It has come to my attention that I am being TOO lenient with regards to certain uncharitable phrases, disrespectful comments, etc.

I was trying to do the impossible. But rather than give up, I'm going to try to make it work -- I just need to be more realistic.

I have always tried to keep a sane balance -- by allowing "the other side" to have their say, for instance. I will continue to do so in the future.

However, several good members -- the kind of members I WANT to have here on Cathinfo -- have been turned off by the vitriol being posted from certain quarters. Many have said things to me, and still others visit less often because they don't like to be angered and/or frustrated by certain posts/members.

Anarchy and disorder are not Catholic. Therefore, I need to lay down a few rules:

1. I am going to censor any disrespectful and/or misleading terms, which include the following: "Roman P rotestant", "Lefebvris t", "F ellayist" and others which I will think of later. Please use descriptive, neutral, mainstream, and well-established terms: "Novus Ordo" rather than "Roman P rotestant"; "SSPX" rather than "L efebvrite", "Catholic" rather than "s edeplenist", etc.

2. Discussion of Sedevacantism is allowed in the "Crisis in the Church" sub-forum only. I will be much more strict in the future about moving posts there. Posts that "go sede" I will either moderate, or move to the Crisis sub-forum depending on the circuмstances.

3. This forum has an "official position" as regards the Crisis in the Church: the SSPX position. All other points of view are being tolerated in the spirit of charity; therefore I expect them to be charitable in return. Rude guests will be censored, warned, or asked to leave at the moderator's discretion.

4. Uncharitable, scornful, or disparaging remarks to members who hold the SSPX position (or any other non-sede position) will not be tolerated. Sedes can argue with them if they venture into the Crisis in the Church subforum, but they are to be left alone everywhere else.

My experience has been that sedes don't need to be defended.

A) They don't seem to get attacked, at least not their persons, and B) they tend to be accomplished in rhetoric and debate, they are used to arguing/justifying/defending their position, and almost all of them have very thick skin.

There doesn't seem to be a problem at present with people attacking sedes in an uncharitable manner -- and defensive talking-back after being provoked doesn't count. Perhaps that's why I worded the rule as I did.

But if you see any problem posts "going the other direction", please point them out to me (via PM or e-mail) and I'll take a look.

Matthew

Have the editing priveleges of posters been removed? Why?

Dear Chant:

I would like the editing function to be restored. I make many  small typographical errors that I usually only notice until after I submit my post. I have not abused the editing function in the past, and I don't believe that most of the others have either. Those who were troublesome to you, I believe you have dealt with accordingly. Don't let one or two bad apples prevent everyone from being able to correct small errors in thier posts. I know that you will not want to waste you valuable time in correcting spelling, or other errors in posts all day long.

Thank you

Have the editing priveleges of posters been removed? Why?

Yup, why is that so???

Quote from: Pravoslavni

Dear Chant:

I would like the editing function to be restored. I make many  small typographical errors that I usually only notice until after I submit my post. I have not abused the editing function in the past, and I don't believe that most of the others have either. Those who were troublesome to you, I believe you have dealt with accordingly. Don't let one or two bad apples prevent everyone from being able to correct small errors in thier posts. I know that you will not want to waste you valuable time in correcting spelling, or other errors in posts all day long.

Thank you

This is a perfect example of the "small errors" I am talking about! Its easier to see them after it is posted.

How about allowing a post to be edited only during the time that the  poster is logged on to the forum, after his initial post? That way they can proofread, but after they have logged out of the forum, that particular post is permanent.

That is actually my first choice -- to allow you to edit it for up to 12 hours or something.

But I'd have to figure out how to modify the program to do that -- it's not a feature currently found in the software I'm using.