NEW! Debate Guidelines for the Eastern Catholicism Forum MODERATOR SAYS READ ME!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catherine_Grant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catherine_Grant

Guest
This forum has some flourishing debates going on. Some of the forum members were working together with me, through a lot of personal effort on their parts, to find the right values which allowed free exchange of thoughts but restricted the personal, snide, sarcastic, off-topic, outlandish and other attacks which used to define these debates and hindered their development.

We all agreed that, this being a discussion forum, there is no reason debates cannot continue fruitfully with differences of opinion and that these differences are precisely why the conversations should continue charitably.

The debate guidelines were so successful that many new people came to the debate threads using them, some signing up to participate and several spontaneously remarked on the charity shown. As some of the new people posted outside the guidelines, the thread would slide back to personal attacks. Introducing the new poster to the guidelines allowed fruitful conversation to continue. Because of the success of these guidelines, I am posting them for everyone to reference when debating in Eastern Catholicism. This will be the shared culture of debate here in Eastern Catholicism.

Please remember that there are many people lurking who are judging your position and all those who are in your communion by your behavior alone. It does not matter what anyone else says; you should be a model of charitable dialogue. If someone else is not, please do not respond in kind. Let me know and I’ll handle it as necessary.

Think of yourself as a robot. Objection comes in, you process it through your flowchart, you choose the right response, then a factual and non-emotional objection and/or response goes out with encyclopedia-like neutrality. If that isn’t what comes out, you edit before hitting submit until it does. If you can’t edit enough to get there, you don’t respond.

I’ll give wide leeway in on-topic debates but will provide no leeway in discussing each other. With everyone being clear on these accepted style guidelines, I expect that we will see the forum grow in charity and size. As it grows, please don’t use the guidelines to bash a poster over the head. Gently point them out and welcome them into the EC debate culture. If you need my help, ask. If the guidelines aren’t working or need some modification, let me know. If you have any difficulties or questions, feel free to write me and I’ll help however I can.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
 
Debate Guidelines for Eastern Catholicism

No direct or implied you statements unless it is genuine praise.
You said, you need to, you don’t get it, why don’t you, if only you, it is you who, you are wrong, you misunderstood, I’m not the one who, some people here, etc

No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise. You need to, why don’t you, if you’d only, those of us who have, etc

Use non-controversial words which have meanings everyone can agree on whenever possible. Spend your time discussing the substance of the topic and not arguing tangents on words you used that inflamed the other side.

**Very sparing use of bolds, underlines, font size increases, or other emphases. No hyperbole and no sarcasm. **This conversation always, I said, every single time this comes up, nice, etc

**Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot. **Then you’ll be discussing the topic and not each other.
 
Thanks for this!

Would that other internet discussion boards had similar guidelines.
 
Gee, I guess I’m lucky to be too dumb to debate in this forum…
 
Your rationale for limiting debate in such an artificial, and fundamentaly, dishonesty demanding manner.
It is not artificial to expect contentious debates to stay focused on the subject and to avoid discussing the people who are in the debate. The only unusual thing is the need to enumerate what that looks like. The debate threads which recently received outside interest and unelicited praise for the level of discussion and charity were all driven by these guidelines.

If you have constructive ideas on how charitable and fruitful debate would look, please post them so that others interested in debate in this forum may provide their (name removed by moderator)ut. If they’re well liked, we can adopt them instead.
 
Is there a possibility that there can be a ‘debate’ section added in as a sub-forum, in which a single member challenges another to a debate? I think that would be really good.
 
Is there a possibility that there can be a ‘debate’ section added in as a sub-forum, in which a single member challenges another to a debate? I think that would be really good.
The possibility of a sub-forum is remote. Two consenting members may start a thread for that purpose if they want to.
 
Well said, Catherine! These are great guidelines to follow, and it will take time for people to get use to them…but they will. 👍 This should benefit us all.
 
Guidelines which foster a more charitable dialogue as brothers and sisters in Christ, is a win/win situation for everyone. 🙂
 
Catherine,

The only criticism, if indeed it is that, I have of the guidelines, is the call to be like an “encyclopedia robot”. I understand the meaning and intention (I think :D), but the wording comes across as asking posters to be completely cold and unemotional, devoid of passion (as in excitement or enthusiasm) for the subject at hand. Otherwise…great stuff!!!

The fact that for some it “does not compute” is unfortunate. I can only guess that that proceeds from experiences on other boards where nastiness, sarcasm, triumphalism, condescension, and so on are tolerated and permitted.

Jeff
 
Your rationale for limiting debate in such an artificial, and fundamentaly, dishonesty demanding manner.
I saw Catherine’s example as a bit of hyperbole with more than a grain of truth in it, and it was humorous to me.

I think that the very fact that she is engaging you in this discussion says very good things about the woman and the moderator.

I hope you consider this, most soberly and kindly, as a positive commentary on our moderator, Catherine.

M.
 
I saw Catherine’s example as a bit of hyperbole with more than a grain of truth in it, and it was humorous to me.

I think that the very fact that she is engaging you in this discussion says very good things about the woman and the moderator.

I hope you consider this, most soberly and kindly, as a positive commentary on our moderator, Catherine.

M.
My experience is that, as a moderator, she’s seldom enforced the various rules of the board in a consistent manner, is not particularly effective at the tasks, and makes poor use of the tools at hand.

The rules look to be merely a means to stifle discussion, and some of them require dissembling or non-participation. That’s usually a recipe for very one-sided participation. Further, the rules she’s posted go beyond dispassion through to political correctness, which I object to on general principles as counter to truth.
 
****Remember: your goal is to sound like an encyclopedia robot. ****Then you’ll be discussing the topic and not each other.

Having never met a robot who was a good Christian, I’m not sure that good Christians ought to sound like one.
 
Catherine,

The only criticism, if indeed it is that, I have of the guidelines, is the call to be like an “encyclopedia robot”. I understand the meaning and intention (I think :D), but the wording comes across as asking posters to be completely cold and unemotional, devoid of passion (as in excitement or enthusiasm) for the subject at hand. Otherwise…great stuff!!!

The fact that for some it “does not compute” is unfortunate. I can only guess that that proceeds from experiences on other boards where nastiness, sarcasm, triumphalism, condescension, and so on are tolerated and permitted.

Jeff
Having never met a robot who was a good Christian, I’m not sure that good Christians ought to sound like one.
Passion is one of the greatest assets this forum contains. It’s also one of the greatest obstacles. That passion has to be tempered with the other virtues to have a charitable debate.

When a passionate person thinks he or she sounds like a robot, it usually means the passion is tempered enough to allow the argument to speak without his or her passion getting in the way. I do not think there is a risk of EC forum debaters becoming apathetic.
 
Passion is one of the greatest assets this forum contains. It’s also one of the greatest obstacles. That passion has to be tempered with the other virtues to have a charitable debate.

When a passionate person thinks he or she sounds like a robot, it usually means the passion is tempered enough to allow the argument to speak without his or her passion getting in the way. I do not think there is a risk of EC forum debaters becoming apathetic.
Apathy? Here?? That’ll be the day :D!!

I have no argument with you at all. The way you have explained sounding like a robot, in this context, clarifies it all, really. When I first read those words they took me aback some (perhaps part of your intention?) and struck me as somewhat harsh, for lack of a better word at the moment, as though you wanted us to sound unfeeling or uncaring. Now that you’ve elaborated…no problem 👍!

The guidelines, as I said, are excellent and totally appropriate!

Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top