Interfaith Group

cbayer

(146,218 posts) Wed Jun 4, 2014, 07:08 PM Jun 2014

A word about Safe Haven Groups

I'm going to propose something here that may or may not be acceptable, and as I don't participate much, I can understand if it is rejected.

The SOP of this group is the following:

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

And for the most part, that is how it functions.

But there has been a growing tendency to use it as a platform to discuss other members that do not participate in this group, to discuss another safe haven group and to sometimes to just blow off steam in terms of interactions with other members.

While i fully understand the degree of frustration and anger that some members feel, this "us vs. them" position solves nothing and actually just deepens the divide and causes increased animosity.

Is that what the regular participants of this group want?

While not in any way advocating for the DU2 moderator system, there were some good things about it. One of those things was the approach to safe havens.

There was a pretty strict set of rules about these groups. Call outs of other members were prohibited and they were not to be used as places to trash other groups, members or to rally the troops.

The aim of this site is clear and things that divide or cause increased hostilities between groups of members do nothing to accomplish that goal.

Actually, they do exactly the opposite.

I would like to propose that the hosts of this group solicit feedback and consider developing a set of guidelines that would prohibit meta type discussions about other members, groups of members or safe haven groups, unless it is to say something that is positive. In short, I propose that the SOP be rather more strictly interpreted.

If the regular participants have no interest in going in that direction, so be it. But can we at least talk about it? Could we consider taking the higher road?

FTR, if this thread devolves into exactly what I am decrying, I am not going to hesitate to delete it. I have no interest in participating or being responsible for such a thread and it was not my intent to go there.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A word about Safe Haven Groups (Original Post) cbayer Jun 2014 OP

My take on this is that I don't see a need to rewrite anything. kentauros Jun 2014 #1

I like the rules okasha Jun 2014 #2

I applaud your sentiments but we need a place to have our moments. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #3

So we can agree with you about how we should be nicer to atheists or you'll delete the thread? el_bryanto Jun 2014 #4

Needles to say, I am disappointed, but I understand. cbayer Jun 2014 #5

I don't think it can be a black and white rule goldent Jun 2014 #6

kentauros

(29,414 posts)

1. My take on this is that I don't see a need to rewrite anything.

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 08:28 PM

Jun 2014

Why? Because the amount of venting and other meta-like discussions here do not constitute enough about which to be concerned. If you were to compare the number to total posts, and then do the same for that other safe haven, my unscientific educated guess from random observations would be that their number would far surpass ours. It's almost like a daily occurrence there, and no one seems to think that's a bad thing.

Now, if anyone is calling out another member by name, please either alert or PM a host so we can take care of it. I will admit that I do not read every thread, and much less, every post, so I won't see if someone is doing a typical call-out. If, on the other hand, they are alluding to another member without using their username, then that's well within the rules, and not a callout per se.

What seems to be happening around here is that we have some new members or new people noticing us, and participating in discussions that can be construed as meta. So far, I haven't seen the kind of fights that were associated with Meta when it existed, so again, I have no concern about a few threads here and there discussing problems. We need to discuss problems or things will get out of hand. And I don't think we're anywhere near that level of chaos as yet.

okasha

(11,573 posts)

2. I like the rules

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 09:38 PM

Jun 2014

just as they are. This group is used only occasionally to blow off steam, and it's clear that posters sometimes have a need to do so.

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)

3. I applaud your sentiments but we need a place to have our moments.

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 03:06 AM

Jun 2014

Last edited Thu Jun 5, 2014, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

I do have to say I refrained from writing one or two ops here because I thought it would be whining too much.

I think we need to be cautious in posting meta stuff here but I am not against it.

I think less meta would attract more posters but we need an outlet like they have in AA but as a host if it gets into names and callouts we need to put a stop to that.

Also it needsto be clear all are welcome here. The only rule here is nor criticism of others religious or non-religious beliefs. Also no following people here or insults which caused our two bans.

Cbayer you know I always value your opinion and always want to hear it. I take this to heart.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)

4. So we can agree with you about how we should be nicer to atheists or you'll delete the thread?

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:32 AM

Jun 2014

I somehow don't see them having this discussion - they have plenty of threads over there discussing believers and how much they despise us. Why should we be any different?

Bryant

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

5. Needles to say, I am disappointed, but I understand.

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 12:56 PM

Jun 2014

Will not approach this again, but will also not participate here.

goldent

(1,582 posts)

6. I don't think it can be a black and white rule

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Sat Jun 7, 2014, 04:37 PM

Jun 2014

I believe only a small portion of the threads are meta (although they do tend to be very active). I think it is fine as is.

Reply to this discussion