Banned from MADB

[_why me]

Remove all doubt from your mind, why me. This was personal. Enjoy your echo chamber.

I think that I said that your banning had to do with other issues besides the youtube comment and the mod just clarified that it did. Strange that the echo had it right.

[_why me]

Bull s*** Hermes! I was banned on somebody's whim, less than one minute after the "warning" was pinned, without having a chance to see it. Furthermore, I didn't even violate the warning. See above.

The Dude was given many many chances this time, contacted thropugh private message about particular matters, but decided he did not want to live up to the board expectations.

This was why you were banned and the other incidents that I was referring to. You will need to address what the moderator said. Did you ignore contacts and did you ignore the warnings?

[_The Dude]

Why me,

No, I didn't ignore contacts and warnings from Hermes. He's been warning me about the littlest things since January, about the kind of things you really can't watch out for or predict what will trigger a "no-no" PM. I was regularly editing and deleting my own posts, second-guessing my tone, wondering if Hermes just wants me to get fed up and leave. It's been very frustrating, because the "expectations" have been vague and different for me than for other posters, yet I have always politely complied as I was a guest.

I agree with you that there are "other issues besides the youtube video" that got me banned: the issues are best summed up as being personally disliked by Hermes (and possibly other mods).

[_Yoda]

I would assume "the brethren" would order Juliann to take it down. But if FAIR or FARMS asked her to, she would probably comply. It has always been a little shady exactly who or what is behind that board.

When MAD ceased to be the FAIRboard, that was basically FARMS' and FAIR's way of separating themselves from the board.

When FAIR became MAD, the board rules became much more arbitrary.

[_Chap]

The Dude was given many many chances this time, contacted thropugh private message about particular matters, but decided he did not want to live up to the board expectations.

And what precisely are "the board expectations"? They appear to be as follows:

1. Those who are critical of the doctrines of the LDS church, or of any position of that church in regard to historical facts, may not be seen to win an argument against a believing member of that church.

2. Members of the LDS church may if they wish employ any terms of abuse they fancy in referring to critics, and may use sarcasm and irony freely. Critics who reply in kind, however mildly will have their posts deleted and may be threatened with banning.

As a result of this, any critic who wishes to continue posting on the MAD board in a fashion that is not completely neutered has to resort to a continual tone of irony so subtle as to be doubly ironic in its subtlety. In the end this becomes a kind of artform, the practice of which is almost an aesthetic pleasure in itself, and that I suspect is one of the motives that makes people continue to post there, despite all the frustrations to normal communication.

But sooner or later the MADmods are bound to notice the fatal combination: poster X appears to be well-informed, poster X appears to be intelligent, poster X is critical of LDS positions, and worst of all TBM posters do not appear to be gaining any notable victories over poster X. Then you have to go.

[_The Dude]

Why me,

For example:

Somebody posts a link to an article by Blake Ostler which is supposed to give philosophical evidence or justification for believing in a god. I clicked on the link... it says "Object not found"... a bad link.

I respond to the post by saying "Your link said 'Object not found', kind of like evidence for god is not found. LOL." Just a joking way to let the poster know there is a problem. Should be fine since I make plenty of substantial posts, don't I? And when the link gets fixed, I plan to look at the article and respond or critique it later in the day.

But first, Hermes suspends me for one week. Sends me a PM with three words: "Come on, Dude."

"Come on"? What do I learn from that kind of detailed explanation? Oh, and I can't respond because my account is suspended for a week. Whenever I log in all I get is Hermes' PM and a notice for when my suspension will end. By the time it ends, the thread is on page four and nobody cares anymore. I decide to keep my head down and try to move on through the minefield.

This was a typical round of warning, PM, and punishment. It's like Kafka. You know about Kafka, right? How is one supposed to deal with this kind of treatment? You have been treated this way on other boards, Why Me. You know what it is like to be on the bad side of someone who has unchecked power. Sure you can kiss butt, only to increase the sociopathic appetite that ultimately bans you forever. Better to keep your self respect and leave of your own volition. <-- take note Runtu, and John Larsen.

[_Runtu]

This was a typical round of warning, PM, and punishment. It's like Kafka. You know about Kafka, right? How is one supposed to deal with this kind of treatment? You have been treated this way on other boards, Why Me. You know what it is like to be on the bad side of someone who has unchecked power. Sure you can kiss butt, only to increase the sociopathic appetite that ultimately bans you forever. Better to keep your self respect and leave of your own volition. <-- take note Runtu, and John Larsen.

My troubles over there have almost uniformly been causd by personal animus from one or more mods. The typical pattern for me is that, no matter what I say on a thread, someone turns the thread into a personal attack on me. I'll avoid taking the bait, but the attacks continue (usually with someone saying that my refusal to respond is a sign of cowardice or dishonesty) and then when I feel like I have to respond, I'm immediately red-texted with "Stop making everything about YOU."

It's completely arbitrary and biased. I've often wondered what motivates the "angry apologists" like Pahoran and Juliann, who can violate the stated rules with impunity, while those of us who merely respond to the personal attacks are suspended and banned.

Maybe they are trying to do what the church has done in general: turn everything into a big sacrament meeting. I don't know.

[_John Larsen]

This was a typical round of warning, PM, and punishment. It's like Kafka. You know about Kafka, right? How is one supposed to deal with this kind of treatment? You have been treated this way on other boards, Why Me. You know what it is like to be on the bad side of someone who has unchecked power. Sure you can kiss butt, only to increase the sociopathic appetite that ultimately bans you forever. Better to keep your self respect and leave of your own volition. <-- take note Runtu, and John Larsen.

I probably should stop posting there on principle, but I do this as a lark to take short breaks between work assignments. I really don't see myself as engaged in anything greater than my own amusement. I am sure my participation there is psychologically unhealthy and points to some kind of character flaw--but kind of the level of watching old Seinfield reruns. Still, I'll give it thought. It is a bad habit, maybe I should just stop and devote my time and talents to the One True Mormon Discussions web site.

[_harmony]

I probably should stop posting there on principle, but I do this as a lark to take short breaks between work assignments. I really don't see myself as engaged in anything greater than my own amusement.

That's more or less what Daniel said about his participation here. And some people took exception to it.

I am sure my participation there is psychologically unhealthy and points to some kind of character flaw--but kind of the level of watching old Seinfield reruns. Still, I'll give it thought. It is a bad habit, maybe I should just stop and devote my time and talents to the One True Mormon Discussions web site.

Again, you're echoing Daniel's estimation of his participation here.

[_John Larsen]

I probably should stop posting there on principle, but I do this as a lark to take short breaks between work assignments. I really don't see myself as engaged in anything greater than my own amusement.

That's more or less what Daniel said about his participation here. And some people took exception to it.

I am sure my participation there is psychologically unhealthy and points to some kind of character flaw--but kind of the level of watching old Seinfield reruns. Still, I'll give it thought. It is a bad habit, maybe I should just stop and devote my time and talents to the One True Mormon Discussions web site.

Again, you're echoing Daniel's estimation of his participation here.

As I said in my long post above. I agreed with Peterson. I think his assessment was right on. I think he could post the cure for cancer here and he would still be lit up.