DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:55 am**

Now that MD powers-that-be have decided to allow Mormon Jonestowners like my former self the right to prohibit challenges on special "faith-promoting threads", to be consistent - that is, to be unlike the unfair folks running MADness - those same MAD powers-that-be must now give NON Mormon posters the right to prohibit challenges from Mormons. Will they do so?

And if posters of a certain view now enjoy the privilege of enforcing "thread purity", why shouldn't they - or non-Mormons, as per the above logical extension - also have the right to ban certain problem posters (maybe whoever they pick) from participating on their threads?

For example, when I posted regularly a year or so ago, it seemed that numerous threads (including some of my own) were totally derailed by the presence of one particular Mormon defender, who seems as earnest as he is incapable of coherence. Instead of the thread being about what it was supposed to be, otherwise sensible non-Mormons would end up spending most of their time talking about how "stupid" this particular person's posts were (as if this was news). Start out with DNA, end up talking about how stupid X is. Start out with nailing Fanny Alger in a hayloft, end up talking about how stupid X is. Start out talking about anything, and end up talking about how stupid X is. X ends up the main topic of every thread simply because - I presume - his inability to reason is so distracting and horrifically fascinating. Why that should that happen? Certainly, the step from banning "ideas" to banning "people" is minute...so now, why wouldn't the mods take it, too?

So, while I am relatively a very junior member here, I call on the moderators to eschew favoritism and grant to all MD posters the same rights they've granted to a small group. If church defenders can ban thread challenges on faith-promoting threads, non-Mormons should be able to ban thread challenges on fraud-EXPOSING threads. And I don't see why thread starters shouldn't now also be allowed to keep certain derailing posters off.

Goose - gander - logical extension - the mods started it - etc.

Be fair, or drop the rule.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:07 am**

Tal wrote:If church defenders can ban thread challenges on faith-promoting threads, non-Mormons should be able to ban thread challenges on fraud-EXPOSING threads. And I don't see why thread starters shouldn't now also be allowed to keep certain derailing posters off.

I agree. If you read the sticky carefully, you will see that this is allowed under the new rule. "Faith Based" is referring to the circumstances that the thread originator designates.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:09 am**

This has been recently added to the Sticky thread:

Alternately, if you would like to declare a thread "Atheist based", you may detail the parameters of your assumptions as well. Such as, "Atheists have morals". Thus, any argument about atheists and their perceived lack of morals would be off limits in this thread.

I still don't care for the new rule. That's probably been made clear...

KA

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:20 am**

KimberlyAnn wrote:This has been recently added to the Sticky thread:

Alternately, if you would like to declare a thread "Atheist based", you may detail the parameters of your assumptions as well. Such as, "Atheists have morals". Thus, any argument about atheists and their perceived lack of morals would be off limits in this thread.

I still don't care for the new rule. That's probably been made clear...

KA

I'm not even going to bother to comment, except to say I'm not going to bother.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:21 am**

liz3564 wrote:
Tal wrote:If church defenders can ban thread challenges on faith-promoting threads, non-Mormons should be able to ban thread challenges on fraud-EXPOSING threads. And I don't see why thread starters shouldn't now also be allowed to keep certain derailing posters off.

I agree. If you read the sticky carefully, you will see that this is allowed under the new rule. "Faith Based" is referring to the circumstances that the thread originator designates.

---Well...this all sounds like quite the folly to me - the end of the whole concept of MD, basically. And if it is...there's always www.thefoyer.org.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:52 am**

Actually allowing religious posters to post in a thread of their own without challenge was already being allowed and protected by mods, not everyone took advantage of it or appreciated it though, but threads have been set up that way. And frankly if a religious individual specifies the parameters are restricted I have no interest in that thread and quite often that's how I treat certain threads, certain posters. I have never argued with Gaz or entered a thread he started. I know where he's coming from, so no point.

My biggest complaint regarding this board is the ad homs in the Celestial. The board offers it as a heavily moderated forum. Heavily moderated on a board which is open to all viewpoints should not protect those who argue by personal attack in lieu of focus on topic for various obvious reasons.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:03 am**

Tal Bachman wrote:[size=14]Now that MD powers-that-be have decided to allow Mormon Jonestowners like my former self the right to prohibit challenges on special "faith-promoting threads", to be consistent - that is, to be unlike the unfair folks running MADness - those same MAD powers-that-be must now give NON Mormon posters the right to prohibit challenges from Mormons.

This is probably one of the most confusing sentence I've ever read!! Tal, you know it's ok to break a complex concept into 2 or even three sentences, right? Try it sometime!

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:06 am**

Tal Bachman wrote:For example, when I posted regularly a year or so ago, it seemed that numerous threads (including some of my own) were totally derailed by the presence of one particular Mormon defender, who seems as earnest as he is incapable of coherence. Instead of the thread being about what it was supposed to be, otherwise sensible non-Mormons would end up spending most of their time talking about how "stupid" this particular person's posts were (as if this was news). Start out with DNA, end up talking about how stupid X is. Start out with nailing Fanny Alger in a hayloft, end up talking about how stupid X is. Start out talking about anything, and end up talking about how stupid X is. X ends up the main topic of every thread simply because - I presume - his inability to reason is so distracting and horrifically fascinating. Why that should that happen? Certainly, the step from banning "ideas" to banning "people" is minute...so now, why wouldn't the mods take it, too?

This kind of behavior isn't allowed in the CK. It is a place to debate ideas, not posters.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:08 am**

Tal Bachman wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Tal wrote:If church defenders can ban thread challenges on faith-promoting threads, non-Mormons should be able to ban thread challenges on fraud-EXPOSING threads. And I don't see why thread starters shouldn't now also be allowed to keep certain derailing posters off.

I agree. If you read the sticky carefully, you will see that this is allowed under the new rule. "Faith Based" is referring to the circumstances that the thread originator designates.

---Well...this all sounds like quite the folly to me - the end of the whole concept of MD, basically. And if it is...there's always www.thefoyer.org.

A tad dramatic, don't ya think?

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:28 am**

A tad dramatic, don't ya think?

---Maybe...but I thought the whole point of MD was to faciliate free discussion.

DiscussMormonism.com

Two Logical Follow-Ups to the New MD Rule

Two Logical Follow-Ups to the New MD Rule

Re: Two Logical Follow-Ups to the New MD Rule

Re: Two Logical Follow-Ups to the New MD Rule