See ya around, chumps

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_RayAgostini

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _RayAgostini »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Um, those were merely some of my beliefs. I'll ask you again: What is my mission?


Right. My beliefs are probably widely known. But what is my mission?


I'll have a rethink about this. Some have spoken about your "mission" for this board, so I'll let you clarify: Do you have a "mission" for this board? If so, what is it?
_Fionn
_Emeritus
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:12 am

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _Fionn »

RayAgostini wrote:Some have spoken about your "mission" for this board, so I'll let you clarify: Do you have a "mission" for this board? If so, what is it?


As nearly as I can tell, the front page holds Shades' Mission Statement:

"Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth."

"Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here."

"Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard."

[edited to fix quotation marks.]

At least, this is the only "mission statement" I've heard from Shades in my couple years of lurking.
Everybody loves a joke
But no one likes a fool.
_RayAgostini

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _RayAgostini »

Fionn wrote:As nearly as I can tell, the front page holds Shades' Mission Statement:

"Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth."

"Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here."

"Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard."

[edited to fix quotation marks.]

At least, this is the only "mission statement" I've heard from Shades in my couple years of lurking.


Last time I checked, Dr. Shades has a brain and can reply for himself, but thanks anyway. I understand the "urge" to defend "this place".
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _Drifting »

RayAgostini wrote:
Fionn wrote:As nearly as I can tell, the front page holds Shades' Mission Statement:

"Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth."

"Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here."

"Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard."

[edited to fix quotation marks.]

At least, this is the only "mission statement" I've heard from Shades in my couple years of lurking.


Last time I checked, Dr. Shades has a brain and can reply for himself, but thanks anyway. I understand the "urge" to defend "this place".


Interestingly I cannot find in the board guidelines where it lists restrictions on who can answer questions regardless of who they are posed to, go figure....
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _Chap »

Ray Agostini wrote:Last time I checked, Dr. Shades has a brain and can reply for himself, but thanks anyway. I understand the "urge" to defend "this place".


Drifting wrote:Interestingly I cannot find in the board guidelines where it lists restrictions on who can answer questions regardless of who they are posed to, go figure....


Precisely. If you want to conduct a private discussion with person X, then why not PM that person?

[Edited to fix quotes]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _Dr. Shades »

RayAgostini wrote:Last time I checked, Dr. Shades has a brain and can reply for himself, but thanks anyway. I understand the "urge" to defend "this place".

For what it's worth, Drifting and Chap are correct in their posts above this one.

Moving along, I didn't write the text that Fionn quoted--Keene did--but it pretty much encapsulates my "mission for the board" anyway (as opposed to my mission in general, which I'm still waiting for you to point out to me).

You earlier wrote:

I'll have a rethink about this. Some have spoken about your "mission" for this board, so I'll let you clarify: Do you have a "mission" for this board? If so, what is it?

To be a little more specific beyond what Fionn quoted, my "mission" for this board is to duplicate all the strengths of every other LDS-oriented message board out there while studiously avoiding all the weaknesses.

In practice, this means:

  • Avoiding suspensions and bans like the plague. This means striving with people, giving them chances, and borderline begging them to reform their behavior so that they can remain on the board.
  • Avoiding censorship as much as humanly possible. To that end, this means always giving people the benefit of the doubt and otherwise trying to see each comment from every angle in order to find a way for it to A) avoid being edited, or B) remain in its current forum without being moved elsewhere.
  • Allowing everyone to have his or her say. This means absolutely no moderation based solely on the specifics of any poster's mere opinion, no matter how irksome that opinion may be to any number of others.
  • Avoiding an "agenda" at all costs. You'll notice that pretty much every other LDS-oriented message board caters to some niche corner of the market. We have MD&D for Mopologists and Mopologetics, we have RfM for ex-Mormons (especially hostile ones), we have ex-Mo Social for, uh, social events among ex-Mormons; we have LDS.net for Chapel Mormons, and the list goes on. By avoiding adopting an agenda--or even a theme--anyone and everyone is fully welcome to post here and nobody can feel left out. This board is for discussion of Mormonism, literally nothing more.
  • Utterly avoiding the quest for "balance." Now, that probably throws you for a loop. It may also make you (RayAgostini) say, "Aha! I knew it!" But that's not what I mean at all. You see, the minute that moderators start going out of their way to court posters with a minority point of view, whether pro- or con-, in that very selfsame minute two things happen: A) Some posters become more valuable than others, which is something I absolutely refuse to have happen; and B) some points of view become more valuable than others, which is also something I refuse to have happen. Sure, a variety of viewpoints make any board more interesting, but moderators actively going out and courting it is the death-knell to the free expression of its members. Just look at what happened to ZLMB: They quested for perfect balance, and it destroyed the board.
  • Treating all posters with 100% equality, regardless of post count, opinion, or length of sojourn on the board. This ensures that moderation is applied fairly and prevents "cliques" from forming.
  • Allowing the posters to set the tone and direction of the board, not the moderators. I think this fosters a much greater sense of ownership among everyone, which can only be a good thing, in my opinion. In addition, it not only goes a long way toward ensuring that every other bulleted item in this list is adhered to faithfully, but it opens the door toward even greater freedom of speech for everyone.
  • Allowing cross-posting. As far as I'm aware, this is the only message board in the entire LDS cyberverse that allows this. In this way, we can lay claim to every interesting or noteworthy discussion taking place anywhere in said cyberverse--thus truly becoming "Mormon Discussions" in every possible way. If others are having fun, I see no reason why we can't join in the fun, too.
  • Having transparent moderation. First, this means not hiding behind false moderator login names. Second, it means never leaving posters without a recourse should they take issue with some moderatorial action or other. Third, it means that moderators don't become some sort of "privileged class" that's impervious to criticism. This board recognizes that if moderators are wrong about something, improvement can only be made if communication channels are open.
  • Absolutely never closing threads. This ensures that people can take their time and craft the best responses they can, knowing that their posts will always show up precisely where and when they're meant to. It also ensures that the board stays interesting, since all conversations will live to the end of their "natural lifespans" without moderatorial fiat.

Nevertheless, you've made it plain that you're very much dissatisfied with this board, so please let me know which of the bulleted items, above, that you'd prefer me to do away with. Thanks in advance.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_RayAgostini

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _RayAgostini »

Dr. Shades wrote:In practice, this means:

  • Avoiding suspensions and bans like the plague. This means striving with people, giving them chances, and borderline begging them to reform their behavior so that they can remain on the board.
  • Avoiding censorship as much as humanly possible. To that end, this means always giving people the benefit of the doubt and otherwise trying to see each comment from every angle in order to find a way for it to A) avoid being edited, or B) remain in its current forum without being moved elsewhere.
  • Allowing everyone to have his or her say. This means absolutely no moderation based solely on the specifics of any poster's mere opinion, no matter how irksome that opinion may be to any number of others.
  • Avoiding an "agenda" at all costs. You'll notice that pretty much every other LDS-oriented message board caters to some niche corner of the market. We have MD&D for Mopologists and Mopologetics, we have RfM for ex-Mormons (especially hostile ones), we have ex-Mo Social for, uh, social events among ex-Mormons; we have LDS.net for Chapel Mormons, and the list goes on. By avoiding adopting an agenda--or even a theme--anyone and everyone is fully welcome to post here and nobody can feel left out. This board is for discussion of Mormonism, literally nothing more.
  • Utterly avoiding the quest for "balance." Now, that probably throws you for a loop. It may also make you (RayAgostini) say, "Aha! I knew it!" But that's not what I mean at all. You see, the minute that moderators start going out of their way to court posters with a minority point of view, whether pro- or con-, in that very selfsame minute two things happen: A) Some posters become more valuable than others, which is something I absolutely refuse to have happen; and B) some points of view become more valuable than others, which is also something I refuse to have happen. Sure, a variety of viewpoints make any board more interesting, but moderators actively going out and courting it is the death-knell to the free expression of its members. Just look at what happened to ZLMB: They quested for perfect balance, and it destroyed the board.
  • Treating all posters with 100% equality, regardless of post count, opinion, or length of sojourn on the board. This ensures that moderation is applied fairly and prevents "cliques" from forming.
  • Allowing the posters to set the tone and direction of the board, not the moderators. I think this fosters a much greater sense of ownership among everyone, which can only be a good thing, in my opinion. In addition, it not only goes a long way toward ensuring that every other bulleted item in this list is adhered to faithfully, but it opens the door toward even greater freedom of speech for everyone.
  • Allowing cross-posting. As far as I'm aware, this is the only message board in the entire LDS cyberverse that allows this. In this way, we can lay claim to every interesting or noteworthy discussion taking place anywhere in said cyberverse--thus truly becoming "Mormon Discussions" in every possible way. If others are having fun, I see no reason why we can't join in the fun, too.
  • Having transparent moderation. First, this means not hiding behind false moderator login names. Second, it means never leaving posters without a recourse should they take issue with some moderatorial action or other. Third, it means that moderators don't become some sort of "privileged class" that's impervious to criticism. This board recognizes that if moderators are wrong about something, improvement can only be made if communication channels are open.
  • Absolutely never closing threads. This ensures that people can take their time and craft the best responses they can, knowing that their posts will always show up precisely where and when they're meant to. It also ensures that the board stays interesting, since all conversations will live to the end of their "natural lifespans" without moderatorial fiat.



That looks like a nice “charter” of ideals. First of all, it is generally accepted wisdom that an unmoderated, or less moderated board, will be somewhat chaotic, and at times very chaotic. Regardless of the Terrestrial rules, posters are called names, labeled, and slandered. In other words personal attacks are frequent (I don’t absolve myself, especially when I’m forced to defend myself in a forum where there is in fact little or no moderation). If you go through almost any thread now going in the Terrestrial you’ll find them contrary to (possibly with the exception of the last item):

RULES FOR THE TERRESTRIAL FORUM AND THE OFF-TOPIC FORUM:

  1. Keep all communications "Rated PG" to "Rated PG-13" or better.
  2. No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed.
  3. Do not use the "F" or "S" words or any of their many variants. Altering the spelling or substituting a symbol for a character does not give you a free pass to disregard this rule.
  4. No specific temple content allowed.


So, I question the wisdom of this:

Dr. Shades wrote: [list][*]Avoiding suspensions and bans like the plague. This means striving with people, giving them chances, and borderline begging them to reform their behavior so that they can remain on the board.
[*]Avoiding censorship as much as humanly possible. To that end, this means always giving people the benefit of the doubt and otherwise trying to see each comment from every angle in order to find a way for it to A) avoid being edited, or B) remain in its current forum without being moved elsewhere.
[*]Allowing everyone to have his or her say. This means absolutely no moderation based solely on the specifics of any poster's mere opinion, no matter how irksome that opinion may be to any number of others.


Do you agree that, in practice, there has been a failure to implement Terrestrial rules stemming from a lack of moderation? Then is it worth even having such rules? Moderators should never have to “borderline beg” any poster to get into line. While this laissez-faire approach may give some the warm fuzzies, it creates an atmosphere where, in fact, cliques do develop, which sometimes turns into mob-rule. That’s where cliques gang up against one or more posters who hold different ideas/ideals/beliefs. So the very thing you’re trying to avoid is actually happening, and that is:

Dr. Shades wrote: [*]Avoiding an "agenda" at all costs. You'll notice that pretty much every other LDS-oriented message board caters to some niche corner of the market. We have MD&D for Mopologists and Mopologetics, we have RfM for ex-Mormons (especially hostile ones), we have ex-Mo Social for, uh, social events among ex-Mormons; we have LDS.net for Chapel Mormons, and the list goes on. By avoiding adopting an agenda--or even a theme--anyone and everyone is fully welcome to post here and nobody can feel left out. This board is for discussion of Mormonism, literally nothing more

[*]Treating all posters with 100% equality, regardless of post count, opinion, or length of sojourn on the board. This ensures that moderation is applied fairly and prevents "cliques" from forming.

.


Sure, “we have Mormons”, but how many did we originally have? Have you been asleep, Shades, while some of the best Mormon posters have deserted this board in droves? Have you listened to what they said, and what some are still saying now? When I quoted what Nevo said before he left the board, I was basically told that Nevo could go shove it if he didn’t like it here.

Hopefully, the police treat everyone “equally”, including where it comes to enforcing the law. Again, bear in mind what I said about the consensus of opinion that unmoderated or less moderated boards tend to be chaotic and sometimes out of control. That’s what happens in a society, too, where the police fail to enforce the law. I don’t know why you think that if people need law enforcement in real life (I presume you do), “to keep the peace”, they’re not going to need it on a message board. That seems an exceptionally skewed viewpoint. Remember “Joseph”? Well let “Joseph” be one example why rules need to be enforced, and they shouldn’t just apply to him. He was a black sheep with a different opinion, and while it is true he became a “threat” to MDB, I’m using him as an example of what can potentially happen when mods have to “borderline beg” posters to get into line.

Incidentally, can you please answer me this question: Was “Mattie” banned from this board?. If so, on what grounds?

“We have Mormons”? There’s another one we no longer have? Why? (See my points above.)


Some helpful hints:


Moderators are an important aspect of keeping online discussion communities clean, relevant and enjoyable. The role of an online moderator involves policing and enforcing forum rules and policies. Depending on the message board, moderators are given certain powers to modify or delete posts and to suspend or ban non-complying members. It's an intricate juggling act involving many facets from lending a helping hand to members in need to maintaining order within the community.

Pedantic or obsessive moderation can be worse than no moderation whatsoever.

When should you take action and how?
If you find an inappropriate comment, contact the member direct (don't embarrass them in front of their peers), explain or point them to the relevant rule and allow the member to remove the comment themselves. They will appreciate being treated as a valued user.


Moderating Online Forums - How to Moderate Discussion Sites.


Moderation is necessary so all users can participate in discussions without fear of intimidation by other users or being subjected to offensive content. Also, people may intentionally or unintentionally post content that is unlawful, putting themselves as well as the BBC at risk of legal action. Moderation helps avoid expensive legal action that could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence-fee payers' money.


Why must we have moderation on BBC boards?.

And finally:

RULES FOR THE TERRESTRIAL FORUM AND THE OFF-TOPIC FORUM:
Keep all communications "Rated PG" to "Rated PG-13" or better.
No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed.
Do not use the "F" or "S" words or any of their many variants. Altering the spelling or substituting a symbol for a character does not give you a free pass to disregard this rule.
No specific temple content allowed.

As an addendum to the above, if you want to "go the extra mile" and become one of the truly great posters around here, then follow the additional instructions on this page.


Go to the “this page” link. I would certainly not go to the extreme that board does, but this again shows that while you do have high ideals and hopes for “perfect posters”, you fail to realise that this isn’t going to work without moderation, or “law enforcement”.

That’s to answer your question as you why I’m dissatisfied with this board. I realise that change will probably be impossible at this stage, so I’m not unrealistically expecting miracles, but I hope this answers your question.

PS: I'm quite happy to post on boards where rules are strictly enforced (with the exception of MDDB), and in fact I like posting on boards where I know moderators will protect people from slander or character assassination.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _harmony »

RayAgostini wrote:Sure, “we have Mormons”, but how many did we originally have? Have you been asleep, Shades, while some of the best Mormon posters have deserted this board in droves?


Best? Excuse me? I'm still here! So is Liz, so is Jason, so is Moksha, so is bcspace and many others. If by "best" you mean Dan and assorted others, there are some here who would dispute the "best" part.

Have you listened to what they said, and what some are still saying now? When I quoted what Nevo said before he left the board, I was basically told that Nevo could go shove it if he didn’t like it here.


Well, there might have been a better way to put it, but if someone isn't happy here, then there isn't much we can do about their happiness or lack thereof.

Hopefully, the police treat everyone “equally”, including where it comes to enforcing the law.


We moderate; we don't arrest.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_RayAgostini

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _RayAgostini »

harmony wrote:We moderate;...


You mean "minimally", and much of the time not at all, certainly not in keeping with the rules of the Terrestrial as they are laid out.

No one should ever have to come here to see a thread "dedicated" to the assassination of their character. There are two sides to every story. The reason this happens is because in the first place the rule regarding "no personal attacks" is ignored. So it becomes a vicious cycle, with "both sides" attacking each other unrestrained. Nip it in the bud and see what happens.

I would estimate that 75% of threads here end up in posters bashing the hell out of one another, so it's out of control because of "minimal moderation".

Please yourself. Shades asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I'm not going to shed crocodile tears. It's no loss to me, because I already spend little time here.
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

Re: See ya around, chumps

Post by _marg »

Ray,

I agree with you entirely. I've been having the same discussion with Shades in the telestial. The virtual non moderation which Shades promotes under the notion of Freedom of Speech..allows posters to harass others to the point of running them off the board. And it doesn't take many to do that..just a few who keep at it with numerous posts. I can't say I'm particularly interested in this board, I'm simply noting some problems I think could be addressed and changes made to improve. But of course if Shades doesn't agree or has no interest in changing anything...that's fine, I really don't care. I won't keep bringing this up. I just thought the way stem was treated in a particular thread was inappropriate...for a discussion board which supposedly wants to promote discussion and include all viewpoints.
Post Reply