Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I fully understand your reasons for posting what you did--believe me, I definitely do--but the community was very, very dissatisfied back when we did things that way, so we pretty much had to bend under the pressure.

That's too bad -- that was the very reason I think this place is special. It's one thing to moderate out words way over the line, but lately I've seen censorship of words not even close to that line.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Well I disagree with you because the goal of discussion at least good discussion is to have it move forward to a mutual agreement or understanding.

It's not for the Mods to decide whether a discussion is headed for "mutual agreement or understanding." That's nothing more than censorship. Let's not go down that road.

Most discussions on message boards deteriorate because of disingenuous fallacious tactics. All the people involved in such discussions employing such fallacious tactics are really not interested in reaching a mutual understanding, or the best fit truths, they are more interested in winning.

Most, if not all, discussions here will not lead to some idyllic "mutual understanding." It's not the nature of the beast. The discussion, not the conclusion, is what matters here.

Ad hominem or spoiling the well, is just one way of disrupting or discouraging progression of discussion. It wastes time and it's unnecessary, and often the person at the receiving end is in a position of having to counter the attack.

Let the posters on the thread decide that. We really are big kids around here, who do not need Big Brother/Sister deciding what we can and cannot discuss or handle.

So for example when Mikwut says...Dale's response is flippant, simplistic in response, and ridiculous..that's a persuasive ploy meant to spoil the well against Dale.

Gimme a break! That was is utterly harmless. This ain't FAIR/MADB where sensitive posters need protection.

It's basically telling everyone to not listen to him and his argument. It's not just solely a matter of Dale ignoring and the situation is then rectified. Often times an individual is forced to counter. Spoiling the well is a disingenous tactic, and I asked Mikwut to stop. The goal of that discussion is to reach truths, not to win at a game.

Let the posters decide this; the Mods have no place in deciding for them.

In any event, that's my perspective but I won't be moderating anyhow in the future.

True.

Moderation is effective when it encourages the discussion to move forward to mutual understanding and a best fit truth, and when it discourages those who are preventing or trying to sabotage that goal.

There's no such thing as a "mutual understanding and a best fit truth" on a debate bb like this. That's the beauty of this place, as opposed to FAIR/MADB.

I wouldn't say no moderation is better than good moderation, but no moderation is better than bad moderation.

Agreed.

[_marg]

Well I disagree with you because the goal of discussion at least good discussion is to have it move forward to a mutual agreement or understanding.

It's not for the Mods to decide whether a discussion is headed for "mutual agreement or understanding." That's nothing more than censorship. Let's not go down that road.

I'm not being specific about this board, I'm referring to good argumentation in general, which while rare does occur between some people because they realize the goal is not to win but to reach a conclusions based on good reasoning not fallacious reasoning.

Most discussions on message boards deteriorate because of disingenuous fallacious tactics. All the people involved in such discussions employing such fallacious tactics are really not interested in reaching a mutual understanding, or the best fit truths, they are more interested in winning.

Most, if not all, discussions here will not lead to some idyllic "mutual understanding." It's not the nature of the beast. The discussion, not the conclusion, is what matters here.

Agreed, few discussion progress in the ideal way. Few people are able to argue issues and leave emotions and rhetorical game playing aside.

Ad hominem or spoiling the well, is just one way of disrupting or discouraging progression of discussion. It wastes time and it's unnecessary, and often the person at the receiving end is in a position of having to counter the attack.

Let the posters on the thread decide that. We really are big kids around here, who do not need Big Brother/Sister deciding what we can and cannot discuss or handle.

That I also agree with for the majority of discussions. But the Spalding discussion above is supposed to be devoid of ad hominems, off topic posts, derailment etc. I've given my reasoning why an occasional ad hom I let slide. I've let others by Mikwut previously slide. This one I said something about.

So for example when Mikwut says...Dale's response is flippant, simplistic in response, and ridiculous..that's a persuasive ploy meant to spoil the well against Dale.

Gimme a break! That was is utterly harmless. This ain't FAIR/MADB where sensitive posters need protection.

It's harmless in most discussions. But the previous time, Mikwut insulted Dale he responded, and as I explained previously it's not necessarily ok or fair to the receiver, to just let them slide. A person often feels forced to say something knowing the purpose of the attack is to persuade the audience against the person. Dale is writing tons of posts and to waste his time on that is not fair.

It's basically telling everyone to not listen to him and his argument. It's not just solely a matter of Dale ignoring and the situation is then rectified. Often times an individual is forced to counter. Spoiling the well is a disingenous tactic, and I asked Mikwut to stop. The goal of that discussion is to reach truths, not to win at a game.

Let the posters decide this; the Mods have no place in deciding for them.

Why would you encourage or allow a discussion of importance and significance, with people who have spent a good deal of time and energy in it to deteriorate? If I were going to put time and energy into a discussion it wouldn't be because I thought in advance...this is just going to deteriorate or get side-railed. I would only do so with the expectation it might evolve into a good discussion beneficial to some if not all.. That's my expectation when I start in most discussions. It rarely evolves as I hope it would.

Moderation is effective when it encourages the discussion to move forward to mutual understanding and a best fit truth, and when it discourages those who are preventing or trying to sabotage that goal.

There's no such thing as a "mutual understanding and a best fit truth" on a debate bb like this. That's the beauty of this place, as opposed to FAIR/MADB.

Sure for most discussions, but this one, is unique relative to the the vast majority of threads on this board, in that some of the participants have spent a good deal of time and effort in their posts on the board as well off the board.

I wouldn't say no moderation is better than good moderation, but no moderation is better than bad moderation.

Agreed.

I think we fundamentally are in agreement.

You see sometimes it actually does happen as I hoped. Our discussion has evolved with neither playing disingenuous games. We are sincere and wish to come to a mutual appreciation of the issues and perhaps agreement. We are disagreeing but allowing each other to advance their opinions unhindered.

[_antishock8]

There's no doubt some posters receive "passes" while others do not. It generally boils down to a moderator-perceived contribution to the board. If a participant is perceived as contributing to the board in a significant way, personal slights and ad homs attacks (along with a host of other logical fallacies) are permitted. If the poster is moderator-perceived as being non-beneficial to the board then tolerance is low.

In my back and forth over my banning the Mod came right out and said he is moderating with a bias.

So. If participants enjoy the MAD&B Lite forum they now have then more power to them. No one is forcing anyone to post here, or abide by the rules. You can do what you want; it's apparent the Mods are doing the same.

[_harmony]

People, people!

Come, let us reason together. Let us not crucify our moderators in our haste to shed blood, innocent or otherwise. Let us instead look at what we have done:

What we have here, in the Jockers' thread, is something almost unheard of on the internet: a thread that's gone for almost 50 pages, and is still discussing the original subject! That is amazing. The thread has over ten thousands views, (10,000!!!! When has MAD produced such a thing?), over a thousands posts, some of the biggest names in LDS and unLDS apologetics, and it's still on the original subject. Let us all step back for just a second, have a moment of silence in respect for this great accomplishment, and then ... carry on!

[_harmony]

PS. I am willing to step aside if anyone wants to take my place... and offers me a big enough bribe. Money is too crass; chocolate, however, is always appreciated.

[_Ray A]

I hope Ray will fill the opening she has left.

I would not qualify as a mod for the simple reason that I fail the test questions Shades originally asked. I'm quite sure now that, given a choice of the lesser of two evils, I'd chose the old version. When you post on a thread and feel like you're looking for shadows and tippy-toeing to biases, in other words, like you're actually back on MAD and thinking five times before posting, I would agree with Antishock that it's like MAD Lite. I've always had a strong anti-authoritarian streak in me, living in a land originally made up of convicts, blashpemers and drunks who thumbed their collective noses at authority (not much has changed, let me tell you).

There was a kind of adrenalin about posting in the old version, in that you'd never know what to expect, and you could never predict it.

I stopped posting on MAD partly because of this feeling that I was always watching out for Big Brother Mod. And they were honest in their intentions by being up front and stating that they made no claim to impartiality - and perhaps that's the story of all moderation. Impartiality is largely impossible (though Liz does come very close).

I'm not offering a solution, because there probably isn't one. You just have to chose the lesser of two evils, and my choice is in the minority.

I also understand the Authorship thread was brought here for more exposure (yet the Dan Vogel thread remained in the Celestial forum). Well, it got exposure alright, and along with that some of the "un-Celestial" problems associated with posting in the Terrestrial forum. I think it should have stayed in the Celestial forum, because everyone would not be as confused, and would know that if they posted in the Celestial the rules there are stricter. So, as it were, a Celestial "being" was brought down to the Terrestrial level, with sporadic warnings that it is a Celestial "being", but there's no qualification about that, unless someone pops in and tells us.

So I think that's some of the problem, and the moral of the story is, if you want to be popular with the world, then be prepared to cop the flak, and reign in the thought police. Or go back where you belong in protected Celestial areas.

[_harmony]

I'd love to see his assessment of the Jockers study. Dismissing it out of hand is both cowardly and beneath him. That's something I'd expect of LDS apologists, not Brent.

And yet, as is their custom, that's not what the LDS apologists have done, and that's not what the LDS apologists are going to do.

It's tough, I suppose, that they seldom actually live down to your expectations. Perhaps you need to really concentrate, make your hands into fists, and expect harder. Hopping on one foot sometimes helps, too.

Put up your argument, Daniel. I haven't seen anything from the LDS side that shows any serious discussion (and yes, I've read your homeboy's essay on S/r... and Dale's dissection of it) of the Jockers' study.

So... put up your argument, Daniel. Until it stands beside the others', I'm going to have say the LDS apologists have dismissed it, out of hand. There is no other way to look at it. In the immortal words of the White Rabbit: you're late... you're late... for a very important date!

[_Jersey Girl]

I also understand the Authorship thread was brought here for more exposure (yet the Dan Vogel thread remained in the Celestial forum). Well, it got exposure all right, and along with that some of the "un-Celestial" problems associated with posting in the Terrestrial forum. I think it should have stayed in the Celestial forum, because everyone would not be as confused, and would know that if they posted in the Celestial the rules there are stricter. So, as it were, a Celestial "being" was brought down to the Terrestrial level, with sporadic warnings that it is a Celestial "being", but there's no qualification about that, unless someone pops in and tells us.

The authorship thread was originally posted in the Terrestrial by me.

Repeated requests to stay on topic were made by me.

The only criteria for posting on the authorship thread is to stay on topic.

It has been moderated in an effort to keep the thread on topic.

When you consider the fact that this is a topical message board, you'll excuse me if I don't give a rats ass about your repeated whining and falsehoods on this thread.

This thread is nothing more than an attempt on your part to disparage a person with whom you are frustrated in another thread and hiding behind a thread title that names Dale Broadhurst when you are infact after marg.
Anyone who bothered to read the Pearl Curran thread knows well the inspiration for this thread.

You have made multiple mistakes in your responses on this thread and posted outright lies.

[_Yoda]

PS. I am willing to step aside if anyone wants to take my place... and offers me a big enough bribe. Money is too crass; chocolate, however, is always appreciated.

Don't you even think about leaving me!!

I'll double the chocolate that someone tries to give you in bribes to leave to bribe you to stay!