Discussions

The Removal of Religious Topics from BlogCatalog Discussions

Posted by NINE • 2/26/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: announcement, blogcatalog, discussions, moderation, religion

When we started the discussions here on blogcatalog we began with a simple concept, one that would give bloggers the opportunity to speak about whatever was on their minds. Discussions would give different bloggers from different backgrounds the opportunity to communicate freely in an open forum. This concept however has proven to be more difficult that we thought it would be, from flat out spam and link exchanges to the more recent problem with religious topics.

I for one am not a fan of censorship, but at the same time I have the responsibility of moderating a community of very vocal bloggers with a spectrum of different morals and beliefs. As a team I can assure you that the blogcatalog staff has debated over and over trying to figure out what we can do to keep this train on its tracks.

The truth is, we hoped that the community would see the problems and as a group stray away from topics and discussions that are consistently getting out of hand.

Unfortunately we have not been able to overcome the types of discussions and remarks that have been plaguing the site recently and although many of you are respectful and open minded, the posts continue to get flagged more and more daily as inappropriate.

I personally don’t like having to make that decision everyday…

So as of now, we are going to be locking any active religious topics that involve debate. We will be encouraging the authors (and readers) to continue their discussions via the Groups www.blogcatalog.com/groups/religion-and-spirituality

I know that I am slightly biased but I genuinely love the blogcatalog discussions, and I speak to YOU, our members to help us to keep blogcatalog an entertaining and useful resource for everyone.

If you see a topic or comment that is out of hand, please report it. Let us know when something is out of hand so that We as a community can keep the discussions a place worth visiting.

User Comments

2/26/08

clioandme

I applaud this sensible move and your thoughtful presentation of it here.

[reply]
2/26/08

JillSaxon

No complaints or criticisms here! [just my pennies worth].

[reply]
2/26/08

pointlessbanter

Thank you

[reply]
2/26/08

Anok

It's a shame, but until everything quiets down, it's probably a good move.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Don't forget, you can still get your fill in the groups.
2/26/08

carlgalloway

Excellent stuff, well done!

[reply]
2/26/08

Mewie

This is very unfortunate. Although I had no idea or intention that my recently created thread would erupt with conflicts, personal attacks, and frustration for many, I wanted to apologize.

I am sorry.

What was meant to promote discussion and dialogue with people who don't share certain values and beliefs, resulted in restrictions for everyone.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  It wasn't just you, Mewie. There's a lot of history here that involves many of us. Don't be too hard on yourself.
2. 2/26/08
  
  NINE
  
  Mewie, there is no doubt in my mind that your intentions were honest. I hope you will continue to participate in the main discussions despite this new rule.
3. 2/26/08
  
  pointlessbanter
  
  Anyone could have started it and had the same result, no need to apologize.
4. 2/26/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  Indeed, it had nothing to do with you.
5. 2/26/08
  
  globalgirl
  
  Mike, your discussion was not, by far, the root nor cause of the closure.
2/26/08

MadameX

I understand the decision, Nine. It's probably the right one for the community.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  Norski
  
  What she said.
2/26/08

kdawg68

No complaints here. I don't think of it as censorship when it's still allowed in the groups.

[reply]
2/26/08

kevingoodman

It’s just plain sad it came to this.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  I love Blog Catalog.
2/26/08

globalgirl

I understand why this decision was made. Thank you for making a hard decision, while also leaving the faith based groups open.

[reply]
2/26/08

bnsullivan

Yes, assigning those kinds of discussions to a group dedicated to such topics is a fair way to go. I hope this move results in restoring a more friendly/less contentious atmosphere to the general discussion area.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  ThriftShopRomantic
  
  Seconded!
2. 2/26/08
  
  crpitt
  
  Sunshine on a rainy day
2/26/08

kevingoodman

It seems the consensus is good. Gentleman and Ladies don’t speak about politics and religion – so I have heard.

I am still overwhelmed.

(revised) - "consensus is that having it in groups works better, because it allows people who want to to discuss it to go for it, but it keeps those who don't want to get involved from having it flood the top-level forums." Greekgeek

[reply]
2/26/08

ChicaX

That's ok, I never conversed on that topic anyways, besides baking soda is much better to talk about!

[reply]
2/26/08

Greekgeek

With respect, I don't think that's the consensus. I think the consensus is that having it in groups works better, because it allows people who want to to discuss it to go for it, but it keeps those who don't want to get involved from having it flood the top-level forums.

Not a bad solution for an issue that has caused many a community to go sour!

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  yes that is correct.
2/26/08

suburbqueen

I agree that this is probably the best thing for BC and NINE, you couldn't have worded it any better!

[reply]
2/26/08

PetLvr

It would be nice to go back to "blogging issues" although (and I hate to actually say this outloud) we also need to go back to relaxing the rules on the 'shameless blog promotions' in here ...

Reciprocal linking requests omitted from any new relaxation of rules of course .. as that was also annoying.

[reply]
2/26/08

globalgirl

Does this mean that all threads about religion will be locked or removed? Specifically, "Jesus was a terrorist" and "Are Christians morally superior?" and other ones meant to antagonize Christians? I hope so.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  so you’re asking if anti religious discussion is forbidden?
2. 2/26/08
  
  thegoodknife
  
  we will likely not remove all religious discussion, but will make sure to remove any that result or promote religious debate.
3. 2/26/08
  
  globalgirl
  
  Those two threads I mentioned were clearly anti-Christian by those who started them and by some participants. They were hateful and divisive.
4. 2/26/08
  
  pointlessbanter
  
  Then bump them and get them deleted. Stop crying and do something.
5. 2/26/08
  
  globalgirl
  
  Stop with your sarcasm. You were the one who started the "thread of the day" crying and blathering about your dislike of such threads.
  
  I did report those threads and they were never deleted.
6. 2/26/08
  
  crpitt
  
  Give the BC admin a chance.
7. 2/26/08
  
  pointlessbanter
  
  Find them and bump them then... Obviously after today they will be taken down...
  
  Yeah I did start the thread of the day and it did accomplish what it set out to do didn't it? What does that tell you?
8. 2/26/08
  
  globalgirl
  
  That the one who cries the loudest wins.
9. 2/26/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  "What does that tell you?"
  
  That maybe we need an insult group, or a time-out corner group.
10. 2/26/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  I agree with Global that you and Stoneman blatantly insulted her in that thread - she deserves apologies because she clearly had no ill intent whereas you two did- you became exactly what you wanted to destroy in that instance.
11. 2/26/08
  
  garydenness
  
  Sounds to me like someone doesn't like their god of choice to be questioned. I think it's a shame that you can't engage in debate without adopting a 'persecuted' mode.
12. 2/26/08
  
  globalgirl
  
  When personal insults are hurled because someone adheres to faith, it SHOULD be considered hate. Period.
  
  I have seen people get censored here because they mention that the holocaust did not happen or that Israel should be destroyed. Yet, the religious threads AGAINST Christianity remain.
  
  What a sad reality.
13. 2/26/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  Global - I reported that comment - fair is fair. I think BC will see the wrongs. Give them a chance and practice restraint. Friend to friend - I suggest you come back tommorow.
14. 2/26/08
  
  NINE
  
  I agree with kevingoodman here, there was obviously a problem but lets try to move forward from here on out.
15. 2/26/08
  
  garydenness
  
  "I have seen people get censored here because they mention that the holocaust did not happen or that Israel should be destroyed. Yet, the religious threads AGAINST Christianity remain."
  
  If you can't see the blatant, achingly obvious difference between the points mentioned, then the problem lies with you.
  
  It is a very bitter person who goes back looking for threads that haven't had a new post in months, to have them deleted.
16. 2/26/08
  
  globalgirl
  
  So the personal insults continue because of the love of godlessness.
  
  Thanks, Kevin and Nine for your comments.
17. 2/27/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  My mom used to tell me: "If you can't be nice be quiet."
  She didn't have to tell me this one: "If you don't like something, don't look at it."
  
  It is very sad that BC had to resort to censorship. In all honesty, I would probably do the same if I had to sift through petty complaints all day.
2/26/08

Greekgeek

Sorry, I edited after posting, but I'll refrain again lest I hopelessly confuse the convo!

Anyway, kevingoodman, when you first said "I am sad" I thought you meant it was sad that religion be closed as an area of discussion, when actually, it's not been closed, just moved.

I was going to ask for clarification, but in trying to write my question I realize that maybe we're actually on the same wavelength; I'm just more longwinded.

It's a little sad that this topic caused kerfluffle. But it's been a problem so long that it's axiomatic. It's unsurprising. It's typical, like teenagers getting giggly and embarrassed and trying to act sophisticated when they talk about sex. Religion is something people feel very strongly about and it hasn't usually much to do with reason, so no wonder feelings get roused and bruised by religious debate.

I was a moderator at a small community in the mid-nineties where the rule was "no talk about religion, politics, or operating systems" except in one designated debate forum. And that community was for fans of Myst and Riven -- nerdly video games you'd really not expect to attract contentious debaters!

Frankly, after all the cycles of friction, explosion, fading and rebuilding I've seen over the years in various online forums, I'm always amazed when one does let those three topics be discussed anywhere, anytime!

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  Yes – I wondered if I was being too vague. I really meant not to elaborate.
  
  BC did the right thing
  
  But those that either asked for this decision in many ways were as much the antagonist and I don’t feel justice is even handed.
  
  I am sorry to those who were viciously attacked.
  especially a particular person who I seen get treated very unkindly.
  
  BC did the right thing but they need to offer some stern warnings
2/26/08

crpitt

Big thanks to the BC admin.

I hope people will realise that your only human and are trying your best.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  I concur.
2/26/08

imaniceperson

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEOkxRLzBf0

[reply]
2/26/08

Aprilfreelance

There are plenty of religious forums that people can visit to debate those topics, as well as specific groups on BC. And, it is apparent that attempts to self-regulate here on BC has failed miserably. Perhaps in your rules you could simply provide links to other relevant forums for religion discussions.

Funny thing is, I am a member of a Christian BC group, but no discussion has been started in months. Instead, they all get started here in the general forum. Perhaps banning them from the general will make people actually use groups the way they were intended.

[reply]
2/26/08

Scout

I understand the desire to sort things out and direct discussion of something as personal and potentially as volatile as religion to a designated group, but does that eliminate debate? Where is the debate if the Christians in a Christian group communicate in one group, and those of another faith or no faith communicate in a separate room all together?

I seem to be the only person who thinks that having these debates out in the open is not a problem. As I scroll through the discussions to join, I just skip the ones I think will be irritating or tiresome.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  morgantj
  
  A group could be created where people could debate religious issues if they so choose to.
2/26/08

garydenness

I rather think it is a shame. There is no such thing as 'free speech' but when you start restricting it, a slippery slope it is...

Better moderation would be a nicer alternative.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  techfun
  
  I don't think its fair to expect Blog Catalog to have to pay or otherwise provide for a full time 24/7 moderator for the forums. This isn't grade school. Too much can happen in a 5 minute period for any moderation except self-moderation to be effective.
2. 2/26/08
  
  garydenness
  
  Pay for it? There are some level headed users here. Many of whom would mod for free. Many other debate systems use that approach.
3. 2/26/08
  
  techfun
  
  It would be a living hell for a user who was being tasked with making those decisions? Now if each user could flag a comment as "bad" and after a certain threshold the message would be hidden from anyone who doesn't take active steps to reveal it it could work.
4. 2/26/08
  
  pointlessbanter
  
  Just go into the groups for these types of debates it isn't rocket science.
5. 2/26/08
  
  morgantj
  
  Well, the group has to welcome debate. From what I see, many just want those who share the same beliefs or disbeliefs. Perhaps a group could be created where people could debate religious issues if they so choose to.
6. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  You've mentioned this at least twice here. Create one and invite people in. Just don't turn the invite into one of *those* threads.
7. 2/26/08
  
  morgantj
  
  yes, I did mention it twice, because in both cases it was relevant to the post before it. I don't need to create such a group as I was merely offering a solution to the query of the commenter before me. Thanks for your concern.
2/26/08

mikeny07

I wish you were around when the Bush bashing was online years ago. That was a total mess. It was a disgrace what some people said about our president.

Any war-antiwar debates can get just as out of hand and have to be controlled also.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  TonyB
  
  Where do you think we were?
2. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  I agree that civil discourse is desirable all around, but putting the president or a war on the same level with people's religion doesn't work for me. Religion is much more fundamental for most people.
3. 2/26/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  Sitepro, we know where you were and I already told your mother, so she knows too!
2/26/08

harleyblues

censorship on the net?...~:)
hb~

[reply]
2/26/08

rippinkitten

I, too, applaud the decision. I have been very quiet in the Discussions in the past few months because I don't care for the topics being posted, especially the religious ones. That's not why I come to BC. I initially came for the smart and helpful topics about blogging.

Keeping it to the groups is a great idea for those that want to participate in those kinds of theological topics. I wish more BC users went to the appropriate groups more often to discuss the random things that I see clogging up the discussion boards.

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Right, like there's a history group where people talk about stuff that might bore living daylight out of some of you here.
  
  And there's a Mac group where we feel all snug and superior about the Mac without rubbing it in the faces of Windows users . . . Oops. Sorry. But you get the picture.
2. 2/26/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  I love the history group!
3. 2/26/08
  
  Mewie
  
  OOOH! I want to join this Mac group.... thanks for the head's up, stoneman!
  
  Edit: okay, I'm definitely not superior at all - I had no idea I already joined this group. lol
4. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
2/26/08

biobob

Greetings
Thanks.
Biobob

[reply]
2/26/08

Naturalwoman

good move!

[reply]
2/26/08

voodooKobra

*raises a glass*

[reply]
2/26/08

2sweetnsaxy

It's a shame it had to come to that. It never ceases to amaze me that no matter what message/discussion board I've been on, some adults simply refuse to be have like adults. :-(

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  comment removed by the community.
2. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  VoodooKobra, let's not get too high and mighty. Some some pretty clear anti-religion threads kept the temperature raised too. It takes two to tango.
3. 2/26/08
  
  2sweetnsaxy
  
  I've seen and heard horrible statements from both sides of the fence. The world is full of dangerous people who are willing to die for what they believe and that is not limited to religious people.
4. 2/26/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  Wtf? Voodoo - it's crap like that ("religious people are the most dangerous") that brought this on. Comments like that ARE the problem. You're right, we don't need that here, so why act like a 5 year old and bring it?
5. 2/26/08
  
  morgantj
  
  comment removed by the community.
6. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Kobra and Morgan, just drop it already.
7. 2/26/08
  
  Xight
  
  Fanatics are scary, and so are the people who vehemently oppose them as well.
8. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  To be clear, not all the people discussing religion are fanatics. It's just a real touchy issue.
9. 2/26/08
  
  morgantj
  
  globalgirl's comment above, "So the personal insults continue because of the love of godlessness." is not so different then voodooKobra's except it points in the opposite direction. Yet, nobody replied to her comment?
10. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  I wasn't here at the time. Others were. Sometimes getting the last word is overrated anyway.
11. 2/26/08
  
  Xight
  
  How about we move this debate to the religion group.
12. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Bingo. Just give the link to whatever group whoever wants to debate this is on.
13. 2/26/08
  
  morgantj
  
  stoneman said, "I wasn't here at the time"
  
  It's okay stoneman, it's not like you have been appointed as moderator or something.
14. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  And Morgan, remember that little report link under every comment. Use it if you feel something is inappropriate. BC is not moderating 24/7, but they'll have a look as soon as they can.
15. 2/26/08
  
  globalgirl
  
  comment removed by the community.
16. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Okay, you guys obviously want to keep at it. Form a group. Call it "Believers versus Atheists" or whatever strikes your fancy. And leave the rest of us out of it. (But post a link, so others can find you if they want.)
17. 2/26/08
  
  garydenness
  
  comment removed by the community.
18. 2/26/08
  
  clioandme
  
  So get a room already, you guys. Ew.
19. 2/26/08
  
  globalgirl
  
  Gary, I am very sorry for calling you an atheist. Naturally, there are many, many gods people serve.
  
  Peace.
20. 2/26/08
  
  morgantj
  
  Ah, so your sorry for calling him an atheist but not for claiming that personal insults continue because of the "love of godlessness." which you defined as the "love of atheism," which translates into that you are claiming that personal insults continue due to the love of atheism. So if there were no love of atheism, you think the insults would cease to continue? You are forgetting something, insults like this coming from god loving people against others that do not believe in their god. You can not make such a claim, act like an innocent, and not expect to hear a defense. I hope you are done. Peace.
  
  stoneman said, "So get a room already, you guys. Ew"
  
  Stoneman, you know you like to watch.
  
  For a fresh breath of air for everyone, on the house, check out my post, "six inches of snow" - www.travisjmorgan.com/blog/2008/02/26/six-inches-of-snow/
2/26/08

kevingoodman

yawns

[reply]
1. 2/26/08
  
  suburbqueen
  
  *hands kevin a cup of coffee*
2. 2/26/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  well thank you dear - Tuesday night boxing isn’t what it used to be. Hopefully I'll get blessed with a new episode of House.
3. 2/26/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  I hate American Idol
4. 2/26/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  You anti-American Idol patriot! How could you? Yeah, I hate it too, although I used to love the auditions for the ability to laugh at folks making fools of themselves. I guess I'm just easily amused.
5. 2/26/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  I mean - you hit it right there. Once you get past the fools there’s nothing left.
2/26/08

ModelElaine

Thank you! I entirely support this new policy

[reply]
2/26/08

MyDen

I applaud your sensible decision especially since I have stayed away from the discussion forum over the last couple of months as a result of the ugliness of the religious discussion threads.

Some have said that your decision is going down the slippery slope but I am of the view that religion cannot be debated. To the religious, their beliefs is a way of life just like the much cherished non-religious stance of the atheists. It is almost impossible to have civil discourse over religion between believers and the non-religious.

Once again, great decision.

[reply]
2/26/08

RobertDi

Thanks.. It was getting to be too much the same stuff over and over again mindless.. i prefer baking soda and yogurt discussion anyway for that and blogging topics

[reply]
2/26/08

wehireu

I am not sure this is a good idea in some ways. Setting aside a discussion area for religious topics might be more appropriate. Are you going to still allow religious discussion groups?

Eliminating politics is similar. Almost anything can be political.

[reply]
2/26/08

Theresa111

Bravo on this decision. Now ... About that political discussion.

Stoneman,
On another note, I got my new iMac in October with $400.00 of MS Office for Mac. It never worked properly! Ha! Last week, another $150.00 spent on Mac for Word 2008. Mac had to fix the problem. Once again ... Mac to the rescue! Of course ... it works perfectly. "little red dog" :-)

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Doesn't Open Office run on Mac?
  I don't have a Mac, but it ought to. And it is free...
2/26/08

clioandme

I couldn't resist. I had to do a short blog post on this subject:
markstoneman.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/talking-religion-on-public-forums/

If that is too shameless, delete this comment, but I suspect others will have posts too. I suggest, however, that we keep reactions to these posts on the blogs themselves.

[reply]
2/26/08

Gorric

LOL. Wow, you know what’s wrong with moving religious and political arguments to a group forms. There’s no grandstanding or spontaneous response to arguments posted because you have to go hunting for it. When I’m surfing BC discussion page I’m looking at all the articles, when I see something that I feel I have an opinion on, I go for it. I for one am not going to go surfing for through every topic in the group forms.

The nice thing about the BC discussion page is the diversity, you start censoring religious and political debates from the discussion page amongst other things, and you take away the sense of discovery and spontaneity, until you boil everything down to people just having conversation that are little more then blather, like Baking Soda.

So let me get this strait you are banning these topics from the main Discussion page because it make’s your job to difficult?

If that’s the case, I can think of a few different solutions, maybe just shut your flags off and go to a more complex way for people to file a complaint, that way only the one’s who really have a beef will bother, eventually the ones who complain because they can will disappear.

Another way is to make of list of things you won’t except as a compliant, and if someone does complain about something on that list, make it clear it will be the person doing the complaining that will get banned for wasting your time.

I’ve seen this system work and it works very well, because it makes the person complaining think whether or not their complaint is worth the risk. It’s system that work well against people who complain because of a knee jerk reaction they have had to something they have read, and gives them a moment to pause, and sometimes that all they need to cool down.

Censorship is censorship no matter how you package it or where you put it.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  thegoodknife
  
  i wouldn't consider our actions censorship. You can debate religion all you want, we are just kindly asking that our members participate in religious discussions in religious groups.
  
  And again, this isn't because it's too hard to moderate, but it's caused a massive number of complaints and discomfort amongst our members.
2. 2/27/08
  
  Gorric
  
  I'm still not sure what the problem is, so what, let them complain I haven’t seen any children on this site. Were all adults, if someone doesn’t like a thread they are reading they don’t have to participate. Don’t let large numbers of complaints bother you, or influence you, what are you afraid of, debate? Countries are built on debate, and heated debates at that.
  Debating, even a spectator sport for crying out loud.
3. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Gorric writes "I'm still not sure what the problem is, so what, let them complain . . ."
  
  That is part of the problem Gorric. People either don't see what the problem is or don't want to see it. Bringing this level of cultural sensitivity to such topics is going to cause trouble. Just get a group.
4. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Gorric, regarding your earlier censorship complaints, censorship applies to the government. This is a private website. Tiffany explains: whatswrongaroundus.blogspot.com/2008/01/cut-drama.html
2/27/08

freeatlast

On that note, I will look into starting a religious satire group... because that is what I blog about.

Does this mean that I won't be able to post and discuss my "how do you feel about jesus' beard posts" in shameless blog promotion? How do I let the entire BC community know about any posts I might blog about? I'm not interested in trolling Christian groups!!! But I do want to be able to discuss my blog On Occassion... both the satire and serious... without having to pick and choose which groups want to know about it.

I'm also very okay with walking away from discussions that get out of hand. I can see why the decision was made. Not everyone is as toughskinned as me about religious topics.... but that is why I write about it. I'll leave it at starting a religious satire group... May I post that in this discussion board... or will that not be allowed?

"So as of now, we are going to be locking any active religious topics that involve debate."

Does this mean we can post non-debatable religious topics? Or does this mean all religous topics are debatable and all off limit?

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  thegoodknife
  
  religious discussion is still acceptable, its the heated debates that we are now moderating more closely.
2. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  I would greatly appreciate a more concise definition of what is being "moderated" and what is being sent to "religious" groups only.
  
  " We will be encouraging the authors (and readers) to continue their discussions via the Groups www.blogcatalog.com/groups/religion-and-spirituality "
  
  In the sentence before it mentions religious debates. In this sentence it mentions that these "discussions" will be encouraged elsewhere. Yet, you are saying discussion and debate is not the same thing? Just trying to understand what will fly, and what won't... because this is what I blog about... so I need to know.
3. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  TheGoodKnife: "religious discussion is still acceptable, its the heated debates that we are now moderating more closely."
  
  Good luck trying to walk that line.
  
  And Freeatlast: You might find over time that shameless blog promotions aren't all that necessary. I have no idea how you could start a discussion of one of these topics without it getting heated. One option: join every relevant group you can find. Or found one, as I believe you suggested doing.
4. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  Stoneman: how often do you ever link back to your blog in any discussion on the general forum?
5. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  I do whenever it's relevant. I did here. Shameless blog promotions tend to go out in my groups, so as not to bother people here, but I'll do it here if I think the post will have more general relevance.
6. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  I've got a fairly niche blog. It falls into some general categories, but as a whole it still is something I want the freedom to reference or discuss here when i think it is appropriate. I am one of those people who wants a more concise answer on this from BC, because I don't know exactly what my boundaries are... only groups (that don't exist yet) when I want to bring up anything related to my blog?
7. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  To give you my two cents I need to go have a look at your blog. I do understand the bind you're describing though, because our shameless promotions are only permitted if they are designed to generate discussion.
8. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Okay, saw your blog. Remember now. Yeah. You're probably not gonna get away with a shameless promotion on the main boards unless you can figure out some real creative way of doing it. You might also consider what other groups are relevant. Humor? But other than that, you might be better off with what I consider to be more effective promotion anyway, which is visiting blogs you like and commenting in a meaningful way there.
9. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  honey. I am in the humor group. Mine is a little more complex than what they have to offer. I comment often on others blogs... when I find one worth commenting on... and have become fans of people based on how they respond to the banned discussions... says a lot about a writer.
10. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Oh, and there's a writer's group. I suppose threads about your genre might work. I know Tiffany, whose group it is, does not share my attitudes about this stuff by a long shot, though she might not like yours either. Hard to say.
2/27/08

acousticguitarist

Well, I appreciate what you have done, because when we have people saying things like 'you should go and do society a favour and kill yourself' you obviously have an issue on your hands that requires attention. This was the comment that probably I disliked most of all.

It's sort of unfortunate that we couldn't all agree to disagree. I disagree with almost everyone both religious and non-religious, and I find it all very funny. But I have enjoyed the dialogue very much. Especially when I posted the whole Dharmapada (Buddhist text) to the wrong disscusion and then had to report myself for doing so. That is a very difficult act to follow and must one of the memorable moments of note.

The art of disagreeing is a brilliant skill that comes after many years of disagreeing with those that I love and also those that push my buttons. I shall continue to disagree with as much kindness and integrity s possible.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  And I enjoy the discussions in the consciousness group with you AG... but I don't want to have to only talk about my blog in these groups... or create a group just for my blog. I don't think I've ever mentioned my blog in those discussions. I actually don't think they are the place to talk about what I write about... but want to have the freedom to discuss some of these in the open.
  
  BTW... I've seen some pretty horrible things written in political discussions.
2. 2/27/08
  
  acousticguitarist
  
  Have you got a blog somewhre have you? :-) :-) :-)
3. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  Huh?
  I guess I am willing to enter into these off limit discussions, AND walk away from them. Other people discuss their blogs all the time in the general boards. I want to know what the "limits" are for referencing mine. Not asking you to answer that. Hoping BC will be as concise as possible about it.
4. 2/27/08
  
  acousticguitarist
  
  Hi Free, I was just joking...asking a person on Blogcatalog if they had a blog
5. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  ok... i know i used the word blog about 5 times in my first paragraph back to you, and rightfully so to point it out.
  
  Sorry if i'm taking it out on you. Not intended. Just found this thread and trying to get some concise answers from BC.
6. 2/27/08
  
  acousticguitarist
  
  Gosh, I didn't think you were taking it out on me, I was writing my post while you were posting. I had no idea you had meantioned he word blog 5 times. We're actually having 2 completely different conversations here, and that's sort of funny.
7. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  so we are on the same wavelength, but not.
2/27/08

clioandme

Some people object to getting groups, because they feel the result is too splintered. That is a legitimate concern. What you have to do then, is either join a whole lot of groups, or join forces to form a bigger group and voluntarily kill off some of the little ones you had earlier. If talking about this stuff is that important to you, it seems to me you could get your acts together and use this group feature to your advantage.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  Not sure who you are referencing here. Still would like to know more about how often you mention your blog, or link back to it, or discuss topics you blog about in this discussion forum.
  
  Answered above. ok.
2. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Let me use the edit button and give a fresh answer, since you saw my answer above now. Another thing to consider: You don't actually need to link to promote your blog. Some might enjoy your responses here and get curious and visit your profile page and then even your blog. That's how I often find stuff. In fact, I'm more likely to find things this way than because of a shameless blog promotion. (Which is not to say I begrudge the promoters this opportunity. I'm just saying it can be overdone.)
3. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  MANY of the visitors and fans I've received have gone to my blog BECAUSE they enjoy? my answers in the religious discussions. I'm very aware that people sometimes visit my blog because of a my participation in a discussion unrelated to my blog. That is Not the concern at hand. As many or more people will look deeper based on what I write in the banned discussions. I not merely looking to be able to do the "shameless blog promotion". I rarely rarely use it. But I do get a lot of visitors based on the discussions in question. I'm not sure you appreciate what I'm saying? You don't blog about this.
4. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  I appreciate what you're saying, but these threads are tearing the larger community here apart. BC has laid out a policy now, not me. Your predicament, if I understand you, is now how to use BC effectively. I offered yet another answer above.
  
  One thing people sometimes do is start a thread about most recent posts, instead of about their topic. That gives them an opportunity to state their topic and list their links, but it avoids a fight, because others are doing the same thing. Those can work out rather nicely. I've had traffic that way.
  
  Edit: A variation on this theme might be "Show me your politically incorrect posts" or "Show me your most recent rant" or "Show me your most outrageous rant."
5. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  I want a much more concise answer from BC on this. And I responded to you "answer" above. I know you didn't lay the policy down, but as someone who is in favor of it, and often talks about it... whatever. I'm not looking for you for answers. I think you and I have different ideas about the necessity for the "ban" anyway. And that has been discussed elsewhere, and my viewpoint on it was not generally accepted. It's been a while... not interested in going back to that discussion. I am interested in having BC! be more concise about what i'm allowed to discuss and reference... whereas many other bloggers who participate here don't have to think twice about it.
6. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Good luck getting that out of them. Their policy is probably going to be one of "We know it when we see it." I think you know this too.
7. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  Well, you can't blame me for trying. I think you would too, if you were writing about what I write about.
2/27/08

humorvice

I'm glad to see this. It's a community, not a mosh pit.

[reply]
2/27/08

humorvice

freeatlast, did it occur to you that there are a lot of other ways to attract people to a religious debate other than a general forum?

My blogs deal with some pretty heavy topics, many of which I know do not belong in a general forum.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  "1 hour ago thegoodknife
  religious discussion is still acceptable, its the heated debates that we are now moderating more closely."
  
  Still looking for a more concise answer to this from BC. Very aware of how you non-religious-satire-bloggers feel about this... and your advice for me to find a group for my niche blog.... want to know EXACTLY where they draw the line... that is why I got involved in this thread.
2. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Perhaps people in Texas, even BC types, go to sleep once in a while.
3. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  I reckon they do... but since they began to respond to my first question... but not the clarifying part about 5 minutes later... I thought I stood a chance tonight.
2/27/08

clioandme

One other thing, which Kevin (pointlessbanter) brought up on a thread that got deleted: There are a lot of Google groups that deal with religion, anti-religion, etc. Are those of you who will miss this on the main boards here participating in any of these groups?

[reply]
2/27/08

humorvice

Hardly stoneman... it wouldn't have the desired effect, response or outrage....which many times is the intent..

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Yeah, sadly, I get what you're saying. The point really is to outrage, and than act outraged when the opportunity to outrage is taken away. I should stop trying to help.
2. 2/27/08
  
  Mewie
  
  stoneman: I applaud you you for being objective and helpful throughout this discussion. Don't stop - there are tons of people like me who appreciate your input.
  
  FYI, if freeatlast is able to post the content of her blog on BC general discussions, there WILL be complaints based on this newly implemented policy. Stoneman predicts it too. The same thing would happen if I shamelessly promoted the primary content of my blog on general discussions. Her blog's message and the underlying message of my blog cover the same subject matter but from two opposite perspectives.
  
  This new rule is unfortunate but reasonably thought out. In the end, I am looking forward to seeing how BC responds to freeatlast's clarifying request...
3. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  SM: I understand that you are "trying to help". I am most interested in Where Exactly BC draws the line... because I don't want to cause "outrage" from the people who are concerned about others causing "outrage" or from people who want to be "outraged"... I tend to abide by the rules around here. I'm just trying to understand it completely, from BC... If this directly affected your blog, I think you wouldn't Not get nit-picky about the definitions I'm trying to understand. I'm not arguing that they have to get rid of this new rule... I'm just trying to understand it.... as mentioned in my original post. I guess that comes down between me and BC, and anyone else who may want to reference or mention their blog on occasion without "outraging" people.
4. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  Thank you Mewie... that is exactly what I'm trying to get ... a clarification... i know a lot of people like you and me will want to know this...
2/27/08

PetLvr

if my previous comment back way above wasn't clear - I am in approval of this gesture and hope that the discussion group goes back to blogging topics!

Although, just scanning the discussions - get rid of one evil and more evil will come to take its place. If it's not religion - it will be politics soon enough!

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  yes. so where does it stop. I've seen some nasty comments on political discussions and dating discussions...
  and so it goes.
2. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  You're Canadian, right? I'll bet this American campaign might get tiresome after a while.
3. 2/27/08
  
  PetLvr
  
  Well .. It saves me from buying newspapers reading it all online
2/27/08

clioandme

Freeatlast: Just use your best judgement. Worst case scenario: something gets deleted. They don't kick anyone out without warning someone first. You have to get pretty awful for that to happen.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  thanks. I will continue to ask BC about this... No sense in being reported... I'm not the reporting type... but know some are. My judgement will be best when I get have a logical, concise answer.... I don't want to post something that is "report" worthy, do I now SM? Why play with fire.
2. 2/27/08
  
  TonyB
  
  freelast, try being logical when it comes to religious discussions in a public forum. What is your question? If it is whether we have a bright line about religious discussion on here, then the answer is yes. If a debate begins over the existence of G_d, or do you believe in G_d, what is your faith, etc. will be removed as these debates are best for the Group areas. We have learned from experience that almost all of them turn into mud slinging, insult driven nastiness.
  
  If you have been around the discussions for any length of time you know that this decision was not made in haste. In fact, whether relevant or not, the principal owners of blogcatalog are Jewish and Christian. So while some say that this is anti G_d, it has nothing to do with G_d but with the way these discussions turn out in this type of online environment.
3. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  To what degree can I reference my blog or posts in the general forum?
  
  Also... trying to understand this better.
  "1 hour ago thegoodknife
  religious discussion is still acceptable, its the heated debates that we are now moderating more closely."
  
  I've been here long enough to know why you're banning them... just looking for more clarification... because it directly affects my blog topic more than it might many others. Getting nitty-gritty about it.
4. 2/27/08
  
  TonyB
  
  free, I am not sure how linking to your blog relates to religious discussions. These are discussions. If you are posting something with the primary intent of getting clicks rather than creating a discussion then your post will more than likely be characterized as spam. Read the first post in the discussions about this.
  
  Regarding GoodKnives post, we are going to use a bright line approach to religious focused topics and not differentiate between discussion and debates.
5. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Good to know. And I'm glad.
6. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  thegoodknife
  we will likely not remove all religious discussion, but will make sure to remove any that result or promote religious debate.
  
  Thanks for the clarification on the discrepency between BC moderators. I sent you a message, siteproplus regarding the issue of referencing my blog AT ALL, based on the topic being banned.... satire and all. I hope to hear from you soon. I will continue to pass that question on, with the example, until I get a more direct answer. No need to let the non-reliogous-satire people worry about my dilemna.
2/27/08

dannyvice

freeatlast, most of the topics I blog about do not belong here as well...while it's not directly offensive to most, it really belongs in a place where someone is ready to take on the material I present.

And that's the key point of why I hold it back from general forums.

Naughty teacher, rape and sexual dysfunction topics are really pretty un-sensational for the most part, as it's broadcast on the nightly news. But throwing the sexual overtones of the material into a general forum over and over wouldn't really serve the purposes of a general forum, so I find traffic elsewhere.

I don't ask for exact rules... I just know it's a bit much for regular folks who don't want to have to watch where they step every time they come here.

I found a solution around finding the nitch traffic you're looking for, and I'd be glad to share it with you through email any time you'd like. Just drop me an email. =)

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  freeatlast
  
  Understood... and thanks... will do.
  However... can't blame me for getting nit-picky about this. It is still a new policy, and I'm sure other non-satirical religious writers will want be asking similar questions... Nothing wrong with asking these questions now... in this thread... to see how consistent the rule is going to be.
2. 2/27/08
  
  TonyB
  
  freelast, if you start making fun of religion and faith your posts in the discussions are going to be removed despite the humorous intent behind.
2/27/08

gerryPlanetEarth

On the one hand religions are potentially different paths that lead to the same place....

On the other hand Imagine no religions...it's easy if you try...

Religions have been a root cause for many wars throughout history to this present day...

It saddens me that we are unable to discuss our religious and non-religious differences in a civilized manner to learn more about each other and bridge those differences...

You should put this issue to a vote and allow your community members to vote on this issue...

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  carlgalloway
  
  Religion is not the cause of the majority of wars, it is the desire for power and riches that is the cause, religion is just the marketing spin used to make the war seem justified to those doing the fighting.
2. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Gerry, your statements amount to the beginning of yet another contentious religious discussion. Any attempt to realize your proposal would create the same thing.
2/27/08

dannyvice

Gerry,Blogcatalog is not a democracy, and a vote has already been taken by those who own/operate the site. It's their decision to make.

Besides, judging by the responses on this thread...a vote in itself, the majority seems to be supporting the change. Not all... but most.

and keep in mind, this only relates to the general forums...not the entire community. Your PATH can continue... it just begins from another place.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  gerryPlanetEarth
  
  It just saddens me that people can't be civilized to each other and that the only solution the blogcatalog owners can come up with is censorship...
2. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Where exactly do you think you are? How is a term like censorship even relevant? Don't bother answering. Those were rhetorical questions. The term censorship is irrelevant in this context: whatswrongaroundus.blogspot.com/2008/01/cut-drama.html
3. 2/28/08
  
  gerryPlanetEarth
  
  As compelling and enlightening as that post was Mr.Stoneman what has that got to do with the price of rice in China ?
  
  The BlogCatalog owners supply services to a "community of very vocal bloggers with a spectrum of different morals and beliefs" and when they remove comments it reads "comment removed by the community" not "comment removed by the owners"
  
  Without democracy there can be no community...
  
  I vote to stop "The Removal of Religious Topics from BlogCatalog Discussions"...
4. 2/28/08
  
  TonyB
  
  it clearly isn't censorship or we would ban them completely from the site. There are many religious discussions in the Groups. If members cant act civil and treat each other rudely, then it reflects an out of control community that civilized adults who visit the site, and see the type of rude discussions, will not want to be a part of it. So to say we have censored them isn't accurate. Moreover, this is a community but it is also isn't a demoracy. And in fact, the decision to remove a comment is based on the number of complaints a comment receives from different members, so the removal message is accurate.
  
  It is easy to criticize and be against something. It is much more difficult to be for something and come up with a solution. I hear a ton of moaning about how you don't like the decision though little attempt at coming up with a creative solution.
5. 2/28/08
  
  gerryPlanetEarth
  
  I'm not moaning...I simply stated I was saddened that religious discussions were no longer allowed in the main forum which has greater and more diverse participation than the group discussions...
  
  I also stated that I would vote to keep them but since I do not have a vote I suppose that is a silly statement...
  
  I would gladly offer a solution if I had one....
  
  It's not what you discuss but how you discuss it that really matters...
6. 2/28/08
  
  TonyB
  
  Yes, I agree with you that the subject matter isn't as relevant as how it is discussed. The restriction of discussion will be removed as soon as we put into place rules for this area that specifically address behavior.
2/27/08

happyfoodgirl

Good call, I'm glad there's going to be a crackdown on this subject and those who are familiar with my posts will know why.

[reply]
2/27/08

dannyvice

humm.. I was wondering why your recipes were going heavy on the tobasco Happy..=)

[reply]
2/27/08

jimmurdoch

You know, if someone is offended by a topic they don't need to participate and read the posts. Some people seem to see themselves as blog-police to impose their views and call "offense!" when rediculed.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  acousticguitarist
  
  Hi Jim
  
  I'll repost one thing that I posted above. Maybe that will give you another perspective to consider.
  
  Well, I appreciate what you have done, because when we have people saying things like 'you should go and do society a favour and kill yourself' you obviously have an issue on your hands that requires attention. This was the comment that probably I disliked most of all.
  
  Regards T
2. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  But we do have to read the thread titles, Jim. They're there. Or they were there. The only way to avoid them was to avoid this place altogether.
2/27/08

acousticguitarist

[reply]
2/27/08

jimmurdoch

Thanks T, I must have missed that one. I hope action was taken against such a commentor. I was referring more to sensitivity of some (even in this thread) who read offense even in a passing comment, and then force themsleves to write about it. Such reactions only draw other reactions - I guess, though, some people reacted to the reactions rather harsely.
I agree with you, we should agree to disagree, and love and respect the other PERSON, in spite of his / her views.
This whole idea of offense and reaction has given me a new idea for my next blog post.

[reply]
2/27/08

gosmelltheflowers

Can we still type OMG?

OMG ;-)

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  I'd prefer if you used the term OMT ("oh my Trogdor!")
2/27/08

dannyvice

The insinuation that people who are offended by having their faith bashed should just go somewhere else is ridiculous. Hey... don't come here if you don't want your friggen teeth kicked in...

what a crappy message.

Jim, the moderation did not come about from passing comments, and that point was made very very clear at the top of this post. Could it possibly have BEEN more clear?

Dont read the post? The crap was being put in the post TITLES Jim. You did have to READ the post to get the point of what the post was devised to do, particularly when the same questions were getting asked over and over and over and over again.

If it had remained "passive" it wouldn't have become the issue it did, and I know of a lot of members who left Blogcatalog over it.

Lets say we had repeated conversations about fat, ugly people... and let's say we constantly posted long threads about the virtues of being fat and ugly, all day, every day..non stop until it dominated a 1/3 of all posts...

Now lets say we come to the conclusion that fat and ugly people just need to go somewhere else if they can't handle the conversation.

It's the same thing. Any topic could be used and abused the same way.

Religion by itself was not the issue. Talking about religion was not the issue...

It was how people were using the topic to slam others...

People who can't live a day without slamming someone else's faith are the ones who need to go find something else to do.. Not the average joe who happens upon Blogcatalog for the first time, but then leave immediately after coming to the conclusion that it's nothing more than a religious brawl all the time.

My gosh, you'd think people were having their favorite toy taken away...

[reply]
2/27/08

Gorric

OMG. You people can’t think of away, heated debates can occur on this site without having to have threads censored.

How about this.

At the top of the page below the header you put a bold permanent warning:

If You Participate in a Debate Thread That You don’t Like or Offends You
Don’t Come Complaining to Us.

Or something that illustrates that point

Next Publish Site rules in easy to access place

No: religious or racial slurs or hate mongering of any kind.
No: death threats of any kind including topics on suicide.
No: sexual harassment or pornography of any kind. Doesn’t include casual references or honest debate on sexual topics

Now you could add a few more things, these are just examples

1st Offence: one-week IP ban.
2nd Offence: one-month IP ban.
3rd Offence: permanent IP ban.

Next

When you have a thread that has a heated debate going on, mark the thread with an icon of fire or an angry face or something to warn people that there a heated debate going on.

Then let all new comments within a thread with a heated debate, not bump the thread to the top of the front page, so within a short amount of time the heated debate will be off front page.

Other then that, let the Debates rage on, let the feathers fly, as long as the rules are being followed you shouldn’t care what’s said. Let people get angry, even if there some name calling, it’s no big deal. Sometimes it’s important to get passionate about your beliefs, it usually leads to closure within a topics framework, and if you give arguments time to play themselves out. You will get less repetition on certain topics.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  It's over Gorric. The policy is in place. The discussion here has moved to clarification of what it means, how it will affect individual posts.
2/27/08

dannyvice

Gorric,

Thats great... but not in a general forum. What part of general forum are you not understanding? People aren't coming here, expecting that they need to adapt to a system of boxing match rules.

IF you absolutely will die without bashing someone, then go bash them under a topics section, where people might have a clue about the subject matter before stumbling into a firing range..

You people will not die without the ability to grate other people's faith or lack thereof. And the fact that you can't stand to lose that one tiny little right, with all of the other things there are to talk about, just proves the intent behind it.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  Gorric
  
  Wow, I usually give people a little more credit then that, I generaly think people can make up there own minds and are not total idiots.
2. 2/27/08
  
  thegoodknife
  
  i think you've just proven that when you challenge someone's fundamentals most people just start resorting to name calling.
3. 2/27/08
  
  Gorric
  
  @thegoodknife
  
  dannyvice started it
2/27/08

shearyadi

It's about time Good move BC!

[reply]
2/27/08

dannyvice

Did not...

Seriously though, a lot of people (for whatever reason) have emailed me over the past few months advising me that I'd like other forums a lot better because "Blogcatalog simply will not moderate it's forums" - in their words....

I really don't care to do that, but I was really surprised to see so many people have such a negative view towards these forums...

Really good people that many here would be surprised to know had a real problem with what seemed like a refusal of blogcatalog to do any moderating - even when they complained.

I'm in the fight not because I care so much about the debate - I just know it ran off a lot of good people I'd like to see come back eventually.

[reply]
2/27/08

morgantj

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Seems like you and Gorric are using this thread as your swan songs.
2. 2/27/08
  
  morgantj
  
  Don't be silly, with 40+ posts in this topic, you, my dear friend, are the lead singer. I applaude you.
3. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  By swan song, I was referring to taking one last stab at a fight about religion. I was referring to an attempt to provoke. But you know this already.
4. 2/27/08
  
  morgantj
  
  and by lead singer, I was reffering to you as having the most to say about the topic. But you know this already.
5. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  We're singing a different song. But responding to your comments is doing nothing more than contributing to the problem. So I'm done.
6. 2/27/08
  
  morgantj
  
  I'm sorry you are unable to comment without causing a problem. I hope you follow through on your word of being "done." Peace.
7. 2/27/08
  
  pointlessbanter
  
  or you could go to the groups and discuss them there.
2/27/08

dannyvice

morganti, none of us are coming to YOUR kitchen though... we're coming to a general forum owned by someone else who has an interest in attracting users, not running half of them off.

Is this really that difficult of a concept for people to understand? If you want to run visitors off from your own blog, well fine...fire away... but not everyone shares the view that only thick skinned people need apply.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  I think at this point he's just trying to stir things up and nothing else. I'm not sure it's worth it.
2. 2/27/08
  
  morgantj
  
  Nobody was forcing anyone to participate in the religious threads, there are many other threads out there.
3. 2/27/08
  
  clioandme
  
  Right. Ignore the rebuttals to this old argument and start all over again as if they had never been made.
4. 2/27/08
  
  morgantj
  
  You just love to keep chucking away at this topic don't you stoneman. Yet, anyone else who comments on this topic that is in opposition to your own view you claim is "provoking" and "stirring things up." Curious.
2/27/08

iriegal

It is sad. We are ALL on this earth together and the survival of the human race is dependent on coexistence. If we cannot even coexist on a social site, what says that about existing outside of our Cyber realm.

sad...(smh)

[reply]
2/27/08

ghostytwofish

I applaud this decision. While I enjoy a good debate, it was bringing too much conflict to the forums, and driving a lot of people away. This has needed its own area for a long time. Good show.

[reply]
2/27/08

dannyvice

Margantj, as I explained earlier.... the thread Titles THEMSELVES were baiting in an of themselves. And they were being used to populate the discussion forums at a ridiculous pace.

The same questions were being asked over and over with slight minimal changes in an attempt to justify a new conversation on the same topic.

Members were even drudging up ALL religious threads - even those that were months old, and spamming them in order to keep as many active religion posts as possible at the forefront of the forum.

At one time I think we counted about 10 posts on the first page after someone literally dug out every post that cued on religious debate.

I actually have a great respect for the BC team - for attempting to stay completely out of it for as long as they did, hoping the community would keep itself in check... Not many forums take that approach.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  morgantj
  
  I have no idea of what these peoples intentions are, such as "baiting," I have no authority in assuming peoples intentions, however, it was my understanding that it was recommended that one comment on a thread that is already open on a particular topic one is interested in instead of opening up another thread on the same topic, thus causing multiple threads being open on the same thing. I guess you just can't win.
  
  I think it is great that the BC team is taking action as necessary.
2/27/08

dannyvice

Exactly... the topic was not the issue at all... it was the abuse of the issue that got out of hand...

In the beginning, it was pretty well contained in one thread... and nobody really minded it... but it did get pretty bad there for about a month.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  carlgalloway
  
  lol, what's the baking soda gonna do for their sanity, last I heard it was only good cleaning stuff and baking cakes
2/27/08

offendedblogger

I think we need to start up a collection hat to buy all the admins here either a big bouquet of flowers or some liquor.

Or both.

They deserve something for all of this.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  Yes indeed, having been a moderator on a forum last year, I certainly am thankful for their patience, their actions, and their explanations of said actions. You can never please everyone, but clearly this is being applauded by the majority of members.
2. 2/27/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  Oh, and maybe we better throw in some Tylenol and a box of baking soda just in case, too.
3. 2/27/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  I'll see if I can book "the Goddess Bunny" for some tap dancing entertainment, or perhaps procure some Thundercats episodes on DVD as a token of my appreciation.
4. 2/27/08
  
  libdrone
  
  /me chips in a bottle of scotch
2/27/08

AllynPaul

I just want everyone to know that my avatar depicts me "praying for the lawns of America" and is only religious in nature to me because my lawn is my god.
(giggles)

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  I'm obsessed with my lawn as well! Only trouble is that with our current drought I doubt I'll be able to saturate it with water anymore to get that perfect "golf course green" I so enjoy!
2. 2/27/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  That's how I look when I try to play golf.
2/27/08

BlogCatalog

It is fairly obvious that we need a set of rules for the discussions that are broader than simply relegating religious discussions to the groups. We are working on that set of rules and will release them in the next couple of weeks. Until we have posted the new rules, the current restriction on religious discussions being held in the Groups area of the site will be enforced.

The main argument I am seeing here for not moving religious discussions to groups is that we can each pick and choose the discussions to be part of. The problem with this is that the religious discussions become nasty, offensive and personal. They move away from the issues and become attacks on each other. They move from the realm of discussion/debate into pure spite. Accordingly, moving the religious discussions to the groups is not about censorship. Nor is it about G_d. This is about treating each other with respect.

The new rules will address behavior rather than point to a particular topic. Until they are posted please discuss religion in the appropriate group.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  Gorric
  
  Bravo! Keep up the good work!
  
  Thank you for listening.
2. 2/29/08
  
  TheBigRuski
  
  Right on! People that talk about "religion" are good people, too!
  
  I am ecstatic that BlogCatalog was able to recognize that it is NOT about "religion", but about disrespect and perceived disrespect.
  
  Yes, religion CAN be a devisive subject. However, a point of clarification here - there is a difference between religion and faith. "Religion" is man made and hence the turmoil. Faith, however, is something personal and should be a well-respected subject.
  
  It was sad to see this initial announcement...again, to see that "religion" was to blame. Well, too me, religion is only a secular term. I could say for example that some of you "religiously" post to BlogCatalog. Are you going to take that as a good or bad statement?
  
  Religion can be oppressive, ridiculous, and a lot more negative things. But, those of us who don't belong to any particular "religion," but have a deep faith in God are tagged in the "Religion" topic. I don't particularly care for that, but I am not crying over spilt milk.
  
  Again, thank you, BlogCatalog for your consideration to not tag "Religion" as the instrument for bad discussions. Like Charles Heston screamed in that old movie, "Soylent Green is people! "Soylent Green is PEOPLE!"
  
  Well, in this case, "Disrespectful posting is PEOPLE!"
  
  Love ya!
2/27/08

urikalish

Hmmm... I guess this is my minority report...
Actually I think that you should allow religious discussions on BC.

Regarding offensive comments:
In my opinion, you should let the community handle the censorship (e.g. through the already existing 'report' mechanism).

Regarding the escalation in the number of religious related threads:
In my opinion, this can be resolved through an enhancement in the Tag+Filter mechanism (e.g. Add more types of discussions like religious thread, and add it to the discussion Categories filter).

p.s. With the addition of more thread categories, it will be logical to implement multi-selection filter on the discussions (e.g. change the current categories links to a list of checkboxes and an 'Apply' button).

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  I agree. Censorship is not the answer. If someone is offended, so what? Let them post their response. Debate is what it is about.
  
  It would be easier to mark your discussion as a religious topic, and allowing people to filter religious topics out of their discussion searches.
  
  Then again, if you don't like religious topics, why go to a topic that looks like a religious topic in the first place?
  
  Censorship is ultimately detrimental for everyone.
2/27/08

BlogCatalog

@ Flamingo - this is not censorship. The Groups are full of relgion. This is a response to ugly and nasty behavior. Debate and discussion are great. The problem is the religions were not a debate. They were personal attacks. This is a temporary solution until we release a set of rules that focuses on acceptable behaviour.

@ urik,

I tend to agree with you, however I don't think that religion is the issue. The same situation could happen with politics and other topics. It comes down to behavior. What is acceptable in a social community? Is swearing ok? Is insulting another person ok?

Adding more categories will simply enable people who use the filter to avoid the topics. It's clear that this won't happen. People are drawn to these contentious subjects and for whatever reasons start attacking each other and not discussing the topic. For many this is a way to attract attention and traffic. For others it has been a tactic to bait people into a fight. For others they enjoy antagonizing and stirring things up. For others who are sincere about discussing they have been insensitive to another person's viewpoint and the result is a bunch of nasty language.

The reporting mechanism doesn't work in such heated areas as the discussion turns into non stop swearing and ultimately the deletion of the thread.

The end result is the nastiness of the discussions reflects badly on blogcatalog. New members end up running away. So for now, if you want to talk religion, please do it in the Groups.

[reply]
2/27/08

kevingoodman

Differences are good - we need debate rules

Lets make a place on BC apart from the main forum for people to go and speak there minds, attack and be attacked - no words barred, let em vent - Like squidoo monkeybrain.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  carlgalloway
  
  very good suggestion, the monkeybrain one I mean.
2. 2/27/08
  
  BlogCatalog
  
  kevin, I like that idea too. Perhaps we add another category to the discussions. the category posts only show up if you opt into having them show in the main threads. The fact of the matter is it is fun to go all out and argue sometimes.
3. 2/27/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  I like that. I will only hang out there.
4. 2/27/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  I think it's a good idea - I'm glad you like it.
5. 2/27/08
  
  BlogCatalog
  
  offended, you'll be in great company
6. 2/27/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  I will for sure change my name to offensiveblogger then.
  
  They will all cry.
7. 2/27/08
  
  Xight
  
  I like that opt in discussions idea.
  
  I think a filter option would be nice so that people could not see topics with certain words in it. I know religion, and making money would probably get the most filters I think.
8. 2/27/08
  
  BlogCatalog
  
  offended, they will be crying for more
9. 2/27/08
  
  crpitt
  
  Hmm looks like someone has had some private offensiveness
10. 2/28/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  Maybe a branding effort would make it fun? Give the buffer zone a funny name have some kind of warning header (humor injected) – I don’t know exactly how. But I think if the concept is branded, it can be fun and entertaining – I mean it’s about framing. ---------Desensitize-----------------------------------
2/27/08

deborah3756

I've always subscribe to the adage: if you don't like the convo, leave the room.

It's ashame you've had to resort to pulling a topic of discussion because of actions by others.

[reply]
2/27/08

dannyvice

deborah... perhaps you should flip that around... if you can't handle a few simple policies of public decency, leave the room.

If you can't have a conversation without turning it into an assault on someone's faith, then how is that MY problem?

This isn't a public rest room, a shooting gallery, a boxing ring, a debate forum or a bar.

It's the front door to the discussion forum.... and no, people shouldn't be forced to choose between leaving vs. having their faith berated on a daily basis...

Go get your own room and trash talk all you want... no one is stopping you. Don't force your opinions/agendas down everyone's throat and then suggest that it's their responsibility to leave if they don't like your attacks.

Even a whore house has policies in place to provide some sort of common decency standards...

[reply]
2/27/08

thegoodknife

I think the whole 'if you don't like it , don't read it' strategy is flawed. If someone started a thread attacking what you deeply believe in, how can you not jump in and post a defense?

if someone started threads attacking your blogs, would you just ignore it and not go in to defend yourself?

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  jungl
  
  jungl nods very hard in agreement!
2. 2/27/08
  
  crpitt
  
  so does Claire.
3. 2/27/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Because either they are wrong, and it doesn't matter.
  Or you are wrong, and you should update your beliefs.
  Or both are wrong, and both parties should update their beliefs.
  Or both are right and it's a matter of opinion, and it doesn't matter.
  
  I don't think it is flawed. If someone attacked my blog, I would enjoy the traffic.
4. 2/28/08
  
  ender
  
  bravo all the way around ...
2/27/08

TonyB

goodknife your blog is awful. Thank G_d you don't take it too seriously.

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  thegoodknife
  
  you son of a &$*#($&!
  
  oh wait, my blog is pretty bad. need to stop working and update it!
2. 2/27/08
  
  crpitt
  
  I have reported these two comments to the admin.
3. 2/27/08
  
  TonyB
  
  what did you call my mother? im leaving this &*#(*#)* site.
4. 2/27/08
  
  crpitt
  
  I am deeply disheartened by this behaviour, I hope the admin will step in soon.
2/27/08

TonyB

yeah step in and take the side of the Dog.... the dyslexic bunch of them

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  crpitt
  
  Well it looks like the admin has gone to the dogs.
2. 2/27/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  HEY I AM THE HUMOUR BLOGGER HERE!!!!
  
  (dog dammit)
3. 2/27/08
  
  crpitt
  
  That was offensive, I have reported it.
4. 2/28/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  graffiti spotted on a bathroom wall:
  
  "dyslexics untie!!!!"
  
  I suffer from it as well.
2/27/08

TonyB

admin is in church as we speak looking for the answer to the Dog's issues

[reply]
1. 2/27/08
  
  crpitt
  
  Well he is like a dog with two...
2/27/08

TonyB

if you look closely, he is a dog with only one

[reply]
2/27/08

kdawg68

".....a moose bit my sister once."

[reply]
2/27/08

Gorric

I got fluff in my belly button O_o

[reply]
2/28/08

ThaLunatic

hello

[reply]
2/28/08

libdrone

ok. sounds like, absurdity = good, bitch-slapping = bad

/me is taking notes

[reply]
2/28/08

jojoblue

Fine!!!

[reply]
2/28/08

morgantj

I created a Religious Debate group for anyone interested - www.blogcatalog.com/group/religious-debate

[reply]
2/28/08

avarana

Pure censorship in itself isn't good, but appropiate when people can't restrain themselves.

[reply]
1. 2/28/08
  
  Gorric
  
  There is a difference between censorship and policing, policies and rules.
2. 2/28/08
  
  morgantj
  
  Apparently, what ever you believe or do not believe, both sides require policing.
2/28/08

veeshken

this is a very sensible decision . Infact in may india-centric webforums of which i am a hyperactive member the topics of religion and politcs are a complete no-no .Such topics and threads are closed immediately when it seems to get out of hand .Kudos yo BC admin.

[reply]
2/28/08

mollybrogan

The conversation here goes back and forth between banning discussion on specific topics (censorship) and putting admin processes in place for intervening in discussion and correcting anti-social members.

Seems to me a more generic set of guidelines for respectful behavior with specific points of intervention for all topics and discussions is a good course of action:

1. If a discussion becomes inflammatory, it is removed. Specifically, this would include behaviors like what - cursing, accusing, belittling - what?

2. If a member becomes disrespectful, they are banned for a period of time. Three times banned, out they go. This gives a member time to study the rules and self correct.

This is all about creating a respectful place for everyone, no? Let's begin by creating respectful guidelines and processes.

[reply]
1. 2/28/08
  
  clioandme
  
  I think that's the long-term goal. One could wish the community would enforce such standards itself, but it probably can't be done in all cases without a bigger time/manpower commitment on BC's side.
2/28/08

wandadog13

good call Nine - have my 100% backing sir!
Jonathan

[reply]
2/28/08

TonyB

BlogCatalog at its core is a member-driven community, which is responsive to its members.

The question here is what happens when various members want to move in the opposite direction from each other?

What do we do about about heated debates, especially as they pertain to religion?

In an effort to be responsive, we temporarily banned what has become an unproductive debate, until we can develop meaningful guidelines — not rules — to help shape our community.

One thing to keep in mind about BlogCatalog is that this community is designed to foster mutual respect between bloggers, even when they agree to disagree.

The question we would like individual bloggers to ask themselves: are you debating issues to foster deeper conversation and mutual understanding?

You see, we believe very passionately in free speech. We also want to provide as many members as possible a beneficial and safe, non-disparaging experience.

Will you help us do it?

Please give us some time to develop guidelines that help support both of the ideas. We already know that permanently banning any discussion topics is a mistake because if we ban one, soon we would have to ban every topic.

[reply]
1. 2/28/08
  
  ender
  
  bravo, bravo
2. 2/28/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  Nice new look ender. I knew they were teasing.
3. 2/28/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  Ender's back!! Yes!!!!!!!!!
4. 2/28/08
  
  clioandme
  
  SiteProPlus writes, "The question here is what happens when various members want to move in the opposite direction from each other?"
  
  This question applies not only to topics to discuss, but also what people want to get out of discussion about any topic. Some people honestly believe that abusive back and forth fireworks counts as discussion. Or they will just repeat what they believe to be true over and over and over, without bothering to acknowledge other people's arguments and without trying to address them. Others believe in fair and frank, but tactful and respectful discussion as a means of learning and perhaps even moving forward. You can try and encourage this latter kind of behavior, but BC is growing and growing fast, and every week there is someone new who decides they can say and do whatever they want, and when we respectfully point out that that is not how it's done at BC, we have yet another flame war.
  
  It's all well and good to talk about the community, but sometimes some of your community members might get sick and tired of policing bad behavior, or even sick and tired of seeing it and quickly moving to the next thread.
2/28/08

reasonablerobinson

Looks like the strong Blue vMeme (thanks Ken W) wins this one sadly...C'mon you Yellows!!

[reply]
2/28/08

Theresa111

I heard they are having a sale on Jello. For those who disagree, instead of flinging retorts and sometimes aimless words, everyone could get sticky and fling Jello about. I am certain Lord Likely would second this motion.

[reply]
1. 2/28/08
  
  ender
  
  but i'll beat him to it, instead!
  
  i second the Great Jello Flinging War.
  
  we should only get the green kind and call it oobleck. (and if someone can tell me what book oobleck is from, i'll convince offendedblogger to give them entrecard credits or something.)
2. 2/28/08
  
  Theresa111
  
  I agree with the green Jello as I really don't care for the other flavors. Except perhaps grape would be all right, too.
3. 2/28/08
  
  ender
  
  now i want a grape popsicle.
4. 2/28/08
  
  Theresa111
  
  They were the absolute best! The popsicles would make my tummy cold and happy. I loved being a kid!
5. 2/28/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  Remember flavor ice? Anyting "purple" flavored (grape never really taste like grape to me, but everything purple had that purpley flavor to it) was always good. The orange and green were forgetable. The blue was wild. Red and Purple were the money ones.
6. 2/28/08
  
  Theresa111
  
  Grape and Cherry. My mouth is watering now. sigh.
7. 2/28/08
  
  ender
  
  we could never get the flavour ice stuff, mom assumed those would be even messier than regular popsicles.
  
  but i loved orange, lime and grape (tho you're right ... purple ice and purple candy is more purple flavoured than grape) i thought the red was just eh.
  
  i loved the twisters that came out later ... orange and lemon in one popsicle! heaven!!!
8. 2/28/08
  
  Theresa111
  
  I thought Twisters was a game. Did you play the game while you ate the popsicle? Ooh orange, lime ... I did not usually care for strawberry, unless it is Bacardi's Frozen Strawberry Dacquari Mix.
9. 2/28/08
  
  acousticguitarist
  
  This is a serious question..what on earth is Jello? is it hair stuff ?
10. 2/28/08
  
  GratciaNulis
  
  huh? I thought Jello is Jeniffer Lopez *scratching me head*
2/28/08

Theresa111

You play guitar. J-E-L-L-O the dessert you find in the grocery store. Bill Cosby used to do commercials about it. Most kids eat it. It is squiggly and wiggly.

[reply]
2/28/08

ender

gelatin = jello

[reply]
1. 2/28/08
  
  Theresa111
  
  Whatcha sitting on? Hard to tell in the avatar. Almost looks like water and a pier. The puppy is so cute and soft. I want a puppy.
2. 2/28/08
  
  ender
  
  heh ... here's the original: www.sxc.hu/photo/954714
  
  but if you REALLY want puppy envy, go to www.hotdogblog.com and click the photos link on the left.
3. 2/29/08
  
  Theresa111
  
  What a cute photograph. One can almost feel the soft ears.
2/28/08

morgantj

Since no religious debate, it must now be jello? Isn't anyone elses intelligence offended? I'm reporting this. LOL

[reply]
1. 2/28/08
  
  ender
  
  don't tell offended, but i think jello might be the new baking soda ....
2. 2/28/08
  
  morgantj
  
  Maybe it's baking soda in disguise.
3. 2/29/08
  
  Theresa111
  
  Have you ever tasted baking soda? Now that I think about it, I have upon occasion have brushed my teeth with it. However, Jello is much more interesting and tastes pretty sweet, with differing flavors. "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down..." I loved that movie!
2/28/08

Eric18

Balance, tolerance, and perspective remain key. We have to learn to disagree in a civilized manner. How often do we learn from people that completely agree with us? Let's remain open minded.
Consider me a live and let live, speak and let speak guy. It's a shame that the intense hatred has provoked this decision, and it's only fair to create a special place for spiritual seekers and believers to share their insights and understandings.
May I also suggest to my very secular friends that freedom of speech and freedom of religion have historically gone together. It's difficult to maintain one without allowing people who disagree with to speak their mind too. Finally, just as a simple matter of understanding our world today, I would argue that it behooves everyone to be familiar with and tolerant of multiple religious paradigms. How many wars have been fought over some sort of religious belief? For better and for worse, religious passions influence our world.
Let's try to understand each other more and prejudge each other less.

[reply]
2/29/08

miguelstil

I think this is a very good idea. This is one of the most sensitive topics on the web.

[reply]
2/29/08

reasonablerobinson

Hmmm I really offended by the jellist comments above, Fundamentalist Jellism is a blight, and any Dogmatic Worship of the Big Blancmange is bound to create divisions in the community. Maybe argumentitive and offensive religious commentary should be restricted the new trading site Sorbay?

[reply]
2/29/08

RobertEaster

Wouldn't it be better to set some kind of general limit on discussion behaviors than on specific topics (even setting filters to block posts or contributors using offensive language, for instance)? Is a discussion about predestination and freewill somehow a greater threat to peace on the Internet than racism, anti-Semitism, or (as all is) violent pornography? Or am I completely missing the background of this decision? this is, after all, the first I have known that BlogCatgalog even had discussion groups, in an announcement that it was hosting discussions, and it comes in the form of an announcement that it was banning "religious debate?"

[reply]
1. 2/29/08
  
  kevingoodman
  
  The ban is temporary because things got so out of hand so toss your ideas in the pool. I think filters and opt ins are something that's on the table. But your right that so many other discussions could create equal or greater flaming.
2/29/08

PurpleCrayonBr8n

wow though i understand the decision it sucks because people who couldn't stand someone else's opinion about something caused the discussion to end entirely. But...maybe no one needs to discuss hard core anything in a place i come to play on a boring part of the day. I just hate it when complainers control anything..they suck! Remember the 1st amendment..there was a good reason for it and we need to allow others to speak their opinion without fearing retaliation or mob action otherwise we will all end up having to have one opinion and it may not be the one you liked.

[reply]
1. 3/02/08
  
  MadameX
  
  The first amendment has no application in a private forum.
2/29/08

Theresa111

After a while I seem to tune out the philosophical opinions because in the end it is rather boring. Especially for a Friday night. Hey … it is party time.

[reply]
2/29/08

urbanswirl

Bravo! Well said ...

Oh - I meant the party time!
:-)

[reply]
3/01/08

samfreedom

ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN... whatever reality is or isn't, it allows us to argue about it and kill each other if necessary. Fortunately, there also exist "neutralizing" influences that prevent it from reaching that point such as BC's decision to relegate all the religious thumb-wrestling to a well-defined corner of the BC galaxy.

[reply]
3/01/08

GratciaNulis

*PHEW*....the war is over *Peace be with us*

[reply]
3/02/08

cranelegs

what happened?
geez, i go to hohokus new jersey for a weekend and all hell breaks loose. (well, hell and heaven to be equal religious references, or whatever.)

[reply]
3/02/08

Wangbu

Though I am a Catholic, I agree with avoidance of insertion of any topic related to religion in public discussions such as this.

[reply]
3/03/08

inhisgloriousname

What does it mean "So as of now, we are going to be locking any active religious topics that involve debate?".

[reply]
1. 3/03/08
  
  clioandme
  
  I think they mean a situation where people are just trying to score points instead of having a civil discussion. Have a look at the first thread here, the sticky one that says "Read Before Posting."
3/03/08

inhisgloriousname

Thanks for pointing me to that post. I appreciate it a lot.

[reply]
8/27/08

boytrotters

Well, if nothing else, this has all been an entertaining read.

[reply]
1. 8/27/08
  
  DrowseyMonkey
  
  So interesting that you had to resurrect it from March? LOL It's kinda old news ... water under the bridge.
2. 8/27/08
  
  boytrotters
  
  @ Drowsey: I know... it's a pretty sad thing to do on my part. What can I say in my defense except that I'm easily amused?
3. 8/27/08
  
  DrowseyMonkey
  
  You're amused by re-lighting controversies that died a natural death. Nice.
4. 8/27/08
  
  boytrotters
  
  Er. No. Although that may be what I have inadvertently done. Sorry.
8/27/08

TheBigRuski

"topics and discussions" are not the problem

[reply]
8/27/08

CrystalRaven

I get the group thing, but I just suggested a War Room forum, for ALL contraversial or heated topics

[reply]
8/27/08

prettyme

very well-said nine! and i no objections for that move...

[reply]
8/28/08

kat822

I find it interesting how many people no longer visit the discussion threads here , interesting indeed

[reply]
8/28/08

SweetViolet

I am relatively new here so I have to ask...if religious debate topics were banned from General Discussions six months ago, why are there so many of them here now?

[reply]
1. 8/28/08
  
  boytrotters
  
  Actually, I was kinda wondering that myself.
8/28/08

kat822

actually I was told by admin that they like these types of discussions when people debate and not insult, but honestly I am believing that it's not possible on here as so many of the same people over and over try to purposely disrupt a thread and insult and not comment or debate

[reply]
1. 8/28/08
  
  SweetViolet
  
  I think that is in the eye of the beholder, kat.
  
  Too often people perceive a dissenting opinion as an attack or insult, no matter how carefully worded that dissent is. Or they see it as a challenge to prove their POV to be the correct one and licence to convert the heathen disbelievers.
  
  Sometimes it is just not possible to express a dissenting opinion without someone perceiving the very fact of dissent as an insult. Better to keep the topic confined to its own forum and leave the general discussions free of guaranteed conflict.
8/28/08

kat822

that is your perception, but I've discussed it with admin and they have noticed it too, no biggie....I think that if they really wanted to end it they could but as I said they do enjoy the differing opionions as I do too,

[reply]
1. 8/29/08
  
  boytrotters
  
  I like seeing what other people have to say on topics such as religion and whatnot too. That's part of why I come here.
9/17/08

timethief

TonyB said on 2/28/08
Yes, I agree with you that the subject matter isn't as relevant as how it is discussed. The restriction of discussion will be removed as soon as we put into place rules for this area that specifically address behavior.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/the-removal-of-religious-topics-from-blog...

[reply]
11/13/08

creemos

Talk about irony? Reject the authority of scripture because God declares His absolutes in truth and life and the people rebel. Now, the team and "unbelievers" are themselves, creating "laws" to regulate the conduct and conversation of those who feel they have the liberty to do and say what they please. Hmmm...

[reply]
1. 3/29/09
  
  dan1658
  
  .
3/29/09

dan1658

So that means if I complain about the discussions on making money with Adsense you'll censor them too?

[reply]
1. 3/29/09
  
  TonyB
  
  Yes if you ask someone to click on your ads it will be removed.
3/29/09

Jeunelle

Personally I don't care what you all do. Lmao

[reply]
1. 3/29/09
  
  kat822
  
  I hear ya girlfriend
3/29/09

wagerwitch

I think that controversial topics should have their own section.

Just because I don't BELIEVE in your politics, your religion, your philosophy - does not mean that it should be taken away.

But nor should my right to a comfortable board discussion.

Should I choose to partake in the discussion, I may choose the link leading me to it.

But to see it every other link amidst the GENERAL board - when it is definetely not about GENERAL things - then I do believe a separate topic structure for discussions would be appropriate.

Perhaps a hierarchy?

Anyhow - I do not feel that MY RELIGION should be forced upon anyone else nor should YOUR RELIGION be forced down my throat (via my eyes)...

It is definetely a TURN off for me - since BLOG CATALOG is NOT:

RELIGIOUS CATALOG

And I did NOT sign up for RELIGION to be my topic of every day perusal.

WW

[reply]
3/29/09

SweetViolet

This thread had been dead for more than four months. Exactly why was is resurrected?

Has something occurred either here on the discussion boards or in the larger community to make this old thread suddenly relevant again?

Or is someone just trying to stir the pot?

FWIW, I think religious topics of ALL sorts should be banned from the general discussion. I think the consequence for starting one in the general discussion board should be having the thread removed. Locking it is not enough, because then it remains and the miscreant (the OP) gets the satisfaction of 1)keeping the topic alive and 2)flauting the rules and getting away with it.

And for our resurrector: not all of us share your belief in your book...some of us have books of our own...some of us don't even need a book in order to live good and ethical lives. There is no irony here, only someone trying to stir the pot again and start trouble.

[reply]
3/30/09

TheBigRuski

What about first amendment issues?

[reply]
1. 3/30/09
  
  MadameX
  
  What first amendment issues do you think are implicated?
2. 3/30/09
  
  voodooKobra
  
  This is a privately-owned website. Your right to express your religion ends where BC's rights to choose to display or remove them begins.
3. 3/30/09
  
  TheBigRuski
  
  Sorry, MadameX, although that is a good question, I will not be answering. I have reported your comment on the other thread. Your repeated insinuation that I am divisive is not productive.
  
  Just a reminder....God's word is divisive. I am not implying that I have an inside track on His word, but only that it comes as no surprise that discussions that include His words become divisive.
4. 3/30/09
  
  voodooKobra
  
  Translation: I don't know the answer, and I'm going to frivolously report your comments in hopes that you get suspended so I can evade reason.
5. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
  
  @voodookobra
  This is a privately-owned website. Your right to express your religion ends where BC's rights to choose to display or remove them begins.
  
  Your statement is accurate and I agree with your translation as well.
6. 3/30/09
  
  MadameX
  
  God's word doesn't support lying, even if it's with a subtle twist of words...like implying something is before the Supreme Court when the plaintiff is only hoping that one day it will be...like disingenuously pretending to see a first amendment issue when you know perfectly well that the first amendment applies only to governmental action.
  
  Perhaps it is a difference in interpretation. I don't believe it's possible to "sin for God".
3/30/09

CelebrityIcePop

Funny how this thread about censoring religious debate has turned into a religious debate thread.

[reply]
3/30/09

TheBigRuski

"Of course the Topic of FAITH is welcome on BC. Have a blessed day!" - Admin. member

[reply]
1. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
  
  @TBR
  Good grief! Surely you have not posted this private message as a comment into this thread to create the impression that you have a special in with one Admin member, and are posting it here as an attempt to censor discussion by intimidating other BC members into silence. For, if that is indeed the case, then IMO that would be a shameful act.
3/30/09

sam770781

its a sensitive topic to discuss i guess, but still i we should have freedom to discuss that anyway there's nothing wrong about it.

[reply]
3/30/09

wagerwitch

This is a privately-owned website. Your right to express your religion ends where BC's rights to choose to display or remove them begins.

Right on.

I totally agree.

I only stated my opinion on the matter. LOL.

Like I said - I signed up to BLOG Catalog - not RELIGIOUS CATALOG.

LOL

Anyhow - it's completely up to BC - I just had to add my own opinion on it - because it is something that personally irks me.

But I do not control the founding fathers - nor the admin. *GRIN*

WW

[reply]
3/30/09

jflower36

I think BC continues to allow religious debates because they are popular. Even though a lot of people whine about them...they clearly want to participate in them because they reply to every religious debate thread....it's actually kind of funny

So in essence...religious debate discussions are very popular..even though some would make it seem otherwise.

[reply]
1. 3/30/09
  
  TheBigRuski
  
  Not only are they popular...they appear high on Google, such as the current "Shut Off Microphone..." thread (which at one point was deleted at BC).
2. 3/30/09
  
  CelebrityIcePop
  
  It is funny. I see it here often, people posting frantically in threads they don't like, writing replies to people don't like. It shows massive lack of self control.
  
  If I don't like a thread - I don't post in it.
  If I don't like a person, I don't view their threads, don't reply to their comments and it;'s really not hard. I have a life afterall!
  
  You know what they say about children, any attention is better than none even if it's negative?
  
  I think these people invite the negativity (by posting flames) as it's the only time they get attention.
  
  Hey ho, let the 'not a religious debate thread' rage on!
3. 3/30/09
  
  kat822
  
  so TBR are you in the mood for spring? nice avatar
3/30/09

jflower36

Wow...you are right. BC is number one in that search. If I were BC I'd keep the threads too....

[reply]
1. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
  
  I'm sure they will but if you think that members such as myself will continue to post to them then you could be wrong.
2. 3/30/09
  
  satijournal
  
  I'm not posting to them any more, either.
3. 3/30/09
  
  satijournal
  
  And I mean it. I refuse to post to any religious threads any more.
4. 3/30/09
  
  satijournal
  
  And that includes this one.
5. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
  
  Good that makes two of us taking the pledge.
6. 3/30/09
  
  satijournal
  
  Timethief, not to change the subject, but you look mahrvelous.
7. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
  
  Why thank you so much. It's all genetics -- I had nothing to do with the way I look aside from eating and exercising properly.
3/30/09

satijournal

Seriously.

[reply]
1. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
3/30/09

jflower36

Timethief and satijournal that is too bad that you won't be participating in future religious discussions...your comments and opinions are welcomed and valued. But I understand if participating is causing stress.

[reply]
1. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
2. 3/30/09
  
  satijournal
  
  I'm not replying. Neener-neener
3. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
4. 3/30/09
  
  satijournal
  
  Although I agree, the right way is the way of the Buddha.
5. 3/30/09
  
  timethief
  
  May the three hindrances and all afflictions be eradicated.
  May I gain wisdom and true understanding.
  May all obstructions to my enlightenment be annihilated.
  May I always walk the Bodhisattva Way.
6. 3/30/09
  
  satijournal
3/30/09

jflower36

LOL

[reply]
3/30/09

jflower36

True Timethief...but He did make inflammatory statements that made Him unpopular with some...to the point that they tried to kill Him on more than one occasion.

Oh...guess you took your comments out...that's ok...:)

I don't want to bait you any longer...:p

[reply]
3/30/09

wagerwitch

Personally I usually don't read them - or participate in them - IT IS THE TOPIC that bothers me that I have to see.

Y'all take care now.

WW

[reply]
3/30/09

jflower36

ummmmm.....ok....but you are participating now....I don't get it.

[reply]
3/30/09

morgantj

Shhhhhh... whisper. Religion is a topic that is very sensitive and can't be constructively criticized publicly, it apparently is supposed to get special privileges from being critiqued unlike all other topics. If you are going to talk about it, keep it hush hush, we don't want anyone to know that we have doubts about it.

[reply]
5/09/09

mister2mike

i agree. no debates

[reply]