[Deadpool] A new private civil discussion forum

[Ray Rider]

The very fact that people were denied entry gives this thing a big FAIL stamp, doesn't it?

This clan hasn't even started yet; nobody has been told if they will or won't be allowed entry.

[Snorri1234]

..unless you count hurt feelings.

And I think that is the whole reason for this discussion-group. It's not like debates have actually been derailed by anyone for the most part. The evolution-thread is still about evolution even though people jumped in with ignorant or racist comments all the time. In fact, I'd say that the reason for that thread to get so big is the fact that someone jumped in once and a while to stir it up a little so people wouldn't get bored.

[luns101]

I see where some people here that are willing to join come from, with the current Chatterbox [not saying it's bad, it just gets boring with the same thing over and over. Hard to come out of that]. It would be fun to see threads not about evolution, or creationism, or American politics, or conspiracy theories.

Well...you remember that Guiscard, Stopper, and I did try to have a little fun in there with the whole phony election campaign.

I tried to lighten the mood with my LORD OF THE RINGS conspiracy post. Also, I was going to start a satirical STAR WARS conspiracy thread in honor of HeavyCola but the guy seems to be on vacation or something. Anyways, if you're that bored I could start it up and see what kind of reaction I would get!

[CrazyAnglican]

I wasn't insulted by your interpretation of my words. And I'm not one that gets insulted by random people over the internet and feels the need to run and hide in a corner. I can still laugh.

That's great since I wasn't attempting to insult you. Don't hold your breath about me running and hiding though, I laugh often as well.

Well, I am a member of the Godless Heathens Clan of which I consider myself as far on the outside as posible whilst still being on the inside. Just the way I like it. And I joined the Layer Battle Arena just to watch the fun those people have with photoshop. I have yet to post there.

I'm a member of the Jesus Freak's and the Budoka and don't see any reason for distancing myself from either group. They're good bunches of people, as I'm sure the GH and Layer Battle Arena folks are as well.

OK. What bothers you? I absolutely must know and I think I'm supposed to care too.

People that mistreat their kids. That's a big one. I'm not too fond of folks that abuse animals either. Thanks for asking, caring isn't necessary. It just seemed a little strange that you made a comment about my character based on something you assumed bothered me. Beyond that, meh.

[HapSmo19]

Oh Cheez-wiz. I was counting on you to be the better man and ignore my last post but,..I guess I'll continue.

I don't purposely distance myself. It's a gift. There are good people here and I dont dislike any of them. I disagree with certain retarded views of course but it doesn't make me want to cook up a scheme to escape them.

OK. What bothers you? I absolutely must know and I think I'm supposed to care too.

People that mistreat their kids. That's a big one. I'm not too fond of folks that abuse animals either. Thanks for asking, caring isn't necessary.

Hmmm. I guess it's necessary to ask for standard answers.

It just seemed a little strange that you made a comment about my character based on something you assumed bothered me. Beyond that, meh.

That wasn't directed at you. It was a blanket statement.

[CrazyAnglican]

Oh Cheez-wiz. I was counting on you to be the better man and ignore my last post but,..I guess I'll continue.

Nah, (to quote Arlo Guthrie) I'm not proud........or tired.

I don't purposely distance myself. It's a gift. There are good people here and I dont dislike any of them. I disagree with certain retarded views of course but it doesn't make me want to cook up a scheme to escape them.

Who's escaping? I never said I'd abandon the Chatterbox, but this forum looks like fun too.

OK. What bothers you? I absolutely must know and I think I'm supposed to care too.

People that mistreat their kids. That's a big one. I'm not too fond of folks that abuse animals either. Thanks for asking, caring isn't necessary.

Hmmm. I guess it's necessary to ask for standard answers.

and spiders...I'm not too keen on them either.

It just seemed a little strange that you made a comment about my character based on something you assumed bothered me. Beyond that, meh.

That wasn't directed at you. It was a blanket statement.

Intended to cover which group, of which I'm a part.

[protectedbygold]

Today I sent a pm out to the person who I think should be the leader. I'm hoping he will accept. There was also a list of everyone who has responded that they want to join.

[mpjh]

Leaderless civil discussion -- sounds like anarchy -- wow neat clan

[Neoteny]

The very fact that people were denied entry gives this thing a big FAIL stamp, doesn't it?

This clan hasn't even started yet; nobody has been told if they will or won't be allowed entry.

Except for militant atheists and conspiracy theorists.

[mpjh]

Well if it is leaderless, how can they restrict anyone?

[Snorri1234]

The very fact that people were denied entry gives this thing a big FAIL stamp, doesn't it?

This clan hasn't even started yet; nobody has been told if they will or won't be allowed entry.

Except for militant atheists and conspiracy theorists.

And forum-rule violators.

[HapSmo19]

I'm pretty sure that as long as you have the ability to drone on and on, using big words for paragraph after bland paragraph, devoid of wit and personality,.....you're in!

[daddy1gringo]

Just to clarify, I don't think, "militant atheists, conspiracy theorists, and rules-violators" was meant to be an exhastive list, but examples. There is no merit to the suggestion that the exclusion of "militant atheists" is some Christian plot; the OP, who suggested that, isn't a Christian.

We Jesus Freaks have our equivalent of "militant atheists." I sigh or bang my head on the desk when a new believer spams in with: "You'll know when you're burning in hell" or "It's all faith! you've just gotta believe without a reason." They are entitled to their opinions and their reasons, or lack of same, but there's a time and place for everything, and the time and place for "It's just faith" is not in a debate forum where some of us are trying to convince some skeptics that you don't have to check your brains at the door to believe in God. (The only result is that at least one skeptic will spend the next post or two talking as if that's all any of us ever say, and days of my work are undone.)

I also don't think the fact that the rules and leadership are not yet defined is a problem. I think the proper way to do that is democratically among those who have signed on to the general idea.

By the way, obviously, I'm interested. The detractors may be correct; there are a number of reasons it may not work. Still, it's worth a try.

If they are so convinced that it's doomed, why spend all the time and effort trying to discourage people? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[Neoteny]

Today I sent a pm out to the person who I think should be the leader. I'm hoping he will accept. There was also a list of everyone who has responded that they want to join.

So secretive...

[luns101]

If they are so convinced that it's doomed, why spend all the time and effort trying to discourage people? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

QFT

[Ray Rider]

Just to clarify, I don't think, "militant atheists, conspiracy theorists, and rules-violators" was meant to be an exhastive list, but examples. There is no merit to the suggestion that the exclusion of "militant atheists" is some Christian plot; the OP, who suggested that, isn't a Christian.

We Jesus Freaks have our equivalent of "militant atheists." I sigh or bang my head on the desk when a new believer spams in with: "You'll know when you're burning in hell" or "It's all faith! you've just gotta believe without a reason." They are entitled to their opinions and their reasons, or lack of same, but there's a time and place for everything, and the time and place for "It's just faith" is not in a debate forum where some of us are trying to convince some skeptics that you don't have to check your brains at the door to believe in God. (The only result is that at least one skeptic will spend the next post or two talking as if that's all any of us ever say, and days of my work are undone.)

I also don't think the fact that the rules and leadership are not yet defined is a problem. I think the proper way to do that is democratically among those who have signed on to the general idea.

By the way, obviously, I'm interested. The detractors may be correct; there are a number of reasons it may not work. Still, it's worth a try.

If they are so convinced that it's doomed, why spend all the time and effort trying to discourage people? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Agreed.

[john9blue]

If they are so convinced that it's doomed, why spend all the time and effort trying to discourage people? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I was just going to say this! I think putting 'militant atheists' in the OP invited a bunch of said atheists to come deny that claim and try to derail this new forum. Perhaps they are disappointed because they won't be allowed in? I also find it funny that, in their extreme efforts to prove that they are NOT militant, they have shown us just how militant they are.

And please, for the love of God (or science, or whatever you worship), don't take that as a blanket statement. I know a few atheists in real life who are perfectly capable of holding a good discussion. But you can't deny that, of all the groups here on CC, atheists push their agenda the most. Maybe it's the anonymity of the Internet. But don't think that all Christians are the same, because I and many others are perfectly aware that not all atheists are the same.

Today I sent a pm out to the person who I think should be the leader. I'm hoping he will accept. There was also a list of everyone who has responded that they want to join.

Leaderless civil discussion -- sounds like anarchy -- wow neat clan

Did anyone else find this funny?

[Neoteny]

I was just going to say this! I think putting 'militant atheists' in the OP invited a bunch of said atheists to come deny that claim and try to derail this new forum. Perhaps they are disappointed because they won't be allowed in? I also find it funny that, in their extreme efforts to prove that they are NOT militant, they have shown us just how militant they are.

For the love of Christ, the patronization doesn't end, does it? To state that the naysayers are merely trying to hinder the progress of this group is belligerent and not conducive to the health of the group. And I thought this thread was supposed to be for the civil discussion forum. Allow me to clarify: I am, and have been, seriously interested in this group. As luns, I'm sure, remembers, this has been discussed in the past with much, if tentative, support from the "militant atheists" of the site.

I have not claimed to not be a militant atheist, nor tried to prove that I am not. I am what I am, and my opinions stand regardless of what label you want to put on them. I don't give two shits what you think of my opinions, or my beliefs. I am interested in creating a healthy forum for civil discussion that can include all who are willing to participate according to the title.

I am not certain that this idea will work. Actually, if I were a betting man, I would put my money against it. But that doesn't mean that I cannot contribute to the well-being of the concept (I don't have any money riding on it... yet). In fact, I have posted a set of ideas that I feel should be incorporated into the framework of the group in the Godless Heathens forum with a request for additions and improvements. Once this was finished, it would be moved here for all to see as an act of goodwill from the "militant atheists" (and one conspiracy theorist) to show that at least some of us are in for the haul.

Additionally, to make a point, I'm going to go ahead and post my ideas here. By doing so, I will be making the first contribution to the actual founding of the group since the OP, who deserves credit for initiative. I encourage you to discuss and suggest improvements. The group is already heading down a shady path with the leader (and who knows what else) being chosen without community representation, and I request that this situation ends now. A "civil discussion forum" should thrive on responsibility, transparency, and accountability, and I'm not pleased with the current trends in those fields. I suppose an argument is that all this can be sorted out in the group, but why wait? We're obviously not doing anything right now? I'd say a more secure framework will not only validate the group's existence, but allow for a smoother transition into the fun stuff: the purpose of the forum.

Here are my basic ideas. They may be common sense, but I feel they need to be stated, and at least seen, if not discussed.

Entry into the group will be all inclusive, applicants accepted via request or invitation.

There might be the need to boot people from the organization due to abuse. A poll can be created by anyone at any time to determine the community's perspective on the individual. A 2/3 majority, or perhaps even higher, maybe even lower, should serve as the basis for removing an individual. This would ideally prevent rash decisions based on personal motives.

I imagine a rotating "head" would be preferred, but I suspect that the mods aren't going to want to change the usergroup leader every couple of weeks. So some sort of election by majority vote should choose the user with executive duties. This must, of course, be in the users interests and an impeachment system similar to the previous voting system should be included.

Shoot them down, tear them apart, do what you will. But for the love of all things that may or may not be holy, can we do something productive for a change?

[luns101]

As luns, I'm sure, remembers, this has been discussed in the past with much, if tentative, support from the "militant atheists" of the site.

Got no clue what you're referring to as far as mentioning my name in all this.

A "civil discussion forum" should thrive on responsibility, transparency, and accountability, and I'm not pleased with the current trends in those fields.

Good...feel free to go start your own civil discussion forum and recruit as many people as you can, all the while implementing those principles as you define them towards your own people during your discussions.

[mpjh]

Quit whining. If you hersey squirts want another forum exclusive to yourselves, go form it. Do it. Get it over. What are you waiting for? Jeez, I have never seen such consternation over nothing.

[Snorri1234]

If they are so convinced that it's doomed, why spend all the time and effort trying to discourage people? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I was just going to say this! I think putting 'militant atheists' in the OP invited a bunch of said atheists to come deny that claim and try to derail this new forum. Perhaps they are disappointed because they won't be allowed in? I also find it funny that, in their extreme efforts to prove that they are NOT militant, they have shown us just how militant they are.

Whoever said that we weren't militant?

We just took offense at the idea that we wouldn't be able to have a civil debate.

[Juan_Bottom]

Whoever said that we weren't militant?

We just took offense at the idea that we wouldn't be able to have a civil debate.

And I was dumbfounded by the number of people who where joining, when there was no plan. My being Athiest didn't enter into it.

atheists push their agenda the most.

We don't have an agenda. We just win all the arguments..... can't help it if we're all so smart......

Maybe it's the anonymity of the Internet.

Like a magnifying glass for stupid, huh? That's how I feel about the web. <-wasn't calling anyone stupid

I also don't think the fact that the rules and leadership are not yet defined is a problem.

That's what I've been saying... there was never any plan, or outline. Juust someone saying, "gee I wish there was a jerk-free zone."

If they are so convinced that it's doomed, why spend all the time and effort trying to discourage people? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

QFT

I'm not trying to discourage anyone.

[TheLucas]

We just took offense at the idea that we wouldn't be able to have a civil debate.

Your posting history shows why you wouldn't be able to do that

[daddy1gringo]

To state that the naysayers are merely trying to hinder the progress of this group is belligerent and not conducive to the health of the group. And I thought this thread was supposed to be for the civil discussion forum. Allow me to clarify: I am, and have been, seriously interested in this group.

OK, to whatever degree your comments have been constructive criticism, what I said doesn't apply to you. I didn't call you by name. A lot of what's been said for the last few pages could not IMO be considered as constructive, and does sound like sour grapes. If that's all just from the outhouse, I apologize if I seemed to group you in with that.

Entry into the group will be all inclusive, applicants accepted via request or invitation.

There might be the need to boot people from the organization due to abuse. A poll can be created by anyone at any time to determine the community's perspective on the individual. A 2/3 majority, or perhaps even higher, maybe even lower, should serve as the basis for removing an individual. This would ideally prevent rash decisions based on personal motives.

OK, that's an interesting idea. Nobody is excluded from the get-go; all exclusion is afterwards, based on one's behavior actually on the forum. That's a bit different from what has been proposed so far, but it makes a some sense. What does everybody think about it?

I imagine a rotating "head" would be preferred,

I'm sorry, but when I imagine a "rotating head" all I can think of is a ventriloquist's dummy or "the Excorcist."

but I suspect that the mods aren't going to want to change the usergroup leader every couple of weeks. So some sort of election by majority vote should choose the user with executive duties. This must, of course, be in the users interests and an impeachment system similar to the previous voting system should be included.

I think a "vote of (no) confidence" system a la the British Parliament would provide the accountability with minimun complication. Once again, what does everybody think? BTW, maybe we can just start with whoever PBG chose, since he is the prime mover here, and seems pretty fair.

Shoot them down, tear them apart, do what you will. But for the love of all things that may or may not be holy, can we do something productive for a change?

Just what I had in mind, dude.

[Snorri1234]

We just took offense at the idea that we wouldn't be able to have a civil debate.

Your posting history shows why you wouldn't be able to do that

So does that post of yours.


Besides, I'm perfectly capable of having a civil debate, I just don't want to. It's way more fun trolling threads or making fun of retards. I could reply to people who say "TORTURE IS OK AND AWESOME GODDAMN TERRORISTSS WANT US DEAD YEEEHAH!!" by carefully explaining why they might possibly be wrong, but that gets boring after the first time. There is no point. People who don't reply to discussion in chatter box because there are stubborn people there rarely have anything important to add anyway, so I don't care about them.