Enough is enough! 

There has been way too much silliness and name-calling on Nexus lately. People are joining groups they disagree with simply to argue with group members. Others are stalking and chasing members around the site simply to harass them. Thin-skinned or not, this has caused visits to Nexus to be a chore for many, and a few have left the site. 

The only qualification to be a member of Nexus is to be a nontheist. Other than that we are a community. Civil debate is welcome in the forum, but should not be tolerated in individual groups (unless this is the purpose of the group), and on member pages.

If you are unsure what is acceptable behavior, check out the Site Rules. If you are having a problem or you notice anyone violating the rules, please use the "Report an Issue" link at the bottom of every page. 

Finally, I am seriously considering adding the title of the below Phil Plait speech to our rules.

Click to open video in a separate window: Don't Be A Dick

What do you think? Good idea or not? I am interested in any feedback and open to solutions. I'm not looking for complaints.

Be forewarned that NO member names will be allowed in comments.

Views: 571

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

@Fred: This post was not meant to be a policy change. I made it clear that I wanted to start a discussion.

I used the title because I was frustrated and I want the "madness" to stop.

You say you are a "lazy person." However, you post your opinions more than almost anyone. Perhaps you should spend more time reading, and not as much commenting.
"Perhaps you should spend more time reading, and not as much commenting." thats good advice for many of us...myself included!
@ryan: And me too.

I always try (not always successfully) to live by the principle:

"Seek first to understand, and then to be understood."
If you notice, I've agreed with John above. John and I have had some debates and arguments, and have vehemently disagreed on a few topics. We were not afraid to say what we felt, we did not walk on eggshells. If I had taken offense, and stomp away pouting and whining about him hurting my feelings, if I had held a grudge, I never would have found out how much I like him. It turns out we agree a lot more than we disagree, and I have a lot of respect for him. This is called maturity. If John had decided I was a big meanie, and never took a moment to consider that just because we disagreed does not mean I have attacked him, he would never have had that respect.
The unmentionable person here referred to as "He" is supposed to be direct and to not stay silent.

I have looked for comments from him in this thread but maybe he is on travel and have no computer then?

Fred, this is a perfect example of you baiting him, and then crying when he takes the bait and responds.

Clearly you are not only obsessed with felch, you crave his attention.

He has made it perfectly clear how he feels about this topic many times elsewhere.

You completely miss the point of when I spoke of him being direct and not staying silent. I was referring to members being self-absorbed and out of control, not swooping in to defend himself. There is no need for him to defend himself, you are making a fool of yourself quite well on your own.
actually, Fred I don't think you missed the point of what I said. I think it is more insidious than that. I think you deliberately withheld the remainder of my sentence so that you could change the meaning and spread false information. I think you do that an awful lot.

What I said was this: He is straightforward and direct and does not stay silent when he sees ridiculous beliefs, and illogical thinking, and self-absorbed rude behaviour.

I've been involved in the discussions that you take bits of and re-post them and you always make it seem that the words were used much differently than they actually were. No one told you to STFU, not the way you keep repeating. It was said much differently than that. It was one in a long string of things you could do in order to avoid the nameless one, and it was referring to his posts. In other words, if you did not respond to his posts and follow him, you would not get his responses to you.

This is part of your "poor me" way of attempting to get people to feel bad for you. It is no longer working, Fred. You are becoming transparent to many of us. Spreading misinformation and lies is not something most of us can stand behind.
I don't see his way as bickering. I almost always agree with and publicly back him, and I have no problem what so ever with his way (I will, however gladly speak up if I disagree with him). He is straightforward and direct and does not stay silent when he sees ridiculous beliefs, and illogical thinking, and self-absorbed rude behaviour.

I agree. There seems to be a number of thin skinned Atheist and those with a poorly developed sense of humor. If the goal of this site was to convince theists to consider our views then Phil's tact would probably be the best route. However, that isn't the purpose of A/N - it's a place for Atheist and for rational argument using verifiable evidence or to bring news of interest to the community. Being a more or less restricted site (religiously) I think it's fair, even mandatory, that we are skeptical about anything posted; some time that requires a more confrontational approach.
I will admit that I occasionally cross the fuzzy line of civility - I try to avoid it, but.......
Jim has conveyed even more of my feelings on this issue.
Nicely put John D and I agree completely.

Phil's style is good for Phil and I don't begrudge him.

However, having been told by a Christian that the reason he stalked me and targeted me in a debating group I moderate was because:

1. I was nice and polite (when people are nice and polite to me).
2. Came across as reasonable and truthful.
3. Because of 1 and 2 I was more likely to have credibility.

I've come to the conclusion that there are actually appropriate times to be a dick (and yes women can be dicks, Daniel ;-).

Here on AN we're not dealing with Christians or other religious groups though.

So following Brother Richard and John D's suggestions, giving each other a break, and taking the approach of educating and convincing might be more constructive. I love The Asylum idea. :-D

Frankly holding grudges is tiresome and I don't know how some people manage to do it for eons and to the point where they're stalking people.

I haven't been following the site for a few months now and don't really know what's been happening here in detail but I'd like to see AN succeed and be everything it has the potential of being.

Anyway, I'll end with my favorite PZ quote (Hope your health situation is resolved soon!):

"Let a thousand atheist flowers bloom."
Maybe I've just managed to miss the, shall we say, 'most spirited' discussions? But honestly, I've had fewer problems and way more civility on this site than any other forum I've participated in. The closest I've come to a problem is a couple of specific-topic discussions where two members argued their side with more personal attacks and very little backing-up-with-sources, to the point that I exited the discussions. Even then I wouldn't really say I was trolled or stalked; more like the discussion devolved into beating a dead horse.

I do like healthy debate and differences of opinion and perhaps that can be emphasized. "If you're countering with facts, back them up. If you're countering with subjective analysis of the facts, know that opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one and there's only so much you can do to make yours smell like roses to the next guy."

On the other hand, there are lines when it comes to, say, an anti-choicer joining the pro-choice group just to pick a fight.



I'm talking about.
you have my vote!




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service