So, there was another thread, somewhere, once, that was locked because "proselytizing is not allowed".
Merriam-Webster defines "proselytize" as "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause".
I would posit that proselytizing occurs every day on this forum, according to the formal definition. I would suggest that it happens with regard to religion, politics, and social trends.
I could list myriad examples. And, yes, there are often spammy threads whereupon one might want to deter a user from continuing to post. But I've thought the community generally handled such posters rather well without resorting to moderation. To apply a blanket statement about how proselytizing isn't allowed is rather misleading and possibly hypocritical . . . especially considering the LDS slant on this board.
Just my opinion. And I assume that, with the action already done, no one will concede my point. No one ever concedes my points anyway. I'll just pin my Eeyore tail back on and keep walkin'. . . .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, that occurred to me too. But I suppose the guy who pays for the board gets to break his own rules. It's just amusingly ironic that his religion is the most proselytizing I can think of.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
That post about the Krishna religion was pretty blatant proselytization, IMO.
Have all the recent discussions about religious doctrine contained blatant proselytization by Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, or other religions? I haven't seen any. Explaining one's religious beliefs in the course of discussions prompted by questions that are religious in nature isn't necessarily the same as inviting someone to investigate or join that religion.
I'd say if this board has a Mormon slant it's because there are multiple Mormon apologists, plenty of people reasonably familiar with the Mormon church, and a community that doesn't reject out of hand the mere attempt to discuss religion. However, by the same token, this board also has a pretty strong atheist slant. And recent assertions that god doesn't exist, made in the same discussions about religion, could be argued to be as much proselyting as arguments favorable to one religion or another.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. There's making a theological argument you believe in the context of some preexisting discussion; and then there's spamming "join my church", in bad English, with a newly-created account.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh. There's making a theological argument you believe in the context of some preexisting discussion; and then there's spamming "join my church", in bad English, with a newly-created account.
Right?
I'm very surprised people thought that post was acceptable, or that there are other posts like it I have let slide. I'm willing to look at examples of this.
edit: I mean I was definitely abrupt with the thread and locking, but I didn't think the writer was actually trying to be involved as a member here.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, it's just spam of a religious flavor. It's the same response someone would get signing up and trying to sell vacuum cleaners or Viagra or something. There seems to be an obvious difference between members here discussing their religion, and someone (or somebot) creating an account just to advertise their religion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's just amusingly ironic that his religion is the most proselytizing I can think of.
*chuckle*
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah, that occurred to me too. But I suppose the guy who pays for the board gets to break his own rules. It's just amusingly ironic that his religion is the most proselytizing I can think of.
Really? Makes perfect sense.
OSC has always known that he has a significant LDS following as well as a significant secular following. As you say, LDS are pretty famous for proselytizing.
So if anything, I'd expect the rule's original intent was to make sure aggressive LDS proselytizing didn't discourage secular fans from participating. And just, in general, to ensure that the forum didn't end up with an atmosphere hostile to any particular religion or creed.
Makes sense to me.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'd like to ecourage all of you to join my "Jeff is Awesome" Party (it is a political party with dubious and morally gray principles). There will be punch, donuts, and maybe even cake, but that will depend on how many people we get.
Sign up today! Remember, Jeff loves you, and he's looking out for your best interests. Even if you don't understand why, it's all for your benefit.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
My post had two points: - Banning proselytizing sets a bad precedent and is such a gray area that enforcement is precarious. - It's better to let the community handle spammers. It generally creates some of the best humor on this board.
Keep JAMMIN' with RADAR JAMMERS!!!!!!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Aros:
quote:Banning proselytizing sets a bad precedent and is such a gray area that enforcement is precarious.
It hasn't been grey or precarious to me since I've started. Why do you think it is?
quote:It's better to let the community handle spammers. It generally creates some of the best humor on this board.
How long should I give the board to "handle spammers" before I actually stop them from cluttering the board? Bear in mind some of them post one thing, and disappear, while others won't stop posting every few minutes until I stop them.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh. There's making a theological argument you believe in the context of some preexisting discussion; and then there's spamming "join my church", in bad English, with a newly-created account.
Amen to that. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh. There's making a theological argument you believe in the context of some preexisting discussion; and then there's spamming "join my church", in bad English, with a newly-created account.
Amen to that.
Funnily enough that sounds about right for how I was when I first started proselyting in Taiwan. Though substitute English for Chinese.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Banning proselytizing sets a bad precedent and is such a gray area that enforcement is precarious.
Bad precedent? Hasn't that been the rule for, like, forever?
[ November 07, 2013, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh. There's making a theological argument you believe in the context of some preexisting discussion; and then there's spamming "join my church", in bad English, with a newly-created account.
Amen to that.
Funnily enough that sounds about right for how I was when I first started proselyting in Taiwan. Though substitute English for Chinese.
Heh. I bet it does. Of course I also bet that when someone told you they weren't interested you didn't push it and you didn't go proselytize in places where you weren't allowed to.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Aros:
quote:Banning proselytizing sets a bad precedent and is such a gray area that enforcement is precarious.
It hasn't been grey or precarious to me since I've started. Why do you think it is?
Based on the definition of proselytize, I'd say it's a pretty gray area. I've seen more atheist propaganda on this site than about anywhere I've been.
And there's been a lot of people pushing me to read books by some obscure Mormon sci-fi writer. Not really sure what that's all about.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Aros, really?
I'm atheist, and this site does not push atheist propaganda. It does have plenty of atheists with atheistic opinions, and the skills to express themselves clearly, but that's not propaganda. Not even close.
(Stated another way, you apparently haven't visited many atheist-centered sites.)
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Aros:
quote:It's better to let the community handle spammers. It generally creates some of the best humor on this board.
How long should I give the board to "handle spammers" before I actually stop them from cluttering the board? Bear in mind some of them post one thing, and disappear, while others won't stop posting every few minutes until I stop them.
This is a pretty easy answer. You're the moderator, right? Figure it out.
If someone is spamming every few minutes, freakin' ban them and delete the post.
If someone is a little crazy . . . they might be spamming, they might be serious . . . I'm just asking that we have a little fun with them.
Locking the post immediately on something like this is just a way to avoid of lot of interesting puns.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Aros, really?
I'm atheist, and this site does not push atheist propaganda. It does have plenty of atheists with atheistic opinions, and the skills to express themselves clearly, but that's not propaganda. Not even close.
(Stated another way, you apparently haven't visited many atheist-centered sites.)
<Stated another way, Hatrack has somewhat less atheist propoganda than many atheist-centered sites>
Oh. Okay. Glad you cleared that up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sad I missed the thread. I've been making it a thing to purposefully blaspheme hinduism on this forum for years. Someone blathering about krishna would have been perfect.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
People sharing their personal opinions, on a topic where those opinions are relevant, is not propaganda. When a subject with philosophical implications comes up, expect responses that reflect the philosophical opinions of the participants. Otherwise we'd have some really boring threads:
Person one: "Do we have free will?" Person two: "No comment" Person three: "No comment" Person four: "No" JanitorBlade: *locks thread*
While I'd certainly like everyone to agree with me, what with me being absolutely right about everything of import, I don't ever post the intention or hope that I am going to achieve that. I think that's what distinguishes opinionated conversation from the proselytizing that's forbidden by the site rules.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
just a reminder that this is an Aros thread started by Aros
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh. There's making a theological argument you believe in the context of some preexisting discussion; and then there's spamming "join my church", in bad English, with a newly-created account.
Amen to that.
Funnily enough that sounds about right for how I was when I first started proselyting in Taiwan. Though substitute English for Chinese.
Heh. I bet it does. Of course I also bet that when someone told you they weren't interested you didn't push it and you didn't go proselytize in places where you weren't allowed to.
As embarrassing as it is to admit, it took me time to realize at least the not pushing part. I misguidedly thought that if I showed I was serious, then people wouldn't write me off as just another person approaching everybody.
It took time for me to realize that if I present my faith in the right way, people will find me.
[ November 07, 2013, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Thank you for addressing this, JanitorBlade.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'd like to ecourage all of you to join my "Jeff is Awesome" Party (it is a political party with dubious and morally gray principles). There will be punch, donuts, and maybe even cake, but that will depend on how many people we get.
Sign up today! Remember, Jeff loves you, and he's looking out for your best interests. Even if you don't understand why, it's all for your benefit.
This is (quite literally) proselytizing. I'm sorry Jeff. It's been nice knowing you. I hope you can find another board where you can be happy.
*tear* (wait, that's a tear as in crying -- not tear as in, I want to tear off your face)
PS: I don't want to tear off anyone's face. That would be wrong. And highly impractical.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Of course I also bet that when someone told you they weren't interested you didn't push it and you didn't go proselytize in places where you weren't allowed to.