsewhere.

[Guest]

Posters posting opposing views is not spamming. Do you know any message boards that discriminate in this way?

Oh I do! {puts hand up}

A number of theistic forums that I have been pointed toward in my time on the RD forum. On some of them (not all I must stress) people have recieved messages like this:

"Your last post suggests that you are an atheist - You are banned!"

"Disagreeing with this forum's interpretation of scripture is not allowed- BANNED!"

Many of those sites also require you to declare your faith (Must state that you are a Catholic, believe in god and Jesus with all your heart... for example) when you register! So much for allowing opposing views. One such forum struck me as funny because, probaby due to only "true believers" of their one faith (it was Catholic) being members (at least for very long), the forum index (like this one here) had not one "replies" statistic any higher than four I read a few; they were all like this:

A: What does this bit of scripture mean, or what does scripture say about this, or what should one do in this situation

B (usually but not always forum admin): It means X, scripture says X, one should do this as stated in this scripture

A: Thanks.

Some discussion

Back on topic: If you want to have private or restricted discussions, then go right ahead. Personally I don't like the idea all that much - I have had a number of people try to engage me in PM discussion (generally started in a regular thread.) I tend to reply a couple of times, but am not interested in a long PM debate. I immediately wonder why they wish to keep it private, why don't they want others to see what they have to say? And what are (or will, if it goes on) others be missing out on, and/or are we missing out on (outside inputs) by keeping it so private?

To me the great thing about these forums is that anyone can join in and engage, or learn something by reading the posts- if only the mindset of different people. To a great extent I don't post my arguments for the benefit of the person I am responding to, or even everyone involved in the thread, but for anyone who cares to read it, at the time or in the future. Open threads become a resource for people; they can do a search and find where a topic of interest to them has been discussed, and they can see the arguments, some they had never thought of perhaps, and the responses to them. Such a thing is likely to do the thing that all the best arguments and debates do: Spark thinking and further discussion.

Philosophy is just like that: The real value in a philosophical argument (say Descartes Meditations for instance) is not in what it has to say, but in the thinking, critical assessment and debate that is sparks. Agree or not; it gets one to thinking, and that has got to be a good thing A closed debate (if closed to observation) does not allow that. And one closed to outsiders input tends to limit the potential development of the argument - Perhaps one of those outsiders has something of value to add to the discussion.

All that being said; there is one thing in the RichardDawkins forum that works alright, and encompasses some of this idea. A Formal Debate forum; where someone has to (in normal thread or by PM, whatever) make a challenge to someone, or just asks for a volunteer opponent, to debate, formally, a particular topic. Then a moderator (forum mod or admin) moderates the debate. All can observe but only the two can debate. But a "comments on the X debate" thread is generally started where anyone (including the formal debaters) can discuss the debate, as it unfolds and beyond - sometimes with a "who won the debate" poll. They can be fun and informative.

[akaslickster]

I guess I opened up a can of worms. Regardless, the thought of mine had been answered several posts ago. I will be happy not to bicker over childishness. Now join the Peace Club and redeem yourselves. It is now up for grabs, evidently.

[Guest]

Oh I do! {puts hand up}

A number of theistic forums that I have been pointed toward in my time on the RD forum. On some of them (not all I must stress) people have recieved messages like this:

"Your last post suggests that you are an atheist - You are banned!"

"Disagreeing with this forum's interpretation of scripture is not allowed- BANNED!"

I think what Martini was talking about is a little different. No one wants (I don't think) certain views not to be expressed, but they want to the OP to be able to call the rules, and then have moderators enforce them throughout the thread. I have a hard time believing more than one person is actually complaining that they can't have that here. I belong to a lot of message boards, and I don't know of one where the moderators are to follow rules at the whim of the OP. "No non-atheists allowed of I'm having your posts deleted" or "Atheists allowed, but if you respond as if there's no God you've broken the rules".

So I check out ADPArker's first post in the "Theism" thread, and it seems he's posting as he's invited to do and doesn't break any of the OP's rules as far as I can tell. A poster then tells him his comments are "wholly inappropriate" and to move his post to another thread? And the OP then agrees? Huh?

But just recently, ADParker is making the same sort of posts and the OP then tells him this "-I think this is a good rebutle.(sp?) Now we're discussing." Color me confused.

[Guest]

If you have any more complaints about moderator action, DO IT IN PRIVATE.

I wasn't complaining, I was just making a statement...and I didn't mention the moderators. But I agree that if I did have a complaint about moderator action it should be done via private PM.

[akaslickster]

The best way to have a private conversation between members is go to myspace or face book and have it there. Also many other spots. No one seems to be having any troubles lately. So let's just play nice, like happy peoples.

[Mekal]

*cough* The Theater *cough* (thats what it was made for... so people can use it for chatting and not to spam up BD, though BD is alot better...)

[akaslickster]

*cough* The Theater *cough* (thats what it was made for... so people can use it for chatting and not to spam up BD, though BD is alot better...)

That is not totally private as are my emails.

[Guest]

Actually this would be a really good idea. Some of the games we have going, people just come in and mess it up. Like the Doctor game... that got locked because of all the people goofing off in there. I thought it was a wonderful game to begin with but if we had a password protected thread that allowed only certain users that are really serious about the subject then there would be no need to lock it down in the first place.

[akaslickster]

Actually this would be a really good idea. Some of the games we have going, people just come in and mess it up. Like the Doctor game... that got locked because of all the people goofing off in there. I thought it was a wonderful game to begin with but if we had a password protected thread that allowed only certain users that are really serious about the subject then there would be no need to lock it down in the first place.

Actually, if we can simply trust everyone to behave themselves, and not intrude where it is unnecessary, plus have some respect and maturity. The passwords can be unneeded.

[Guest]

Actually, if we can simply trust everyone to behave themselves, and not intrude where it is unnecessary, plus have some respect and maturity. The passwords can be unneeded.

Ah, but how can we trust everyone? And what if they do intrude?

[Guest]

Ah, but how can we trust everyone? And what if they do intrude?

Ignore them. Simple as that. You don't have to respond to any or every post in a thread.

[Guest]

Ignore them. Simple as that. You don't have to respond to any or every post in a thread.

True very true... alright i shall do that. Thank you for your help.