Need for More Formal “No Religion” Guidelines

[Todd Roybark]

The “No Religion” ban is enforced haphazardly on Enworld, and thus capriciously.

in this thread: IRL nominations (historically classic ie religious, pantheonic, folkloric, no newer than 1600) for mythical cosmologies you enjoy including in d&d.

Posters are literally voting for their favorite religion. Morrus has a post in the thread, no admonition.

In The consequences of playing evil races thread, Umbran issues an admonishment for referencing that two religions/philosophies from the Indian Subcontinent have differences vis a vis the concept of non violence.

As the board has no explicit guidelines I am, and every other reader of the board, is ignorant as to why action was taken in one instance and not the other?

To be clear, I am not accusing a particular moderator, or any moderator of malfeasance. Frankly, I would imagine it would make a Enworld moderator’s job easier if we did have clear guidelines.

Umbran is an active poster on this board. I value his opinion, but we wind up in an awkward situation where Umbran is both a vigorous participant in a thread and issuing formal facilitator rulings in the same thread.

Again, nothing against Umbran, at all...but we wind up in potential situations that could appear unseemly.

Is a thread asking about : Differing Ideas of transubstantiation in the Real World to drive D&D design,run afoul of board guidelines?

Is a thread asking about: Differences in beliefs about reincarnation, a non starter because people might refer to Celtic belief and Hindu beliefs.

Why are threads about Zoroastrianism and Neo Platonism ok, but other references are not?

I do not want to stir up trouble, but more descriptive and definitive guidelines are needed, so all posters and moderators can be on the same text, as opposed to the ad hoc basis the topic is adjudicated now.

Again, nothing personal by this thread, it just seems to be an area of need and opportunity for further clarity to be given.

Thank You.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MNblockhead]

Yeah, tough one. My preference is that it is allowed in terms of world building, creating stats, etc., but it starts to get probablematic when people start to argue over each other's understanding about a specific IRL region. It is clearly an issue when people start to argue over the the merits of one IRL belief system over another.

Ultimately, however, it is Morrus's house and his rules. I'm not sure it is possible to issue black and white rules that will cover all situations and the mods just have to take the temperature to determine if treatment is necessary.

 

[Morrus]

Eric Noah long ago very wisely said that the more rules you write, the easier it is for rules lawyers to get around them. That’s the reason the rules tend to be broad guidelines rather than specific and detailed. I have always felt that adding detail to things like the the no religion rule would increase problems, not reduce them.

 

[Umbran]

TLDR; the ad hoc moderation generally works. It's not perfect, but nothing is, and it works better than most sites out there.

Yeah. Perfection is going to be denied us. Which is not to say we don't watch for ways we can improve, but we do have to pick our battles.

The current rules around politics and religion are built around flexibility, so that we can be fairly likely to enforce the spirit of the law most of the time, even if things are occasionally fuzzy around the letter of the law.

 

[Umbran]

The “No Religion” ban is enforced haphazardly on Enworld, and thus capriciously.

I'd like to make a note on this. I'm not opening up the item for debate, but I think an explanation will foster greater understanding.

There's a thread concerning "Evil" races, and by extension morality. Someone brought up some real-world religions' positions as examples. Nobody had really said anything insulting... yet. But, with respect, setting the topics of moral judgement and real-world religion side by side was a recipe for an escalating disaster.

So, nobody was given warning points. I just cautioned folks away from the issue. No harm, no foul, and the discussion continued on.

Does it limit the discussion somewhat? Yes. Does it make it much more likely for that discussion to continue for much longer, without anyone getting pinched for stepping over the line? Also yes.

So, in a major sense, there was nothing "capricous" about it - it was a considered and deliberate motion to keep a discussion rolling with fewer interruptions.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Umbran, that is fair and you are consistent. I respect that about you, and I absolutely agree with your moderation decision in that thread.

In no way, are my concerns a reflection of any animus towards you or any Moderators.

Toss a Coin, to your RPG board moderators!

That said, like a shared RPG campaign, some Callibration has to occur between all Moderators and posters so continuity can occur. A Long Rest for one DM in the shared campaign has to be mostly the same as the other DMs.

I am confused at how we can have a "No Religion" policy, but ranking religions, including some active ones, is considered being within the board's stated policy, sometimes.

I am, admittedly, a wee bit on the autism spectrum.

So, if there is some unspoken message that is sent out when it is ok to have a 3 page thread about ranking religions, and when it is not ok to type b@ddhism, I guarantee from time to time, I am going to miss that signal.

I just want the rules as written to either be the rules as enforced, or the actual rules to be clearly laid out. To avoid misunderstandings and confusion.