Another one bites the Dust

[C-Nub]

This is, I think I should state, intended to be an open dialogue. I don't really have a central point, or theme, to make, but recent events have prompted me to wonder if maybe others do.

Thought Criminal and Daedalus, two of our "side's" most vocal members, have been banned recently. I actually support both bannings, for the record, but at the same time, they were both, when they were on topic, very good at arguing their (our) points. Since I like the idea of the atheist presence on these boards being represented strongly, I don't like seeing it when we lose guys like that.

So I think we should talk about that a little.



I was thinking also that it would be a good idea for us to establish, for ourselves, not really as a set group of rules, a code of conduct that we can all agree to and effectively self-police ourselves on. Not only as a generally good idea, as we've had some issues lately and we're in danger of being seen as a wholly contemptious group, but also as something of an experiment regarding atheist morality. I think we demonstrate the ability to set good, moral rules and abide by them without the threat of God or the use of the bible in any way, and to be honest, I think it would be kind of fun getting it organized.

We have something of an opportunity, with our population here, to not only tell Theists about ourselves, our natures and our morality, but to show them and prove much of what we say about ourselves to be valid. I also think it would make us look good in the eyes of the staff here, and buy us a little more forgiveness in situations where people do in fact post before thinking through exactly what they've typed, which I myself am certainly at least a little guilty of, from time to time.

So, I guess first off, collectively, as a group, do we feel that the recent bannings have been fair, and that we're receiving even handed treatment from the staff? I'm on the record as saying 'yes' to both, I think that we're being treated fairly here, and that there's little to no visible bias from any of the theist staff members.

And secondly, do we, once again as a group, wish to organize ourselves a little, and come up with a guideline for how we will monitor members of our own user grouip and their behavior, demonstrating that 'atheist law' and 'atheist morality' is not only possible for group situations, but also viable and functional as a large-scale option?

[OnceConvinced]

Not to sound too terribly ignorant, but what's a group moderator? Are you going to make me work? I have a doctor's note that says I don't have to do things that are 'work'. Allergies. Or phobias. Or... uh.... Medical Marijuana. Yeah. The last one.

No work involved really. It just means that you get to give the ok on who enters your group or not. You get emails whenever someone wants to join the group and you either authorise or decline it. I think it may be possible that you can have automatic acceptance on it, in which case you'll avoid all the emails.

[OnceConvinced]

C-Nub mentioned speaking/inviting CNorman in, I'm cool with that. He is a good dude.

As for a name, if anyone laffs at me I will poke you with a sharp stick, I'm only trying to help

Atheist Assembly?
Attentive Atheists?
Atheist Avengers?
Assembly of Atheist Apologists?
Atheists Acting Civil?
Atheist Hall Monitor's Guild?
League of Atheists?
Hall of Atheists?
Atheist Logicians?
Civil Atheist Network?
Atheists Who Bow Down To The Great joeyknuccione?

I wonder if can change the word "atheist" as some of us are agnostic.
Or is this a specifically an atheist thing we're discussing here?

"League" is cool, if we could change it to something else.
League of Extraordinary Unbelieving Gentlemen...

No that wouldn't work either, because that would be leaving out the women.

League of Extraordinary Unbelievers
League of unbelievers

Is there a better word than "unbeliever"?

[Goat]

C-Nub mentioned speaking/inviting CNorman in, I'm cool with that. He is a good dude.

As for a name, if anyone laffs at me I will poke you with a sharp stick, I'm only trying to help

Atheist Assembly?
Attentive Atheists?
Atheist Avengers?
Assembly of Atheist Apologists?
Atheists Acting Civil?
Atheist Hall Monitor's Guild?
League of Atheists?
Hall of Atheists?
Atheist Logicians?
Civil Atheist Network?
Atheists Who Bow Down To The Great joeyknuccione?

I wonder if can change the word "atheist" as some of us are agnostic.
Or is this a specifically an atheist thing we're discussing here?

"League" is cool, if we could change it to something else.
League of Extraordinary Unbelieving Gentlemen...

No that wouldn't work either, because that would be leaving out the women.

League of Extraordinary Unbelievers
League of unbelievers

Is there a better word than "unbeliever"?

How about 'skeptic'.. because 'unbeliever' hits too many emotional buttons, and it covers both agnostics and atheists.

Or we could give a pat on the back to old TV shows, and call ourselves "The A Team"

[OnceConvinced]

Actually the A Team did cross my mind at one point. I can just imagine BA Baracas here sending us PMs

Hey fool, enough of the jibber jabber! Watch your mouth and be more civil. Otherwise, I'll punch your lights out!

Skeptics sounds good.

League of Extraordinary skeptics.
League of Skeptics
Hall of Skeptics
Civil Skeptic Network
The Skeptic Alliance

[JoeyKnothead]

Civil Skeptic Network sounds good. It points out the intentions of being civil, non theistic, and a group all in one.

[JoeyKnothead]

It just occurred to me to ask this.

Where we see our skeptical kin getting out of line, should we then flag the post to the mods, and/or scold gently in a reply that still remains on topic?

I don't propose we flood the mods with flags, but just trying to help sort this out.

[C-Nub]

The Civil Skeptic Network sounds pretty good to me, so my vote goes to that, and I'll be the group 'mod', if no one else wants to. My heart isn't set on it, and some of you are substantially more experienced as members here than I am, so if one of you would like the position, by all means.

Keeping the rules as McCulluch listed them seems to be the way to go.


I would suggest not immediately reporting someone, first off, because we have an alternative plan in place anyways, and secondly, because those he's being rude to almost certainly will anyways.

I am, however, still in favor of some sort of 'public' statement that a PM has been sent, perhaps in the context that the 'offender' in question read it before continuing to participate in the thread.

I also have no intention of applying our rules only to those who sign up or enlist in our little group.

I'll give it a couple of days, so that anyone with alternative names can suggest them, and then I'll register the group.



And I'm really upset that we aren't all 'atheists,' because 'The A Team' is an awesome name.

[OnceConvinced]

Civil Skeptic Network does sound quite good.

C-Nub if you aren't really keen to be the group moderator, I'm happy to take that responsibility. I'll even put up the 500 credits. Unless of course someone else really wants the job. Or maybe someone here wants to nominate someone else?

[C-Nub]

To be honest, no, I'm not really interested in doing any sort of moderating at this point. I haven't really been around enough to be really comfortable doing something like that. I'm happy contributing ideas and doing some of the work (that last part is a lie) but I'm still establishing myself around here.

I am really pleased to see that it was an ok idea, and I wasn't way out on a limb suggesting it. The credits thing, though, I'll go halfsies on. Assuming I have enough tokens.

[Beto]

I'm not sure "skeptic" isn't too ambiguous. Any theist can claim skepticism about other faiths or lack thereof.