Yet, maybe we need to strictly define each and every part of it, so there is less in the way of "hair splitting" in order to restrict more "hair-pulling."

So, here are the bits to be more closely defined:

safe haven
provides opportunities
people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief
discuss religious topics and events
positive and civil manner
emphasis on tolerance
Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

There isn't much one can do about the Masters of Semantics & Derailment other than ignore and walk away. And while any one of us can put people on ignore, we shouldn't have to do that in this group. While I do have some on ignore (and should add a few more) one reason I don't do it is that I want to see the overall group (threads and posts) the same way potential new posters see it, or without the gaps made by members that are on ignore.

Other than that, I'm a bit worn out, and may not be replying to all of my PMs in a timely manner today

Some people live for drama but I don't. I will stand up to it but I don't care for it.

I have caused drama here before so I am n8t innocent but others seem to be much better at it.

I think the SOP is fine and hope these disruptions don't keep people away from this group.

Two in particular - have a history of hating religion and believers. I don't know how you can have a tolerant discussion with someone who thinks that most of this room is dishonest and thoughtless. The people we are talking about would love to see believers who defend themselves banned if they could manage it; they probably think believers deserve it.

That doesn't excuse my over reaction - but something would have happened with those two eventually anyway.

Bryant

We all make mistakes and I think we can leave it at that.

I think the best way to respond to the kind of disruption and baiting we saw yesterday is to stand down and PM a host.

It's pretty clear that el bryanto was deliberately targeted in an attempt to get his posts hidden and/or himself banned. The disruptions won't succeed if we refuse to cooperate.

Hopefully.

Please explain how I deliberately targeted el bryanto causing him to tell me to "fuck off you fucking fucker". And if you are not referring to me, please explain how anyone else deliberately targeted el bryanto causing him to tell me to "fuck off you fucking fucker".

Eagerly awaiting your explanation.

Please refrain from posting in here or you risk being banned.

Your presence is disruptive.

Oh wait, right, because the SOP should be amended to add "no assholes".

My mistake. Please list all the people who are assholes who should not post here.

It is clear that you do not want to discuss issues but meta and I will not have it sir.

Now leave this room or I as host will ban you.

I stayed out of this discussion until I was referred to in a completely dishonest way. Sure go ahead ban another of the Bad Atheist Assholes.

of our members as well because you and your friends make them feel unwelcomed.


Your presence here set him off. He was wrong but so were you for coming in here.


Now leave.

I'll only post in these other groups because of the super aggressive and hostile posters in Religion. Honestly I wonder if those storming into this group lately know how disruptive they are because they're used to that sort of gladiatorial approach.

It's fairly clear that they're showing off for what they consider their "team." They push it a little too far and wind up violating the SoP.

If they stuck to the issues it would not have likely been a problem but it was meta and that was not happening.

They have feelings too and that needs to be remembered especially by myself. It is not pleasant to ban anyone and I banned someone I like the other day.

It will pass and all will be well soon.

I will not tolerate disruption but I know they have emotions and opinions. I do not enjoy this and it hurts my heart to fight this here.

I hope this passes soon but if it doesn't I am ready to deal with it. But if it passes we the hosts will rethink a thing or two.

I wish for peace and I take nothing and mean nothing personal here.



This is a message to others my friend but thanks for your words.

I think Memling captured the essence of martyrdom here. Don't you agree?

You are perceived as part of the problem set, not as part of the solution set.

You animosity to believers is well known. You are seen to be arrogant, self-righteous and nasty. One of the main reasons the Interfaith forum was set up was to allow religious discussion without nastiness.

Apparently, you came into this forum to provoke nastiness. That may not have been your intention, but nastiness cropped up on your appearance. Thus, please leave, and don't come back.

I like rug's suggestion.

With respect to rug's suggestion, I think it is "common law" that doesn't have to be explicitly stated

The events of the last few days were probably inevitable and I think the actions taken were necessary and good for the group.

I have been told by a host of AA that linking to this safe haven is forbidden in AA. This person just did that.

Unless I am getting this wrong this seems hypocritical.

I thought that wasn't allowed in your group. If I am wrong no problem.

I have no issue with it ajd anyone can link to whatever interfaith thread they want. I thought it was against your rules.

then we need to do a better of job of living up to it. Meaning that even if we don't like a poster based on their posts in A/A or Religion, when they come in here they receive every courtesy as long as their actual posts in here (not what they've done in another group) continue to meet with the SoP.

If we do amend the SoP, then based on what happened this should either be changed to a believer-only group or it should be clearly stated that posters with a history of posts that would violate the SoP if they were made in here are not allowed. That would more accurately reflect what just happened (although I've interacted with all three of the visitors, and have managed to have civil conversations with them).

I don't think what happened yesterday was deserved.

Respond tomorrow. Thanks and you are always welcome here my friend.

The problem is people that live to disrupt, derail, split hairs, and so forth. It's all just semantics BS.

If a poster can't stick to the topic of the thread on which they're posting, then they should get out of the thread. The SoP clearly states that we want discussions, not nit-picking disruptions.

I don't think they live to disrupt. I think it's all in how a person responds to them. El Bryanto responded to them with suspicion and hostility, so they reacted defensively, and that is where the derailing came in.

That's a specific tactic used to disrupt. You may certainly have had fine conversations with them, but have you observed just how they act in groups where they aren't in control of the topic/community (as they would be in their own safe havens)?

I don't engage most of them because I have observed for far too many years the same tactic over and over. The topic of the OP is never relevant; winning the "argument" and upsetting the "opposition" is seemingly more important.

I do try to get along. But when someone is forever splitting the hairs of every single thing you state, what's the point in attempting to continue? And so, I don't engage them, except, as a host, when I perceive that they are disrupting a thread.

And I don't think a desire to win the argument is limited to atheists. I think the solution to argumentativeness is to either decline to engage, or be ready to engage calmly. So I think you do the right thing by declining to engage.

But I find the method often used to be insincere. It's a form of baiting, and it's used far too often by many members of DU, no matter what their beliefs or not.

I find that kind of arguing to be tedious as well as mentally and emotionally draining. I have better things to do with my time than to attempt to correct someone who's "wrong on the Internet"

You may have had civil conversations with all kinds of people, but if those people come into this group to disrupt, they should be banned.

In practice it is a place people who want to post on religion with out the drama in religion.

I have no desire to see it a believers only room.

but I think this group should avoid talking about other members and, in particular, about the AA group.

It is non-productive and just feeds the internecine war that is destructive and divisive. It stoops to a level that I don't think this group should take. The members here can take the high road, imo.

If someone comes into this group to disrupt, they should be warned and then banned. Their past behavior here and elsewhere should be taken into consideration by the hosts. People who are known to be hostile to religion and the religious have no business in this group. Arguing with them about the SOP is useless. If they are hostile, their only reason for coming here is to disrupt. Full stop.

I have to learn to choose my battles.

We've had a rash of "inter-host" PM's about this recently, and as I look over the threads I see too many of "our" people spoiling for a fight and things that might have happened in the religion or A&A groups spilling over to here.

This is in direct opposition to the point of this group, which, btw, happens to have a reasonably good sop as it is.

And I am completely mystified by el Bryanto's hidden thread above, but I have my suspicions.

Anyway, this group is open to non-believers who come here to discuss things in good faith (OK, come up with a better term...) and I can't see parsing their posts looking for hidden meanings, finding them, and starting a fight. If it were my choice, I would be ruthless in banning anyone who dares bring bad blood from another group into one which preaches peace, and just as ruthless with anyone who starts out refusing to be civil with visitors.

Anyway, this whole thing is very Meta and probably not only shouldn't be public but could be making what was a small problem into a larger one.

It is clear to me that there are some people who do not come here to discuss things in good faith (it's a great term, lol). That should not be permitted, but I also think it can be avoided by keeping the group relatively clear of meta topics in general.

Perhaps there is a need for an off-site group for that kind of thing if people really feel they need to blow off steam, circle the wagons and perpetuate the we vs. them internecine wars. I'm not interested, but I would like to see it out of this group.

I am really angry now .

You can't tell members that they have to be civil here, then expect regular members to get away with incivility. That's what ruins a group, imo.

Set your standards and expect everyone to live up to them. Don't permit calling out or trashing people who don't regularly participate here.

Look, I like elbyranto, but he lets his buttons get pushed then reacts in a way that is uncivil. He doesn't have to do that.

This war between this group and the AA group is juvenile, worthless and self-destructive. No one will win.