Born Again Christian Buffyverse chick thread move

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:07 am

To me, it seemed the thread was talking only about 1 person's faith, not a whole religion. If, going forward, all things that talks in some way about religion and a person's spiritual beliefs, their personal faith, gets automatically moved to R&P, does that mean all threads with U2K in it will automatically be moved to R&P? What about the Zen thoughts that Smoove has posted in the past? Zen can absolutely be classified as a religion and talking about the Zen thought or even Koan is talking about what a person who follows that faith believes in, what that person follows spiritually. What was different about the thread that was moved?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:12 am

Seriously? A thread about a person's conversion to Christianity with extensive writing about her theology?

Dirt wrote:If, going forward, all things that talks in some way about religion and a person's spiritual beliefs, their personal faith, gets automatically moved to R&P, does that mean all threads with U2K in it will automatically be moved to R&P?

I have no idea how you could possibly extrapolate this from my action. Suddenly, because I moved a thread that was explicitly about religion, you think we're going to move any thread that talks in any way about religious beliefs or spirituality?

Dirt wrote:What about the Zen thoughts that Smoove has posted in the past? Zen can absolutely be classified as a religion and talking about the Zen thought or even Koan is talking about what a person who follows that faith believes in, what that person follows spiritually. What was different about the thread that was moved?

You'd have to show me an example of one of these threads for me to help out here.

[edit]Redundancy removed and deleted.[/edit]

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:13 am

If you all want, I can go make sure it'll only fit in R&P.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:11 am

FWIW, I thought ILB made the correct move. Clearly it was a topic that wouldn't have existed without its religious nature.

~Neal

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:55 am

Fireball1244 wrote:If you all want, I can go make sure it'll only fit in R&P.

Genius.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:02 am

FWIW, I put my Zen threads in the EBG because they were general inspriational thoughts and/or quotes.

I wasn't looking to generate a debate on the religious nature of Zen or any of it's facets. Just looking to add something different to the forums for thoughts.

If any of those threads turned into a Zen debate, I'm sure it would have been moved.

Which reminds me.....I have to dig my Zen calendar out of my moving box and check it. Been a while.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:07 am

Smoove_B wrote:If any of those threads turned into a Zen debate, I'm sure it would have been moved.

No.

Threads get located based on the content of the original post, not the discussion that follows.

~Neal

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:44 am

The original post was about a woman who was on a TV show the revelation that she is a born again christian. It contains a quote from her about what belief in God means, but how is that different than a Zen thought?

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:34 pm

You guys really will argue about anything, won't you?

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:40 pm

I always fight for what I believe in.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:43 pm

Where a thread is located is something you 'believe in'?

Huh.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:43 pm

Kratz wrote:Where a thread is located is something you 'believe in'?

Huh.

It's the principle of the matter.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:52 pm

The majority of the OP was a quote from someone talking about their god and beliefs. It seems to me it was R&P.

Even if the original intent was a "Huh, who would'a thunk it?" kind of thing, it was already headed down the religion path. It was inevitable people would start ripping/commending her for her convictions. The "I'd hit it" vibe is strong but not strong enough to overcome overt religious professions in the OP. It should have included some NSFW pictures.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:24 pm

Some questioning (by myself) of what is and isn't Zen thinking/living here:

http://www.octopusoverlords.com/phpBB2/ ... hlight=zen

Zen religious thinking here:

http://www.octopusoverlords.com/phpBB2/ ... hlight=zen

Quotes about living Zen and relationship to Zen (Mu), much as how Christians would talk about living with God:

http://www.octopusoverlords.com/phpBB2/ ... hlight=zen

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:22 am

Thanks for the links, Dirt.

After reviewing those posts, they are really are just interesting quotes that happen to be taken from something called a Zen calendar. If Smoove hadn't identified their source (just said they were from his desktop calendar, without noting it was titled a Zen calendar), no one likely would have identified them as Zen, and any Zen related discussion in those threads would have been avoided.

With the post I moved, even taking the reference to Christianity out of the thread title, the body of the post was still heavy on religious content.

So, while I can see why you're asking the question, I think it comes to a matter of degree. The Zen threads may touch on religion, but they're really of a more secular nature. The thread I moved touches on secularism, but it's really more of a religious nature. At least, that's the way I read them. Other opinions may differ, of course.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:51 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Even if the original intent was a "Huh, who would'a thunk it?" kind of thing, it was already headed down the religion path. It was inevitable people would start ripping/commending her for her convictions. The "I'd hit it" vibe is strong but not strong enough to overcome overt religious professions in the OP. It should have included some NSFW pictures.

That was indeed the original intent. The funny thing is, I posted it in EBG because I figured someone would complain about it in R&P (where I post more often). Oh well.

BTW, Neal says this above:

No.

Threads get located based on the content of the original post, not the discussion that follows.

~Neal

Doesn't that contradict your comment on how the thread was heading down the religion path? It'd be nice to know which is the official policy here, since they can't both be.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:58 am

The Mad Hatter wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Even if the original intent was a "Huh, who would'a thunk it?" kind of thing, it was already headed down the religion path. It was inevitable people would start ripping/commending her for her convictions. The "I'd hit it" vibe is strong but not strong enough to overcome overt religious professions in the OP. It should have included some NSFW pictures.
That was indeed the original intent. The funny thing is, I posted it in EBG because I figured someone would complain about it in R&P (where I post more often). Oh well.

BTW, Neal says this above:

No.

Threads get located based on the content of the original post, not the discussion that follows.

~Neal

Doesn't that contradict your comment on how the thread was heading down the religion path? It'd be nice to know which is the official policy here, since they can't both be.

Hey, I'm not official. Far from it. Just opinionated.

I was just saying that the OP was pointing down the religion path like a big massive arrow that said "Talk about this!" That the thread went that way was no suprise.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:01 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Even if the original intent was a "Huh, who would'a thunk it?" kind of thing, it was already headed down the religion path. It was inevitable people would start ripping/commending her for her convictions. The "I'd hit it" vibe is strong but not strong enough to overcome overt religious professions in the OP. It should have included some NSFW pictures.
That was indeed the original intent. The funny thing is, I posted it in EBG because I figured someone would complain about it in R&P (where I post more often). Oh well.

BTW, Neal says this above:

No.

Threads get located based on the content of the original post, not the discussion that follows.

~Neal

Doesn't that contradict your comment on how the thread was heading down the religion path? It'd be nice to know which is the official policy here, since they can't both be.
Hey, I'm not official. Far from it. Just opinionated.

I was just saying that the OP was pointing down the religion path like a big massive arrow that said "Talk about this!" That the thread went that way was no suprise.

Woops, sorry, thought you were Lawboy for some reason.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:50 pm

Twice in as many days. I'm going to cry.

This is LawBeefaroni:

This is that other guy:

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:55 pm

Zen is, to some people, a religion. To others it is a secular philosophy - a solid argument can be made either way. I look at those threads as more philosophical than religious, and while some religious points may have been mentioned, the focus wasn't religious. Lots of religious/political threads have a few posts that, by themselves would belong in other forums - gaming comments, good prices, trade offers. Others may disagree - and that's fine. The point is, whoever was a mod of that forum at that time decided that the focus wasn't religious enough to necessitate moving. We don't have a 100-point checklist we compare each thread to - we look at it, and if it seems to us to belong in a certain place, that's normally where it goes. If it seems suitable for several places, we tend to leave it where it started.

My point is that placing threads, except in obvious instances, isn't an exact science - is is a subjective decision, one that different people would sometimes make differently.

The Buffy/witch thread, on the other hand, started out specifically by pointing out a specific set of controversial religious beliefs, and then discussing/arguing about them. That seems to be pretty clear and obvious 'religious discussion' to me.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:18 pm

Blackhawk wrote:Zen is, to some people, a religion. To others it is a secular philosophy - a solid argument can be made either way.

No. In Daoism you have people who follow the religious precepts and those that follow philosophical ones. But, Ch'an/Zen is a religion; there's no ambivalence in regards to it's status.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:49 pm

Dirt wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:Zen is, to some people, a religion. To others it is a secular philosophy - a solid argument can be made either way.
No. In Daoism you have people who follow the religious precepts and those that follow philosophical ones. But, Ch'an/Zen is a religion; there's no ambivalence in regards to it's status.

I absolutely disagree. Zen can be a religion, if you choose to follow it as such, but it isn't inherently religious. Hell, just do a search on 'is zen a religion' and you will find hundreds of discussions on this very subject from dedicated practitioners of zen. Not all of them agree - some say it is, some say it is if you alter the definition, some say it can be depending on your approach. It isn't clearly a non-religion, but it isn't clearly a religion, either. The very fact that the practitioners can argue so very much about its nature, however, proves fairly conclusively that the statement:

there's no ambivalence in regards to it's status.

... is inaccurate. There are piles of it.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:59 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
Dirt wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:Zen is, to some people, a religion. To others it is a secular philosophy - a solid argument can be made either way.
No. In Daoism you have people who follow the religious precepts and those that follow philosophical ones. But, Ch'an/Zen is a religion; there's no ambivalence in regards to it's status.
I absolutely disagree. Zen can be a religion, if you choose to follow it as such, but it isn't inherently religious. Hell, just do a search on 'is zen a religion' and you will find hundreds of discussions on this very subject from dedicated practitioners of zen. Not all of them agree - some say it is, some say it is if you alter the definition, some say it can be depending on your approach. It isn't clearly a non-religion, but it isn't clearly a religion, either. The very fact that the practitioners can argue so very much about its nature, however, proves fairly conclusively that the statement:

there's no ambivalence in regards to it's status.
... is inaccurate. There are piles of it.

Ch'an/Zen is inherently Mahayana Buddhism, ergo, historically it is a religion.

You can take the Priest, the Mass, the Rituals and all the other trappings of organized religion out of your worship of God; to worship him only in your heart and follow his precepts in your heart by your own interpretation, but that doesn't stop making you Christian nor does it stop what you're doing, what you believe from being classifed as anything other than a religion.

Since Ch'an/Zen can be argued to be a religion or not a religion in the same manner as whether there is a God or if there is no God, then Smoove_B's posts should have been moved to R&P, no?

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:19 pm

You know what would be zen... letting it go.

Rich in KCK · Post by **Rich in KCK** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:20 pm

Wow, this may be the first thread that needs to be moved that was about a thread that was moved.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:57 pm

Kratz wrote:You know what would be zen... letting it go.

I'm a Confucist at heart.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:55 pm

Dirt wrote:then Smoove_B's posts should have been moved to R&P, no?

No. Feel free to re-read my explanation above. You may not agree, but we're not going for 100% acceptance - it's an unrealistic objective.

The Mad Hatter wrote:BTW, Neal says this above:

No.

Threads get located based on the content of the original post, not the discussion that follows.

~Neal

Doesn't that contradict your comment on how the thread was heading down the religion path? It'd be nice to know which is the official policy here, since they can't both be.

I already gave you the answer the answer to this question in the thread in question, but I guess it can't hurt to repeat it:

ImLawBoy wrote:As discussed previously, we like to try to follow the intent of the original poster before moving a thread, but I don't see a realistic way for this to stay out of the religious realm.

Are we low on controversy around here or something? How is this a thread threatening to move onto a second page?

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:11 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote:BTW, Neal says this above:

No.

Threads get located based on the content of the original post, not the discussion that follows.

~Neal

Doesn't that contradict your comment on how the thread was heading down the religion path? It'd be nice to know which is the official policy here, since they can't both be.
I already gave you the answer the answer to this question in the thread in question, but I guess it can't hurt to repeat it:

ImLawBoy wrote:As discussed previously, we like to try to follow the intent of the original poster before moving a thread, but I don't see a realistic way for this to stay out of the religious realm.
Are we low on controversy around here or something? How is this a thread threatening to move onto a second page?

I thought Lawbeefaroni was you, my bad.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:07 pm

The Meal wrote:Some generic 'how we've done things.'

1. Threads get placed based on the content of the original post (sometimes called alpha post, or OP). The intent of the original poster is also potentially considered.

2. If a thread could conceivably* belong in multiple forums and it was created in one of those forums, it doesn't get moved.

3. Moving threads is not a punishment.

4. Threads should never be placed in an inappropriate forum purely because that forum gets more views.

5. Thread placement is not an absolute art. There is a matter of degree determined by the forum staff members (or individual) who determines whether the thread is appropriately placed. Sometimes there is disagreement between staff's determination and that of the forum users (or a forum user). Typically that is because of the matter of degree to which a person attributes to the various factors considered in 1. above. It's okay to disagree. Point out where you disagree. Explain why you disagree. But please take that discussion to the Meta Forum and do not cloud the thread in question with the placement-related banter. If you do not think the reasoning behind your disagrement isn't being understood, then please restate your reasoning. Repetition is not fruitful. If you do not get an adquate answer to your disagreement, please remember the first two sentences in this paragraph.

Thanks,

~Neal

* "Conceivably," as determined by the forum staff, or an individual who is a member of forum staff, depending on the circumstances.

Number 1 seems counter to why this thread was moved. The original intent of the poster was not to start a religious discussion merely stating 1 individual's personal faith.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:46 pm

Read number 5. Again.

~Neal

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:55 pm

The Meal wrote:Read number 5. Again.

~Neal

My original point is: more objectivity (science), less subjectivity (art). Mod's are essentially judges; many of the forums I have visited with Mod's who judge based upon their own subjectivity are far less fair than ones who hew more to objectivity.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:09 pm

There is a matter of degree determined by the forum staff members (or individual) who determines whether the thread is appropriately placed. Sometimes there is disagreement between staff's determination and that of the forum users (or a forum user). Typically that is because of the matter of degree to which a person attributes to the various factors considered in 1. above. It's okay to disagree.

~*~*~

I understand what you're saying. You'd prefer more clearly defined lines and less judgment to be placed in moderator's and adminstrator's hands. FWIW, you're far from the only person who'd prefer to frequent a forum that was run in that manner.

~Neal

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:29 am

I'm on Dirt side on this matter. Like him I'm confused.

The first topic come to my mind about when mod are move crazy is one topic about Immersion winning a court case with Sony which got moved to console forum while the intent of the original message is talking about a court decision. So from this you may assume that the rule is any mention of console will be moved to the console section even if the focus is not about the console gaming.

Based on the above case, you would think that any topic that mention new pope at EBG will be moved to the R&P, but strangely that isn't the case.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:15 am

Why does it matter where the thread lands? It's not like the GG pre-split heyday where a topic would roll off the front page in a half day. The mods do their best (and try to explain their logic as they did in Sith Pope thread) and you post in a thread if you want to.

Color me confused about why this is so important that it gets nailed down to a T.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:33 am

Plus you can always go here. Don't tell folks are still only broswing by forum.

Quipp · Post by **Quipp** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:57 am

You know what I want? I want a CoC that spells out, in great depth and detail, where every conceivable conversation, topic, and thread that exists or will ever exist will be placed. I want it in various languages. I want charts and graphs and pics of MHS in skimpy outfits. I want it in a multi-language PDF format so I can print it out and kill a small forest.

And I want it yesterday.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:48 pm

Quipp wrote:You know what I want? I want a CoC that spells out, in great depth and detail, where every conceivable conversation, topic, and thread that exists or will ever exist will be placed. I want it in various languages. I want charts and graphs and pics of MHS in skimpy outfits. I want it in a multi-language PDF format so I can print it out and kill a small forest.

And I want it yesterday.

We will have it completed the second Wednesday of next week.

Rip

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:23 am

The Preacher wrote:Why does it matter where the thread lands? It's not like the GG pre-split heyday where a topic would roll off the front page in a half day. The mods do their best (and try to explain their logic as they did in Sith Pope thread) and you post in a thread if you want to.

Color me confused about why this is so important that it gets nailed down to a T.

I think it is important to mae the moderators' job easier if the poster know where to start the topic in the first place.

If a poster know every topic that involve a console need to be in the console gaming section, he post in that section and save the mod from having to move it.

If a poster know that a topic to joke around about religion related stuff have to be started at EBG, then the poster start it there and all mods are happy.

Now let's say I want to start a topic to joke around about new controller for XBOX2, should I start that at console section or EBG?:)