The Dude wrote:Dr. Shades is right. Anyway, I don't want my old account back when the moderators are out to get The Dude.
I see that Chronos added this clarification today (well after the fact)
Chronos wrote:1. Do not talk about what goes on in the Temple. Period. 2. Do not talk about another place or places where people talk about what goes on in the Temple. Period. We don't want to propagate that information, or be a part of it in any way.
I didn't violate 1. And 2 violates common sense when it means you can't say "YouTube video".
And don't miss that thread from Smac97 about the SL Tribune publishing photos of LDS temple clothing. It's still open.
"Do not talk about another place or places where people talk about what goes on in the temple" -- bull crap, Chronos.
And then there's this post right before mine (which was deleted).
Bunny wrote:I saw a YouTube link, but didn't watch the whole episode, which apparently continues to portray Mormons as petty people (and I suppose every human is at times), but if you're talking only about what is in the YouTube link, I guess I can only shrug my shoulders when people ask and say, "Yeah, it is like that, but as a member, it has a significance to me that it does not have to someone who is not a member." Anyway, there's nothing in that clip that makes me feel squeamish, other than the fact that I would have preferred that it not be shown at all. But that's old news now.
That's more or less what I said.
Remove all doubt from your mind, why me. This was personal. Enjoy your echo chamber.
Strange, I talked about the temple baptistery and initiatory--by there standards I should have been banned also. Some mod has your number.
You know... They don't actually need any reason, whatsoever, to ban anyone. There are "rules", but clearly those are purely for appearances only.
I think The Dude should join forces with Mr. Scratch and start to analyze Mopologists and Mormonism within the safety of this forum. Internet Mormonism would be far better off not having a censored voice elucidating his thoughts freely. Imagine the anger Scotty Dawg would feel poking his spiky head in here once in a while and seeing free discourse take place. He might actually froth at the gums a little!
By the way, look for a new wave of bannings. Dr Peterson posted the following today:
It's easy to spend inordinate effort and time wrangling with people on line whose only interest is in arguing, who are wholly negative. (Believe me. I know. I just departed another board where I've wasted far, far too many hours defending myself against idiotic false accusations from people determined to portray me as a potentially violent, scheming, slanderous, racist, vicious, lying religious bigot, etc., no matter what I say. Utterly pointless.) Meanwhile, perhaps, there are others out there who would be interested in learning about the Church if only they had a non-threatening way of doing so. By spending excessive energy on certain kinds of critics, we risk neglecting potential investigators. This shouldn't be about testosterone-fueled quests for "victory," and it certainly isn't about defending ourselves, personally, against unfair (and perhaps even, in my own case just mentioned, unbalanced) critics.
John Larsen wrote:By the way, look for a new wave of bannings. Dr Peterson posted the following today:
<snip>
While I don't think Dan intended it that way, I suspect that you're right that the mods will see it as an invitation to make MADB less hospitable to critics.
John Larsen wrote:Strange, I talked about the temple baptistery and initiatory--by there standards I should have been banned also. Some mod has your number.
Yep. They've seen the last of The Dude. If I ever go back it will be as somebody else.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
John Larsen wrote:By the way, look for a new wave of bannings. Dr Peterson posted the following today:
It's easy to spend inordinate effort and time wrangling with people on line whose only interest is in arguing, who are wholly negative. (Believe me. I know. I just departed another board where I've wasted far, far too many hours defending myself against idiotic false accusations from people determined to portray me as a potentially violent, scheming, slanderous, racist, vicious, lying religious bigot, etc., no matter what I say. Utterly pointless.) Meanwhile, perhaps, there are others out there who would be interested in learning about the Church if only they had a non-threatening way of doing so. By spending excessive energy on certain kinds of critics, we risk neglecting potential investigators. This shouldn't be about testosterone-fueled quests for "victory," and it certainly isn't about defending ourselves, personally, against unfair (and perhaps even, in my own case just mentioned, unbalanced) critics.
That was my sense of things when I read Dude had been banned. I suspect DCP has something to do with it. It's a way for him to lash back at those who also post here.
That's too bad. I think MA&D might be having a bit of an identity crisis. The mods need to figure out exactly what they're going for. Is it going to be a "fireside" atmosphere where only faith-promoting ideas are discussed? Is there going to be a standard for decorum that is universally applied?
I can understand a desire to avoid sarcasm, cynicism or other lower forms of communication, but that standard should be equally applied. The critics seem to get all the attention, but the "defenders" have their acerbic personalities as well.
It's also frustrating that my (2nd) banning was a result of a moderator being protective of apologists (most of whom don't participate on that board). I wasn't aware that "Apologists for LDS beliefs" (and probably only a narrowly considered group of apologists) were de facto protected from criticism or investigation on that board; again, this would be a special rule that should have been stated up front.
I don't begrudge a board owner from running the board how they like; if I didn't intend to keep the rules, I wouldn't participate. But I was taking my conversational cues and boundaries from Pahoran, Smac97, Juliann, DCP and the other "defenders" who frequently use sarcasm, cynicism and "pointed rebuttals" in their posts. These developments in board administration (and the recent bans) really have the feel of emotion and personal indignation trumping the rule of law.
From this we can see why separation of powers is such a good idea in any endeavor; if any form of "fairness" is striven for, then personal emotion and arbitrariness should be eliminated from the decision making process in who has a voice.
Edit to add: There really does need to be a balanced discussion forum where people can openly and freely (and anonymously, if desired) discuss their questions and concerns regarding the LDS Church. As has been pointed out many times, Church isn't the place to discuss and argue such things. People need an outlet and resource.
MA&D was probably in the best position to be such a place, but if all voices and perspectives aren't heard, it will ring hollow as the limited scope of discussion will fail to satisfy someone who has real questions and real concerns. I can understand a desire to keep the discourse civil and respectful, but as long as the knife cuts most sharply against the critics (with a blind eye turned towards defenders), they will spiral into endless back-patting and ineffectiveness.
It's also absurd that the mods at MA&D can't make edits in people's posts if that person is a long-time participant who makes a single violation. Certainly, Dude's comment could have easily been trimmed to remove his comment about the little known "YouTube" site to prevent other, Google-impaired forum members from finding the content.
Heck, my first banning was for a joke that was deemed in poor taste (although further research proved this to not be the case), and I wouldn't have minded if they had simply deleted the post. That would have seemed to make more sense.
John Larsen wrote:By the way, look for a new wave of bannings. Dr Peterson posted the following today:
It's easy to spend inordinate effort and time wrangling with people on line whose only interest is in arguing, who are wholly negative. (Believe me. I know. I just departed another board where I've wasted far, far too many hours defending myself against idiotic false accusations from people determined to portray me as a potentially violent, scheming, slanderous, racist, vicious, lying religious bigot, etc., no matter what I say. Utterly pointless.) Meanwhile, perhaps, there are others out there who would be interested in learning about the Church if only they had a non-threatening way of doing so. By spending excessive energy on certain kinds of critics, we risk neglecting potential investigators. This shouldn't be about testosterone-fueled quests for "victory," and it certainly isn't about defending ourselves, personally, against unfair (and perhaps even, in my own case just mentioned, unbalanced) critics.
Fascinating. On the one hand, this reinforces my hypothesis that Mopologetics has a strong connection to these guys' (and girls') missionary experiences. It is also interesting to see the shifting of goal posts here. Traditionally, Mopologetics has been about trying to score points against critics. Now, though, the score will be determined based on how many converts the Mopologists can "collect."
