Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

[_Moniker]

If I ever am thinking of you Moniker, I'll tell you directly. : )

That's a good idea! :)

In terms of "re-inventing the wheel," I was actually thinking of threads where someone insists that the existence of God needs to be "proved" or argued about before the thread goes on to talk about specific religious doctrines. Or conversely that atheism needs to argued for (while insisting its "logically weak" or something) before a thread proceeds on its secular way. I wasn't thinking of individual posts where someone might ask for a term or concept to be clarified.

Oh! I understand. Completely.

I'm curious who you see that is disdainful of anyone on the grounds of their lack of "formal education." I"ve seen a few posters who blather about academic brand names and have very dubious notions of scholary "pedigree" or don't seem to be familiar with what constitutes academic, scholarly, intellectual work and practice. But these are all in the same non-discussion camp and these things are raised to either to block inquiry and engagement or as a personal smear about someone they hate. As recently demonstrated in the "credentials" thread, this is a particular hobby horse for the more fundamentalist and authoritarian-minded.

Well, on MAD I had a few posters sort of jump on me and attempt to tell me I didn't understand what we were discussing (when in all actuality they were incorrect) and I was the only female on that thread (it was evolution and for some reason I'm always the only female on those threads???) and credentials came into it when one of them sent me a PM telling me what their educational background was. It just seemed to be insinuated that they could shout me down by one-liners that were supposed to make me retreat. It was difficult for me to know how to handle them -- since, in all actuality they were incorrect!

I know I participated in a thread (and actually thought I had some good points) and later went and deleted them (I was embarrassed) since it was insinuated that my points were rather nonsense. Yet, someone else that is highly educated came in at the end of the thread and pretty much repeated what I said in a few flowery paragraphs. :)

I know in Celestial I saw a poster a while ago (no names) say that someone should get out of the thread because lack of expertise or education. This was a while ago and since then I've been VERY hesitant to participate.

Yet, like I said, I'm here to learn. Would hope that everyone is here to do so. I think the problem that we encounter is when there are participants that are not here to learn, yet to merely push their agenda -- that is not constructive!

[_Jersey Girl]

No. What I am saying is that the ZLMB board was already in decline when this happened. That particular stage really had no significant impact (in my opinion) on the decline at ZLMB. Already (and I am going by old memories here) they had taken steps to encourage LDS participation (limiting posts by some people, remeber the whole switch-hitter thing?).

I'm pretty sure that occurred after this thread. I would agree that the signs of decline were already there, primarily in the frustration of people like Juiliann, Nghthawke, Scott Lloyd, etc. That thread is indeed a major breaking point for the board. It's also generally true that the decline occurred after the atheist influx. ZLMB at first was a debate board between mainly evangelical Christians and Mormons, where Mormons held their own quite nicely. Later on what can be called "secular critics" entered, and the decline happened after, but not immediately so.

There also were plenty of abrasive, mean-spirited LDS on ZLMB who provoked conflict (Pahoran, Wade, Juliann, DCP, Pent, etc.) Many of them went on to hold dominant positions in FAIR and still post there to this day, so it's obviously not true they fled that sort of discussion. They fled to where they could be protected by biased moderation. The irony is that ZLMB was created because LDS were treated on UTLM's message board like critics are on FAIR. Indeed, most of the complaints in the oldest ZLMB archives about UTLM perfectly mirror the attitudes towards FAIR here. It just turns out that they didn't want transparency and even-handed moderation so much as the tables to be turned on their enemies. In my experience, message boards populated and controlled by people interested in defending demonstrably dubious ideas tend toward that style.


As far as board culture goes,loosely moderated message boards tend to the what you see here. The kind of high-minded dialogue Don seeks isn't well-suited for a message board format due to the investment of time required and the diminishing returns from rehashing previous arguments. So it comes in spurts.


Jersey Girl -

There were plenty of other atheist (or at least "secular") posters like Alf Omegus, SoHo, alienward, praetorian1964, Baneemy, Sophocles etc.

Gadianton and I just standout because of our sheer awesomeness.

(Seriously, some of those posters were very bright and insightful.)

I recognize some of those screen names, EA, but I didn't know they were atheists. In addition, I've known Alf for several years and he typically posts graciously.

Of course you and Gad are sheerly awesome. I agree!

Still, I need convincing that LDS were somehow out numbered by non-LDS on Z.

[_Dr. Shades]

And this community is clearly a group of malcontents who tend to revel in the being malcontents.

You, by the very act of posting here, are part of this community too. Are you a malcontent? Is Gazelam? Is charity? Is The Nehor? Is Jason Bourne?

This thread began with this statement:

But it's not clear to me that such an approach leads to better discussion, rather than a greater ability to say things not worth either saying or reading.

To me, this is visibly true. And I am trying to explain why I see it as being true, and what I see the cause as being. If most individuals here are happy with the lack of serious dialogue, and the constant diatribe against all things LDS, I suppose that's fine. But we might as well label it as anti-Mormon Discussions as anything else.

Remember, always remember: That which is "not worth either saying or reading" to one person may be an utter gem to another, and vice-versa. EVERYONE'S words are "not worth either saying or reading" to someone, but a gem to someone else, yours included.

The problems here are that internet communities are easy to move into and out of.

You view that as a bad thing? Oh my.

So, in deciding that you support the kinds of hate speech that can occur here (and yes, under the guise of free speech, you are supporting it whether you want it to be viewed in that fashion or not), you have determined that you are willing to let some members and potential members of your community go elsewhere.

"Let" some members and potential members go elsewhere? "Let" them? How on earth am I supposed to stop them, Mr. Corleone?

It doesn't take a lot of reading in this thread to see that there are a number of people who are dissatisfied with this forum - and want something more, but yet who don't want to do it under what they feel is the repressive environment of MADB.

So what's the solution? I honestly want to know.

Me personally, I would love a community oriented forum. I don't really like MADB right now. I find it frustrating that my traditional discussion partners of the past feel censored there (if allowed to post at all). And yet here, I would need to ignore a huge percentage of the material posted here - and over time that becomes very distasteful as well.

Are you saying that you don't ignore a huge percentage of the material at MA&D? What you describe is perfectly natural on every board; why bother reading things about which one is wholly uninterested?

But it makes little sense to cancel one's newspaper subscription just because there are a few stories or advertisements that don't catch one's fancy.

Perhaps there is no perfect way to do this, but I have found that the community driven ideals work well - and ZLMB worked very well up to a point in time when the community began to shift.

So what's your solution for this board? How should we create a community here while adhering to our founding vision?

The problem Shades is that you have created a community here - or rather a community has been created. The outcome is no different than that of the MADB forums you despise. You have created a hostile environment for many, many people who might othewise come and post here.

If there's a hostile environment, I have not created it. If you want to turn the tables, then feel free to invite all your LDS friends. Re-invent MormonDiscussions in your own image. You're perfectly welcome to do so.

Once again, you must be the change you want to see at MormonDiscussions.com.

And this creates a sense of elitism, and so on. So I really don't buy into this argument you make. Perhaps, like FAIR, it is a community created in your own image ....

In that case, it's time to create this community in your image. I hereby pass the torch to you.

I disagree with you. When you have posters who will say right out that their purpose in presenting what they do and writing what they do is to be as offensive as possible to a certain group of people who post here, that is not "telling it like it is" or "straight talk" even to the most casual observer. It is protecting hatred under the guise of free speech.

"Offensive" and "hatred" are not necessarily the same thing. You can be the former without being the latter.

You may not like this, but it is the way it is. And in your protecting it, regardless of the reasons why you feel the need to, you are condoning it, and making this forum a hostile place for a host of potential members.

Then please turn the tables, invite all your LDS friends, and turn this place into one hostile to potential ex-Mormon community members.

The actual outcomes are not separated at all. In both cases, the boards discriminate against groups or classes of potential members by making the environment a hostile place for them to participate.

The two are not the same. Just because a person may assume an environment is "hostile" doesn't mean that they are being discriminated against. If these "potential members" were being discriminated against, we wouldn't be allowing them to register and post refutations of what they read here.

Unfortunately not all other things are equal. And we aren't going to discuss potentials here, because your assumptions don't translate well into the actual results here. How many TBMs are regular contributors here?

There are several. You could be one of them if you only put your money where your mouth is.

And how many of those only come here because other forums limit their ability to interact with their critics?

I don't know; I haven't asked them.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo Tomasi was one of them - at one point he was responsible for almost a quarter of the threads on ZLMB - none of them were positive in any way, and all of them were noise as far as I was concerned.

A bit of an exaggeration, my dear Ben, given that I was restricted to 5 posts per day. The only "noise" was from you.