For consideration by the board.

The rules of the forum prohibit the topics of:
1. Religion and abortion
2. Politics
3. Handguns

But nowhere are these defined. This leads to loose and inconsistent application of these prohibitions.

ÔÇ£ReligionÔÇØ is such a broad term that, left as a stand-alone label, can reasonably be applied to many discussions. For many people, their motorcycle or brand or their brand related identity is religious. And religious topics have been allowed ÔÇô yoga for example ÔÇô and no foul was called until it was pointed out that yoga presents a danger to anyone who claims another religion, such as Christianity. For the Christian, itÔÇÖs not permissible to set our ÔÇ£religionÔÇØ on the side and be like the world in our discussions.

ÔÇ£PoliticsÔÇØ is likewise a vague term. People start discussions about government programs ÔÇô how is that not political?

I would encourage the board to re-think its current prohibitions. Instead of vague yet absolute prohibitions, a more reasonable approach ÔÇô that works in face-to-face discussions ÔÇô is to limit such discussion to issues and not make personal comments about posters or subjects in the thread. Why is it forbidden for me to mention, in a thread about the ON magazine, that I would rather give away Bibles than a motorcycle magazine, as was suggested I do with ON? ThatÔÇÖs not an attack on anyone. And anyone who is offended by such comments needs to grow some thicker skin. ItÔÇÖs OK to trash other brands ÔÇô as if the Harley Riders are any less religious about their brand than many BMW owners are.

I, for one, will not and cannot abide by the rules as written. The forum owners have the right to make whatever rules they want. I am merely requesting yaÔÇÖll take another look at how you handle these hot topics. It ainÔÇÖt working too great as it is.

I'm not sure that it needs fixing.

No matter how they were defined, there would continue to be arguments over the meaning of the definition.

You suggest that others get a thicker skin, yet you point out that somehow "yoga presents a danger to anyone who claims another religion, such as Christianity". Why, in this instance, should you not have a thicker skin about yoga?

As a Christian I'm not in any danger from those who practice yoga or believe in yoga.

The reason that the prohibitions exist it that experience has shown those topics can not be discussed in an acceptable manner on this and many other forums. BMW Sports Touring forum is an example where these topics are not allowed.

Considering your statement "I, for one, will not and cannot abide by the rules as written.", I can only see two alternatives. 1. The policy is changed to what you think it should be, or, 2. You no longer choose to participate.

<moderator>

While discussing the rules here is not only acceptable, but encouraged, I want to emphasize that this thread could very easily go off the rails. All who choose to participate in this thread, please choose your words carefully. Thanks.

</moderator>

SIBUD said:

I'm not sure that it needs fixing.

No matter how they were defined, there would continue to be arguments over the meaning of the definition.

You suggest that others get a thicker skin, yet you point out that somehow "yoga presents a danger to anyone who claims another religion, such as Christianity". Why, in this instance, should you not have a thicker skin about yoga?

As a Christian I'm not in any danger from those who practice yoga or believe in yoga.

The reason that the prohibitions exist it that experience has shown those topics can not be discussed in an acceptable manner on this and many other forums. BMW Sports Touring forum is an example where these topics are not allowed.

Considering your statement "I, for one, will not and cannot abide by the rules as written.", I can only see two alternatives. 1. The policy is changed to what you think it should be, or, 2. You no longer choose to participate.

Click to expand...

Yoga is a subtle danger for westerners and the eastern gurus who teach it and live it laugh at Americans who think they can do the exercises and not subject themselves to the religion it is based on. A Christian would get involved with yoga as a result of careless neglect.

My skin is not thin regarding yoga - I never claimed offense. I pointed out a concern and others took offense at that.

Do what seems right to ya'll. I think it's cowardly to have these rules the way they are. BMW is not my religion so I can live without the BMWOA.

DarrylRi said:

<moderator>

While discussing the rules here is not only acceptable, but encouraged, I want to emphasize that this thread could very easily go off the rails. All who choose to participate in this thread, please choose your words carefully. Thanks.

</moderator>

Click to expand...

Thanks, Darryl.

Indeed, most threads can off the rails and people ought to choose their words carefully, so as to keep the focus on the issue and not the persons participating in the discussion.

I totally agree, religon, abortion, politics and handguns should be banned from discusion on this forum. There are plenty of other places on the web to find soap boxes for these sort of topics. IT IS A MOTORCYCLE FORUM!!!!!!!!

moshaffer said:

I totally agree, religon, abortion, politics and handguns should be banned from discusion on this forum. There are plenty of other places on the web to find soap boxes for these sort of topics. IT IS A MOTORCYCLE FORUM!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

But it's not restricted to motorcycle topics. If that's your rationale, then you should ask for all talk that is not about motorcycles to be banned. No comment in any thread should be about anything except motorcycles.

And since this is the BMWOA forum, one should only be able to discuss, in glowing terms, BMW motorcycles. After all, IT IS THE BMW OWNER'S MOTORCYCLE FORUM!

Sounds like a religion to me.

For those who have not read the POSTING GUIDELINES it would do well to do so.

The rational for the current policy is clearly spelled out.

SIBUD said:

For those who have not read the POSTING GUIDELINES it would do well to do so.

The rational for the current policy is clearly spelled out.

Click to expand...

Certainly the rationale is there, but it lacks any definition of what is considered religious or political. This leads to much subjective enforcement of these "no tolerance" rules.

Manfred said:

Certainly the rationale is there, but it lacks any definition of what is considered religious or political. This leads to much subjective enforcement of these "no tolerance" rules.

Click to expand...

And what are the rules you'd like to see us enforce? Care to outline them?

The moderators are given the unenviable job of enforcing the rules as written. While we may suggest modifications of the rules in order to maintain a civil and respectful environment, expanding the rules vs a moderator using their judgment intepreting the existing rules is not a direction I think many people would want to see the forums move in. (Was that too twisted a sentence.. might have been..)

If you object to the action a moderator may have taken on a posting - you can always contact the forum Liason Oldhway and object to him directly.

BTW - it's the BMW-MOA, not BMW OA.. just wanted to clear that up..

Manfred said:

Certainly the rationale is there, but it lacks any definition of what is considered religious or political. This leads to much subjective enforcement of these "no tolerance" rules.

Click to expand...

I agree that there is no definition.

You asked to change the kind of topics that could be allowed to include those, that experience has shown, to be topics that do not do well in this forum. The rational as to why they are not allowed is clearly spelled out.

deilenberger said:

And what are the rules you'd like to see us enforce? Care to outline them?

The moderators are given the unenviable job of enforcing the rules as written. While we may suggest modifications of the rules in order to maintain a civil and respectful environment, expanding the rules vs a moderator using their judgment intepreting the existing rules is not a direction I think many people would want to see the forums move in. (Was that too twisted a sentence.. might have been..)

If you object to the action a moderator may have taken on a posting - you can always contact the forum Liason Oldhway and object to him directly.

BTW - it's the BMW-MOA, not BMW OA.. just wanted to clear that up..

Click to expand...

I outlined the rules of engagement that I recommend in my initial post - religious and political issues should be allowed but comments must be restricted to a discussion of issues, not attacks on people in the forum.

If only there was a place, a round table or a bar or maybe a pub or

There is ADVrider and a place in that called Jo Momma.

That is why it is there and not here.

SIBUD said:

I agree that there is no definition.

You asked to change the kind of topics that could be allowed to include those, that experience has shown, to be topics that do not do well in this forum. The rational as to why they are not allowed is clearly spelled out.

Click to expand...

One of my points is that without definitions, people cannot be expected to know ahead of time what will be considered verboten. One man's religion is another man's joke, etc. It's clear that some religious and political content is permitted - but it is unknown by what terms. Definitions of these terms would help clear up what the rationale is there for.

"Jo Mamma".

widebmw said:

If only there was a place, a round table or a bar or maybe a pub or

There is ADVrider and a place in that called Jo Momma.

That is why it is there and not here.

Click to expand...

Manfred; "Jo Momma" at ADVrider is a type of "Tavern" and would be a good place for you to visit and perhaps post. I have and do. Personally, I don't want too much of any religion anywhere at any time on any venue, regardless of origin or type. To refer to motorcycles as a type of religion is a point I well understand, but consider a "stretch" and if a religion, is one on a smaller and different scale than the world religions such as Christianity.
As to the rules? I am okay with them and understand the need and reasons for said rules about posting. I see no need to reconsider or alter the rules as stated.

jamesdunn said:

Manfred; "Jo Momma" at ADVrider is a type of "Tavern" and would be a good place for you to visit and perhaps post. I have and do. Personally, I don't want too much of any religion anywhere at any time on any venue, regardless of origin or type. To refer to motorcycles as a type of religion is a point I well understand, but consider a "stretch" and if a religion, is one on a smaller and different scale than the world religions such as Christianity.
As to the rules? I am okay with them and understand the need and reasons for said rules about posting. I see no need to reconsider or alter the rules as stated.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind note. I care not adventure riding and am not looking for a platform. But where ever I am, I am compelled to speak Truth when it seems right and if this place can't accept any religion or politics except as they define it off the record and enforce it likewise, then I will do without being a member here once my year runs its course. I joined the BMWMOA because I bought a BMW motorcycle and want to learn about it. I have been turned off toward the brand since I've been in this forum - I much rather being identified as a Yamaha owner, they simply don't make the bike I like to ride as much as I like my airhead. If my 1980 XS850 triple had better ground clearance and better gas mileage, I would still be enjoying it.

Manfred said:

One of my points is that without definitions, people cannot be expected to know ahead of time what will be considered verboten. One man's religion is another man's joke, etc. It's clear that some religious and political content is permitted - but it is unknown by what terms. Definitions of these terms would help clear up what the rationale is there for.

Click to expand...

If someone is found to have crossed a line, you'll find the mods are reasonable people. A note will be sent and the issue dealt with fairly. The worst thing that will happen is that a small thing someone wrote will disappear into the ether a little earlier than it would otherwise have. We're not curing cancer or starting a revolution here. It's a motorcycle forum and a private one at that. No one will think you're a fool, or an ass because something you posted stepped a little over an admittedly sometimes slightly blurry line.

You brought up the practice of Yoga as an example of tolerated religious discussion. It wasn't, IMHO, brought up as a religious discussion. For most in this country, never mind what it started as, yoga is putting on some comfy clothes and get into some challenging poses to increase flexibility and general fitness. It isn't an expression of Buddhism or Hinduism. As such, it is permitted under the Forum rules. If, OTOH, someone was using it to talk about faith, an inherently sticky area, then a line is indeed being crossed.

The difference isn't that Christianity isn't tolerated and Hinduism is. It's that discussion of faith isn't tolerated and discussion of physical health is. Yoga is seen as exercise, nothing more, nothing less, by most people that frequent this forum. Remember, though something may have been born of a religious practice, that doesn't necessarily make it inherently religious. e.g. stout beer.

knary said:

If someone is found to have crossed a line, you'll find the mods are reasonable people. A note will be sent and the issue dealt with fairly. The worst thing that will happen is that a small thing someone wrote will disappear into the ether a little earlier than it would otherwise have. We're not curing cancer or starting a revolution here. It's a motorcycle forum and a private one at that. No one will think you're a fool, or an ass because something you posted stepped a little over an admittedly sometimes slightly blurry line.

You brought up the practice of Yoga as an example of tolerated religious discussion. It wasn't, IMHO, brought up as a religious discussion. For most in this country, never mind what it started as, yoga is putting on some comfy clothes and get into some challenging poses to increase flexibility and general fitness. It isn't an expression of Buddhism or Hinduism. As such, it is permitted under the Forum rules. If, OTOH, someone was using it to talk about faith, an inherently sticky area, then a line is indeed being crossed.

The difference isn't that Christianity isn't tolerated and Hinduism is. It's that discussion of faith isn't tolerated and discussion of physical health is. Yoga is seen as exercise, nothing more, nothing less, by most people that frequent this forum. Remember, though something may have been born of a religious practice, that doesn't necessarily make it inherently religious. e.g. stout beer.

Click to expand...

Great post.

knary said:

If someone is found to have crossed a line, you'll find the mods are reasonable people. A note will be sent and the issue dealt with fairly. The worst thing that will happen is that a small thing someone wrote will disappear into the ether a little earlier than it would otherwise have. We're not curing cancer or starting a revolution here. It's a motorcycle forum and a private one at that. No one will think you're a fool, or an ass because something you posted stepped a little over an admittedly sometimes slightly blurry line.

You brought up the practice of Yoga as an example of tolerated religious discussion. It wasn't, IMHO, brought up as a religious discussion. For most in this country, never mind what it started as, yoga is putting on some comfy clothes and get into some challenging poses to increase flexibility and general fitness. It isn't an expression of Buddhism or Hinduism. As such, it is permitted under the Forum rules. If, OTOH, someone was using it to talk about faith, an inherently sticky area, then a line is indeed being crossed.

The difference isn't that Christianity isn't tolerated and Hinduism is. It's that discussion of faith isn't tolerated and discussion of physical health is. Yoga is seen as exercise, nothing more, nothing less, by most people that frequent this forum. Remember, though something may have been born of a religious practice, that doesn't necessarily make it inherently religious. e.g. stout beer.

Click to expand...

Your post shows why either some definitions of these explosive terms are needed OR the rules of engagement need to change.

Informed Christians understand the spiritual danger in many aspects of life. One of the key teachings in Scripture, regarding such dangers, is that of those who teach them, the dangerous teachers are the ones who are subtle and do not opening declare their opposition to the cross of Christ. Considering yoga, it is a part of the Hindu religion, designed to facilitate a demonic experience. Hindi gurus think it funny that westerners believe they can separate the physical actions from the Hindi religion. http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/yoga.htm

Regarding politics - people talking about, talking up, a socialist government program (whether it be Cash-for-Clunkers or Social Security) are political discussions. Such discussions are accepted. Unless someone crosses a line that is not defined anywhere - such as bringing up the Constitutional limits on the federal government.

As it currently established, the forum is a mine field on these verboten topics. Some discussion is OK, some is not. We all play "blind's man bluff" in finding where the lines are drawn. That's no way to run a pay-for-play forum.