UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY

[_Dr. Shades]

I realize you aren't interested in this other than to protect yourself.

No, I'm interested in this to protect the board and everyone's (hopefully) positive experience therein. If I was only interested in protecting myself, then we would've never underwent the Great Moderatorial Experiment.

Let's see I posted that post and you responded with your post within one minute, so you didn't even read it.

Of course I read it. I even responded to it. Go back and read my post again.

I hit the "Submit" button, then went back and edited it to include your next post, and my response to it, so that I wouldn't have a double-post.

Do you have a military background by any chance?

Yes.

But Shades it was one insignificant event. And the complainers were complainers who knew nothing of the events. Doesn't it occur to you that some people like to post complaints just for the sake of it.

Conceivably, but I understood their concern.

Wasn't it skippy who said that what she found wrong about it was that I hadn't put my name to it, then later Liz asked me and went back and my name Washington attached. So skippy didn't even know what the heck she was complaining about and yet you are relying on her complaint.

Had you attached your name to it at first, or hadn't you?

That's not true, it doesn['t] matter what is noticed and that was not noticed.

On the contrary, that which is noticed is the only thing that does matter.

And frankly there is nothing wrong with changing Danny Boy..it's a slur against him. I don't care if you don't think it is, I do. and if I do, I'm sure others do.

Yes, there IS something wrong with changing "Danny Boy." The thing that's wrong is that this is the Terrestrial Forum, slur or no slur. For some reason, you're still not getting it.

I'm glad we are having this chat because I really like to see your character more fully. At one time I thought of you as being highly principled.

And this debacle is somehow evidence that I'm not?

I realize now that's not the case, you have a mindset of locking to something and not being able to be flexible and look at issues from different perspective.

"Locking on" to something is evidence of predictability and reliability. Predictability and reliability is exactly what people want out of their moderators. Just look at the MA&D moderation--and people's reactions thereunto--for counter-examples of this.

Shades I appreciate I made a mistake in my post, I've said it numerous time however I did not moderate that thread with undue bias against critics and that seems to be the stance you are taking..that I did.

Do you remember the example I made? I'll repeat it: Let's say that I start a new thread announcing, "From now on I will not tolerate any posts that disagree with me or my opinions. If you say anything contrary to what I believe, I will delete it." Let's say that I then fail to follow through with my threat and let everything stand regardless.

Now, will people continue to hold the same confidence in the freedom and objectivity of MormonDiscussions.com since they can find no evidence of bias on my part, or would they immediately lose confidence in the freedom and objectivity of MormonDiscussions.com due only to what I said?

Think about it.

You are not acknowledging any any fault as well, which is that you acted quickly yourself with no consultation with me.

You didn't need to be consulted. The two unforgivable words had been uttered, so I had to immediately go into damage control mode. A + B = C.

That's your choice that those words are unpardonable.

It's not merely my choice; it makes good moderatorial sense.

Words can be misconstrued. I wrote a clarification explaining but then again, as you say you aren't interested in a clarification.

You say they were a misconstruance. You also wrote a clarification, but they you continued to repeat the two unforgivablewords over and over, thus sabotaging your own claim and clarification.

[_marg]

And for my part, I have decided that I'm not going to be quiet about Ray. I took it for a month listening to him tell me I'm biased and closedminded and I kept trying to reason with him. That post was an extension of his mindset for that month.

Oh sure, you're going to expose everyone on this board for his biased they are, how wrong their opinions are, and that you could never be biased.

Read above Ray, I'm going to expose you for how underhanded you are, how intellectual dishonest and shallow you are in discussion.

I'm fully aware you think I'm biased and closed minded, you said that for an entire month instead of addressing the issue at the time.

And you shouldn't talk about being "two-faced". When you let loose after giving up your mod status you came out and told everyone your real feelings, that all of those who disagreed with you are "morons".

never said others were morons, I said about others that they eagerly post to write complaints about things for which they really have little to no knowledge. That's human nature and I sarcastically said "I love it" It's just so predictable of people especially on message board.

I'll have more to say, and also look forward to your "chronology". You already have one glaring mistake.

A glaring mistake? Hmmmm...you aren't going to give a hint?

[_Dr. Shades]

(marg: In case you missed it, see my earlier, longer response here.)

And this debacle is somehow evidence that I'm not?

Exactly I think of you as one who follows rules that you have set, that you are not flexible once you make a decision . . .

If that were actually true, I would've never implemented the Great Moderatorial Experiment.

. . . and your goal is to keep it simple.

Yes. That's a good thing. Message board participants like their rules and moderation to be simple and predictable.

You have the mentality of a bureaucrat.

I take that as a compliment.

Consequently I don't think you are highly principled. I don't think you are interested so much in what is ethically right or wrong but rather you are interested in what is right or wrong based on rules you've set up mentally because of complexity of situation may not be the most ethical decision.

It is ethically right to have consistent moderation. It is ethically wrong to do the opposite. So you can plainly see that I am, indeed, principled.

[_Ray A]

Exactly I think of you as one who follows rules that you have set, that you are not flexible once you make a decision and your goal is to keep it simple.

You have the mentality of a bureaucrat.

I disagree. Shades has changed the rules to please the community many times, and has adopted an approach of listening to what the majority on the board say/vote for. It may be true this wasn't originally so, but he was willing to change for the betterment of Mormon Discussions, even though those changes were contrary to his own vision for the board. Of course he has tighter regulations for moderators.

Shades and I are, incidentally, diametrically opposed on Spalding. Yet I'm yet to see him call anyone who disagrees with him, "unprincipled", or a "moron". Quite the contrary.

[_Ray A]

Read above Ray, I'm going to expose you for how underhanded you are, how intellectual dishonest and shallow you are in discussion.

I could very easily do that too. You're showing desperation. And you know what this all goes back to - the fact that you can't accept your bias, and the wrong decisions and statements you made as a moderator on the Spalding thread. No matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you deny it. And several posters have pointed it out.

[_marg]

No, I'm interested in this to protect the board and everyone's (hopefully) positive experience therein. If I was only interested in protecting myself, then we would've never underwent the Great Moderatorial Experiment.

The great moderatorial experiment is separate to the current issue. My posts are really with the best interests of the board, though you may not appreciate that. I always think on the whole in most situations unless one is trying to protect someone that honesty is the best policy.

But Shades it was one insignificant event. And the complainers were complainers who knew nothing of the events. Doesn't it occur to you that some people like to post complaints just for the sake of it.

Conceivably, but I understood their concern.

Shades so far ..I've acknowledged my error in my post. I've expanded further on it.

Now you are saying that I moderated with bias. So now it's not just Ray but ou. Your example "Danny Boy----> Mr "was never an issue. Ray wasn't even aware of it, nor was anyone else. So let's be honest ..what else have you got in your mind, that warrants your now accusation of my moderational bias against critics?

Wasn't it skippy who said that what she found wrong about it was that I hadn't put my name to it, then later Liz asked me and went back and my name Washington attached. So skippy didn't even know what the heck she was complaining about and yet you are relying on her complaint.

Had you attached your name to it at first, or hadn't you?

Yes I had, not only that, I had contacted Bryon to make the change himself but he doesn't open up pm;s apparently because he didn't open mine.

That's not true, it doesn['t] matter what is noticed and that was not noticed.

On the contrary, that which is noticed is the only thing that does matter.

The charge against me Shades is bias...changing Danny boy to Daniel can not be construed as bias against critics. For you to keep harping on this indicates you really have nothing against, you're now resorting to minutia in order to have at least something, anything..just so that you can say you have something. Even though that something is no indication of the actual charge against me, it shows the opposite.

And frankly there is nothing wrong with changing Danny Boy..it's a slur against him. I don't care if you don't think it is, I do. and if I do, I'm sure others do.

Yes, there IS something wrong with changing "Danny Boy." The thing that's wrong is that this is the Terrestrial Forum, slur or no slur. For some reason, you're still not getting it.

What you are not getting is that the charge against me is bias, not changing one name to avoid a slur. Bias Shades,...bias that's the issue.

I realize now that's not the case, you have a mindset of locking to something and not being able to be flexible and look at issues from different perspective.

"Locking on" to something is evidence of predictability and reliability. Predictability and reliability is exactly what people want out of their moderators. Just look at the MA&D moderation--and people's reactions thereunto--for counter-examples of this.

Well when I said locking onto something, I mean once you form an opinion and I'm sure you do this in your life off the board, I doubt it's different than on here, that you become set. I do think eventually locking and executing the plans is a good thing. You seem to rush to lock without gathering much information and then that's it, you dig your heels in.

You aren't interested in being principled, so much as interested in having rigid rules and plans to execute.

[_Ray A]

You're also changing tunes here:

In essence to sum up Dale did not get preferential treatment of any significance. My remark to Ray created the problem, and that left Shades with a problem. I replied to Ray quickly at a time I was exasperated with him and without thinking of the consequences I replied that I used preferential treatment but in fact the little amount of moderating was minor with the intent to keep things focused on topic.

But here is your original statement:

I do understand brent. I probably would feel the same way as you in your shoes. But there are 2 things that I am taking into consideration. The first is the effort and knowledge to this thread Dale offers, and second is that to some extent he needs protection in that he certainly has no support from a multi-billion dollar church and its many members and he is vulnerable to their attacks on message boards. So if I think he's being questioned with superfluous questions, perhaps ad homs, which only serve to wear him down I will remove those questions or ad homs if possible without detracting from the thread, to the off-topic thread, which I did in this case with a link. If I'm wrong and Dale wishes to respond or I made an error it can be corrected. Dale did respond.

If you're wrong, and Dale wishes to respond?

And here was your censoring of mikwut, after ignoring ad homs from Byron and NorthboundZax:

Mod note; Mikwut could you please refrain from ad hominems. They are cheap shots, easy to throw out and poison the well. Let the readers decide for themselves. If you continue I might start deleting them and if they get out of hand move your entire post. Note UD gave a condensed version,that's what he was asked for. marg

You were walking Dale along like a personal security guard.

[_marg]

Read above Ray, I'm going to expose you for how underhanded you are, how intellectual dishonest and shallow you are in discussion.

I could very easily do that too. You're showing desperation. And you know what this all goes back to - the fact that you can't accept your bias, and the wrong decisions and statements you made as a moderator on the Spalding thread. No matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you deny it. And several posters have pointed it out.

You are the one with bias affecting your reasoning. You said you had contempt for the Spalding theory. I on the other hand don't have contempt for the Smith as sole author, I merely find that the evidence is greater for the Spalding-Rigdon theory.

As far as bias on my part there is no evidence of undue bias against critics you've yet to show it.

by the way, you mentioned something abut a moderator who is against the S/R theory shouldn't moderate. I suspect you made a mistake and meant for the theory shouldn't moderate. But why would that be? Why would someone who is for the theory not be good to moderate that thread?

[_marg]

You're also changing tunes here:

In essence to sum up Dale did not get preferential treatment of any significance. My remark to Ray created the problem, and that left Shades with a problem. I replied to Ray quickly at a time I was exasperated with him and without thinking of the consequences I replied that I used preferential treatment but in fact the little amount of moderating was minor with the intent to keep things focused on topic.

But here is your original statement:

I do understand brent. I probably would feel the same way as you in your shoes. But there are 2 things that I am taking into consideration. The first is the effort and knowledge to this thread Dale offers, and second is that to some extent he needs protection in that he certainly has no support from a multi-billion dollar church and its many members and he is vulnerable to their attacks on message boards. So if I think he's being questioned with superfluous questions, perhaps ad homs, which only serve to wear him down I will remove those questions or ad homs if possible without detracting from the thread, to the off-topic thread, which I did in this case with a link. If I'm wrong and Dale wishes to respond or I made an error it can be corrected. Dale did respond.

If you're wrong, and Dale wishes to respond?

Yes the question asked by Brent was a continuation of the exchange between mikwut and Dale in whic both acknowledged Mikwut had insulted Dale. And it was in regards to Dales' faith, which is personal. If Dale wished to respond to Brent because I knew he'd seen Brent's post, Dale could choose to respond and in fact he did respond to Brent's question in the off topic are. What's your point?

And here was your censoring of mikwut, after ignoring ad homs from Byron and NorthboundZax:

Mod note; Mikwut could you please refrain from ad hominems. They are cheap shots, easy to throw out and poison the well. Let the readers decide for themselves. If you continue I might start deleting them and if they get out of hand move your entire post. Note UD gave a condensed version,that's what he was asked for. marg

You were walking Dale along like a personal security guard.

Teh 2 ad homs you pointed out, were minor that is unlikely to evolve into anything more. Dale and Mikwut already had an exchange of noted insults involving 4 posts. In the context of Dales's extensive posting, and that I had asked for a concise reply from Dale it was not warranted to accuse him of being flippant and dismissive. Now I made a warning ..that's all. And I said "might" remove future ad homs.

So that is the only action against a critic that I took a warning. Everyother action was moving threads to off topic and usually they were connected in groups, even Dale has posts moved.

Dale did not and does not need a security guard. However the Spaldin theory does need protection because there are lots of people motivated to hinder that thread as it goes against their religious faith beliefs. And for whatever reason even you seem motivated to hinder it, as you said The S/R theory should be viewed with contempt.

[_Ray A]

by the way, you mentioned something abut a moderator who is against the S/R theory shouldn't moderate. I suspect you made a mistake and meant for the theory shouldn't moderate. But why would that be? Why would someone who is for the theory not be good to moderate that thread?

And who did I suggest should moderate? Someone like Liz or Scottie. I left harmony out because she also was too biased in favour of Spalding, and very active in support of it on the thread.

The real point here, however, is that a moderator should, in theory, be able to moderate regardless of their bias. Blind Freedy could see your bias.