Rules and Moderator Info

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Potential Rule Changes

Post by Jersey Girl »

canpakes wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:27 am
Markk wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:11 am
This issue in not about trolling, many complaining about your “trolling” are experts at it, it is not about anything but controlling the narrative. The reality is certain folks find comfort here, and that’s okay, I get it. They find an adhesive continuity within their tribe, and when that continuity and sense of comfort is threatened by other folks opinions, it threatens their “testimony” so to speak of the one true ideology. “I know my ideology is the only true ideology and that my leader is the only true leader.”

I came out of Mormonism before many if no most of the folks here did. And on the old boards we would debate in the same fashion, me as evangelical, and they as Saints…only then the narrative of the church was true, and their rock and comfort. I would go back and forth with here many here, many times…and they defended Mormonism with the same passion as they defends their left wing ideology today.

To your point though I would hate to see Shades vision tampered with, I think folks should just ignore those that they don’t like. But if their is to be moderation I think it would be interesting to let each thread starter moderate their thread…it would never work, but it would be fun to watch. I would like to see conservative threads evolve without the “trolling”…but good luck with that.

Take care.

Markk, if you have been away for as long as you appear to have been, you’ve missed the majority of activity that has brought us to this point. Specifically, the last 9 months or so have seen more disruption than the past 15 years probably have, and not for reasons that you speculate about above.

Several thousand posts (yes, you read that number correctly) by one participant alone were removed by that participant because not even he was keen to leave that record laying around as a testimony of his own actions.

If you want to get a sample of how things have been during the period that I mention, dip down into Spirit Prison for a look around.
And LOOK at this link in Outer Darkness if you doubt what canpakes has told you and inform yourself, Markk.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1368
Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Potential Rule Changes

Post by canpakes »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:30 am
canpakes wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:27 am
Markk, if you have been away for as long as you appear to have been, you’ve missed the majority of activity that has brought us to this point. Specifically, the last 9 months or so have seen more disruption than the past 15 years probably have, and not for reasons that you speculate about above.

Several thousand posts (yes, you read that number correctly) by one participant alone were removed by that participant because not even he was keen to leave that record laying around as a testimony of his own actions.

If you want to get a sample of how things have been during the period that I mention, dip down into Spirit Prison for a look around.
And LOOK at this link in Outer Darkness if you doubt what canpakes has told you and inform yourself, Markk.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1368

Adding: the text that you see in these posts, Markk, is the edited replacement text. What was in these posts prior to their edit by the owner would have made a deranged, paranoid schizophrenic sailor with Tourette’s and a bad crack habit blush.

If you need examples, I’ll toss you some great links.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm

Re: Rules and Moderator Info

Post by Gadianton »

They find an adhesive continuity within their tribe, and when that continuity and sense of comfort is threatened by other folks opinions
hardly. If you want to come here and "threaten" us with your testimony of stolen elections and 6$ gas, you are perfectly welcome to. You're under no threat whatsoever of being banned. In fact, I would say take some time and put together the most penetrating right-wing analysis that you can come up with and post it as an opening topic. If you put some real effort into it, I, for one, would ask the moderators to pin it to the top of the board for a couple weeks so that it's right there for everyone to engage, and make it hard for those of the tribe to hide from. I'd love every member of this tribe to be forced to take a gander at markk's threating logic.

Would you be willing to do that? A 1000 word essay on the topic of your choice, but it all has to be your own work, and if you meet the requirement, I say let's pin it to the top for 2 weeks.

The problem isn't "other folk's opinions", the problem is other folks opinions posted dozens, up into the hundreds of times in a single day, in new topics, in old topics, filled with F-words and insults, and sexual harassment of female posters. Yes, we aren't interested in your opinions on the sex lives of other posters if that's what you mainly want to talk about, markk. we aren't interested in being told "F U" twelve times a post. But if you are set on those things being the hallmark of free speech, then I guess we're not really about free speech and you'll have to find somewhere else.
Chap
God
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Rules and Moderator Info

Post by Chap »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:17 am
Chap wrote:
Wed Mar 16, 2022 11:20 pm
Has the preceding message been pinned? If not, may I suggest that it should be?

I hope that now Rome Has Spoken we can stop discussing rule changes for a while, and see how the mods set about applying these rules. That probably will be more enlightening than a stack of "but what if" questions at this point.
On my list of things to address is how to make “rulings” more accessible and easier to find. I don’t think pinning is a good solution, as the front page would rapidly become obscured by pins. But I think there are other workable solutions available.
I'm not suggesting that you should pin all future rulings by mods. That would be pointless, and as you say it would take up space. I am suggesting that you should, for a while at least, pin the message in your opening post, since it contains an important statement of policy on how the mods will make their decisions in future, and people may wish to consult it.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Chap
God
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Potential Rule Changes

Post by Chap »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:30 am
canpakes wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:27 am
Markk, if you have been away for as long as you appear to have been, you’ve missed the majority of activity that has brought us to this point. Specifically, the last 9 months or so have seen more disruption than the past 15 years probably have, and not for reasons that you speculate about above.

Several thousand posts (yes, you read that number correctly) by one participant alone were removed by that participant because not even he was keen to leave that record laying around as a testimony of his own actions.

If you want to get a sample of how things have been during the period that I mention, dip down into Spirit Prison for a look around.
And LOOK at this link in Outer Darkness if you doubt what canpakes has told you and inform yourself, Markk.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1368
I would have expected some kind of "Oh, I see!" post from Markk when he saw those 119 pages of posts that the mods had to clear off the board's normal forums.

Did he decide simply not to look, on the grounds that it might change his mind about what this board has had to deal with by way of trolling?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 6547
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rules and Moderator Info

Post by Res Ipsa »

There appears to be some confusion about the role of moderators in a forum, such as this, that values free speech. Most of the limitations on speech in the rules here are similar to what the courts would call "time, place and manner" restrictions. The site has six different forums in which users can speak, each governed by a set of limitations. The differences are primarily based on how users are permitted to treat other users and on the ratings system used by the MPAA.

There are relatively few absolute prohibitions on the content of speech. Most of those are based on the risk of harm to forum users. Others are based on allowing the forum to function as place where people can express and discuss ideas. There are exactly two words that, per rulings from Shades, we will delete: the "n-word" and the "c-word."

What the site does not have is a speech code that prohibits a cluster of things commonly referred to as "hate speech." If used toward another registered forum user, hate speech will commonly be considered a "personal attack" under the rules and moved to the Telestial Kingdom or Spirit Prison forums. But if you want to post bigotry based on race, sex, religious belief, sexual orientation, gender, political affiliation, or eye color, that is the choice of the user who posts it. We'll make sure it's posted in the right place and otherwise complies with the rules. That's it. Whether something that a user chooses to post is bigoted, prejudiced, hateful, shameful, disgusting, etc. is within the realm of things to be discussed by the users and not dictated by the moderators.

It should go without saying that providing a forum that values free speech is not an endorsement of the content of ANY speech. Preserving free speech requires no effort when you agree with and approve of the contents of the speech. But, a sincere commitment to free speech requires a vigorous defense of speech you disagree with, disapprove of, and even hate, so to speak. I can defend to the death your right to speak without approving what you say. And that is what we do here. Shades and the mods have all demonstrated that they know how to type and to express themselves when they choose to. I can type the phrases "I agree" and "I disagree" and "I approve" and "I disapprove." And I know how to use red font to let y'all know when I'm speaking in my official capacity as a moderator and when I am not. I express agreement or disagreement, approval or disapproval when I choose to. No moderator or user is under any obligation to weigh in on every post and express approval or disapproval. Here, in the context of this forum, silence is just silence. Other contexts may be significantly different.

None of that is to say that the rule set is permanently frozen. It is possible that additional limitations on the content of speech may be appropriate. This is still Shades' site, and in my opinion that's his call. But if we're going to even discuss prohibiting hate speech, I would strongly recommend that it be done in general and not piecemeal. in my opinion, it would be a mistake to prohibit racially bigoted content without addressing other bigoted content. And that would undoubtedly have an impact on people's ability to discuss mormonism, which is what the forum was founded for.

If you think someone has made a bigoted post, your remedy is to address it with them. If you persuade them to change their posting behavior, congratulations. You've helped create change you want to see while at the same time placing a high value on free speech.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 4495
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Rules and Moderator Info

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Sep 07, 2022 6:01 pm
There appears to be some confusion about the role of moderators in a forum, such as this, that values free speech. Most of the limitations on speech in the rules here are similar to what the courts would call "time, place and manner" restrictions. The site has six different forums in which users can speak, each governed by a set of limitations. The differences are primarily based on how users are permitted to treat other users and on the ratings system used by the MPAA.

There are relatively few absolute prohibitions on the content of speech. Most of those are based on the risk of harm to forum users. Others are based on allowing the forum to function as place where people can express and discuss ideas. There are exactly two words that, per rulings from Shades, we will delete: the "n-word" and the "c-word."

What the site does not have is a speech code that prohibits a cluster of things commonly referred to as "hate speech." If used toward another registered forum user, hate speech will commonly be considered a "personal attack" under the rules and moved to the Telestial Kingdom or Spirit Prison forums. But if you want to post bigotry based on race, sex, religious belief, sexual orientation, gender, political affiliation, or eye color, that is the choice of the user who posts it. We'll make sure it's posted in the right place and otherwise complies with the rules. That's it. Whether something that a user chooses to post is bigoted, prejudiced, hateful, shameful, disgusting, etc. is within the realm of things to be discussed by the users and not dictated by the moderators.

It should go without saying that providing a forum that values free speech is not an endorsement of the content of ANY speech. Preserving free speech requires no effort when you agree with and approve of the contents of the speech. But, a sincere commitment to free speech requires a vigorous defense of speech you disagree with, disapprove of, and even hate, so to speak. I can defend to the death your right to speak without approving what you say. And that is what we do here. Shades and the mods have all demonstrated that they know how to type and to express themselves when they choose to. I can type the phrases "I agree" and "I disagree" and "I approve" and "I disapprove." And I know how to use red font to let y'all know when I'm speaking in my official capacity as a moderator and when I am not. I express agreement or disagreement, approval or disapproval when I choose to. No moderator or user is under any obligation to weigh in on every post and express approval or disapproval. Here, in the context of this forum, silence is just silence. Other contexts may be significantly different.

None of that is to say that the rule set is permanently frozen. It is possible that additional limitations on the content of speech may be appropriate. This is still Shades' site, and in my opinion that's his call. But if we're going to even discuss prohibiting hate speech, I would strongly recommend that it be done in general and not piecemeal. in my opinion, it would be a mistake to prohibit racially bigoted content without addressing other bigoted content. And that would undoubtedly have an impact on people's ability to discuss mormonism, which is what the forum was founded for.

If you think someone has made a bigoted post, your remedy is to address it with them. If you persuade them to change their posting behavior, congratulations. You've helped create change you want to see while at the same time placing a high value on free speech.
et voila, there is the answer.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 1565
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Rules and Moderator Info

Post by doubtingthomas »

Binger wrote:
Wed Sep 07, 2022 8:03 pm

et voila, there is the answer.

1111 1100 K 1011 ING 1110 R

:lol:
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Rules and Moderator Info

Post by Jersey Girl »

Request for more emoticons. I've prepared a small list of demands. :mrgreen:

In no particular order...

1. Praying hands.
2. Throwing up or at least nausea
3. Santa
4. Maybe a jack o'lantern
5. One that says 100%

Get on that okay? Thanks!
Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Rules and Moderator Info

Post by canpakes »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:06 am
Request for more emoticons. I've prepared a small list of demands. :mrgreen:

In no particular order...

1. Praying hands.
2. Throwing up or at least nausea
3. Santa
4. Maybe a jack o'lantern
5. One that says 100%

Get on that okay? Thanks!
🙏 🤮 🎅 🎃 💯 << You may be able to see those depending upon the type of cellphone that you have.
Post Reply