DiscussMormonism.com

Dear everyone:

On this thread started by Don Bradley, lots of people chimed in with suggestions on what would make the board better and/or things that should be done differently.

But what does everyone else think? This poll is to get a handle on how the majority feels about the way things are currently done.

If the majority of people like the status quo, then we'll keep going full speed ahead. If, on the other hand, the majority feel that things need to change, then we'll see what we can do to accommodate everyone's wishes.

Although it's by no means required, I'd be tickled pink if you tell me the reason(s) you voted the way you did.

Thanks in advance to everyone who votes in this poll.

I think we another moderator. I mean the board seems to continue to have steady traffic and posting (at least a few hundred every day) and another person with their finger on the move thread or delete spam button would be helpful.

So I picked the "we need at least one change" selection.

Also...how about a "report post" icon on all posts....so that when someone sees bad language or whatever they can report it as a check in case a mod doesn't read a given thread that has a language infraction or something. I mean I read alot, but I don't read every post word for word for language violations and so forth.

Giving my own thoughts here, I'm of the opinion that we'd solve at least 75% of the problems if we merely enforced the "rules" we already have. The problem is--and I'm sure I speak for Liz and Bond as well--we moderators simply get overwhelmed and can't keep up with the "violations" made by y'all. Temple content in the Terrestrial Forum, off-topic derailments, the "S" word getting used in the Terrestrial Forum, etc. I simply don't have the energy to deal with the vast majority of what I see.

So, if you really want something done about the above, you ought to consider volunteering to be a moderator. Put your money where your mouth is, as they say.

The first rule of thumb is that I won't ask anyone to be a moderator. I'll only take on those who specifically volunteer to become such.

The second rule of thumb is that you must have already ascended to Godhood. If you've reached that level, then you have already demonstrated your commitment to the success of MormonDiscussions.com. This leaves the following eligible people:

Runtu
harmony
beastie
Jersey Girl
The Nehor
Gazelam
Mercury
Mister Scratch
Jason Bourne
Coggins7
moksha
Ray A
Blixa
asbestosman
Who Knows
wenglund
charity
truth dancer
Sethbag
Some Schmo
KimberlyAnn
Imwashingmypirate
Doctor Steuss
Moniker
GIMR
dartagnan
rcrocket
Scottie
Trevor
thestyleguy

(NOTE: Since I can already see them coming, do NOT make a post saying something like, "Oh boy, I'd hate it if _____ became a moderator!" or "I'll leave the board if _______ becomes a moderator!" Such posts are off-topic and I'll be splitting them off.)

The third rule of thumb is that you must pass a rigorous screening process imposed by me. I want to be sure that everyone has the fullest confidence in your ability to be impartial when in "moderator mode," unlike what we see at MA&D.

The fourth rule of thumb is that all new moderators are hired on a trial basis. If you don't "work out," then please don't take it personally if you revert back to non-moderator status. I simply need to keep the confidence of the other participants here, unlike what we see at MA&D.

Well, Shades I don't like that link that you provided. Skippy and I could no longer *snort* at rcrockett. What about fornication pants -- would those be acceptable in that community? No more "skeev" that Blixa uses (I do too) or slang? Don Bradley wouldn't have been able to make a thread criticizing the board -- their option is if you don't like the board, then leave.

I think there can be tweaks made here. I think the different forums need better defined rules. The PG and PG-13 just doesn't really cut it. Even if you go by the ratings they are so arbitrary (since it's all over the place in movies since there is not one group of raters) in movies it doesn't jibe well with clear cut rules.

I would like it if personal attacks would only occur in telestial. I think debate can get heated, and that's fine -- but name calling and slurs (I've done it TOOO!) should be in telestial. I think anything that LDS consider sacred should be in telestial, as well. I think celestial works fine for what it is.

Could Charity still say people are of the devil and Satan in this forum? I would think not if there needed to be consistency. Of course, the problem that I would see is that this is part of LDS beliefs and as such has its place in debates. It gets a bit hazy, really.

I wish participants would attempt to be more considerate to each other. Yet, I think so much of the ridicules are done specifically to run off (or fluster and intimidate) LDS posters.

I'm awful about off-topic remarks and have attempted to be better about this. More often than not I reply to someone else that has already gone off-topic -- it just spirals down from there.

I suggested that if participants in a thread feel the need to do off-topic that they just control themselves (as adults) and split off those comments (copy and paste them) into a new thread. I've done that lately and it worked okay.

I don't want to be a moderator and no one would want me to be. It seems like a big pain in the ass. Kudos to Liz and Bond for all their efforts.

I voted yes; I'll try to post reasons tomorrow a.m. (I've already included my comments on Don's original thread).

Maybe it would be best, in the spirit of democracy, for the posters to suggest who might moderate.

Here is my selection (based on the 1,000 post criterion):

beastie
Gaz
Moksha
Blixa
Abestosman
Truth Dancer
Kimberly Ann
Doctor Steuss
Moniker
GIMR
Scottie
thestyleguy
Trevor

All subject to availability.

I'm undecided. On the one hand, I'd like PP's avatar to change. I'm a big boy and cand handle it however rude I find it, but when I read the board at home or in front of other Mormons I feel embarassed for them. That said, I can fix the problem on my side with a Firefox plug-in.

Another question I have is what the purpose of this board is. Most of the time I don't take it seriously. It's entertainment. On the other hand, Shades appears to want this board to be more serious. I certainly like some serious discussions, but I'm particularly big on history and the like.

Another question is what sort of people we want to attract here. Most LDS don't like this kind of board. Nehor even appears to have been offended yet again by this place, and I think he's one of the more tolerant ones. More serious people like Don Bradley don't seem to like it too much either and I really enjoy his insights. I'd honestly consider changing the board just to keep him around. Yet I also like seeing the other side tell things as they see them such as Who Knows' thoughts on Romney, or how his family treats him or Coggins explain his view on politics. I also enjoy seeing the random thoughts of Pirate or the one-liners of Nehor.

I've voted yes, but let me be very clear - I don't think things have to change. I just think things 'could'. And they 'could' be slightly for the better maybe.
I - personally - don't mind the board as it as at all. As in, I don't really care about just scrolling through the stuff I don't particularly wanna have to wade through etc. But at the same time, I see 'issues'.

It could be just as simple as an ignore feature, or a threaded view. But that still wouldn't tackle some other things.

It's possible more moderators could help things - for sure. But what I'd also like to see is emphasis placed - specifically in the Celestial room - on people being able to dictate the direction of their threads, and having that enforced. Properly. (I think that means the Celestial room at least being moderated 'as other boards are moderated'. But maybe extra mods will do it - whatever...)

people who start threads in the Celestial room should be able to dictate what 'type' of thread they want to have. For example, one user has stated that they would like to discuss Mormon history from a secular perspective, and not have to keep seeing posts that are calling them (and others) to repentance over it. They should be able to state at the beginning of the thread that the thread is to be on the secular aspects of the history. (i.e. no 'preaching').

Some threads might want to be on theological arguments. (i.e. you should conceded - at the very least - that God is presumed to exist! No militant atheists please!)

Or many threads want to concentrate on philosophy.

Whatever.

The people who start the thread should be able to dictate some 'boundaries' for that thread in the Celestial room, and have some hope that those boundaries will be respected. At the moment, I don't there is too much hope of that. It would just be too big a task for the mods to have to literally be splitting off stuff from every other thread if the Celestial room ended up getting too 'popular'. Which is why it must remain practically empty to even come close to serving it's current function!

It's possible that if the Celestial room was run as a bit of a tighter ship, that no change would be necessary in the Terrestial and Telestial rooms. That's quite possible.

Here's how I'd like to see things organised perhaps:

Celestial Room:
Serious discussion only. Rated 'G' Heavily moderated. (And I mean 'really' moderated'). No personal 'attacks' allowed. Thread starters can set the 'direction' of the thread, and that direction is to be stuck to properly. If you don't like that type of thread, then don't post in it!.

Terrestial room:
The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. (That could mean 'as it is now' possibly) Rated PG to PG-13.
Attacks are 'allowed', but within reason - and all posts should generally be 'somewhat' on topic. (i.e. if your gonna attack, at least keep it on topic!)

The Telestial Forum
The anything-goes forum for flaming, venting, and personal attacks. No moderation. Threads can drive off cliffs regularly - no problem. Rated R. (i.e. no change from now).