just added: comments policy

Posted on October 22, 2007  by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Site Notices

There have been a couple of comments recently that have been bordering on getting a little bit too close to personal attacks for my liking, and so as a result (and mostly because this way I don’t feel bad when I do it), I’ve added a comments policy to the site. If you can keep that in mind, that would be wonderful. Disagreement is expected and even sought after, but I’m not going to let you get away with making judgments about a person’s character because of their theological beliefs.

(note: also from the comments policy - “in the interests of keeping the comments to being discussions rather than theses, you shouldn’t need any more than 5 paragraphs to make your point. Any longer than that, and you can post it on your own blog and link to it. (linking to interesting comments is encouraged) Or even better: send it to submissions@amateurtheology.org and we’ll post it up here. ” - just another attempt at plugging the idea that it would be great to have more non-Geoff posts up here :))

About Geoff Matheson

Geoff is a 23 year old database administrator who has birthed amateurtheology.org from some crazy thoughts he had early one Monday morning. Geoff does his best to sound lots smarter than he actually is. He also runs some youth stuff at Yarra Valley Vineyard, and he is married to the very lovely Rebecca.

Geoff's site: http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/

Comments

5 Responses to “just added: comments policy”

  1. scott on October 23rd, 2007 7:57 am

    It’s good to put boundaries. Nothing worse than an ugly Christian blog.

  2. Paul on October 23rd, 2007 12:45 pm

    A blog for ugly Christians… I reckon that could be quite funny.

  3. Tim on October 23rd, 2007 2:04 pm

    Good idea… but I guess I’m wondering where the line is between healthy debate and not-so-good debate.

    On the one hand, we have examples of Jesus saying to the pharisies “you brood of vipers, you wash the cup on the outside” etc… and on the other hand we have the idea that everyone is entitled to their own point of view and beliefs.

    On that basis I guess I’m wondering wether me telling Reinhard he was missing the point that was staring him in the face was as apporopriate as it was true. Should I have perhaps avoided the strong wording and focused more clearly on the ideas?

    Obviously we don’t want to be like Parliament House during question time!

  4. Geoff Matheson on October 23rd, 2007 4:42 pm
    I guess the key term would be respect. It’s a blurry line, but I think it’s workable. If you know someone who’d be hurt by what you’re going to say - it’s a fair indication that it’s a good idea to steer away from.
  5. Reinhard on October 23rd, 2007 5:46 pm

    I think it’s quite appropriate to inform people that there are points they may not have taken into account when constructing their arguments - as you have done Tim. However I can’t see it being effective unless it is done politely at first and with more force later if necessary. Few people would reconsider their arguments if they are made to be the enemy.

    I have found that replying to replies to my comment can be dangerous, since last time I did that with the greatest possible respect and courtesy I was accused of favouring victory over conceding truth, even though no arguments were advanced against any points that I made.

Leave a Reply