A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[Robert_S]

With more mods and more delegation, you're getting more complexity and eventually you'll need one rule and then another... Once you don't have a situation where just about everybody knows everybody, it gets qualitatively different.

The Richard Dawkins forums operated fine for a long time without the sexism/racism rules, and never had group attack rules that I know of, and it was much bigger than either Rationalia or Rational Skepticism.

That is true. I think that issue was just waiting to come up, and it just happened to come up after that one day in February.

[LaMont Cranston]

I don't think that the relative freedom of expression that exists on rationalia, as compared to ratskep or RDF, has to do with the size of the membership. From what I can tell, it has much more to do with attitude.

If memory serves, RDF (as we knew it) folded because Dawkins had a meltdown and destroyed his creation. Yes, he had some help from Josh and others, but RD revealed himself to be emotion-driven, thin-skinned, a fit thrower, irrational, an unclear thinker, disloyal, etc. Despite whatever issues we might have had at RDF, I think it was pretty cool, and I was more than willing to be a member forever.

I joined ratskep with the best of intentions, and, yes, I stirred up some shit, but, in reality, no more than I had at RDF. Shortly after I hit the 50 post mark, I was permabanned, but the months that have followed have revealed ratskep to be a rather close-minded and uptight place.

This attitude on this forum is very cool, and many of us appreciate that. There is ample opportunity for serious discussions of those issues upon which we do not agree, but there is also a lot of fun and silliness. From what I can tell, there is something of an "in group" of those people who have been here for a long time, go to gatherings, etc., and it is highly unlikely that I will ever be a member of that group. That's cool. Like Groucho Marx said, "I'm not sure that I want to be a member of any group that would have people like me in it." There are also those of us who enjoy the discussions and the nonsense who simply enjoy the nonsense that is available here for what it is.

To those people who have serious issues and get upset with rationalia, ratskep, RDF or whatever, it appears to me that it is due, in part, to the inability or the unwillingness of atheists to find some kind of common ground, an agenda upon which they can agree. Perhaps that isn't necessary, and we should just enjoy forums such as this one for what they are, a source of entertainment and information. So it goes...

[Robert_S]

I don't think that the relative freedom of expression that exists on rationalia, as compared to ratskep or RDF, has to do with the size of the membership. From what I can tell, it has much more to do with attitude.

If memory serves, RDF (as we knew it) folded because Dawkins had a meltdown and destroyed his creation. Yes, he had some help from Josh and others, but RD revealed himself to be emotion-driven, thin-skinned, a fit thrower, irrational, an unclear thinker, disloyal, etc. Despite whatever issues we might have had at RDF, I think it was pretty cool, and I was more than willing to be a member forever.

I joined ratskep with the best of intentions, and, yes, I stirred up some shit, but, in reality, no more than I had at RDF. Shortly after I hit the 50 post mark, I was permabanned, but the months that have followed have revealed ratskep to be a rather close-minded and uptight place.

This attitude on this forum is very cool, and many of us appreciate that. There is ample opportunity for serious discussions of those issues upon which we do not agree, but there is also a lot of fun and silliness. From what I can tell, there is something of an "in group" of those people who have been here for a long time, go to gatherings, etc., and it is highly unlikely that I will ever be a member of that group. That's cool. Like Groucho Marx said, "I'm not sure that I want to be a member of any group that would have people like me in it." There are also those of us who enjoy the discussions and the nonsense who simply enjoy the nonsense that is available here for what it is.

To those people who have serious issues and get upset with rationalia, ratskep, RDF or whatever, it appears to me that it is due, in part, to the inability or the unwillingness of atheists to find some kind of common ground, an agenda upon which they can agree. Perhaps that isn't necessary, and we should just enjoy forums such as this one for what they are, a source of entertainment and information. So it goes...

Maybe I'm largely wrong with my group size hypothesis. It could be since I prefer smaller crowds and easier going conversations, I might be seeing connections between those two things that aren't there. I don't think so, but I'm open to the possibility.

[kiki5711]

responding to tatt

my reason for disliking that other rats what ever the hell they're called is cause I can't even fart an opinion without getting reported. WHat is their frekn problem? It's like talking with a bunch of 5 yr olds!

What, not allowing racist sexist homophobic bigoted opinion is acting like "5 yr olds" is it?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't racism, sexism, or homophobia that got kiki reported.

Farting too much, on the other hand....

[kiki5711]

I

I joined ratskep with the best of intentions, and, yes, I stirred up some shit, but, in reality, no more than I had at RDF. Shortly after I hit the 50 post mark, I was permabanned, but the months that have followed have revealed ratskep to be a rather close-minded and uptight place.

So it goes...

I thought I was the only one that felt that.

[devogue]

I don't think that the relative freedom of expression that exists on rationalia, as compared to ratskep or RDF, has to do with the size of the membership. From what I can tell, it has much more to do with attitude.

If memory serves, RDF (as we knew it) folded because Dawkins had a meltdown and destroyed his creation. Yes, he had some help from Josh and others, but RD revealed himself to be emotion-driven, thin-skinned, a fit thrower, irrational, an unclear thinker, disloyal, etc. Despite whatever issues we might have had at RDF, I think it was pretty cool, and I was more than willing to be a member forever.

I joined ratskep with the best of intentions, and, yes, I stirred up some shit, but, in reality, no more than I had at RDF. Shortly after I hit the 50 post mark, I was permabanned, but the months that have followed have revealed ratskep to be a rather close-minded and uptight place.

This attitude on this forum is very cool, and many of us appreciate that. There is ample opportunity for serious discussions of those issues upon which we do not agree, but there is also a lot of fun and silliness. From what I can tell, there is something of an "in group" of those people who have been here for a long time, go to gatherings, etc., and it is highly unlikely that I will ever be a member of that group. That's cool. Like Groucho Marx said, "I'm not sure that I want to be a member of any group that would have people like me in it." There are also those of us who enjoy the discussions and the nonsense who simply enjoy the nonsense that is available here for what it is.

To those people who have serious issues and get upset with rationalia, ratskep, RDF or whatever, it appears to me that it is due, in part, to the inability or the unwillingness of atheists to find some kind of common ground, an agenda upon which they can agree. Perhaps that isn't necessary, and we should just enjoy forums such as this one for what they are, a source of entertainment and information. So it goes...

I see you have noticed the clique.

[LaMont Cranston]

Gertie, Yes, I do recognize that there is something of a clique composed of those people who have been around for a long time and who have put in the time and energy to get to know each other. I like most of the people I've met on this forum, and it is not anything of a problem for me to not be part of some "inner circle." I live in Hawaii and rarely travel, but there are many folks who are members of this forum who, in they should show up in my part of the world, I'd be delighted to have lunch together at a little place that's directly across the street from the ocean. Aloha!

[Robert_S]

responding to tatt

my reason for disliking that other rats what ever the hell they're called is cause I can't even fart an opinion without getting reported. WHat is their frekn problem? It's like talking with a bunch of 5 yr olds!

What, not allowing racist sexist homophobic bigoted opinion is acting like "5 yr olds" is it?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't racism, sexism, or homophobia that got kiki reported.

Farting too much, on the other hand....

[pErvinalia]

You posted this rule in this very thread.

What are you talking about? I haven't posted any rules from ratskep.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 67#p563067

Huh?!? I only discussed my understanding of the fua rule. The rule itself is very short and sweet and doesn't mention anything about context, but the mods have elaborated regularly that context is a big part. Currently we are having a bit of a discussion over there about whether some mention needs to be made of context, so that the rule doesn't appear so black and white. And as I said earlier concerning the tea party thing, that rule wasn't enforced anyway. Everyone just ignored it. The mods, despite being portrayed as an evil bunch of anti-free speech dictators, understood that most members where against that rule, and therefore they let it slide. Oh what an evil bunch they are....

[pErvinalia]

responding to tatt

my reason for disliking that other rats what ever the hell they're called is cause I can't even fart an opinion without getting reported. WHat is their frekn problem? It's like talking with a bunch of 5 yr olds!

What, not allowing racist sexist homophobic bigoted opinion is acting like "5 yr olds" is it?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't racism, sexism, or homophobia that got kiki reported.

I've got no idea. And it doesn't matter. Her inference that the mods ban anything that moves over there is just retarded. As I've said a number of times now, 99% of posters post just fine over there without being sanctioned or banned. There's just a small minority who can't seem to take responsibility for their inability to understand and follow the FUA. There's also a small(?) minority of people who think either the mods need to loosen up, or tighten up, and/or change the specific wording of the FUA regarding either sexism/racism/homophobia and/or trolling. Now I respect the latter people, but not the former. Although, as you can see, the latter group seems to be all over the place concerning what they want.

[charlou]

Oh what an evil bunch they are....

Who has said this?

[LaMont Cranston]

rEvolutionist, I don't recall anybody portraying the mods at ratskep (other than you, of course) as an "evil bunch of anti-free speech dictators." However, you can put me down for uptight, close-minded, rigid, irrational and rather cowardly.

I think that many of us think that strong people do not need to cower from controversial viewpoints and differing opinions. In fact, I think that strong people welcome the opportunities to substantiate, as best as they can, their ideas, and welcome chances to justify what they believe and how they came to believe what they do. I only ask that I be protected from those holief-than-thou types who think that myself and others are so weak that we need to be protected.

[Trolldor]

So tell me, revvie, who decides what constitutes an attack? Where does the line between valid criticism of a group or ideology and personal attack begin? I'd sure like to meet your objective, flawless arbiters of justice.

Oh, wait.

[Robert_S]

rEvolutionist, I don't recall anybody portraying the mods at ratskep (other than you, of course) as an "evil bunch of anti-free speech dictators." However, you can put me down for uptight, close-minded, rigid, irrational and rather cowardly.

I think that many of us think that strong people do not need to cower from controversial viewpoints and differing opinions. In fact, I think that strong people welcome the opportunities to substantiate, as best as they can, their ideas, and welcome chances to justify what they believe and how they came to believe what they do. I only ask that I be protected from those holief-than-thou types who think that myself and others are so weak that we need to be protected.

As far as I know, nobody has banned from RatSkep or from Richard's place for a controversial opinion unless it was blatantly and continuously sexist, racist, or homophobic.

However, that there was at least one person banned from Richard's for being a chronic prick, although it was worded differently, while several people of the same political persuasion happily kept posting away.

[pErvinalia]

rEvolutionist, I don't recall anybody portraying the mods at ratskep (other than you, of course) as an "evil bunch of anti-free speech dictators." However, you can put me down for uptight, close-minded, rigid, irrational and rather cowardly.

Cowardly?!? FFS.

I think that many of us think that strong people do not need to cower from controversial viewpoints and differing opinions. In fact, I think that strong people welcome the opportunities to substantiate, as best as they can, their ideas, and welcome chances to justify what they believe and how they came to believe what they do.

You're right. We're all so weak over there. Thanks for setting us straight.