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

[JJRfan]

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.

Wouldn’t it be better, if two members want to debate an issue between themselves, to do this in a PM.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Wouldn’t it be better, if two members want to debate an issue between themselves, to do this in a PM.

A public debate has its merits. The concern is that this is a discussion forum, so I am sensitive to the idea of excluding people from a discussion. If the occasional thread was for two people to debate and other discussion on the topic was able to occur in a second thread, I wouldn’t have a problem.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I’m often reminded that I know very little and being the low man on the totem pole is a comforting place to reside. Debate’s are just exhausting.

 

[Aramis]

A public debate has its merits. The concern is that this is a discussion forum, so I am sensitive to the idea of excluding people from a discussion. If the occasional thread was for two people to debate and other discussion on the topic was able to occur in a second thread, I wouldn’t have a problem.

A moderator’s job is, as often as not, to exclude people from discussions where they are unable to do so appropriately.

It also is, in most forums, to separate drifted topics into new threads. The usual response here has been to simply shut the thread down; this, more often than not, squelches the discussion - where as separating it to a separate thread (which, using the software in use on this BBS, is not hard to do - I am a moderator on a BBS using the same forum software) usually results in the tangent continuing to a reasonable conclusion.

The nature of the list of instructions includes several very poor ideas for a discussion forum:

1. only positive-light assertions - this prevents actually calling people on their misrepresentations. It also prevents pointing out when people’s ideas border on established heresies. Technically, it also prohibits use of evidence to refute others positive assertions when those are misleading.
2. dispassionate discussion - “encyclopedia” voice writing.
   2.1) this site is NOT an encyclopedia (tho it does have one in a separate subdomain from the forums… but that is a closed canon, being the “1917” Catholic Encyclopedia)
   2.1.1) you have yet to implement (years hence) any reference threads, despite much support.
   2.1.2) you have rejected all proposals for reference thread contents.
   2.2) encyclopedic mode is extremely impersonal and terse - in interpersonal communications, such level of terseness is often deemed rude.
3. "No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise. " is nonsesical unless read to mean “No telling people what to do unless it’s to tell them to give compliments” - poor wording at best, and bars any form of constructive advice at worst. Much of which is, in reality, best given bluntly and with citations to the authoritative sources.
4. “non-controversial words” —
   — that literally precludes citations from canon law as translated by the vatican into English (several of the recent heated discussions hinge on persons misconstruing canon law due to the very stilted latin being translated into even more stilted and non-common-understanding english terminology out of customary translations). Canon law is, as worded by Rome, often inherently controversial.
   — That often precludes the historical terms, as a subset are offended by them. Likewise, the moderator preferred terms are often unwieldy and inaccurate in dealing with historical discussions. Specifically, Church Sui Iuris is a new term, and is not the historical state of the churches in union… it has specific legal meaning, which said, that legal meaning specifically did not exist prior to Vatican II’s reforms… with the historical terms (unia and uniate) having some negative connotations, but those connotations having been accurate in those historic periods where Rome was using them (from about 1200 to 1964).
   — Several terms used in canon law and theology are used in multiple different ways, and there are no universally accepted terms to differentiate them - the most obvious being “rite” - which can be a group of Traditions belonging to a single patriarchal patrimony, a particular tradition within the Roman Patriarchal patrimonial descent, a particular service, a subsection of a particular service, and the historic use of Rite in the context of the Unia as a term for a particular uniate church. Many of these have coined terms which can be used to clarify them, such as the use of Sub-Rite to refer to the various western “rites” and eastern Traditions (Such as Dominican “Rite,” Slavo-Byzantine, and Ethiopian “Rite”/Tradition), but which a certain deacon objects to highly and vocally.

The language issue is further compounded by the significantly non-native-English population being active posters. Several such make many useful contributions, but sometimes use questionable terms due to limited vocabularies.

The general tone of the new rules comes across as “If you don’t agree with a poster, don’t respond at all” - which, in debate, is normally considered equivalent to agreement.

 

[Mickey]

The general tone of the new rules comes across as “If you don’t agree with a poster, don’t respond at all” - which, in debate, is normally considered equivalent to agreement.

Interesting interpretation. I thought she was saying, "If you can’t respond charitably, don’t respond at all.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

A moderator’s job is, as often as not, to exclude people from discussions where they are unable to do so appropriately.

This forum is usually filled with people who know the forum rules and are able to exclude themselves. In comparison to the other moderators, I am among those who have to do that moderation task infrequently. A lot of my time is spent responding to PMs, banning spammers, reviewing reports, and providing guidance to those who ask.

It also is, in most forums, to separate drifted topics into new threads. The usual response here has been to simply shut the thread down; this, more often than not, squelches the discussion - where as separating it to a separate thread (which, using the software in use on this BBS, is not hard to do - I am a moderator on a BBS using the same forum software) usually results in the tangent continuing to a reasonable conclusion.

There’s no responsibility for me to spend my time moving posts around when people didn’t stay on topic. I do split threads frequently out of kindness. For example, the top ten posts in the forum include three threads I created from splits. There are a couple forum posters who write me to let me know when a new topic started so I’m usually able to move them early on, making it seamless to most visitors while decreasing the workload required for the split. I am grateful for those who stay in communication with me about the forum.

I am among the moderators who close threads infrequently, only doing so when the need for moderation exceeds the amount of time I have to devote to a thread or when the conversation has become irretrievably uncharitable. For example, the first 150 threads I looked at included one closed thread. I try to post in-thread warnings first when I’m able, which is another kindness I extend unnecessarily. When I have other time demands, I am unable to stay on top of a thread enough to allow for this.

The nature of the list of instructions includes several very poor ideas for a discussion forum:

1. only positive-light assertions - this prevents actually calling people on their misrepresentations. It also prevents pointing out when people’s ideas border on established heresies. Technically, it also prohibits use of evidence to refute others positive assertions when those are misleading.

Not at all! It prevents attacking the person while freeing you to debate the subject. The difference is between, “You misunderstand St. Gregory” and “St. Gregory made his intentions clear when he said…”

1. dispassionate discussion - “encyclopedia” voice writing.
   2.1) this site is NOT an encyclopedia (tho it does have one in a separate subdomain from the forums… but that is a closed canon, being the “1917” Catholic Encyclopedia)
   2.1.1) you have yet to implement (years hence) any reference threads, despite much support.
   2.1.2) you have rejected all proposals for reference thread contents.
   2.2) encyclopedic mode is extremely impersonal and terse - in interpersonal communications, such level of terseness is often deemed rude.

This is a little all over the place, but I’ll respond once. To continue dialogue on reference threads, please PM me.
2.1 These rules only cover debate threads. Debates should be fact-based.
2.1.1 I allow reference threads out of the kindness of my heart. It went over well in Spirituality when I implemented it there years ago. It hasn’t had the same kind of support in EC. People want to read them, but don’t offer to write them. I had a few pitched to me, most I approved but a poster never wrote and some were posted.
2.1.2 I rejected only one or two in years.
2.2 Impersonal is a good thing in a debate. It isn’t deemed rude if everyone is on the same page. Our experiment with these rules showed that it was noted by lurkers for its charity when they were unaware of the guidelines.

1. "No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise. " is nonsesical unless read to mean “No telling people what to do unless it’s to tell them to give compliments” - poor wording at best, and bars any form of constructive advice at worst. Much of which is, in reality, best given bluntly and with citations to the authoritative sources.

A debate thread is not the place to give personal advice. These guidelines do not apply to advice threads.

1. “non-controversial words” —
   — that literally precludes citations from canon law as translated by the vatican into English (several of the recent heated discussions hinge on persons misconstruing canon law due to the very stilted latin being translated into even more stilted and non-common-understanding english terminology out of customary translations). Canon law is, as worded by Rome, often inherently controversial.

I don’t see how the policy affects this issue.

“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.”
Disagreement over canon law interpretation is having a debate, not using controversial words that inflame one’s debate partner. In a debate on that topic, it would be appropriate to use canonical terms that are at dispute. It would not be appropriate to say, “I know the uniate/schismatic heretics teach you that, but they’re wrong.” Now the conversation isn’t about the canons but about the offense. This is the type of off-topic controversial tangents it forbids in debate.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

— That often precludes the historical terms, as a subset are offended by them. Likewise, the moderator preferred terms are often unwieldy and inaccurate in dealing with historical discussions. Specifically, Church Sui Iuris is a new term, and is not the historical state of the churches in union… it has specific legal meaning, which said, that legal meaning specifically did not exist prior to Vatican II’s reforms… with the historical terms (unia and uniate) having some negative connotations, but those connotations having been accurate in those historic periods where Rome was using them (from about 1200 to 1964).

Being precise is an asset in debate.

The policy on uniate, schismatic, and heretic says, "Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.

An example of acceptable usage of the terms is a direct quote of a third-party document which is otherwise pertinent to an ongoing discussion. Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and even debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters."

— Several terms used in canon law and theology are used in multiple different ways, and there are no universally accepted terms to differentiate them - the most obvious being “rite” - which can be a group of Traditions belonging to a single patriarchal patrimony, a particular tradition within the Roman Patriarchal patrimonial descent, a particular service, a subsection of a particular service, and the historic use of Rite in the context of the Unia as a term for a particular uniate church. Many of these have coined terms which can be used to clarify them, such as the use of Sub-Rite to refer to the various western “rites” and eastern Traditions (Such as Dominican “Rite,” Slavo-Byzantine, and Ethiopian “Rite”/Tradition), but which a certain deacon objects to highly and vocally.

I don’t see how the policy affects this issue.

The language issue is further compounded by the significantly non-native-English population being active posters. Several such make many useful contributions, but sometimes use questionable terms due to limited vocabularies.

I don’t see how the policy affects this issue. We ask people who post in a foreign language to also post in English.

The general tone of the new rules comes across as “If you don’t agree with a poster, don’t respond at all” - which, in debate, is normally considered equivalent to agreement.

I am sorry that I did not make myself or the debate guidelines clear. The general tone I intend to convey is, “If you don’t agree with a poster, debate the facts and not about the person.”

 

[Elijahmaria]

Being precise is an asset in debate.

I am sorry that I did not make myself or the debate guidelines clear. The general tone I intend to convey is, “If you don’t agree with a poster, debate the facts and not about the person.”

The last two notes of yours that were responding in substantive detail to Aramis took time, which I appreciate, and were to the point substantially, detailed and clear, which I appreciate even more.

Thank you!

Mary

 

[Aramis]

Being precise is an asset in debate.

The policy on uniate, schismatic, and heretic says, "Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.

I’ve received moderator communications on use of them in historic contexts. So the issue is one of moderator misfeasance. I don’t recall how recently, but I’ve been here since they were flat-out banned, period…

An example of acceptable usage of the terms is a direct quote of a third-party document which is otherwise pertinent to an ongoing discussion. Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and even debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters."

I don’t see how the policy affects this issue.

It’s really simple - In general, moderators tend to follow the reports (myself included) - and given an agenda and a rule that can be bent to it, reports soon follow. And where reports flow, often infractions are issued. That you don’t see the connection… that worries me.

I don’t see how the policy affects this issue. We ask people who post in a foreign language to also post in English.

They are often ignorant of appropriate terms. Volodomyr has made some amusing errors in his ignorance.

I am sorry that I did not make myself or the debate guidelines clear. The general tone I intend to convey is, “If you don’t agree with a poster, debate the facts and not about the person.”

Clarity has not appeared to be your strong suite. Rulemaking demands clarity.