the state of the debate board

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 15 2005, 11:45 AM']I have a few suggestions for the Debate Table.  This is a loooong post.

First: debate moderators.  I don't want to poopoo the wonderful job the board mods do here, but debate threads often need moderators in the sense of what a moderator does in a traditional debate.  The debate moderators don't even need any kind of special board privileges such as the ability to delete or modify posts, and can be appointed at the start of a thread.  The debate moderator will point out to posters when the thread has gone off topic or when an argument contains a personal attack, etc.  Also debate ettiquite should be enforced here and people should take more time to construct truly logical arguments that avoid going off-topic.

My second suggestion is to put information seeking posts in the Apologetics page and not the debate thread.  So many nasty debates, or rather slugfests,  have started because someone posted in the debate thread wondering how to defend a position on abortion or why the Church thinks women's ordination is wrong.  This is really more of an apologetics topic.  Some would argue that showing only the church side of the issue is wrong and closed minded, but I feel that when someone (the thread starter) asks a question or makes a request, the thread should be about answering that question or request.  So I recommend to posters here that if they want to know a church position, that they post it in a more appropriate board.  Board mods should also try to move non-debate threads to the apologetics board.  I'll post below some examples of what a non-debate-starting and debate-starting thread look like (The examples are not meant to look scholarly or reflect my opinions in any way).

Non-debate-starter:
I'm wondering why the Church teaches abortion is wrong.  Any help?

Debate-Starter:
I don't accept the church's teaching on abortion.  I believe that a fetus is part of a woman's body until the child is born and the woman can do anything with her body that she wants.

--

It seems we've had debates break out from both of these types of posts yet only the second one is really looking to start a debate.
[right][snapback]612287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well, first of all, the moderators need the ability to edit and/or delete post because many times just telling people to get back on topic gets ignored. Also, there have been spamming incidents that get deleted as soon as a mod sees them, thus sparing the rest of the Phatmass community. If the mods didn't have these abilities, dUSt would not be able to keep up. He wasn't in the past, which is why he created the moderator position.

As for why many things aren't started in the Apologetics phorum, well, many people don't pay attention. But more than that, the Apologetics is for apologetics - not debating and it would just get moved here eventually, because it would eventually turn into a debate.

Trying to turn this board into a formal debate arena hasn't worked in the past and I think it would be do a disservice to people who are looking for answers, and other points of view.

Again, I don't understand what the issue is behind this thread. This is definately the MOST CIVIL this debate board has ever been.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Oh I definitely still think we need the board moderators. I'm just saying that we need debate moderators as well. This may not need to be formalized, and it can even be self governed. But often times if someone says let's stay on topic he's attacked for dismissing someone's points without wanting to argue.

I understand about the whole Apologetics/Debate thing. Sometimes people want to know how to defend a point and someone wants to tell them that they're wrong for wanting to defend that point.

[mulls]

i just think i should post more, then everything would be more balanced and orderly.

[Noel's angel]

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Circle_Master']I've had this discussion here before and will attempt to ignore your "well we are the church so if you don't like it too bad" attitude. Phatmass residents finally agreed that Catholic Church was an accepted term to refer to the entire Roman Catholic Church. If you use "Catholic Church" then that also could include the Episcopal Church or the Church of England or various others. If you just use the "Church" then that could cover an even broader term.[/quote]
As you well know, it would be heresy for us to assent to any of the above. Frankly, I don't see what purpose your complaint has, except to cause trouble. You've demonstrated rather clearly that you know what the webmaster [i]means[/i] by "I do not represent the Church," because you have proposed an alternative to it ("I do not represent the Catholic Church") that is, in actuality, precisely what he means. If you know what it means, and if we know what it means, and if he knows what it means, and if [i]everyone[/i] knows what it means -- then what's the problem?

There is no problem with the icon as such. Your problem is that we will not acknowledge that your faith community or your individual set of beliefs belong fully to the Church of Christ. And your problem is that we believe that you are only imperfectly united to the Church of Christ, whereas the Church of Christ subsists in its fullness within the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Sorry, but to acknowledge what you'd like us to acknowledge is heresy, and heresy is not an authentic point for beginning dialogue.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 15 2005, 03:15 AM']I'm sure that a member of the Latin Rite doesn't mind being called Roman Catholic, but I do, because it is inaccurate. 

I've read a couple of B. S. Childs books, and enjoyed them.
[right][snapback]612123[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Actually I prefer to be called a Latin Rite Catholic or Roman Rite Catholic Rather than Roman Catholic which seems sort f like an oxymoron to me.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Jun 15 2005, 09:07 AM']Why do you still post if you disagree with the icon and dUSts decision to use it?
[right][snapback]612264[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hopefully Circle Master will put things into proper perspective and will continue to post at Phatmass. If you think about it, the group icons are not really the most substantive reason to stop posting.

[Noel's angel]

yeah, I was just asking the question because he has such a major problem with the icon

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Jun 15 2005, 02:24 PM']yeah, I was just asking the question because he has such a major problem with the icon
[right][snapback]612610[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I know.

[Noel's angel]

just wanted to clarify

[Q the Ninja]

I thought it's been kinda tame here...I've been trying to stay away from arguing with EVERYONE, just half everyone.

[Apotheoun]

I don't call myself "Byzantine Rite," because a rite is simply a way of celebrating the Christian mystery.

Instead, I am a member of the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church, which is a [i]sui juris[/i] self-governing Church within the Catholic Church. The Ruthenian Church has its own liturgical customs, laws, spiritual practices and disciplines, and its own theological tradition, and as a consequence it is a canonically distinct Church that is in communion with Rome.

[jasJis]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 15 2005, 11:45 AM']I have a few suggestions for the Debate Table.  This is a loooong post.

First: debate moderators.  [color=orange](blah... blah... blah...  suggestion, suggestion, suggestion)  [/color]
My second suggestion is to [color=orange](blah... blah... blah...  suggestions, suggestion, suggestion)[/color]
Non-debate-starter: [color=orange](blah... blah... blah...  example, example, example)[/color]

Debate-Starter:[color=orange](blah... blah... blah...  example, example, example)[/color]
--

It seems [color=orange](blah... blah... blah...  suggestion, suggestion, suggestion)[/color]
[right][snapback]612287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Isn't neat how judicious editing can shorten a post?
Just teasing k4

But seriously. The debate board has gotten a lot more civil. It's been a slow maturing of some posters, and some posters have set some good examples that others have picked up on. I think things are overall pretty good, and the occaisional comment by mods or other posters like you make a big difference. I don't think we should change the style or authority of the mods because it's pointless without the support of other posters. The mods support regular posters, just as we should support them. Good examples and private messages have been what's really improved things on this board. Taking 'public offense' over minor things is the one thing that undermines civil debate.

[crusader1234]

I agree completely with Leet Catholic... this debate board isn't the best place to debate and its most certainly not the most charitable. Just because people don't swear, that doesn't mean its charitable. Often people here are down right angry and mean about things. People also don't bother to present logical and substantiated arguments, and just circumlocute for about 90 paragraphs.

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='jasJis']And I am very sure IronMonk never insulted you, but I remember you took offense at the things he said. Iron doesn't intentionally insult, he just isn't inordinately careful about not offending.[/quote]
Oh my... please. IronMonk's grace and charity bordered on the speed of a sloth. Perhaps my perspective is slightly bias..but I tend to be aware of when that bias is present.

[quote name='Noel's angel']Why do you still post if you disagree with the icon and dUSts decision to use it?[/quote]
As you may well have noticed, I have not posted recently.

[quote name='Nicole8223']This seems silly to me. If you don't want to be labeled with "Catholic terminology" then why would you come to a site like this?[/quote]
Because the name of the forum is as follows:
DEBATE TABLE (interfaith dialogue)
AKA: Super Happy Dialogue Corner. Non-Catholics are welcome and encouraged to come on in to discuss our differences. Please practice charity.

If Non-Catholics are welcome, maybe it should be in more than the forum description and actually in practice?

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r']First: debate moderators. I don't want to poopoo the wonderful job the board mods do here, but debate threads often need moderators in the sense of what a moderator does in a traditional debate. The debate moderators don't even need any kind of special board privileges such as the ability to delete or modify posts, and can be appointed at the start of a thread. The debate moderator will point out to posters when the thread has gone off topic or when an argument contains a personal attack, etc. Also debate ettiquite should be enforced here and people should take more time to construct truly logical arguments that avoid going off-topic.[/quote]
This is an extremely wonderful post. Thanks person. I know several of the Catholic Moderators here attempt to adhere to this, I would just call on you to be more aware of your Catholic bias and natural favoritism towards your own brothers.

[quote name='Good Friday']As you well know, it would be heresy for us to assent to any of the above. Frankly, I don't see what purpose your complaint has, except to cause trouble. You've demonstrated rather clearly that you know what the webmaster means by "I do not represent the Church," because you have proposed an alternative to it ("I do not represent the Catholic Church") that is, in actuality, precisely what he means. If you know what it means, and if we know what it means, and if he knows what it means, and if everyone knows what it means -- then what's the problem?

There is no problem with the icon as such. Your problem is that we will not acknowledge that your faith community or your individual set of beliefs belong fully to the Church of Christ. And your problem is that we believe that you are only imperfectly united to the Church of Christ, whereas the Church of Christ subsists in its fullness within the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Sorry, but to acknowledge what you'd like us to acknowledge is heresy, and heresy is not an authentic point for beginning dialogue.[/quote]
It is not heresy to say that I am a not a Catholic as opposed to "I DO NOT REPRESENT THE CHURCH". I don't know what you are talking about.

[quote name='Apotheoun']Hopefully Circle Master will put things into proper perspective and will continue to post at Phatmass. If you think about it, the group icons are not really the most substantive reason to stop posting.[/quote]
The group icons were one of 3 things I mentioned that I was complaining about. The other 2 things are the constant favoritism shown towards Catholics posting (along with that the lack of charity) and the other thing was the stripping of all non-Catholics private message capability.

[quote name='crusader1234']I agree completely with Leet Catholic... this debate board isn't the best place to debate and its most certainly not the most charitable. Just because people don't swear, that doesn't mean its charitable. Often people here are down right angry and mean about things. People also don't bother to present logical and substantiated arguments, and just circumlocute for about 90 paragraphs.[/quote]
Thanks crusader1234, another excellent post.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Circle_Master

[ThyWillBeDone]

I just read a excellent poem by C.S. Lewis and well it just seemed approriate to me to post it on this thread

The Apologist's Evening Prayer

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and needle's eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I think this quote from C.S. Lewis is better:

[quote]"When Catholicism goes bad it becomes the world-old, world-wide religion of amulets and holy places and priest craft; Protestantism, in its corresponding decay, becomes a vague mist of ethical platitudes."[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 15 2005, 08:53 PM']I think this quote from C.S. Lewis is better:
[quote]"When Catholicism goes bad it becomes the world-old, world-wide religion of amulets and holy places and priest craft; Protestantism, in its corresponding decay, becomes a vague mist of ethical platitudes."[/quote]

[right][snapback]612930[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How about G.K. Chesterton:
[quote]Protestants are Catholics gone wrong; that is what is really meant by saying they are Christians . . . Thus a Calvinist is a Catholic obsessed with the Catholic idea of the sovereignty of God. But when he makes it mean that God wishes particular people to be damned, we may say with restraint that he has become a rather morbid Catholic. In point of fact he is a diseased Catholic; and the disease left to itself would be death or madness. But, as a matter of fact, the disease did not last long, and is itself now practically dead. But every step he takes back towards humanity is a step back towards Catholicism. Thus a Quaker is a Catholic obsessed with the Catholic idea of gentle simplicity and truth . . .[/quote]

[Kilroy the Ninja]

That will work too.


Of course, there's what I always say... Protestants are just really really bad Catholics.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jun 15 2005, 04:11 PM'][. . .]
The group icons were one of 3 things I mentioned that I was complaining about.  The other 2 things are the constant favoritism shown towards Catholics posting (along with that the lack of charity) and the other thing was the stripping of all non-Catholics private message capability.
[. . .]
[right][snapback]612799[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think we have all pretty much agreed that the group icon issue is rather trivial.

Now as far as the other two items are concerned: in an ideal world there would be no biases at all, by anyone, at any time, but of course we don't live in an ideal world, and so there are going to be biases wherever one goes. As far as the restrictions on private messaging are concerned, that is a decision that the webmaster has made, and I believe it was done because of attempts to proselytize. Now clearly the owner of the board as the right to restrict any privileges that he wants to restrict, and for whatever reasons he deems appropriate, but of course there is nothing that prevents you, or anyone else, from emailing with other members of the board.