Forum improvements?

[TerrorDæmonum]

I do not pick sides in earthly kingdoms anymore and haven't for a long time.

Condemning one regime does not mean approval for another.

"The enemy of my enemy" is not my friend, for I am looking only to God. One is with God or not, and that is all that matters.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I was mistaken about what I had previously written in this post.

[TerrorDæmonum]

All acts which are by their nature mortal sins should be treated as unacceptable on this forum.

If someone came here celebrating sodomy, heresy, or gross immodesty, people would jump all over them, but would people do the same for evil speech, lying, or other grave sins? No, they get celebrated, thanked, supported, and flaunted on this forum.

This should not be. Our sense of what is evil should not be perverted like that: it is extremely dangerous and it is very scandalous.

The issue of venial sins should be the only things that are perhaps on display, jocose lies, imperfect detachment from the world, secular entertainment, etc, not these grave evils.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Promotion of unapproved claims of private revelations and "visionaries" with unclear motives and influence should not be allowed here, at least, not on the general forum. It can be very misleading to those who don't know that such things might be presented (how many times are people interested in a topic, only to be informed it isn't approved or has been condemned, and then regret even looking into it).

People are free to accept or not approved private revelations, but we definitely shouldn't treat unapproved claims of such things with any credulity.

[TerrorDæmonum]

The post above this was made before any public action was take on any matter related to this topic. The near simultaneous timing of this post and other action are a coincidence.

(But in general, I think the idea should be implemented for other such things that are sometimes promoted.)

[Kaesekopf]

Promotion of unapproved claims of private revelations and "visionaries" with unclear motives and influence should not be allowed here, at least, not on the general forum. It can be very misleading to those who don't know that such things might be presented (how many times are people interested in a topic, only to be informed it isn't approved or has been condemned, and then regret even looking into it).

People are free to accept or not approved private revelations, but we definitely shouldn't treat unapproved claims of such things with any credulity.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of unapproved private revelation.  Besides, we've got enough controversy over the approved ones...  

[Vox Clara]

Is there a way for the admin to verify claims by members that they are priests or religious? If so, could their profiles be marked so that we can be sure to treat them with the proper respect?

[TerrorDæmonum]

Is there a way for the admin to verify claims by members that they are priests or religious? If so, could their profiles be marked so that we can be sure to treat them with the proper respect?

Are there many priests? I know of one previous member (may he rest in peace) and one who posts on a single thread.

Verifying who is a priest is more a matter of declaring who is not a priest. Right now, as far as I know, it is only a tiny number of people at best, and not an issue, but the idea of having a system for verifying and marking accounts claimed by priests would be a tricky thing to do.

The normal way of verifying a priest is establishing identity and then checking with their bishop, under whose authority they are.

Since this is a traditional Catholic forum and has a wide range of views on certain matters, how would a priest be verified? Would any claim that is documented be valid? This forum does not have shy members who doubt the validity of ordinations under certain rites or translations of those rites, and there are those who prefer independent clergy, with no ecclesiastical oversight or verification, whose orders are taken as a matter of personal judgement, whereas other people would judge them to be quite unacceptable (because they are illicit or perhaps invalid, depending on the case).

Priests in general should be treated with respect in posts, and that does not happen here. For those priests on this forum accused of being invalid, illicit, or heretics or other things, what if they joined? Would that retroactively make the previous comments in violation?

Given how priests in general are addressed here, and how the forum is currently, I don't think such a specific policy could be a good idea.

Marking a profile as officially a priest according to the forum policy, and then making it a rule to interact with that account differently from others would be an issue for many depending on who the person was.

Imagine a Roman Rite priest ordained in the new rite posting in the various threads here...how would that turn out? Imagine an independent priest of somewhat difficult to verify heritage...how would that be judged?

[Vox Clara]

Is there a way for the admin to verify claims by members that they are priests or religious? If so, could their profiles be marked so that we can be sure to treat them with the proper respect?

Are there many priests? I know of one previous member (may he rest in peace) and one who posts on a single thread.

Verifying who is a priest is more a matter of declaring who is not a priest. Right now, as far as I know, it is only a tiny number of people at best, and not an issue, but the idea of having a system for verifying and marking accounts claimed by priests would be a tricky thing to do.

The normal way of verifying a priest is establishing identity and then checking with their bishop, under whose authority they are.

Since this is a traditional Catholic forum and has a wide range of views on certain matters, how would a priest be verified? Would any claim that is documented be valid? This forum does not have shy members who doubt the validity of ordinations under certain rites or translations of those rites, and there are those who prefer independent clergy, with no ecclesiastical oversight or verification, whose orders are taken as a matter of personal judgement, whereas other people would judge them to be quite unacceptable (because they are illicit or perhaps invalid, depending on the case).

Priests in general should be treated with respect in posts, and that does not happen here. For those priests on this forum accused of being invalid, illicit, or heretics or other things, what if they joined? Would that retroactively make the previous comments in violation?

Given how priests in general are addressed here, and how the forum is currently, I don't think such a specific policy could be a good idea.

Marking a profile as officially a priest according to the forum policy, and then making it a rule to interact with that account differently from others would be an issue for many depending on who the person was.

Imagine a Roman Rite priest ordained in the new rite posting in the various threads here...how would that turn out? Imagine an independent priest of somewhat difficult to verify heritage...how would that be judged?

My concern is more the opposite: that someone could falsely claim to be a priest or religious and demand special deference that they are not entitled to. This would put other members in the difficult position of not knowing whether they are being disrespectful toward a legitimate authority.

[TerrorDæmonum]

My concern is more the opposite: that someone could falsely claim to be a priest or religious and demand special deference that they are not entitled to. This would put other members in the difficult position of not knowing whether they are being disrespectful toward a legitimate authority.

Yes, I read the forum from top down. I just saw it...

You are right.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Fit for Purpose: what is this forum good for?

That should be a question asked and the forum designed to meet the desired purpose. It states it is a "a traditional Catholic forum", but in practice, free discussion of Catholic doctrine and morality and implementing of those teachings is somewhat controversial, whereas the forum is best suited for endless political discussions on certain matters, most prominently, opinions and judgements of the Pope and bishops and the vaccines and virus and other secular concerns.

Obviously, those concerns are quite valid, but it seems they have primacy to the exclusion of other topics. Moderator activity is what drives and encourages activity, and the impact of those decisions can have far reaching consequences.

There are people on this forum who do not post at all or very sparingly whom I've talked to privately in some way that expressed a desire to post more, but they did not want to get the responses they see others getting. They were good Catholics as far as I know and it is a shame they are not willing to post because of the sorts of discourse they see as being most common here.

Fit for purpose? Not fitting for general traditional Catholic discussion at this time. One has to be well prepared for the political undercurrents and attitudes that are most prominent here if one is going to post on this forum.

[TerrorDæmonum]

A suggestion: make a dedicated part of the forum accessible only to members logged in for discussing politics, conspiracy theories, etc, that might be scandalous to readers of the forum. Whether or not those discussions are evil or not does not matter if they appear to be advocating for certain things to people reading and I think it is a good thing to be mindful of appearances to those who view this forum as a traditional Catholic forum.

What is public here is what is presented as "traditional Catholic" to readers. If the discourse here makes regular traditional Catholics not want to be associated with it, there is a problem. But I think the damage this forum can do should be kept contained at least to forum members, rather than any public reader.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Rename Plagues and Pestilence to Secular Topics Du Jour for all the boring same old topics that are dominated every other political platform that become the topic of fixation here. Then put all the topics that fit in it, including all the political speculations, Ukraine/Russia commentary, etc.

The topics of this forum should reflect its purpose, not just resemble every other secular focused political news forum. The forum is not very active except for these kinds of topics and they should not be the most prominent topic that is presented.

[Prayerful]

Rename Plagues and Pestilence to Secular Topics Du Jour for all the boring same old topics that are dominated every other political platform that become the topic of fixation here. Then put all the topics that fit in it, including all the political speculations, Ukraine/Russia commentary, etc.

The topics of this forum should reflect its purpose, not just resemble every other secular focused political news forum. The forum is not very active except for these kinds of topics and they should not be the most prominent topic that is presented.

Ukraine has abolished COVID. It is a miracle.

One thing I would like would be a bigger range of reactions, and notification if given thanks or whichever. If serious ones are chosen, it can add to a forum. Some spergs will abuse it to negrate their e-foes, but they don't matter.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Plagues and Pestilence has not had any new posts in it for three days and has had one thread made in it over the past week.

I think the topic is finished. The prophets of that board that drove its activity have moved onto international political commentary on the general forum.

The same problem that led to the creation of that board exists with a new subject. I think a general solution to the general problem is in order.