Does anything need to change here on MormonDiscussions.com?

[_Ren]

Oh - here's an idea...
...imagine the Celestial room being split into three different rooms (to further model Mormon theology ;) )

Maybe make the first one the 'Theological' room. (God is presumed to exist for purposes of discussion, preaching 'allowed' etc.)
Maybe make the second one the 'Philosophical / scientific' room (Theists vs. atheists, Book of Mormon archeology etc.)
And maybe the third one can be 'Secular'. (Don't care if God exists or whether Mormonism is 'true', I just wanna discuss church culture, history etc. No 'preaching' allowed)

I think that covers all the kinds of topic people are gonna wanna talk about. And then people wouldn't have to keep specifying what their threads are about.

I'd probably gravitate towards the 'Philosophical / scientific' room (Not saying I'd have anything good to add - but it's probably where I'd try the hardest :) ). Someone like Blixa might gravitate towards the 'Secular' room. And someone like charity might gravitate towards the 'Theological' room... Most people would probably join in several rooms. But at least that might help keep threads going in the general direction posters would like to see them go in. And it might give people more incentive to use the Celestial room...


by the way: I would use the recently started thread in the Celestial room: The Origin and Literal Fatherhood of God...
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... php?t=5058
...as a classic case in point. People are joining that thread, and expecting to be able to drag the topic any way THEY want to.

In my model, Coggins would have posted that thread in the 'Theological' room, and that would have made it clear what 'kind' of discussion he was actually interested in.

[_Blixa]

by the way: I would use the recently started thread in the Celestial room: The Origin and Literal Fatherhood of God...
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... php?t=5058
...as a classic case in point. People are joining that thread, and expecting to be able to drag the topic any way THEY want to.

Quite so. Coggins's OP is pretty clear about the parameters of the thread. It doesn't help a speculative discussion of religious doctrine to say "well god doesn't exist so this discussion is stupid." There are plenty of ways to talk about the King Follett eulogy without necessarily believing in god.

I voted "yes." More moderators would probably help a great deal. A visually different thread format might also be useful. Other than that, I don't know. I do hope, though, that the discussion generated about this has highlighted problems that people will be willing to consider when they post in the future. Perhaps that's already happening?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I think this board is cool and you guys do fine. I think maybe the description to what should be posted where might be a little more specific. I voted no because I like this site. I would volunteer to be a mod but I imagine a lot of people would be in disagreement and so will not bother.

[_the road to hana]

It's challenging to give either a "yes" or a "no" on this one.

On the one hand, I hate to see anything tinkered with too much around here. Shades' original concept is a good one--to have a forum where there isn't the uneven moderation practices seen on other boards (notably FAIR/MADB and RFM), and where a mix of posters will create its own majority and minority voice without fear of biased moderation practices.

On the other hand, complete lack of moderation does lead to chaos, as has already been demonstrated, and which led to some reshuffling of the organization here in the past.

I think the three-tiered system works (although I have to laugh it's based on Mormon theories of heaven), and I think the moderation, as it exists, has been good, reasonable and appropriate. There probably does need to be at least one more moderator to keep up with spam and thread moves to lighten the load for the others. Shades' claim to take moderators on an "on approval" basis seems reasonable; no doubt there are some who've achieved godhood who are probably ill-suited for the task.

If there aren't more Mormon participants here, it isn't because they can't say what they'd like. It's more because they prefer a protected environment where their critics can be reined in. I give people like Charity and Gazelam and Nehor credit for being here and slugging it out.

Personally, I'd hate to see this board become too much like other boards, because if it does, I will question the point of its original existence. This board continues to offer something the others don't, and it would be nice to have that preserved.

I'm voting "no," only because in general I think the board needs to stick to the original concept and would suffer from too much tinkering. But I'm in agreement with bringing on an additional moderator and generally fine tuning things regardless. If that's perceived to be a "yes," then, so be it.

[Guest]

I wouldn't want the board to move away from it's original intention either. At least I don't believe so.

Take a look at the description of the Celestial forum:
"The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G."

The claim is already made that the Celestial forum is 'heavily moderated'. I'm just suggesting that if that is our claim, then why not moderate that particular room 'full on'. (i.e. as other boards do. by that, I don't mean boards like MADB. I mean like 99% of other boards in existence!).
Just the Celestial room really - I'd say that'd be enough. If you're temporarily 'penalised' for not taking the Celestial room seriously enough, then you still have the near-freedom of the Terrestial forum and the complete freedom of the Telestial board...

[_marg]

A threaded view format would go a long way to helping participants self-police. It's easier for the reader to focus on on-topic posts. It's easier for the participant writers to ignore and hence discourage posters and their posts they have no interest in. I do find this board has much too much time-wasting type posts and it's difficult to find posts of interest.

[_antishock8]

I think the format is fine the way it is. There are reasons why you have the different forums. The problem, really, is that some posters want more attention on the Terrestrial forum, but can't handle free speech (warts n' all). This is a tempest in a teacup, and really, if the posters who get their feelings hurt would just exercise a little self-discipline and pass over the threads/posts they know are hurtful to them, then this is pretty much a non-issue.

My recommendation? Don't change anything.

However, some people need the Dwight Schrute complaint box. So. Create a report-this-post feature so a note can be sent to the home office in New York, and the Dwight Schrutes are pacified.

Oh. And don't give any moderating powers over to the Brown Shirt Mormons.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I vote for an option of viewing either threaded or flat view. Threaded view works better for me and I can be more on the point with such a view.

[_Ren]

Yeah - a threaded view would be a nice option for many. It will still be 'inconvenient' - it takes some effort to work through a thread the way you want to. But it's certainly better than 'nothing'. (Nothing said relatively speaking).

I'd still like a 'normal' view option to remain mind. I like the normal view - cos I don't mind running past stuff I don't wanna read, and I find it easier...

[_Imwashingmypirate]

The idea is that we could have a threaded view as well as a flat view which is the same as the "normal" view. Just have an option that allows you to choose between the two. Shades if you are iterested I will PM you telling you what I mean in more detail.