DiscussMormonism.com

(Daniel Peterson @ Dec 28 2007, 09:41 PM)

http://www.mormonagenda.com/

Not to derail this thread, but the enforcement of board guidelines on this board is, for many reasons, quite interesting to me. In this thread (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=30131&hl=), I asked Tramper to provide a source for his information - a "CFR" as it were. The board guidelines stipulate:

Do post substantive comments. While opinions are allowed, whenever possible posters should provide sources, the full context of quotes, scriptures and other citations, and links to relevant information. If asked for documentation for your opinion, you will be expected to provide it.

Tramper's source was an anti-Mormon site. The board guidelines stipulate:

Links to outside sites that are not relevant to supporting a discussion (in particular anti-mormon sites) are discouraged.

Tramper's response to my CFR was deleted with the mod note, "No links to anti sites," even though the site was relevant to the discussion (indeed, the site's content was the very topic of the thread) and Tramper was providing documentation for his post because it was requested.

In this thread, Daniel has posted a link to an anti-Mormon site for the purposes of discussion, and, given the lack of moderator action, one could be led to think this is ok. My question is, when is linking to an anti site acceptable and when is it not?

Perhaps someone with an answer could take this up in a new thread. I only mention it here so everyone can see what I'm talking about.

Thanks!

*Leaving thread now*

Links to outside sites that are not relevant to supporting a discussion (in particular anti-mormon sites) are discouraged.

Alter Idem wrote:"Jessicka" is not going to last long.

It may be purely innocent, but whenever a newbie zeros in on Dr. P in a negative way, they look suspicious.

The mod's ears will perk up at this one and suspect she's a sock-puppet--one of you guys, no doubt.

DCP wrote:If you consult with outside experts, Jessicka, I believe you'll find that I'm given unique treatment because I'm a hothouse flower who can't withstand criticism and an egomaniac who demands coddling and special privileges. Or something to that effect.

It seems to me that the link I supplied in my opening post on this thread complies with the relevant board rule, which, as you quoted it, reads "Links to outside sites that are not relevant to supporting a discussion (in particular anti-mormon sites) are discouraged."

The rule doesn't state that such links are forbidden, just discouraged. And, of course, the link that I provided was intended to serve as the entire basis of discussion in this thread. So, on two grounds, my link appears to be appropriate and within the bounds of permissibilty. If you think moderator decisions elsewhere have been inconsistent with this rule, the best thing for you to do would be to raise the issue with the moderators.

Scottie wrote:

DCP wrote: If you think moderator decisions elsewhere have been inconsistent with this rule, the best thing for you to do would be to raise the issue with the moderators.

dartagnan wrote:Jessica is my three year-old daughter's name, but I am not posting as Jessika for anyone else who is wondering.