Apologists Harassing Critics

[_Kishkumen]

Or critics harassing apologists.

If you attack the person instead of arguing the merits of your position, and you do it repeatedly, year after year, you ruin the discussion.

Anyone who harasses another and shuts down discussion habitually should have their posts vetted by mods before those posts go up. If a post is abusive or harassing, it should be rejected.

This goes for people who insult critics.

This goes for people who insult apologists.

This goes for people who bully or derail habitually.

This is my plea to the people who moderate MDB.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Amen. I completely agree. This is something, Kish, that you and I have agreed on for many years.

Words hurt.

[_Res Ipsa]

Agreed. But we need to do a better job at reporting posts that violate the rules rather than attacking he offender. The mods can’t do this without our help.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Agreed. But we need to do a better job at reporting posts that violate the rules rather than attacking he offender. The mods can’t do this without our help.

Amen to this as well.

[_Lemmie]

Agreed. But we need to do a better job at reporting posts that violate the rules rather than attacking he offender. The mods can’t do this without our help.

Yes. I've always defaulted to NOT reporting a post, because I felt it was a burden on a fairly limited moderating crew. However, I agree we need to do something different. If the mods are ready for that, then I'm also in favor of reporting rather than responding.

Anyone who harasses another and shuts down discussion habitually should have their posts vetted by mods before those posts go up

Agreed. And it shouldn't be necessary for mods to have to give an unlimited number of warnings before putting a poster on mod queue. In my opinion, we have reached that point for a certain poster ---his posts need to be put on mod queue.

[_Kishkumen]

In my opinion, we have reached that point for a certain poster ---his posts need to be put on mod queue.

Agreed.

[_Chuck Finley]

Lurking here has actually become annoying, trying to wade through (past?) the exchanges from both parties. I can only imagine there are others out there similarly tired of the drama. I am not keen on censorship, but if neither wants to contribute to the actual discussion and instead just wants to troll, then why allow them to impede the intelligent discourse? I walk away from such foolishness in person, and it is not like the community members (or moderators on their behalf) have to tolerate it here.

[_EAllusion]

Agreed. But we need to do a better job at reporting posts that violate the rules rather than attacking he offender. The mods can’t do this without our help.

One thing I'm sensitive to, having seen what gets reported, is that people are overwhelmingly more likely to report issues with "apologist" posts than those of posts critical of the Mormons/Mormonism. I can think of two critics in particular who are serial offenders who almost never get reported and I only catch if I happen to be reading a thread they are in. People clearly are willing to overlook the faults of people on their "side" as compared to people whose viewpoint they disagree with.

As a result, I am cautious not to confuse what's reported as a representative sample of posters' patterns. Otherwise, this is just a back-door way to bias moderation.

[_Lemmie]

Lurking here has actually become annoying, trying to wade through (past?) the exchanges from both parties. I can only imagine there are others out there similarly tired of the drama. I am not keen on censorship, but if neither wants to contribute to the actual discussion and instead just wants to troll, then why allow them to impede the intelligent discourse?

I agree grindael has over-reacted, but in his defense, in the trolling threads under discussion, grindael has had his IN REAL LIFE research endeavors, procedures, and persona continually trolled for more than three years (see the 2014 Strawman thread mg started: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35723). These harassing and mocking posts virtually never address any content, or contain an opinion about the actual material, usually original, that grindael posts. They are meant to provoke, disrupt, and irritate.

In response, grindael has trolled back, but his history also clearly indicates he wants to and has contributed considerably.

In contrast, here's what a mod says about the other poster's recent behavior:

I'm persuaded that MG is deliberately entering threads on a consistent basis in order to be disruptive to them. He's not trying to participate in conversation in these instances. He's trying to blow it up by pushing people's buttons.

ETA: I note EAllusion has added some additional information in an above post. I don't want my excerpt to take his opinion out of context, so it's important to note what he said there about critic's posts as well as what I quoted here.

[_Shulem]

Or critics harassing apologists.

If you attack the person instead of arguing the merits of your position, and you do it repeatedly, year after year, you ruin the discussion.

Anyone who harasses another and shuts down discussion habitually should have their posts vetted by mods before those posts go up. If a post is abusive or harassing, it should be rejected.

This goes for people who insult critics.

This goes for people who insult apologists.

This goes for people who bully or derail habitually.

This is my plea to the people who moderate MDB.

No, no, and no.

The heat of the kitchen is part of this venue. Deal with it.