Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Ray A wrote:In the spirit of free inquiry, Shades, what were the questions you asked her?


Okay. In the spirit of free inquiry, here's the exact text of my PM in response to her volunteering to moderate:

WOW, you're really volunteering to be a moderator?

If so, then before I send you off a list of the standard moderatorial duties, I must ask you the standard question, the same question I asked both Liz and Bond:

When in "Moderator Mode," are you willing to suspend any and all individuality, independent thinking, and creativity, become an EXACT CLONE of me, and moderate precisely how *I* would moderate, and NOT how *you* would moderate?


What made her "pass the test"? Or any mod?


The fact that she agreed.

That you could do what the living hell what you and keene wanted?


No. You're still mistaking the "Gason Jallentine" sock-puppet for me. That was Juliann merely pretending to be me in order to blacken my reputation. Looks like it worked.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

Post by _solomarineris »

DonBradley wrote:Mormon Discussions was, of course, set up by my friend Dr. Shades as a place where anyone can have their say without censorship, such as that imposed by the "FAIR"/MAD mods. But it's not clear to me that such an approach leads to better discussion, rather than a greater ability to say things not worth either saying or reading.

The trouble with the censorship at FAIR/MAD is that isn't fair at all--it's ideologically biased. But this difficulty could be removed by moderating for substance rather than for ideology. The MAD mods throw out insubstantive and noxious posters--in theory. In practice, it is generally only insubstantive and noxious posters (and sometimes substantive posters) of a "critical" bent who get the boot. A board evenhandedly moderated for substance would be a much better place to talk, and would tend to promote much better discussions.

I suppose MDB has such a place--the Celestial Forum. But the Terrestrial Forum itself could be a much better place to talk if such things as purposeful baiting of other posters were excluded, and those posting such things were banished from it until they could show that they were worthy of progression from kingdom to kingdom. ;-)

Besides, the Celestial Forum is hardly used. Everyone knows that posting in the Celestial Forum is good way to make sure your thread is widely ignored. so everyone posts in the Terrestrial Forum, further ensuring that no one will even bother checking the Celestial Forum for new threads or new posts....

Don



Simply put, they (MADD Gorditos) are bunch of idiots who cannot tolerate free speech.
If Gorditos would only let people speak their minds MADD would be the one of the best boards
where opposite minds clash without disrespect.
But of course, like some other popular Boards they suffer under acute perscutioncomplex.

I do admire alot some of the active LDS guys who pose serious Q's.
But Gorditos do not let the platform to sway beyond the boders of a Sunday School classs.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Dr. Shades wrote:When in "Moderator Mode," are you willing to suspend any and all individuality, independent thinking, and creativity, become an EXACT CLONE of me, and moderate precisely how *I* would moderate, and NOT how *you* would moderate?

Does that mean would-be mods have to correct spelling and grammar?

Dr. Shades wrote:No. You're still mistaking the "Gason Jallentine" sock-puppet for me. That was Juliann merely pretending to be me in order to blacken my reputation. Looks like it worked.

I thought it was obvious that it wasn't you. Still, I'm wondering why you think it's Juliann and also why anyone would bother with that kind of sock puppet. If it were me, I'd put up an avatar of Adoph Hitler, call myself the grammar Nazi, and then ask people if they're hiding any spelling / grammar mistakes anywhere.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Let's forget for just a moment that most of your garden variety Mormons are going to find Boaz and Lidia's avatar to be patently offensive. Should I really find a need to engage this person in discussion? And of course, from that perspective, is a person reading from a stone in a hat any more strange than claims of a man being resurrected (to the non-believer of course). So do comments like these really create an enviornment where you are going to get your reasonable run-of-the-mill believers to come join in the party?

When ZLMB disintegrated, and most of the believing LDS went elsewhere, this crowd followed them. They wanted the audience.

Polygamy Porter hardly represents your average critic so it isn't like there is an entire corwd of people just like him. Not here anyway. He annoys the hell out of people on both sides of the fence and the only other person who comes close to him is mercury. It is unfair to suggest that the majority of us who left ZLMB, people like myself, Beastie, Shades, californiakid, Don Bradley, Tarski, EAllusion, left because we wanted an audience for pissing off Mormons, as if that is our whole purpose.
It kind of felt like they relished being abrasive

Yes, some do. As some LDS relish being abrasive at MADB while hiding behind their vanguard of LDS moderators.
I don't think it is enough to talk about being polite, I think that for a community really to be inclusive (and I don't really think that this community is all that inclusive) there has to be an effort by all parties involved to buy into the community and to create a community

I agree with this, and that is why this forum can be annoying as hell at times. But I'd rather be frustrated with another poster and place him/her on ignore, than to have to deal with having my voice removed by moderators while others take advantage of my absence and pretend to be making mincemeat of my arguments.

I am not buying into the common myth that people at MADB don't post here because we're too abrasive for them. David Bokovoy is a perfect example. He's managed to make friends and have cordial dialogue here, to the chagrin of many of his MADB supporters no doubt. The fact that he is here disrupts their excuse for staying over there.
And clearly, having disagreements doesn't have to make things devisive. After all, I have had long running conversations (spanning years) with many of the participants here. Without rancor (and only the occaisional frustration).

Exactly.
Personally, I think that if you want to foster community, then you work at weeding out those who seem intent on creating division, and aggravating others whom you would like to participate.

Well, that would go against the philosophy here about free speech, which I don't entirely agree with, but again, it is better than the alternative at MADB. Well, if you're not an apologist anyway. MADB makes apologists want to hang out there because most critical commentary is suppressed and the critics are very limited in what they can say. They know that at the end of the day, they're on the winning team, because that is the image the moderators help create; that usually means a disturbing thread gets closed after an apologist has the last say, while the mods offer some cheesy excuse for closing it that has nothing to do with the established rules.
But, you will see people leave who otherwise would be valuable participants in the discussions here (and certainly this happens all over - including at MADB presently, but certainly at ZLMB and some of the other forums I have been a participant at).

I can't think of anyone that thin-skinned. Bokovoy certainly isn't, and neither are you. Why get offended by an avatar with a V and L when you see V's and L's everywhere? I never understood how temple symbols could be so ubiquitous in every day life. You'd think they'd be something nobody could accidentally draw or figure out on their own, something akin to Chinese calligraphy.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Post by _EAllusion »

It is unfair to suggest that the majority of us who left ZLMB, people like myself, Beastie, Shades, californiakid, Don Bradley, Tarski, EAllusion, left because we wanted an audience for pissing off Mormons, as if that is our whole purpose.


I think it is fairly clear that non-believers followed LDS from ZLMB because they wanted to engage LDS apologetic arguments and apologists. Different non-believers have different desires as far as that engagment goes of course, but any suggestion that it was all about creation division and aggravation is naïve at best.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

liz3564 wrote:
Scratch wrote:Were there some insults tossed back and forth? Sure. But, nonetheless, I'd like to point out that we are indeed still discussing what does/doesn't constitute "worthwhile" posting, or, as you prefer to put it, "common sense" posting, which, apparently, includes posts about "goddess suites" and Sex and the City spanking porn.



No, Scratch. YOU are talking about what constitutes "worthwhile" posting. I have not once said to you that your posts are not worthwhile.


Oh? Well then how would you characterize your quip about "acting like babies"? Does "acting like babies"="worthwhile posts," or "common sense" in your book, Liz?

You, however, have said that to me now in several posts. All I have indicated was that your posts with Ray on this thread where all you did was insult each other were, and should have been, rightly split off into another isolated topic.


Baloney, Liz. You doled out a personal insult, and then trotted out a sanctimonious assertion about how you "will call [me]" on posts you dislike/disapprove of. Well, I've now done the same to you, and here you are freaking out, claiming you've been "discredited."

And, I'm not sure what you're so hot under the collar about, because the split thread wasn't even moved to Telestial. It's STILL in the Terrestrial Forum.


I'm not "hot under the collar" any more than you are about my questioning the worth / value / "common sense" nature of yous Sex and the City porn story.

My Sex and the City story was posted in the Telestial Forum, so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here, except for the purpose of being nasty and discrediting me. I also PM'd Shades and cleared it with him before I posted the story at all.


And your purpose in stating, "You guys are acting like babies!" was what? You see what I'm getting at here? You want to be able to "call people out" on posts that you dislike, but when the tables get turned, you suddenly feel pretty rotten, and feel that you're being "discredited". How would you like it if *I*---or any other poster---started doling out negative comments and criticism on your porn story? My point is simply this: If you can't take it, then don't dish it out Liz. It's as simple as that.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Ray A wrote:Here is what "DaddyMo" posted about Scratch on ZLMB (an insight into how Scratch slants, and slanders people):

Mr. Scratch is hilarious all right. I looked at his "blog" and was treated to an accusation that I must pawn my kids off on my wife like other TBM men.

Funny, but as I write this I'm watching the youngest of my kids so she can chaperone a trip with the teens that she wanted to attend. I'm about to log off to fix lunch and clean the house with the little ones.

That's the answer to his question about why I changed my moniker by the way... I was tired of childish posters implying things from the size of my family. A charming fellow over on another board told me he hoped I'd never become a Dadof8.

If this kind of gossip, derision and unfounded rumor is what passes for funny among the antimormon intelligencia, I'll pass thank you.

...and if Scratch is taking requests for removal from his list - I'd just assume he takes me off too. I don't need to be the brunt of his childish jokes, even if it is under my pseudonym.


DaddyMO, a.k.a. "Dadof7" was actually the moderator called "Nomos", which many here will remember as one of the unfairest mods of all-time. He feels all upset about "childish jokes," but apparently has no problem doling out insults and wielding mod power against people who cannot respond. I told him on the blog that I would delete his entire dossier if he'd apologize for the way he treated me as a mod. (My offer still stands, by the way.) He refuse, his dossier stays, and he can kiss my butt.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Scratch wrote:And your purpose in stating, "You guys are acting like babies!" was what? You see what I'm getting at here? You want to be able to "call people out" on posts that you dislike, but when the tables get turned, you suddenly feel pretty rotten, and feel that you're being "discredited". How would you like it if *I*---or any other poster---started doling out negative comments and criticism on your porn story? My point is simply this: If you can't take it, then don't dish it out Liz. It's as simple as that.


I think we have been arguing past each other. I thought I had apologized for my "babies" comment. I think I stated I was in a foul mood from lack of sleep. If I didn't apologize properly, let me do so now. If this is what you were upset about, then I apologize. I thought you were upset about the fact that the comments had been split off. That was what I was calling you out on, because I felt that it was a proper moderation move, under the circumstances, and I supported Bond in doing that. He was basically doing what I was too tired to do at the moment.

Scratch wrote:DaddyMO, a.k.a. "Dadof7" was actually the moderator called "Nomos", which many here will remember as one of the unfairest mods of all-time. He feels all upset about "childish jokes," but apparently has no problem doling out insults and wielding mod power against people who cannot respond. I told him on the blog that I would delete his entire dossier if he'd apologize for the way he treated me as a mod. (My offer still stands, by the way.) He refuse, his dossier stays, and he can kiss my butt.


This is absolutely correct. I support Scratch's position here, since I was a Mod at FAIR when some of this was happening. Nomos banned Scratch because of comments that Scratch supposedly made to Dr. Peterson on RfM! They weren't even for comments made on FAIR. The comments were ugly, but Scratch has always maintained that he never actually made those comments. RfM does not have a great security system. It's even easier to sock puppet there than MAD or here.

I believe Scratch. I don't think he ever made those comments on RfM. And, even if he did, I don't feel that he should have been banned for comments he supposedly made on another board.
Last edited by _Yoda on Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Ray A wrote:If you don't realise that, Jersey Girl, let's see how long you last with the anti-Mormon bigots who are already questioning your moderating powers. They don't want neutrality, they want someone biased against Mormonism.


If one of the LDS participants feels unfairly moderated against by Jersey Girl, he or she need merely bring it to my attention and it'll be resolved to his or her satisfaction. As I said, she's here on a trial basis.


Uh, I certainly haven't read all posts that mention me as new mod. I did see one skeptic in the announcement thread. So be it. As to questioning my "moderating powers"...there IS no power involved. It's administrative work , so Ray, please get over it. And Shades, as I told you privately, feel free to fire me at any time you see fit.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Ray A wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:The Z thread you refer to here was started by me. Tell me what the relevance of reposting it here might be? I wouldn't mind at all if you reposted it here, Ray. I'm just curious as to why you reference that particular thread.

Jersey Girl


Because it gives all of us an insight into the mind of this board, and the reason for its creation. It was not created to determine "truth", but to push an anti-Mormon agenda. If you don't realise that, Jersey Girl, let's see how long you last with the anti-Mormon bigots who are already questioning your moderating powers. They don't want neutrality, they want someone biased against Mormonism. Your well-wishers will soon melt to dust. You know what they say about politics? An honest person should avoid politics. And you know what this board is at the moment? It's a pig-sty of anti-Mormonism.


Well forget me! I just read your comments about me in context, Ray. Serves me right for reading the thread backwards!

Ray, the thread you reference has not a darn thing to do with insight to this board. If anything, it gives us insight regarding the extent to which some people will carry on their online nonsense (Z trolls) and just how long I will dig my heels in for when I feel it appropriate. Regarding anti-Mormonism, well wishers and everything else you've stated above.

I have posted online for 8+ years. I started out on and remain on a board where total anarchy exists. I am the longest running believing poster on that board wherein I was outnumbered by non-believers and male posters for all this time. I didn't survive on that board because I am weak willed. I have been known to argue in both defense of and in opposition to Mormonism on the same topic. That is to say, on a specific topic I have been known to argue both for and against, for the simple fact that I like to test out positions. I have also come to the defense of LDS, atheists, agnostics and EV's. I have opposed LDS, atheists, agnostics and EV's.

I view posters on a board as individuals, not categories.

This concludes our morning reading of "The Diary of my Online Existence" by Jersey Girl. We now return you to our regularly scheduled banter.
Post Reply