FINALLY: THE LONG-AWAITED RULING (please read!)

[_Dr. Shades]

Dear MormonDiscussions.com participants:

Not long ago I posted a thread requesting user input on how we moderators should handle some recent goings-on both now and in the future. [url=http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=760724#p760724:1qg73qyt]Click here[/url:1qg73qyt] to read it.

I have read your responses and taken your opinions into strong consideration. Rather than dictate my first instinct, I'm glad I requested your input, because the post by DoctorCamNC4Me threw me for a loop: By linking to MsJack's epic thread documenting the moral shortcomings of William Schryver, he reminded me (and proved with bedrock finality) that quote-harvesting does indeed have its place in the quest to establish someone's credibility or to examine someone's claim to the moral "high ground." After I read that, I was immediately reminded of Doctor Scratch's prescient quote-harvesting of jskains's past behaviors when he (jskains) presumed to lecture all of us on our supposed moral failings.

So, I knew that an absolute implementation of my initial instinct wasn't the proper way to go.

But that left me with the question of, "what [i:1qg73qyt]is[/i:1qg73qyt] the proper way to go?" RockSlider made it pretty clear that he felt something was amiss with the continued quote-harvesting directed toward a participant in that last thread. When it came to thread-splitting, or lack thereof, so strong were his opinions that I knew I needed to pay especially close attention to what he was saying. Soon afterward, another post from him in our Moderator Forum made it all fall into place, at least for me.

Therefore, the official ruling, at long last, is this:

[b:1qg73qyt][color=blue:1qg73qyt]From this point forward, we moderators will examine each instance of quote-harvesting and determine, to the best of our ability, if it amounts to thread-relevant [i:1qg73qyt]credibility establishing[/i:1qg73qyt] or non-thread-relevant [i:1qg73qyt]calculated embarrassment or harassment[/i:1qg73qyt]. If we decide that it amounts to the latter, we will split the post in question into the Telestial Forum as a personal attack.[/color:1qg73qyt][/b:1qg73qyt]

This way, A) the rules need not change, as several people recommended should not occur; B) personality conflicts can still be considered relevant to the board but not derail threads in progress, and C) there need not be another forum created specifically for "board drama."

This is all made possible by the moderators now considering the purpose behind harvested quotes as falling into one of two categories instead of just mentally lumping all of them together into one (of course, I may be the only moderator who's guilty of that last part).

Of course, the first question that popped into your mind was, "Isn't such a determination entirely subjective on the moderators' part?" My response is, "Yes, indeed it is. We'll do our best. I apologize in advance if our opinion doesn't coincide with yours."

Gentle reminder: "Quote-harvesting" or not, personal information (real last names, home addresses, etc.) is still not allowed here, even if it was publicly posted elsewhere. The contents of private messages, whether sent or received, are still not allowed to be posted here, either.

Thanks, my friends, for your patience in this matter.

[_Shulem]

Sounds good to me.

All is well.

Paul O

[_RayAgostini]

Rather than dictate my first instinct, I'm glad I requested your input, because the post by DoctorCamNC4Me threw me for a loop: By linking to MsJack's epic thread documenting the moral shortcomings of William Schryver, he reminded me (and proved with bedrock finality) that quote-harvesting does indeed have its place in the quest to establish someone's credibility or to examine someone's claim to the moral "high ground."

Funny how I see that in very different terms.

Would you say that we should judge "Shulem", for example, by what he posts here?

You also seem to be sanctioning what Scratch posted about Liz. You find that to be "credible quote harvesting"? Just curious.

[_Shulem]

Would you say that we should judge "Shulem", for example, by what he posts here?

Ray, first pull the beams out of your own eye before judging me and then you may see clearly. It is evident from your recent postings, you have serious problems and issues that prove you are most unstable.

I think Dr. Shades has shown prudence and wisdom in his ruling. The best thing you can do at this point is to sit down and hush your mouth.

Paul O

[_beastie]

I think it's an excellent ruling.

[_Hermoine]

The ruling is very fair.

And thank you, Shades, for giving me the opportunity to reconsider my membership in lieu of the ruling.

Unfortunately for me, I just think it is too little too late. The amount of emotional stress I have suffered over the past few weeks has had a grave affect on my health and caused me to have severe flare ups.

The new ruling would only encourage the battle between Scratch and me to continue in the Telestial Forum instead of the Terrestrial Forum. I just can't do that anymore. Unfortunately, words do hurt.

Malkie, please PM Ray and you can get my email information from him. I would like to stay in touch with you.

Ray has volunteered to kind of be my point person if anyone here needs to reach me.

[_Analytics]

Sounds fair to me. Thanks for all your hard work in providing us with this forum.

[_Gadianton]

Sounds fair to me. Thanks for all your hard work in providing us with this forum.

I agree.

I'd add: consider the possibility of expiring the material on telestial after 6 months.

[_honorentheos]

I also agree. I appreciate that you took the time to reason it out rather than making a hasty judgment.

[_Chap]

...

From this point forward, we moderators will examine each instance of quote-harvesting and determine, to the best of our ability, if it amounts to thread-relevant credibility establishing or non-thread-relevant calculated embarrassment or harassment. If we decide that it amounts to the latter, we will split the post in question into the Telestial Forum as a personal attack.

This way, A) the rules need not change, as several people recommended should not occur; B) personality conflicts can still be considered relevant to the board but not derail threads in progress, and C) there need not be another forum created specifically for "board drama."
...

I can live with that.

I notice that cross-posted material that is considered to be of purely personal reference, with no relation to the issue under discussion in a given thread, is NOT deleted, NOT moved to Off-topic or Outer Darkness, but is only shifted to Telestial.

If the material is relevant to a thread, IT STAYS THERE. Never mind if it is acutely embarrassing or inconvenient to a given poster.

So posters who don't want embarrassing stuff revealed on this board still retain the responsibility to protect themselves by not making it easy to identify them on other boards.

And, as ever, in real life information is never to be revealed.

Thanks, Shades, for keeping this board going for us!