Source
r/DebateAChristian•
missing_7

[META] Should custom flair be removed?

The purpose of flair in this sub: To let others in this sub know your basic stance/set of beliefs.

Some reasons we want to get rid of custom flair:

  • Some people have nonsensical or wholly irrelevant flair that doesn't tell you anything about their beliefs e.g. "Space Cowboy"

  • Some people use it to make jokes

  • Some people us it to shame other people

What we could do instead: If you desire something beyond the stock flair options, you could request special flair. This would either be assigned directly to you or added to the stock flair options. Of course, your desired flair would have to be approved by a mod.

Relevant discussion:

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/28chzn/not_a_debate_topic_why_is_users_flair_no_longer/

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/28cvkg/flair_whats_the_point/

Posted Jun 17, 2014, 6:28 PM UTC

1397
ThatguyIncognito•

Approved custom flair seems like a good compromise. Custom flair's important because beliefs vary so widely. Unconventional flair lets me know that I'm probably talking to someone whose interpretations diverge considerably from standard doctrine. That helps focus (or avoid) the conversation. Such is the purpose for flair, I'd think.

11
Scottmk4Objectivist•

If we could only pick from an approved list, many people would be left out.

I'm sure Objectivist wouldn't be on the list, and just picking "atheist" doesn't describe my position, or explain where I'm coming from nearly as well.

3
missing_7OPPurgatorial Universalist•

As mentioned in the OP, you could request "Objectivist".

2
spaceghotiAtheist, Anti-theist•

I see nothing wrong with free expression, even for silly jokes. It hurts no one and allows the jokers to reveal themselves.

9
WhiteyDudeAtheist•

Exactly. And really, if someone's flair isn't specifically about their beliefs, then it's no different than no flair at all. They just took up some space next to their name. So what, they could have just as easily added their custom flair as a footer to every post. Let it go.

4
mwatwe01Christian, Evangelical•

Except what you consider funny might be ridiculing someone's deeply held beliefs. You might think religion is silly, but if you want to debate topics seriously, at least have respect for people and maintain some decorum.

2†
WhiteyDudeAtheist•

But how does restraining what is flair avoid this? Couldn't the same person also end every post they make (like a signature) in the same way? What's to stop that?

4
GaslightProphetChristian, Protestant•

The report button, removing comments, and banning users.

3
spaceghotiAtheist, Anti-theist•

In that case no one should ever joke about anything since it's impossible to avoid offending anyone who is eager to be offended.

2
GaslightProphetChristian, Protestant•

If you can't draw the line between intentionally being offensive and saying something that an easily offended person takes the wrong way, this might not be the sub for you.

1
sunburnd•

Except what you consider funny might be ridiculing someone's deeply held beliefs

People deserve respect beliefs do not.

2†
GaslightProphetChristian, Protestant•

Sure, but when you ridicule an individuals beliefs, you almost always end up ridiculing that person.

1
Righteous_DudeConditional Immortality; non-Calvinist•

Then the policy should be "people may freely have whatever custom flair, except for phrases that ridicule others' beliefs."

1
sunburnd•

Yeah, can't have anyone making fun of deeply held racists beliefs:P

0†
sunburnd•

Free expression is the way to go.

Something seems intuitively wrong about limiting free expression when the whole reason for a debate thread is to debate free expression in one form or another. Ironic, perhaps that is the word I'm searching for.

3
mynunameChristian, Ex-Atheist•

I disagree, often the joke is at someone else's expense.

2
spaceghotiAtheist, Anti-theist•

If the joke is targeted toward a personal attack, the rules already address that.

4
mynunameChristian, Ex-Atheist•

But sometimes the joke is subtle, and the user is almost certainly going to claim that it wasn't meant to be insulting.

Furthermore, I have seen many people post deceptive flair. Like atheists labeling themselves as Christian, and then supporting atheism, or making extremely dumb remarks (ie. a caricature or parody of Christianity).

Such things are hard to nail down until several infractions have been made. Why should usernames be an avenue for jokes, when they are supposed to be practical? I do not think the extra humor is worth the headache.

1
spaceghotiAtheist, Anti-theist•

If and when it gets to the point of being a headache then it will be appropriate to revisit the issue. For the moment it appears to be a solution in search of a problem.

1
Pedophile_Priest•

Then you see something wrong with moderator control.

-2
spaceghotiAtheist, Anti-theist•

I see something wrong in heavy-handed moderation, yes. There's a difference between trolling and criticism.

3
Pedophile_Priest•

Are you suggesting that someone with the authority of a moderator could actually be a troll?

I thought moderators were in possession of divine benevolence and much smarter than us. Like Knights of the Round Table.

0
GaslightProphetMODChristian, Protestant•

Thou art correct.

1
LemonBombAtheist, Ex-Christian•

Because this is a debate sub, I personally want flair to represent the beliefs of those taking part in debates. If this was just a place for general discussion about religion, I wouldn't care.

7
Righteous_DudeConditional Immortality; non-Calvinist•

While the sub does have 'Debate' in the name, in practice, it is a place for general discussion about religion.

For example, sometimes someone will post a question, like "Why do Christians believe X?", just looking to learn and understand, without any intent to debate the matter.

2
holyphuckMODIgnostic•

The mod team voted on this an a majority voted for the removal of custom flair. At the behest of a few users, it was decided to open a community discussion.

My positions : Custom flair should be removed. We are arguing religious/philosophical positions. Custom flair dilutes the effectiveness of flair and prevents us adding additional features based upon flair designations.

However, I am not against adding new flair by request.

7
dale_glassAtheist, Anti-theist•

I vote no. Reasons:

  • Nonsensical flair isn't any worse than no flair, and flair so far isn't mandatory
  • Mandatory flair would be unfriendly in my view, and I'd vote against that as well
  • Personal attacks and such are already against the rules, and can be handled as usual, nothing new is needed to deal with that.

So, resuming: I think things are perfectly fine as they are, and no changes are needed.

6
Luc-Pronounced_LukeDeist•

I really like the idea of approved custom flair.

4
Righteous_DudeConditional Immortality; non-Calvinist•

No, it should not be removed.

Custom flair should be allowed:
(1) within the constraints of honest&accurate
(permitting phrases that cannot be shown to be dishonest or inaccurate), and
(2) except for flair that makes insults or personal attacks.

I am in favor of freedom of expression, with the same freedom for the recurring flair content as the freedom for the content of any comment that the user makes.

(I might edit this comment later to add a summary of points I made in my dialogues with the mods about this.)

Edit to add:

By custom flair allowed, I think the user should be able to enter his/her desired flair directly, and have it take effect immediately. If it violates the community constraints, the mods may then ask the user to alter it, similar to asking the user to edit a comment that violates the rules.

I don't like the requirement of getting an approval of a mod first, for what the user wants to specify within his flair field. Frankly, I worry that a future mod here might object to some phrase I want to specify, in a subjective way that he doesn't think it's significant or important for me to express my religious position or whatever the phrase is about.

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
josh1367Agnostic Atheist•

I'd prefer if we just kept custom flair and cracked down on trolling on an individual basis, maybe make it more clear somewhere that trolling and such wont be tolerated.

Short of that though, I'd like to propose an alternative where we have Christianity and its more popular denominations, "[atheist]," and "[other]." I say this with the name of the subreddit in mind; most of the debate is going to be between Christians and non-christians, namely atheists. I don't think the specifics of the other religions are going to really come up often, but they could come up in say a debate over whether creationism should be taught in schools. In that case the Pastafarian position would be very relevant, but whether any of the participants actually believe in it would not, and as such I expect that the position would be as respected as any other.

4
GaslightProphetChristian, Protestant•

Don't forget to reupdate your flair if you need to!

3
DragonsChildHumanist•

Why do so many people have trouble judging comments by the content of the comment?

You should not depend on flair anyway as there is no way to verify flair veracity anyway. You really should just judge based on content and if you need clarification on some point in the comment then just ask for it.

Flair does not tell you anything about their beliefs and it should not matter even if it did. Learn to think about the comment content and evaluate that for what it is and do not depend on flair.

3
TroyKing[Torah-Observant Christian]•

I have two things to say on this subject:

  1. Flair is akin to the Monster Manual. It tells me creature alignment, special attacks, immunities, etc. It give me information to tell me how to begin interaction.

If I saw that someone had added, for example, non-dispensationalist, that would change how I started interaction with them. I don't have to deal with that side of whatever the issue is, or most likely supersessionism, etc.

  1. As long as there's a way to get the custom flair, whatever is easier on the mods suits me.

One of the problems I found when starting here (also under previous username for several years) was that the type of Christianity I practice wasn't represented by the standard choices. Maybe Messianic Gentile sounds special-snowflake to someone that hasn't seen it before, but there are a lot of us that have the core beliefs represented by the name. Because there's no official denomination, it goes by other names too, some of which are really just minor variants of the same idea: Essentially a Karaite (non-Rabbinic/Talmudic) version of Messianic Judaism.

So is it special snowflake? Well, how do non-dispensationalist or Calvinist sound to someone that's only heard of Catholic and Baptist? It doesn't make it less valid just because some people haven't heard of it.

3
RDLang05Christian, Catholic•

According to some people this makes you a horrible debater, because it shouldn't matter "where they're coming from" and only the content of their argument.

It seems we need to be having a conversation about whether or not we should even have flair...

1
TroyKing[Torah-Observant Christian]•

According to some people this makes you a horrible debater, because it shouldn't matter "where they're coming from" and only the content of their argument.

This isn't a class teaching debate principles by assigning random positions whether you believe them or not. Though the name of this sub has "debate" in the name, we all know it's a combination of discussion and debate. We come here to talk to people that hold specific beliefs and then ask or challenge based on that. That is, I assume atheists don't come here to debate Christianity with other atheists.

1
RDLang05Christian, Catholic•

I apologize, I agree with you. My comment was probably a little out of line. I just get annoyed when people say flair is completely unnecessary.

2
TroyKing[Torah-Observant Christian]•

That's cool.

What this whole post discussion looks like to me is this: Do we want user profiles or not?

Flair is IMO a form of user profiles. I think the insulting and derogatory custom flair is also highly informative, so I don't mind it.

2
Righteous_DudeConditional Immortality; non-Calvinist•

your desired flair would have to be approved by a mod.

What exactly would be the objective criteria for whether particular phrases are approved?

1
missing_7OPPurgatorial Universalist•

I think sticking to the layout of the stock flair options would work. Restricted to single word phrases as themselves or combined with ex, anti, non, etc, each phrase restricted to being established labels (atheist, agnostic, etc.) and/or established and actual belief sets (Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist, Baptist, etc.). By "established and actual" I mean not parody sets such as pastafarianism. Essentially, any combination of the existing flair options would be acceptable except perhaps for contradicting or redundant combinations. I'm not sure what the other mods would be willing to allow. That is something we'll have to nail down if we get rid of custom flairs permanently.

0
josh1367Agnostic Atheist•

I mean not parody sets such as pastafarianism

I have a problem with this. Pastafarian beliefs are perfectly valid and pose no inherent threat to discussion. I don't think potential trolling issues justify silencing those groups when it comes to flair and certainly when it comes to respectfully presenting their views in a relevant debate.

Additionally, who or what decides what is or isn't a parody? What makes Pastafarianism a parody of X religion, but not Christianity a parody of Judaism? Satanism of Christianity? Mormonism of Christianity? Why does it even matter?

I could certainly identify as an atheistic(/secular?) Pastafarian and be 100% respectful and honest about it, it lines up quite nicely with my views and I can see inherent benefits to it. I could raise my children Pastafarian and probably successfully convince them there really was a Flying Spaghetti Monster, though realistically that would go against my values.

2
missing_7OPPurgatorial Universalist•

Pastafarianism was explicitly created as parody. I don't see any point in acknowledging it in flair. But, as I said, that is just my opinion. No collective mod decision has been made about what would be allowed.

3
josh1367Agnostic Atheist•

Seems I missed the notification for your reply.

Pastafarianism claims to be a real religion, which, in lack of contrary evidence, is enough for me to treat it as such

Even if it was created as a parody, that doesn't mean people couldn't or don't believe it, and I don't see the harm in giving it equal treatment. I'm not saying it needs its own flair, but I think it should be allowed as custom or "[other]" flair, as well as in relevant debates as an opposing viewpoint/possibility.

1
GaslightProphetChristian, Protestant•

I have a problem with this. Pastafarian beliefs are perfectly valid and pose no inherent threat to discussion. I don't think potential trolling issues justify silencing those groups when it comes to flair and certainly when it comes to respectfully presenting their views in a relevant debate.

Pastafarianism absolutely hurts discussion. It's intentionally and implicitly berating to religious users, and its intellectually dishonest. Either that, or r/atheism hates every religion save one.

3
josh1367Agnostic Atheist•

can you explain further or give an example?

1
Righteous_DudeConditional Immortality; non-Calvinist•

You wrote above:

If you desire something beyond the stock flair options, you could request special flair.
... your desired flair would have to be approved by a mod.

So are you saying that a person's desired flair, to be approved, can only include phrases of those forms (prefixed single words)?

I can't indicate to readers, for example, that I am "undecided among origin views"? Or "didn't have a Christian upbringing"? Or that I'm "called to teach on reddit"?

I'm not sure what the other mods would be willing to allow.
That is something we'll have to nail down if we get rid of custom flairs permanently.

I think that if people want to decide about a potential policy where they need to get a mod's approval for the content of their flair, they do need to know when making that decision what the new restrictions would be. So I hope that can be clarified soon.

P.S. Thank you for making this post and asking the community.

1
missing_7OPPurgatorial Universalist•

So are you saying that a person's desired flair, to be approved, can only include phrases of those forms (prefixed single words)?

That is my preference, yes.

I can't indicate to readers, for example, that I am "undecided among origin views"? Or "didn't have a Christian upbringing"? Or that I'm "called to teach on reddit"?

Why would you need to? Those things would come up during debate if they were relevant.

1
Righteous_DudeConditional Immortality; non-Calvinist•

You have just shown an example of how a mod may subjectively decide what phrases he considers significant to have in a user's flair and which are not.

1
holyphuckIgnostic•

In the future maybe we should organize a "yes" and "no" post so that people can upvote/downvote. I used this when I asked the community about how they wan'ted us to moderate and it seemed to work well... maybe add an "I don't care" as well...

1
Righteous_DudeConditional Immortality; non-Calvinist•

I don't know whether people upvoting/downvoting particular comments here indicates that they agree/disagree with those positions, or whether they are upvoting as "contributing to the discussion".

2
holyphuckIgnostic•

If we make it clear in the first post, then it works well. We also let people know that downvotes count as a vote as well...

Other subs do that too.

1
missing_7OPPurgatorial Universalist•

Yeah, that might have been better.

0
JoeCoder•

I enjoy some of the humorous flair around here. I don't see a problem with it so long as it's not used to shame others.

1
this_cant_be_my_nameAgnostic Atheist•

I have no problem with space cowboys

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1