ON THE UPCOMING RULING: The issues as I see them

[_Kishkumen]

But it may always not be that simple. If I were to post here advocating the strictest sexual continence for gay people, but also to post as 'Chap' (Or 'Chappy', with the same vocabulary and mannerisms) on another board recounting with relish my liaisons with rent boys, it would be entirely proper to call attention to my inconsistency, even if that meant revealing information that might embarrass me profoundly. (Well, it wouldn't embarrass the real me, though it would certainly embarrass the cyber-me manifested on this board.)

I get what you are saying, but I am not sure this fits the current situation. Could be I am not exerting the effort to remember.

[_Chap]

Fortunately, it is not necessary to settle the rights and wrongs of the very long-running conflict between Dr Scratch (and, perhaps, LDSToronto) and Liz/Yoda/Hermoine in order to decide the general issues raised in this thread.

Dr Shades doesn't have to decide who gets sent to the naughty corner; he just has to decide how this board will be run in the future.

[_Chap]

But it may always not be that simple. If I were to post here advocating the strictest sexual continence for gay people, but also to post as 'Chap' (Or 'Chappy', with the same vocabulary and mannerisms) on another board recounting with relish my liaisons with rent boys, it would be entirely proper to call attention to my inconsistency, even if that meant revealing information that might embarrass me profoundly. (Well, it wouldn't embarrass the real me, though it would certainly embarrass the cyber-me manifested on this board.)

I get what you are saying, but I am not sure this fits the current situation. Could be I am not exerting the effort to remember.

My example is directed to making the point that the fact that a cross-posting from another board embarrasses an MDB poster can never in itself alone be sufficient grounds for suppressing the embarrassing post.

For in circumstances such as the ones I outlined, the embarrassment would serve a quite legitimate and proper purpose, that of exposing hypocrisy in a way that undermined the grounds for an argument being made on this board.

There will therefore always be a need to look carefully into the circumstances leading to the embarrassment before taking action, and the judgements involved are likely to be so difficult that they will inevitably arouse suspicions of caprice or favoritism on the part of moderators. Given that elementary caution about board identities will in any case protect a poster from embarrassment by cross-posting, it seems preferable to leave posters to protect themselves by avoiding stupidly imprudent behavior.

[_Hermoine]

Fortunately, it is not necessary to settle the rights and wrongs of the very long-running conflict between Dr Scratch (and, perhaps, LDSToronto) and Liz/Yoda/Hermoine in order to decide the general issues raised in this thread.

Dr Shades doesn't have to decide who gets sent to the naughty corner; he just has to decide how this board will be run in the future.

Yes. And I think the general consensus is that the rules as they currently exist suffice.

One interesting turn of events has come out of all of this. Since my past is out in the open, that little intimidation tool is no longer effective. Going forward, Scratch and LDST will actually have to....(horror of horrors!)....address the topic!

[_Doctor Scratch]

1. Is the material from another site relevant to discussions here?

Sometimes, yes--it is. As Dr. Shades rightly pointed out in his OP, cross-posting is often useful in terms of establishing credibility. You have to realize that Liz/Yoda/Her-moyne has said repeatedly that she's loyally LDS, with a TR, related to an Apostle, and so on and so forth. She's gone out of her way to befriend Pahoran, DCP, Droopy, and other notable Mopologists. She uses all of this as her kind of "credentials" for claiming that she's actually TBM. The problem with this is that she authors spanking fetish porn stories, and writes posts about having a "cyber affair" with some "spanking mentor," plus she chug-a-lugs the White Zinfandel, watches porn (supposedly) with her TBM hubby, uses boatloads of profanity, etc., etc. All of which is to say that this sort of behavior doesn't exactly square with what most of us think of when we imagine squeaky-clean, temple-going Latter-day Saints.

Liz has emerged as perhaps *the* pre-eminent "Danpologist," or "Mopologistpologist"--no one goes into a higher overdrive to defend the crappy behavior of the apologists than her. Now, is she coming from the standpoint of a moral, upstanding stakeholder? Or, instead, is she up to something else? We kind of need to know the background in order to formulate an answer.

2. Is it fine to post material here from another site, for the purpose of embarrassing another poster (as opposed to adding to the discussion) especially if said material has seriously negative in real life repercussions (such as custody arrangements. as in this eg)?

I don't think that it is. Plus, why does Liz have any reason to be "embarrassed"? She had no problem posting to the spanking forum under her own name, for heaven's sake: she was posting links to her singing Web site on the spanking forum. Perhaps she's embarrassed about having her credibility blown to smithereens, and for telling a bunch of easy-to-disprove lies, but that's a separate issue--by which I mean, it's nobody's fault but her own.

[_Hermoine]

You have to realize that Liz/Yoda/Her-moyne has said repeatedly that she's loyally LDS, with a TR, related to an Apostle, and so on and so forth.

As usual, you are incorrectly reporting the facts and twisting the truth. What I have made clear in my posts is that I have grown up in the LDS Church, am currently active, and hold a calling. I have not "repeatedly" stated that I hold a temple recommend, or that I am related to an Apostle. I believe that there was one social thread where I mentioned my daughter's wedding. Did I hold a TR at the time? Obviously, since I attended the wedding. As far as my being related to an Apostle is concerned, it is not me, but my husband, who is related to an Apostle. And I believe that the only thread I really mentioned that was on the thread involving whether or not apostles were paid, and how that payment scale worked.

She's gone out of her way to befriend Pahoran, DCP, Droopy, and other notable Mopologists.

I have not "gone out of my way" to befriend Pahoran, Dan, Droopy, or any other "notable Mopologist". These are simply people I have befriended over the past 10 years I have been involved with LDS message boards. In addition to being friends with those mentioned above, I am also friends with Kish, Kevin, Sock Puppet, Moksha, Harmony, Jersey Girl, Ms. Jack, Runtu, Beastie, Blixa, Zee, Quasi, Shades, and a host of other "notable critics".

She uses all of this as her kind of "credentials" for claiming that she's actually TBM.

This is a blatant lie, born from your conspiracy theory imagination. Please show me where I have EVER claimed to be TBM, EVER. You can't, because I never have.

I have self-identified as a NOM and/or a Cafeteria Mormon since Day 1 on Shades' board. I require no "credentials" to claim who I am. Either like me or don't. Converse with me or put me on Ignore. The choice is yours.

[_Hermoine]

This is the thread where all of this started:

viewtopic.php?p=753341#p753341

Scratch, you claim that your posting my connection to the spanking website and other various "sins" you had managed to dig up on me, was done in an effort to "destroy my TBM credentials".

Please tell me, from the post above, how my supposedly being a TBM was at all relevant to my post?

This was my post:

I just noticed something on that tax document and I think it is worth noting... Dan's home address is on that page 20 that Scratch has been referring to. I don 't know about any of you, but I certainly object to home addresses being posted here.

I am reporting the post. Shades can take the action he sees fit.

All I did was mention that Dan's home address was on the tax form. Since I don't think that ANYONE here will argue the point that posting in real life home addresses is against the rules, I stated that I was going through proper board channels and reporting the post. I further made it clear that any action would be left in Shades' hands.

And for posting this, you found it necessary to drag me through the mud?

All you would have had to do was edit out the address! If you didn't know how to do that, you could have asked Shades to help you! The only action that had been taken at that point was that the post had been reported.

Instead of spending time attacking me, you could have edited out the address, or solicited help from someone to edit it out, and guess what? The link that ended up being completely deleted due to the ensuing eruption would probably still be there! Did you ever think of that, Scratch?

It seems to me that your concern lied much more with destroying me than it did for "providing needed background for my credentials".

[_hobo1512]

Is this horse dead yet?

I mean come on people, seriously?

[_Nightingale]

I asked, "Is the material from another site relevant to discussions here?"

I meant this more as a question to ask ourselves as we are posting but I see that I didn't make this at all clear.

I certainly see the reasons some have outlined for why some such material could be totally relevant. I always post as Nightingale, on several boards, and strive to be consistent in major opinions. If I'm not, I'd expect that someone may point that out. Perhaps over time I do genuinely change my opinions and beliefs. If I were using different board names in a deliberate attempt to hide my true opinions on controversial subject matter, thus being a total hypocrite, I'd not be surprised that if someone discovered that they would make it public (if it mattered at all).

As for the motivations someone would have for making this public, who could really know that, perhaps not even that poster themselves. Perhaps sometimes it would be obvious that it was done with malice, other times not.

I didn't know any of the details of the case at hand so, as I said, my comments were more general. I appreciate the clarifications offered. I can't really get into the specifics as I am not a regular poster and also haven't much knowledge of the background of all this. But I think that some general guidelines apply to most situations, over and above specific knowledge of an individual case.

[_Hermoine]

I asked, "Is the material from another site relevant to discussions here?"

I meant this more as a question to ask ourselves as we are posting but I see that I didn't make this at all clear.

I certainly see the reasons some have outlined for why some such material could be totally relevant. I always post as Nightingale, on several boards, and strive to be consistent in major opinions. If I'm not, I'd expect that someone may point that out. Perhaps over time I do genuinely change my opinions and beliefs. If I were using different board names in a deliberate attempt to hide my true opinions on controversial subject matter, thus being a total hypocrite, I'd not be surprised that if someone discovered that they would make it public (if it mattered at all).

As for the motivations someone would have for making this public, who could really know that, perhaps not even that poster themselves. Perhaps sometimes it would be obvious that it was done with malice, other times not.

I didn't know any of the details of the case at hand so, as I said, my comments were more general. I appreciate the clarifications offered. I can't really get into the specifics as I am not a regular poster and also haven't much knowledge of the background of all this. But I think that some general guidelines apply to most situations, over and above specific knowledge of an individual case.

I appreciate your input, Nightingale. Hopefully, now that I have posted the thread where this all originated from, you have a clearer understanding.

Since you have the luxury of being more neutral, maybe you can point out what I am missing. How is Scratch's posting of my involvement with a spanking website related to my post or the topic at hand?