DiscussMormonism.com

I was very surprised to see a thread on which the moderating style of MAD was being discussed, including comments by Nemesis. In the past, this type of thread would have been shut down, much less participated on by a mod.

At any rate, I thought it was extremely interesting, particularly the part of Mods receiving emails chastising them for being too easy on critics, and hence, being in league with apostates.

In the end, I think that MAD moderators don't have any choice. As we learned from Z, a significant number of LDS simply will not participate on a board that does not offer them more protection than offered the other side.

There is an unintended side-effect of this, though. It keeps critics on their toes, and generally more polite and on-topic, while allowing some really caustic believers to be pretty vocal in an off-putting way.

Whether or not this is a good or bad consequence could be debated. Since I like being represented by sharp critics who are generally reasonable and rational in their arguments, I think it's a good thing. I imagine some LDS might find it a bad thing.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showforum=11

In fact, I've decided I disagree with those who call for boycotting MAD. I hope there are always sharp critics who are willing to endure insults, while walking on eggshells, so our voices can be heard where the most LDS congregate. I know I can only deal with it for so long before needing a break. Maybe we can take turns. ;)

Wasn't Nemesis the OP?

Yes, Nemesis did start the thread, which was part of my surprise.

I would normally not comment on a thread someone started about moderating, because it would not last long and be disapproved of. But when I saw Nemesis actually started it, it made me realize this thread was going to be a bit different. And it was. By Nemesis's comments, the mods recognize that the antipathy between the two sides has increased over time.

I think the ideal critic for MAD moderators is dumb, vicious, and otherwise ethically dubious. It provides the perfect strawman for criticism of their faith. The problem is those people anger them so much that they are quickly censored. So they put themselves in a situation where they require a constant influx of those type of critics they can ban while truthfully asserting they will not welcome their presence.

I think the ideal critic for MAD moderators is dumb, vicious, and otherwise ethically dubious. It provides the perfect strawman for criticism of their faith. The problem is those people anger them so much that they are quickly censored. So they put themselves in a situation where they require a constant influx of those type of critics they can ban while truthfully asserting they will not welcome their presence.

That would be the ideal critic, but it's not the type of critic that they "create" for the board, with their own experiment in eugenics.

There is, however, a certain influx of those types of critics, I'm sure.

It's a real conundrum for them. They have to appease the believers who demand harsher actions on critics, while undoubtedly being intelligent enough to realize the unintended consequence of that action.

I find the unbalanced moderating on MADB helps maintain a level playing field where one does not naturally exist. The believers have a handicap and it is hard for some critics to restrain themselves from the slaughter, so draconian moderation vs. critics is the only way to maintain the board. Hence, I find the moderating system to be understandable and, for the most part, quite tolerable.

The Dude wrote:I find the unbalanced moderating on MADB helps maintain a level playing field where one does not naturally exist. The believers have a handicap and it is hard for some critics to restrain themselves from the slaughter, so draconian moderation vs. critics is the only way to maintain the board. Hence, I find the moderating system to be understandable and, for the most part, quite tolerable.

And we see the evidence for your hypothesis on this board: a completely non-interventionist moderation style that is balanced basically by definition produces an environment that few believing LDS can tolerate or within which successfully defend their ideology.

for what it's worth, I believe the present Nemesis to be the 3rd incarnation of said Titian.

I don't know Dude. MAD mods are notorious for declaring things off topic when they are not, finding offense when there is none, censoring posts that contain information or arguments problematic for what they say, etc. Even if you favored the uneven requirements in civility, that does not excuse this state of affairs.

EAllusion wrote:I don't know Dude. MAD mods are notorious for declaring things off topic when they are not, finding offense when there is none, censoring posts that contain information or arguments problematic for what they say, etc. Even if you favored the uneven requirements in civility, that does not excuse this state of affairs.

Agreed.