Mister Scratch writes:
I'm not sure I'm following you here, Ben. Are you saying that LDS such as juliann and DCP fled the Z board because they disliked the aetheist posters? I have to say, that seems like an awfully strange claim
No. What I am saying is that the ZLMB board was already in decline when this happened. That particular stage really had no significant impact (in my opinion) on the decline at ZLMB. Already (and I am going by old memories here) they had taken steps to encourage LDS participation (limiting posts by some people, remeber the whole switch-hitter thing?). I am also going to suggest that your view (like mine, certainly) is colored by the way in which you interacted with the board.
So, you actually do not have any real counter-theory to combat my thoroughly documented one? (You aren't exactly helped by the fact that juliann herself said that it was "open season on LDS." Meaning, I guess, that TBMs were held accountable for their wrongdoings, such as smears against Tom Murphy.)
Your theory wasn't well documented, nor was it accurate. In fact, your obsession with things Juliann and MADB puts you in the position where you evaluate what happened in this way.
And now on to Shades comments:
We here at MormonDiscussions.com care nothing whatsoever about community. The whole point is for individuals to express that which they wish to express without pressure from either moderators or the "community." The "community" could change tomorrow--whatever that entails--and neither the moderators nor administrators would attempt to reverse the trend.
Of course. And this community is clearly a group of malcontents who tend to revel in the being malcontents. This thread began with this statement:
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.
To me, this is visibly true. And I am trying to explain why I see it as being true, and what I see the cause as being. If most individuals here are happy with the lack of serious dialogue, and the constant diatribe against all things LDS, I suppose that's fine. But we might as well label it as anti-Mormon Discussions as anything else.
So, how does one "define" something in terms of community, whatever that means?
The same way as more traditonal communities do. Democratic process and such. The problems here are that internet communities are easy to move into and out of. So, in deciding that you support the kinds of hate speech that can occur here (and yes, under the guise of free speech, you are supporting it whether you want it to be viewed in that fashion or not), you have determined that you are willing to let some members and potential members of your community go elsewhere. This might not be so bad, if that is what your intention is - don't get me wrong - others do it too - RFM, FAIR, and so on. But to pretend that you are any different because you don't visibly direct this to occur doesn't change the fact that the outcome is substantially the same.
What's so special about "defining the community" that we should seek after these things?
Perhaps nothing. But if we are talking about the issues which Don Bradley raised, and the subsequent comments, perhaps it means a lot. It doesn't take a lot of reading in this thread to see that there are a number of people who are dissatisfied with this forum - and want something more, but yet who don't want to do it under what they feel is the repressive environment of MADB.
Me personally, I would love a community oriented forum. I don't really like MADB right now. I find it frustrating that my traditional discussion partners of the past feel censored there (if allowed to post at all). And yet here, I would need to ignore a huge percentage of the material posted here - and over time that becomes very distasteful as well. Perhaps there is no perfect way to do this, but I have found that the community driven ideals work well - and ZLMB worked very well up to a point in time when the community began to shift. I think beastie remembers what I am talking about since she commented someplace on the FAIR boards that in her recollection it was an influx in aetheists who began causing problems for the LDS posters there.
And that's precisely the way we want it. You see, the moment that moderators or administrators attempt to artificially craft a "community," well, that's the very moment that the concept of "outsiders" is created, newcomers are viewed with suspicion, and elitism rears its ugly head. We'll allow MA&D to have the monopoly on all that, thank you very much.
The problem Shades is that you have created a community here - or rather a community has been created. The outcome is no different than that of the MADB forums you despise. You have created a hostile environment for many, many people who might othewise come and post here. And this creates a sense of elitism, and so on. So I really don't buy into this argument you make. Perhaps, like FAIR, it is a community created in your own image ....
Short of advocating violence or the suppression of civil rights, "hate speech" and "bigotry" to one person is "telling it like it is" and "straight talk" to another. The only determining factor is who is on the giving end, who is on the receiving end, and the worldview of the casual observer.
I disagree with you. When you have posters who will say right out that their purpose in presenting what they do and writing what they do is to be as offensive as possible to a certain group of people who post here, that is not "telling it like it is" or "straight talk" even to the most casual observer. It is protecting hatred under the guise of free speech. You may not like this, but it is the way it is. And in your protecting it, regardless of the reasons why you feel the need to, you are condoning it, and making this forum a hostile place for a host of potential members.
I vehemently disagree. The outcomes are worlds apart, since one forum operates under the assumption of suppression of opposing ideas, whereas the other operates under the assumption of free expression. Which environment do you think is more enjoyable, all other things being equal?
The actual outcomes are not separated at all. In both cases, the boards discriminate against groups or classes of potential members by making the environment a hostile place for them to participate. Unfortunately not all other things are equal. And we aren't going to discuss potentials here, because your assumptions don't translate well into the actual results here. How many TBMs are regular contributors here? And how many of those only come here because other forums limit their ability to interact with their critics?
Ben