Kemosabe Shades, can we "ban"

[_beastie]

Question for those of you who answered no:

Would you be opposed to ANY moderation? For example, the mods currently immediately remove threads with temple content to the telestial kingdom. Are you also opposed to that?

I'm asking because I'm getting the impression you're more opposed to banning/censoring altogether, rather than this particular instance.

But since this board is already moderated - would you have an objection to this, in particular, being included?

[_CaliforniaKid]

I used to sling around the words "retarded" and "gay" to describe anything I thought was stupid or irritating. Now I consider my former patronage of this terminology stupid and irritating.

[_Jersey Girl]

I was going to write a long post but quite frankly, I don't have it in me at the moment. I've been home sick today and that's why I happened to be following the thread of origin, got involved with mod action, etc. Let's try this in pieces...

If we were to ban the words suggested when used to level insult...where does it end?

[_beastie]

If we were to ban the words suggested when used to level insult...where does it end?

If I understand your question, that can be asked about moderating in general. Once you begin moderating, where does it end? Well, mods just have to decide upon guidelines and go from there.

I would love it if posters were all able to censor and moderate their behavior, and I would also love it if other posters objecting were sufficient to stop extremely offensive behavior. But clearly it is not.

You see what happens to boards without moderation. They normally devolve into being fairly unusable and worthless.

[_moksha]

With Keane's dictum that there shall be no rules, offensive words are safe. However, offensive words and abuse displayed on an uncontrolled basis is not what many posters would like to see. I guess we have to just accept that as the fatal flaw of this board and adjust the best we can.

[_beastie]

With Keane's dictum that there shall be no rules, offensive words are safe. However, offensive words and abuse displayed on an uncontrolled basis is not what many posters would like to see. I guess we have to just accept that as the fatal flaw of this board and adjust the best we can.

But there are rules.

For example: temple content is immediately moved to the telestial kingdom. Posters have survived that and deal with it.

So, for me, the question is: is using the most vulnerable among us as a tool to mock and insult as egregious as posting temple content?

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, beastie, you read me right about the moderation.

Let me throw a wrench in here for the sake of discussion, comparison, stirring the pot or whatever you may call it.

Is it okay for people to rag on Coggin's personal struggle with alcoholism and if so, why is it okay?

[_asbestosman]

Is it okay for people to rag on Coggin's personal struggle with alcoholism and if so, why is it okay?

No and besides, personal attacks belong in the Telestial.

[_antishock8]

the words "retard" "retarded" and other such variants (Utards) when used to insult, evaluate or describe the intelligence of others from this board?

Asking as a man,
Jersey Girl

Shades, I opened this thread as a result of what took place on this thread: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=6007&start=0

Terrible idea.

[_beastie]

Yes, beastie, you read me right about the moderation.

Let me throw a wrench in here for the sake of discussion, comparison, stirring the pot or whatever you may call it.

Is it okay for people to rag on Coggin's personal struggle with alcoholism and if so, why is it okay?

Well, this is stated ambiguously enough that I’m going to have to qualify my answer. Coggins has brought his alcoholism “to the table” himself, and I think there are times when it is legitimate to refer to it. As an example, I’ll use what I just said on another thread. Coggins has repeatedly denied the existence of an extremely well-known phrase that was recited in the temple up until 1990. I can’t believe he would lie about something so trivial, particularly when it is so well-known. So I believe it’s possible his memory was negatively affected by his struggle with alcoholism, and posited that as an alternative. I don’t consider that “ragging” on his personal struggle with alcoholism. I also think it’s legitimate to bring up his inactivity and breaking of the WoW when he starts acting as if he’s the arbiter of righteousness or church beliefs. So I don’t think his alcoholism, in and of itself, should be a forbidden topic.

Now, it’s likely he’s suffered juvenile insults about his alcoholism. No, I don’t think that’s “ok”, although it can be expected that such a poster who makes a career out of personally insulting other posters will be a popular target as well.

Having said that juvenile insults about his alcoholism are “not ok”, I’ll point out that there are lots of behaviors on this board I would say are “not ok” (even if sometimes I engage in them myself, and usually later regret it, but not always). The question isn’t whether or not behavior X is “ok”, for me, but rather does behavior X rise to the level of egregiousness of other behaviors that the board has already agreed are worthy of actions.

I keep reminding posters that temple content has already been determined to rise to that level of egregiousness, as do certain swear words, like the F word. Personally, I find using the word “retard” as an insult far worse than using the F word, but I realize most of the world does not agree. I actually don’t even care about the F word, but realize I’m part of a larger community that does. But the point I want to make is that somehow, someway, it was already decided that these behaviors rose to a certain level of egregiousness to justify moderator action.

So the question, for me, isn’t whether or not we urge moderator actions against ALL behaviors we think are “not ok” (that would be insane), but rather if this one specific behavior rises to the same level of egregiousness as posting temple content or saying the F word.