Are all religions cults? OP actually started by Liz

[_JAK]

liz,

Just why you are pursuing an analytical recognition of moderator power, I’m not sure. But, I’ll address your comments.

liz stated:
Any moderator of any message board has the technical ability to edit posts. It's the nature of the beast. The fact that you prefaced responding to me by pointing out that I could, if I chose, edit your post and change the meaning of it, is offensive. Why did you bring up the point if you were not afraid of my doing something?

JAK:
First, my statement regarding what you could do was not a preface. It was later in the original post which I wrote that I recognized what you could do. Please read my original post in which I raised this issue and see where it was raised. Your claim “prefaced” in the context above is wrong. It’s the very kind of thing that [i]could cause a “moderator” to alter a post in order to save face. And, you can do it to this response regarding your comments in which I quote you exactly and respond to your statements in the sequence as you wrote.

Second, I have been the target on this board having posts of mine altered with my signature (when I originally posted and placed a signature at the end). So, I know what has been done on this particular bb.

Third, while “Any moderator of any message borad has the technical ability…” there are boards on which this is not done. In addition, on those boards to which I refer, there are no board-fights about what moderators have done. Specifically, moving entire posts or a collection of posts to an different category has been done on this board by “moderators.” I have seen it, and I have read debate among participants about the practice.

Fourth, I took offense at that practice when it was employed against me. Some on this bb have engaged in nearly full posts of personal attack with immunity. Others have been charged with personal attack when, in fact, no personal attack had been made. What did happen was that the ideas expressed were opposed by some moderator who moved or so edited wording to make the content contrary to what the original writer had stated. I witnessed it and was a target of it. And, no I am not going to take time to search thousands of posts to give you documentation. I suspect you already know considering the number of posts credited to you.

liz stated:
I do not have the reputation of doing that, and, in fact, have never done that to any poster here. Doing such a thing would be extremely unethical and appalling.

JAK:
I agree that the practice is “extremely unethical and appalling” (your phrase). When I first posted to this board, there was nothing to identify who was “moderator” and who was not. I addressed that at a point in time, and some changes were made to identify just what individuals were “moderators.” My objection was because “moderators” are also participants and can write, themselves, with immunity. My objection was also that “moderators” could pose, invisibly as a general participant just as I was. Yet, in fact, they were watchdogs with power to do just what I have described above here. That was and is most unfair. It’s unfair to have a referee playing in the game. The other boards to which I previously made reference and on which I have participated, rarely, if ever, had anyone using that “technical ability” which you mentioned first here. It has been and is used often on this bb. Your “reputation” was not in question by my recognition of what any “moderator” can do. It was simply recognition of possibility. You have chosen to continue pursuit of the point.

liz stated:
The only person on the Moderating Team who has moderated longer than I have is Shades, so yes, I take my moderation responsibilities seriously.

JAK:
There is “the Moderating Team.” That means there are multiple individuals who can do exactly what I described that you could do. There would be no recourse for one who made a post whose post was altered, moved, or removed. As for “moderation responsibilities,” there are only generalized statements regarding it which means that anytime a post or one who makes posts is disliked, that post can be manipulated to render it impotent if not be eliminated. Many of the rules are flagrantly violated by some here, yet their posts stand replete with what is opposed in the “rules.” Hence, “moderation” is sporadic and whimsical.

lliz stated:
Also, I can honestly say that everyone who has served as a Moderator here has tried to do his/her best to simply carry out Shades' vision for the board. No one is perfect, and we have all made mistakes from time to time in moderating.....but I think that when those mistakes have been made, we have owned up to them, and made a sincere effort to improve. I don't recall any moderator purposely editing posts to further his/her own argument.

JAK:
I can clearly state that I know at least two “moderators” who are no longer moderators (by identification on the board). Both these moderators were challenged or personally attacked by non-moderating posters if not by other moderators. They either quit or were removed. I have posted here relatively little compared with some and certainly have been here a short time compared with the existence of this bb. As I stated, some early posts of mine were both edited and relocated. Posts of others have been treated similarly. So my statement to you, well into the total post (not a preface), was a recognition of the realities on this bb.

liz state:
Doing something like that would run completely counter to everything Shades has tried to set up here.

JAK:
One statement on the “THE RULES OF THE BOARD” page is this:

“All rules are subject to change or clarification as the need arises.”

Not only are rules “subject to change,” most are subject to interpretation and selective application. I have observed that many rules do not receive compliance with some posters and that enforcement is sporadic and subjective (as many of the rules are subjectively stated initially). Under Universal Rules, “Everyone is welcome. Every opinion is welcome.” However, “rules” following those two clearly show those first two are not the case.

One rule was “do not derail threads.” I think you, liz, have done that by misrepresenting my paragraph regarding what you could do and misrepresenting what, in fact, I stated in that relatively brief paragraph. You have continued to pursue an issue which was a minor recognition of moderator’s power. You have taken offense at what was never “claimed.” You used that word falsely. I did not claim that you had done post manipulation. I recognized that you could. You acknowledged that: “Any moderator of any message board has the technical ability to edit posts.”

My observation recognized that as you attempted to marginalize my analysis calling it “a bit of a red herring.” A logical next step following a moderator saying that would be to remove it or edit it and thus distort the full context of the analysis.

All my comments here are an address of what you stated on this board in this thread. I have quoted you exactly and responded to what you stated. It’s all on topic which you chose to make a topical issue.

Since there is “the Moderating Team,” clearly someone other than you could edit or delete. Since there is “the Moderating Team,” I expect members of that “team” can and do discuss what and whom they wish to edit. Hence, if one moderator wants something edited, another moderator can do it and the person who wanted something removed, shifted to another location, or altered from the originator’s construction – that person can have deniability. It’s reasonable to assume the “Moderating Team” communicates clandestinely.

Last, this response is to the very language which you, liz, introduced under this topic and which was allowed to stand. Your comments were not judged to “derail.” Nor should my response directly to your comments be so judged.

An issue in the discussion was that of “moral values.” Earlier, harmony used the phrase “good moral values” in discussion with marg. Hence, that issue had been raised and was in the deliberation. marg offered analysis regarding “moral values.” Hence, the discussion encompassed ideas and concerns over what constitute moral values.

I raised it using the specific example of the 33 year old woman who had a total of 14 children all by artificial insemination with the latest 8 children being delivered at one time. That was the focus of my addition at that point as people added contribution to the evolving discussion.

You had stated: “I also dislike the negative judgmental attitudes that some Mormons possess, and often call them on it.” The discussion of “moral values” is inherently connected with of what is better and what is worse, but it is also connected with what is the law of a state or a country.

I gave you two links to the story about the woman who had the 14 children when you stated you were unaware that she had 6 children before she allowed herself to be artificially inseminated with 8 embryos. I raised the point of morality with regard to both what she did as well as with those medically qualified to make that possibility a reality. There, I stated I thought it was a moral issue. When Jason here (wrote), I responded with analysis. marg had referred to “6 billion people” in reference to world population.

That a woman in the USA would deliberately have 14 children who appears to have no capacity to support them (as my links for you demonstrated) – that woman, with her conduct, raises a moral issue. I think that you, liz, attempted to “derail” the discussion as it was evolving in the thread. Nevertheless, I have addressed your comments, and since you are “moderator,” I assume your comments would not be regarded (by moderators) as to “derail.” If that’s the case, then my address of your comments is appropriate.