Christmas Housecleaning at MADB

[_beastie]

Haw, I just caught up on the MAD thread this morning. Several posters reassured John he's not a bomb thrower. Heh, heh, guess they don't realize that Juliann has had him targeted for a very long time... I would say ever since he "switched teams". John was loved as a peace-maker when he was a believer, but when he engages in the same pleas for peace as an exbeliever, he's ridiculed and called a board nanny.

This is part of MAD's inconsistency. It's not just that they're openly biased towards believers, in fact, that can't be called an inconsistency if they're open about it from the get-go. It's also that due to the fact that no explanations or justifications are ever required or given for banning, that it can be simply dictated by the personal likes of a powerful moderator.

by the way, moderating is an awful job, I don't know why anyone would want it. It is very stressful to have to explain your actions as a moderator, as well. But the absolute lack of any explanation has created a problem, as well.

But, for me personally, it's all entertainment at this point. The deliberate killing of Z pretty much soured me altogether in regards to open debate between believers and exbelievers. While I believe that particular believers and exbelievers can manage specific productive debates or conversations, I do not believe an entire board can be constructed that will enable that to happen on a mass scale.

[_beastie]

They really ought to listen to Sargon:

I am not a fan of "bomb-throwers", but I am even less of a fan of the apparent decrease in critic population on the board. I look forward to the day when the good and fun critics provide a reason for more notable apologists to return, and I think eliminating "bomb-throwers" might somehow delay that day.

It's true. MAD is such a yawner, in general, that the only reason I go there anymore is when someone here links or discusses a potentially interesting thread, like this one.

[_harmony]

Haw, I just caught up on the MAD thread this morning. Several posters reassured John he's not a bomb thrower. Heh, heh, guess they don't realize that Juliann has had him targeted for a very long time... I would say ever since he "switched teams". John was loved as a peace-maker when he was a believer, but when he engages in the same pleas for peace as an exbeliever, he's ridiculed and called a board nanny.

This is part of MAD's inconsistency. It's not just that they're openly biased towards believers, in fact, that can't be called an inconsistency if they're open about it from the get-go. It's also that due to the fact that no explanations or justifications are ever required or given for banning, that it can be simply dictated by the personal likes of a powerful moderator.

by the way, moderating is an awful job, I don't know why anyone would want it. It is very stressful to have to explain your actions as a moderator, as well. But the absolute lack of any explanation has created a problem, as well.

But, for me personally, it's all entertainment at this point. The deliberate killing of Z pretty much soured me altogether in regards to open debate between believers and exbelievers. While I believe that particular believers and exbelievers can manage specific productive debates or conversations, I do not believe an entire board can be constructed that will enable that to happen on a mass scale.

I have pretty much mixed feelings about Z. On one hand, it was somewhat of a Camelot situation. On the other, I was banned and still am banned and no one's ever told me why. So I'm somewhat torn; it was good while it was good, but I'm awfully glad that Shades created this forum. Folks like me, who can't go to Z and can't go to MAD, still have a place where we have a voice.

[_beastie]

I have pretty much mixed feelings about Z. On one hand, it was somewhat of a Camelot situation. On the other, I was banned and still am banned and no one's ever told me why. So I'm somewhat torn; it was good while it was good, but I'm awfully glad that Shades created this forum. Folks like me, who can't go to Z and can't go to MAD, still have a place where we have a voice.

Certainly Z wasn't perfect - moderators still had biases that sometimes affected decisions. There was bias against you among the LDS mods due to the WAZing incident (with the exception of Pac, who seemed to like you). Then there was a bias FOR pahoran, largely due to Pac's personal feelings for him. So yes, of course there were times when bias was a factor and things weren't always fair. But, for me, it was an idyllic experiment due to the stated intention of moderating without bias. In real life, that may never be able to happen, but I think it's an admirable goal.

No matter what certain believers claim, I think it is quite obvious the bulk of them abandoned Z for FAIR due to the openly biased moderating at FAIR. I actually understand their feelings. They feel constantly attacked due to their personal enmeshment with their Mormon beliefs. Even though they choose to participate on forums that invites the critical viewpoint, the constant expression of the critical viewpoint feels like a personal attack. Even if a critic doesn't actually attack any individual personally, attacking the belief system feels like the equivalent. So they want to be able to respond "in kind", ie, with other "personal attacks" (ie, bad behavior) and be supported by the mods in doing so. In addition to that, they really have the "you know what" end of the stick. They are attempting to defend what is often rationally indefensible, so they're already feeling strained.

So while I understand their feelings, it has still led me to conclude that wide-scale open debate between believer and exbeliever really isn't feasible. I guess there is a reason "polite" company doesn't discuss religion after all.

[_skippy the dead]

I like this from juliann: "I'd be happy to just exert enough pressure to get a couple of the more noxious posters out of here."

"Exert enough pressure" - I guess that means to hold a sham poll and then use her moderator powers to swing the sword on whoever she was planning on banning anyways. This way she can pretend that it's what people wanted instead of some draconian move.

[_the road to hana]

I like this from juliann: "I'd be happy to just exert enough pressure to get a couple of the more noxious posters out of here."

"Exert enough pressure" - I guess that means to hold a sham poll and then use her moderator powers to swing the sword on whoever she was planning on banning anyways. This way she can pretend that it's what people wanted instead of some draconian move.

She's already put the kibosh on the "New Guy With a Stupid Question" thread. Thread closed, suspensions handed out, warnings given all around. I hate to even conjecture who "new guy" was.

[_harmony]

I have pretty much mixed feelings about Z. On one hand, it was somewhat of a Camelot situation. On the other, I was banned and still am banned and no one's ever told me why. So I'm somewhat torn; it was good while it was good, but I'm awfully glad that Shades created this forum. Folks like me, who can't go to Z and can't go to MAD, still have a place where we have a voice.

Certainly Z wasn't perfect - moderators still had biases that sometimes affected decisions. There was bias against you among the LDS mods due to the WAZing incident (with the exception of Pac, who seemed to like you).

It didn't help that WAZing's target was none other than DCP. Pointing out that the Emperor wore no clothes (didn't live his religion) was tantamount to heresy. Still, that's not why I was banned. That's never been explained, although I think it was because of my last thread: the shortcomings of LDS men in bed.

[_beastie]

It didn't help that WAZing's target was none other than DCP. Pointing out that the Emperor wore no clothes (didn't live his religion) was tantamount to heresy. Still, that's not why I was banned. That's never been explained, although I think it was because of my last thread: the shortcomings of LDS men in bed.

It may not have been precisely why you were banned, but I would guess it contributed to the background thoughts and feelings that resulted in the banning.

[_karl61]

If the bomb throwers weren't pushing Mormon buttons there wouldn't be disrespect from anyone. They know that, they know they have to start it because Mormons are an exceptionally nice lot. Do you now understand the point of getting rid of them?

LOL!

Yes, an exceptionally "nice lot". Like Juliann, who welcomed me on one of my first threads on FAIR by repeatedly calling me a liar and a plagiarist without the slightest evidence of either. She's living in her own world, and it's a shame that others are codependent enough to encourage her.

Why is she being so pissy now? Is it a full moon? Did someone tell her the truth about Santa Claus? Is she afraid she'll be alone for Christmas? (she shoulda been nicer to the penguin. At least he's cute and would keep her company)

harm,

I'm stealing the bolded portion for a sig line. For some reason I picture Edward G. Robinson saying that "Yah, she shoulda been nicer to the penguin, see?"

His clothes had a lot to do with the message too ;)

[_Alter Idem]

They really ought to listen to Sargon:

I am not a fan of "bomb-throwers", but I am even less of a fan of the apparent decrease in critic population on the board. I look forward to the day when the good and fun critics provide a reason for more notable apologists to return, and I think eliminating "bomb-throwers" might somehow delay that day.

It's true. MAD is such a yawner, in general, that the only reason I go there anymore is when someone here links or discusses a potentially interesting thread, like this one.

I've been wondering what set off this latest purge...I think Sargon named it. One thing that is different on MADB is that we have lost a lot of the regular contribution of some of the more well-known apologists. I can only surmise the Juliann thinks the critics are causing this. She probably blames them for Dr. Peterson's scarcity on the board--and when he's gone, many of the others don't want to hang around either.

Also, she has a very low tolerance for questions and posters that get on her nerves. All I can say is, whether she's a mod or not, she obviously still has a lot of influence on board moderating.

I just don't see how purging only the critic "bomb throwers" will will bring back apologists. I think if they want to attract the scholarly apologists again, they need to create an atmosphere that appeals to them. I don't think the Pundits section has been active in awhile--maybe that's a place to start.