Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

[_Jersey Girl]

Mon,
Sending PM's to mods means lots of work for mods.
Too much work for mods means it doesn't all get done. (In my opinion, looking at how it practically works out).

Amen. Personally I think an ignore feature would be great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (That's right a damn moderator is for the ignore feature.)

EDIT: I'd also mention that this is the only board I have ever been on (EVER, anywhere) where the mods have no power at all to penalise people for breaking forum rules.
I don't think most of these other boards consider themselves 'draconian'. At all...

Yeah....I bet I could get even the most ornery of posters to be nice if I had a little bit of stick (then again I don't really have a carrot to bribe them with...).

Indeed Bond. And lets be clear on another point...
...even if you were to - as punishment - 'consign' someone to a subset of rooms, that would still be the most 'lax' punishment I know of. On any board. For most boards, they'd be getting a temp ban for repeated rule breaking.

As long as you were consigning people to lower rooms (I'd assume Telestial would make sense...), then people could still post whatever you heck they like.
I know of NO other board where somebody can be continually breaking a forum rule, and yet still be posting exactly what they like day in, day out on that same board.

And people are reacting to this idea like I just got it out of my 'Fascism for dummies' handbook..?! What the hell?

Ren,

I still haven't read all of the replies here. It could be that people's reactions are based on experiences with ZLMB capping and being put on the queue at FAIR. While there are times when I'd like to take a few posters and beat 'em over the head with their own keyboard (I do not mean that literally, please put the phone down), I would not like to see much more control than there already is.

I myself have complained about the disruptive posts on thread, but I understand that I have to either ignore them or tackle them. Tackling them causes further disruption to the thread but I'm not above it. ;-) The thing is though, I know that the overlooking of disruptive posts is a small and aggravating price to pay for the right to post without having too many limits imposed on me as well.

[Guest]

Ha!Ha! I don't own that one. :)

Heh - I wasn't just refering to you. Your in a popular position on this one...
...and I was jokin'. (I love you too ;) )

Before we relegate anyone to anywhere there must be a clear rule that is being violated. There are none, really.

I totally agree! I don't see why a standard can't be established and agreed upon. Maybe the reason it hasn't really been done is because there is really no point in this current 'system'?

Of course somebody will disagree. Liz and Bond have the power to move threads down to the Telestial right now - and people can disagree with THOSE decisions too. To be a mod is to be disagreed with. That's part of the deal.

And again - in the model I'm proposing, I reakon people should only be consigned to - say - the Telestial forums:

* For a day at a time - maximum
* Only for MULTIPLE, consistent infractions. (NOT at a drop of a hat - ever). it should be a last resort - not a common thing.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Also, a max number of posts per day imposed on overly-eager posters might be a good idea, too.

KA

That's getting a bit draconian.

What no board needs is rules like this: http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/ind ... topic=4730

The other extreme of having few or no rules.

Have you so quickly forgotten JSkains?! Good grief, the man was making dozens upon dozens upon dozens of posts a day, destroying the board, and there were no rules in place to reign him in at all!

He's the kind of poster I was thinking of when I made this particular suggestion.

KA

[_Ren]

I still haven't read all of the replies here. It could be that people's reactions are based on experiences with ZLMB capping and being put on the queue at FAIR. While there are times when I'd like to take a few posters and beat 'em over the head with their own keyboard (I do not mean that literally, please put the phone down), I would not like to see much more control than there already is.

I myself have complained about the disruptive posts on thread, but I understand that I have to either ignore them or tackle them. Tackling them causes further disruption to the thread but I'm not above it. ;-) The thing is though, I know that the overlooking of disruptive posts is a small and aggravating price to pay for the right to post without having too many limits imposed on me as well.

To be honest, I do see a lot of this as reaction to (what is determined to be) 'bad' moderation at other Mormon-related sites.
I know Mormonism can sometimes be an emotive subject, but I've been on atheist boards that - in my opinion - were routinely far more aggressive in nature than anything I've seen in relation to Mormonism. Those forums had mods that could temp-ban you. And yet you could talk about literally anything you liked - nothing was taboo. The only reason you would get told off was if - say - you were posting Religious discussions in the 'Evolution and Creationism' forums, rather than the 'Religious discussion' forum. Routinely. For breaking forum rules - and for no other reason.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Honestly, I don't. It's perfectly possible for rules like that to be moderated well, fairly and robustly. I know, because it happens on other boards. Concentrating only on some bad experiences on a handful of Mormon boards is a tad blinkered imho.


BUT - as I say, I'm all for trying out an ignore feature, or threaded views or whatever else. I'm not saying it HAS to be getting tougher on rules. Whatever works as far as I'm concerned. And it's not even like I personally have a problem - I'm okay the way things are now :)

...I'm just saying - I see nothing wrong with enforcing forum rules that are purely 'organisational' in nature...

[_Ray A]

Have you so quickly forgotten JSkains?! Good grief, the man was making dozens upon dozens upon dozens of posts a day, destroying the board, and there were no rules in place to reign him in at all!

He's the kind of poster I was thinking of when I made this particular suggestion.

KA

But there are other overly-eager posters who make numerous posts but don't destroy the board - I'd hate to see Charity capped. (Looks around for the knives.)

[_Ren]

Personally, I wouldn't like to see anybodys posts capped - ever, under any circumstances. I really don't think that should be necessary.
They should be able to post whatever they like. But not necessarily wherever they like if they aren't willing to follow the rules of the rooms as determined by the people who run and manage the board.

I see nothing unreasonable in that idea.

[_Ray A]

They should be able to post whatever they like. But not necessarily wherever they like if they aren't willing to follow the rules of the rooms as determined by the people who run and manage the board.

I see nothing unreasonable in that idea.

I agree, and I think all personal attacks should be in Off-Topic. That would not kill the free-speech idea, because lots of posters still frequent Off-Topic, which I actually prefer to the CF, and post there more than the CF.

[_Blixa]

I think a pinned thread in Celestial would fill the needs of Blixa/Don/John. The Spalding thread is an excellent example of the type of discussion that is wanted. So... start a thread in Celestial and the rest of us, who know too little about the subject to be able to participate, will find different threads to post on, and only read that one.

Sound like a deal?

Sorry I wasn't able to explain myself better, harmony, but this is not what I'm talking about at all. I thought I'd repeatedly made it clear, albeit in other threads, that I value reading the comments of you, Jason, Moksha, liz and other believers who have both belief and criticism and attempt to forge a living relationship with Mormonism nonetheless. Although my interest is not primarily about issues of doctrine, I find your contemporary approaches part of the history of Mormonism too. In fact I would put you within an important "counter tradition" of believers of whom Juanita Brooks is the prime exemplar---and that to me is very high praise. Though Brooks appears to have been recently rehabilitated somewhat (mostly as a stick with which to attempt to beat more recent historians of the Mountain Meadows Massacre) she was anathema in the not too distant past, and yet she stuck to her guns about it being as much her "church as it is J. Reuben Clark's."

My beef is with those who do not, will not, or can not discuss because they see their mission here as a kind of sacred game: scoring points, correcting "anti-mormons," and "shooting fish." Whether they are conscious of it or not their aim is to block discussion and further knowledge.

I'm also troubled by other things that apparently come with the attempt to discuss Mormonism publically---the tactics of personal attack and visciousness exemplified in l'affair McCue and the Will Schryver mess (and countless previous Daniel Peterson, et.al. mud throwing and smear fests both online at MADD and in print). I would like to talk about my ongoing work, my own writing and projects that touch on Mormon history but I don't. Why? Why open myself up to that? Its clear that within certain circles the project of a legitimate answering of questions and defense of the faith has haemorraged into personal defamation of anyone who "dares" attempt a secular discussion of Mormonism. Whether or not this is an aberration or a continuation of a Mormon tradition is another question.

I don't think any changes to the format of this forum will help these problems. That's why I said I have no practical suggestions only observations. I have learned a great deal from my participation on this board and not only from those whose interests are the same as mine (by the way, I tried to sketch out those interests in an earlier reply to JAK---what he, or others, made of them I don't know). I still wish other things were possible.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think this thread illustrates how very difficult it can be to have a topical discussion on this board. The irony is so thick you can cut it.

John

3 words: Threaded View Option

For example, if this thread could be viewed in threaded view, the sub thread involving Ray and Scratch would presumably, move off to the left. The comments regarding board function would move to the right.

The reason it's so difficult on this linear format is because you have to wade through all of the posts as one thread in order to find the on topic remarks that you wish to reply to.

Could someone in a position of power please put a dollar amount on a threaded view for me?

[_Yoda]

I think this thread illustrates how very difficult it can be to have a topical discussion on this board. The irony is so thick you can cut it.

John

I've already made my suggestion, but the mods have ignored me. They dance to Scratch.

THIS Mod's opinion is that both you and Scratch are acting like a couple of immature babies. You are so completely into insulting each other that neither of you realize that you have completely usurped this thread and gone completely off topic.

Since I am too tired to split off your remarks (maybe Bond or Shades will have the energy), I will just tell you both to knock it the hell off and go to bed.

(Mother rant off)