Yes, but, since there is no equivalent opposite to the environment one, it is officially establishing a view.
I could not in good conscience admin a forum that does that in this case.

In that case, I don't see why there can't be a single one, where the type is determined by thread, and closely moderated.

Again, what needs to change is the expectation of arguments that has built up. I made a thread on that very subject, but it's been mostly ignored.

In that case, then not only does it need a far better name, but people need to give consideration to the fact that by having one or by having two, it divides the people of the forum. It creates a 'them and us' between people who think differently. That will just lead to further arguments unless every single subforum is segregated between the two.

First off, consider Fkeu's opinions my own - I second everything he said.

No, it would imply that the users find this topic interesting enough to have its own subforum. And even if it did imply that the admins consider this to need a "protected space", no, I do not see why one would object that. How is it a bad thing? Please, enlighten me. ;)

Would you prefer him to be consistent in the other direction? :P

A 'safe' subforum does not change that. what needs to change is the expectation of arguments, and that needs people to acknowledge when they have been causing a problem.

Do you know how elitist that sounds? It's all 'we this', not to mention the fact that 'you haven't felt something therefore you are unable to understand' - a special subforum for the one view will exacerbate that.
It's also insulting, saying that I am unable to empathise, when nothing could be further from the truth.
You cry 'persecution' when nobody ever banned anything, and then come out with something like that.

I don't know how many times you'll need me to say this, so I'll make it very clear here.
Nobody has banned anything. Nobody will. We are trying to keep a semblance of neutrality, and not promote one view.

It's because the original admin sold the forum, and, because many people felt that the atmosphere there had changed as the forum grew.

I've given this far more thought than it's deserved. I've lost nights of sleep in a row, it's endangered friendships, it's brought me right to the edge of ending it all.
Why?
Because I want to find a compromise that doesn't teat ToS apart as a result.

Because it is an undeniable part of Avatar's message. The issue with 'spirituality' is that not only does it depend on everyone's definitions, but there is also rationalism in the film - everything is explained. Everything is possible. For that reason, there, people can take either from it.

Then take that up with the people who do so. Asking for a 'safe' subforum will not do anything except cause perceptions from BOTH groups that there is a big difference between people, and that WILL be reflected in posts outside.

Yet again: Then report them. Take it up with the person who posted them.
staff are not infallible.

I don't see how that's naive. It's something very close to what you want, without dividing the userbase into arbitrary groups and without being seen as endorsing anything.

Once again, that is why BOTH need to be FAR more closely moderated. 'Debate' is the cause of many arguments outside it, which is why everyone needs to take a stronger stance against flamebaiting. Don't reply, don't let it sit there. Report it, and if you think a post of your own may be perceived as such, rethink it before posting.

Once again, it's an endorsement.

It's creating an elite subgroup, of people who think they are 'good enough' to be there - fkeu'itan's previous post even said "you've never experienced something therefore you will never understand", which is elitism to me.

It will create a mentality of 'them and us' from BOTH sides, and that will be reflected in the rest of the forum.

I've been trying to address the reason that people don't feel like they can post. I made a thread, where I apologised for my part. I tried to remind people what ToS was for, why we are here? and what happened? it got filled with spam, and only three sincere posts, one of which even insulted another member in doing so!

I had no intentions of starting a derailing discussion, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I'm merely stating the fact of the matter that caught my eye.

To clarify, one can discuss spirituality in opinion-based fashion, but the same does not hold true for scientific discussion(Well I mean one can do it, but it's pretty pointless). That is the only fact I intended to point out, and it has nothing to do with my opinions, yours or anyone else.

I'm only interested in cold hard facts as far as this discussion is concerned, so feel free to smack me with a trout or whatever you deem necessary for the job if I start dabbling with opinion-based arguments.

Sadly yes, with all the restrictions and hardly any of the benefits. Much rather be a machine in today's world, but that's an entirely different topic.

HumanNoMore...

In reply to your first post:
ToS would not be "torn apart" by a new subforum discussing non-scientific issues - I've yet to see one good reason that could ever happen. As for AF - you do realize that many here feel the atmosphere on ToS has changed lately as well, right? We admins are only the voice of our users - you said you "could not with good conscience administrate ToS" with this subforum. Does that hold true even if the majority of our users want it here?

Remember how ToS was founded - as the member's forum. It will still always be.

And you keep talking about how this subforum would be some kind of elitism group. Well, then everyone enjoying books is an elitist group. And people who like to discuss music. Etc, etc. As I have said many, many times over, this subforum would be based on an interest - the interest to discuss things non-scientifically. Nothing else.

In response to your second post:
See the above. It's absolutely not an "elite group", but a subforum like any other. Nothing that differs it from any others. We visit the music subforum when we are interested in discussing music. We visit the Environmentalism subforum when we are interesting in discussing things from an environmental perspective. We'd visit this subforum if we are interested in discuss things from a non-scientific perspective.

That's it. With all due respect, I think you are overcomplicating things - a lot.

So we all need to expect a sh*tstorm if we ever dare to speak spiritual words? And speaking opposing views is 'causing problems'?

Then, in that case, I don't know if ToS is my kind of place any more.

I'm going for now... I have other things to do. But i'll be back when I have more time to reply.

I know people perceive that. that is the entire reason behind http://www.tree-of-souls.com/general...urn_roots.html

No - the equivalent of the books of music subforum would be a philosophy one, for ALL points of view. This is like having a subforum for a specific genre of music or book series. A philosophy one is based on interest, this would be based non interest and specific view.

Again, then it needs a better name and a logical equivalent at the very least, although I really do not see why a philosophy subforum could not be "no matter if you want to discuss something from a logical or subjective view, this is the place to do it" or something similar.

No.

What I meant was that the entire forum should be 'safe' and if that is the reason behind wanting this, it shows that t he idea of ToS has failed. People should be able to make any thread. You should make a spiritual thread and not get an argument, and, equally, I should be able to make a logical one, or one on technology, without being based by anti-science posters.

What I meant was that everyone needs to be aware of others as they post.

Simple: you're setting up a group based entirely on opinion and elevating that group's status unfairly.

Your metaphor is shaky. The correct analogy would be if HNM set up a LotR forum with the added proviso you weren't allowed to criticize LotR. If you do want to discuss LotR critically, you are silenced, because there is nowhere to discuss that.

I know that this is possibly not the best of examples, but this line of reasoning sounds suspiciously like the reasoning that's usually used to say banning gay marriage is fair: everyone gets to marry only the opposite sex, nobody gets to marry the same sex.

I hope I don't need to elaborate on why that logic is actually unfair. :P

No, we need to be able to stop expecting a flamewar, somehow.

HNM, I think you are misunderstanding the forum request. The idea is to make a subforum for non-scientific discussions. A subforum allowing both (as you suggested) would be entirely irrelevant.

And in response to your second post - even if that was the case (which it clearly isn't at the moment), a Spirituality subforum would still be great for other reasons. Imagine a new member coming here and thinking "I wonder what spiritual discussions may be here..." - then this subforum would instantly help him find them. Considering there is a large demand for having such discussions, this sumforum would also help greatly for structure.

Clarke: So, are we elevating music interested people by having a music subforum? It's the exact same thing - a subforum based off a common interest. The music one, discussing music. The spirituality one, discussing non-scientic matters. ;)

Also, as I have mentioned before - I would be all fine with a strictly scientific equivalent as well. I have nothing against that whatsoever. ;)

I don't want to split the community. It creates a perception of them and us, and it encourages yet more arguments. The resentment will not be kept within a subforum.

No, because music covers all types of music. If it was only for metal, that would not be fair on others.

Honestly, I don't want either. There is no need to divide the userbase.
My thread on bringing back how ToS was seems to have failed.

The poll is up:

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/suggest...um_-_poll.html

IMO, you should nuke the third option. A scientific option can be a seperate poll.