We're bleeding and I think it's terminal

[_Mister Scratch]

Losers? I never said they were losers. I said they aren't here, and because they aren't here, our discussions have lost the savor they once had.

I don't think this is the case. I just think that you sense less of a sense of unity. When this version of the board re-appeared, many here were glad for it since it stood as a beacon against the draconian moderating policies of MAD. A lot of people felt united, since they had been unreasonably and unfairly booted off of FAIR/MAD.

Please notice it's not just one side or the other that is on that list. There's posters from both sides on it.

You're right. You also left off posters like SUAS/coffeecat, Nortinski, Infymus, jskains, Mormon Mendacity, and others.

The group that is not on that list is posters like PP... the nonsubstance contributors who clutter up the board with nonsense, contribute nothing to the conversation (see his comments on this thread), and are so offensive, even the most devoted have departed. We can certainly count on PP to stick around depositing his mental manure wherever he squats.

Well, is this subjective? Blixa said that she sometimes finds him amusing. I also sometimes find him amusing. On the other hand, I am hard pressed to find useful or meaningful content from your dear friend, Jersey Girl. Heck, she admitted on another thread that the only reason she participates is to "play the game" and to jerk people around. Obviously, she has no real Mormon investment in any of this (as does PP). She is, as one very insightful observer noted, an "outlier." (And, naturally, she went utterly ballistic when this was pointed out.)

Another one left this morning. That's 3 in 3 days. Will anyone notice they are gone? They didn't leave a parting message on any thread, to be a target for snide comments and parting shots from the likes of PP and others. They're just fading away. We are less with their loss.

You are attributing the departure of these people (whom you refuse to name; we are left to guess whether they actually exist) to PP. But is that legit? Do you have any evidence?

None of you addressed the message. None of you asked why I posted this. None of you got past your kneejerk reaction. Instead, you gloated, you dismissed, you marginalized, you trivialized... anything so you didn't have to focus on what is right in front of you. You attacked the messenger, not the message. If you can't see how that makes you and this board exactly like the church, then you're as blind as the FP.

No, I get it, Harmony: you want "your" board to feel like it did "back in the day." But times change. Change with the times or let the times change you.

[_Dr. Shades]

Was that the original intended purpose of the ignore feature... to shield our resident moron from the consequences of his words?

No; it was to shield people who didn't want to read PPs words from PPs words.

Good to know. And you wonder why people beat feet, however quietly.

Wait a second. . . are you implying that people left merely because PP wasn't disciplined by us moderators?

I'm the stupid one, for actually thinking pointing out that the level of discourse in this place has fallen to a new low, and for three of our most learned, even-handed posters, they've had enough, would be enough to make some changes here.

You and I can speculate all we want, but unless those three air their list of grievances, we can do only that: Speculate.

At least I'm talking about it. I didn't ignore it, didn't ridicule them, didn't marginalize their concerns. I brought it to this thread.

Thanks, but what do they say their concerns are?

You're forgetting rpcman's board, which, I believe, is still active. 2think, if I remember right.

So, what's the difference between 2think.org and here? And why are some people here and not there?

Just because an idea exists doesn't mean it will work.

True, but at the same time you can't please everyone, unfortunately.

Change the rules for this forum. Move 99% of PP's comments to Telestial.

Why should liz3564, Scottie, or I do all that when people can merely put him on "ignore" and get the same effect?

Raise the discourse from subterranean to at least ground level.

liz3564, Scottie, and I cannot possibly raise (or lower) discourse. Only the discoursers themselves can raise or lower it.

Move comments like 99% of PP's to Telestial.

I think the "ignore" feature brings about the same effect anyway.

Expect the level of discourse to rise to something like Trixie's thread on the Mountain Meadows book.

That'd be nice, but I can't hold a gun to anyone's head.

why would anyone likie Blixa want to post here? Even if she's not the target, the smell of the horse manure that passes for discourse from PP is overwhelming.

Then put him on "ignore."

And listen to Scottie.

That's a valid suggestion--Scottie himself knows that, I hope--but all things must be weighed on a "will such a move generate more complaints than we're currently getting, or less?" basis.

You see, all posters believe that their posts rightfully belong precisely where they make them. Nobody ever thinks their posts should be moved. If we moderators took your advice and started moving posts at an increased rate to the Telestial Forum, human nature being what it is would all-but-guarantee that the dike would burst on complaints to the moderators. If nothing else, they would be up in arms with such grievances as, "why was my post moved but not his/hers?" Just ask Moniker on that last one.

Move the personal attacks to Telestial.

You (and Scottie) have a good point. In a perfect world, it really would be that easy. HOWEVER, human nature again being what it is, people who make personal attacks never think that they're making "personal attacks." They always and invariably believe that their posts count as "prescient observations" and, by inalienable right, belong right smack dab in the Terrestrial Forum where they originally placed them.

Again, moving their posts would cause the dam to burst.

So it all comes down to this: "Would move X create more problems for the moderators, or less?" In a perfect world, we moderators wouldn't be human and thus wouldn't mind spending 100% of our time fielding complaints and justifying our actions. We also wouldn't ever get frustrated or feel overwhelmed by the complaints' volume and/or intensity.

Unfortunately, though, some policies are specifically instituted--or fail to be instituted--for no other reason than to make the moderators' lives easier.

You may not like it--heck, even I may not like it--but it's the sad reality.

(Dr. Shades' tip-o'-the-day: If you haven't placed person X on your ignore list, then your complaints about person X lose 75% of their validity.)

[_Mister Scratch]

Move the personal attacks to Telestial.

You (and Scottie) have a good point. In a perfect world, it really would be that easy. HOWEVER, human nature again being what it is, people who make personal attacks never think that they're making "personal attacks." They always and invariably believe that their posts count as "prescient observations" and, by inalienable right, belong right smack dab in the Terrestrial Forum where they originally placed them.

Again, moving their posts would cause the dam to burst.

I believe that this is really well said, Shades. A key feature of FAIR/MAD was always their arcane, indecipherable sense of just what, exactly, constituted a "personal attack." It would be fine and dandy for DCP to comment upon Mike Quinn's sexual morality, but do you think it would fly if someone questioned The Good Professor's ethics as an editor? Unless someone can clearly and unequivocally define what a "personal attack" is, then the moderating policies need to be loose.

Otherwise, it's easy enough to imagine threads on Pres. Monson getting "demoted" due to being "personal attacks."

[_Dr. Shades]

How right you are, Mister Scratch. How right you are.

If my failure to implement certain policies seems bizarre, then it's due only to my deep understanding of human nature (at least, human nature as manifest on message boards) born out of many years of hard experience.

For example, instituting the policy of "move all personal attacks to the Telestial Forum" seems obvious on its face, but, if you look under the surface, you'll find that if you ask 100 people just what, exactly, constitutes a "personal attack," you'll get 100 different answers.

Hence my reluctance to open that Pandora's Box.

[_marg]

How right you are, Mister Scratch. How right you are.

If my failure to implement certain policies seems bizarre, then it's due only to my deep understanding of human nature (at least, human nature as manifest on message boards) born out of many years of hard experience.

For example, instituting the policy of "move all personal attacks to the Telestial Forum" seems obvious on its face, but, if you look under the surface, you'll find that if you ask 100 people just what, exactly, constitutes a "personal attack," you'll get 100 different answers.

Hence my reluctance to open that Pandora's Box.

Shades actually with a high degree of consistency it can be done. If in a discussion the issue shifts to the person away from the topic it is ad hominem..doesn't matter if it is fallacious or not. Often what is being done is "spoiling the well" that is attempting to convince others to disregard what the other says not based on what the say but on something personal, irrelevant to the topic. Even if an attack is relevant to the conclusion or issue, there is still no need for it to be made. So all "to the person" /ah hominem posts could be disallowed.

In the Celestial if you are going to call it highly moderated every and all to the person arguments should be disallowed, otherwise that board is not highly moderated. Cutting out swear words is ineffectual to promote productive honest discussion. As it is now, there is no where on the board to avoid fallacious gameplaying..of shifting focus off issues, of disruption, of deliberate sabbatoging of an issue. You can decide not to bother but it is not difficult figuring out what is ad hom. There would be more work to moderating though, however in time people would catch on what is and isn't allowed. I realize you do not appreciate what I am saying. I wrote a long post about this and gave references which quotes and received no response from you.

All I'm saying is it can be done.

[_Dr. Shades]

You're right, it can be done.

You might know it's an ad hominem, I might know it's an ad hominem, registered users might know it's an ad hominem, the other moderators might know it's an ad hominem, and unregistered users might know it's an ad hominem, but the person making the ad hominem is NEVER aware that he or she is making an ad hominem.

Ergo, for every X posts that are moved to a different forum, moderators will receive X+? complaints about posts being moved to a different forum.

Can it be done? Yes. Do we moderators wish to mop up after the malestrom vis-a-vis Pandora's Box? Well, that's not so cut-and-dry.

.

[_marg]

You're right, it can be done.

You might know it's an ad hominem, I might know it's an ad hominem, registered users might know it's an ad hominem, the other moderators might know it's an ad hominem, and unregistered users might know it's an ad hominem, but the person making the ad hominem is NEVER aware that he or she is making an ad hominem.

Ergo, for every X posts that are moved to a different forum, moderators will receive X+? complaints about posts being moved to a different forum.

Can it be done? Yes. Do we moderators wish to mop up after the malestrom vis-a-vis Pandora's Box? Well, that's not so cut-and-dry.

.

I'm only thinking about the Celestial, having one area where tactic gameplaying is kept in check to some degree. Currently cutting out swear words doesn't do much. But whether it is implemented or not, offers no guarantee anyone will be interested in such discussions.

by the way, you mention the person making the ad hom is never aware, that's not true. They often are very aware, they are just used to arguing that way. If they couldn't they'd eventually catch on.

[_ludwigm]

I may leave because I'm not allowed my own signature line.

What is Your private social problem?

_________________
1st additional sig line:
The hypothesis of God, for instance, gives an incomparably absolute opportunity to understand everything and know absolutely nothing.
- (ROADSIDE PICNIC, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky)

_________________
2nd additional sig line:
A man walked into a bar with his alligator and asked the bartender,
"Do you serve lawyers here?".
"Sure do," replied the bartender.
"Good," said the man. "Give me a beer, and I'll have a lawyer for my 'gator."
- (linux fortunes)

_________________
3rd additional sig line:
The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. The living prophet has the power of TNT.
- (Ezra Taft Benson: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet)

[_Scottie]

I believe that this is really well said, Shades. A key feature of FAIR/MAD was always their arcane, indecipherable sense of just what, exactly, constituted a "personal attack." It would be fine and dandy for DCP to comment upon Mike Quinn's sexual morality, but do you think it would fly if someone questioned The Good Professor's ethics as an editor? Unless someone can clearly and unequivocally define what a "personal attack" is, then the moderating policies need to be loose.

Otherwise, it's easy enough to imagine threads on Pres. Monson getting "demoted" due to being "personal attacks."

Oh, I don't know. MDB has it's fair share of BLATANTLY personal attacks. You know, like calling Nehor a closet homosexual and such. Does that really add substance to any discussion??

I would like to see the blatant attacks go.

[_Mister Scratch]

I believe that this is really well said, Shades. A key feature of FAIR/MAD was always their arcane, indecipherable sense of just what, exactly, constituted a "personal attack." It would be fine and dandy for DCP to comment upon Mike Quinn's sexual morality, but do you think it would fly if someone questioned The Good Professor's ethics as an editor? Unless someone can clearly and unequivocally define what a "personal attack" is, then the moderating policies need to be loose.

Otherwise, it's easy enough to imagine threads on Pres. Monson getting "demoted" due to being "personal attacks."

Oh, I don't know. MDB has it's fair share of BLATANTLY personal attacks. You know, like calling Nehor a closet homosexual and such. Does that really add substance to any discussion??

Again, I think that's debatable. Mormonism has very authoritarian and problematic attitudes regarding homosexuality, and it also has pretty strict guidelines concerning marriage. Many people---including the "classy" posters like Beastie---have surmised that TBM posters such as Wade Englund are closeted homosexuals. (Of course, this is complicated by his role in the CSSAD.) Is it wrong for people to weigh in on such things, especially given the nature of Mormonism vis-a-vis homosexuality? So, again---I don't think it is so easy to draw the line.

I would like to see the blatant attacks go.

And how do you propose to define "blatant"? Simply on the basis of the poster making the "attack"? On a separate thread, Harmony is characterizing PP as an immature brat and that sort of thing. Does that constitute a "blatant attack" in your eyes? What about DCP calling me a "loon"? Blatant? Or okay?