Toward a Theory of Mopologetics, Part II

[_The Nehor]

you've seemed angry all day.

Yep, you should have heard me rant while teaching Gospel Doctrine today.

First you bashed Nightlion's religious beliefs and now your knuckles are white as you shake your fists

Nope, just checked, knuckles are more tan.

at a maturing science.

It's lines like this that leave me unsure as to whether I should shake my head at your rambling idiocy or congratulate you on both the best and most lengthy parody on these boards to date.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You've gone a long way in laying down the groundwork for a fascinating scholarly undertaking. I applaud the rigorous application of science here, one day, Mopologeticology will rival even the hardest of the physical sciences in its rigor.

I was curious as to Mola Ram's rating. what were the considerations that gave him a 9?

Well, Dean Robbers, I have to doff my hat to you. I thank you for your gracious and useful critique. It reminds me that I need to state that this is a work in progress. I had originally intended those rankings to function illustratively. They aren't hard and fast numbers, in other words. So: you're right. Mola Ram would not deserve a "9" overall. He would probably rate a 9 for his tone, but based on his writing style, he seems never to have advanced beyond the 8th grade, education-wise, so he would get, like, a 1 for Education.

But, this is a work in progress! I welcome any and all constructive criticism.

[_Doctor Scratch]

After reading this classic Scrotch post tonight, my wife asked: "“Does this mean you’re now the “first chair?”

Color me honored.

Of course, I couldn't have done it without you, Scrotch Rot.

Hello there, Will. You'll be pleased to know that I've revised the sample MAS list for accuracy. The downside here is that your Index Number is now a great deal lower. Unfortunately, your lack of Ivy League degree, your lack of real association with FARMS, FAIR, etc., and so on and so forth, have lowered your score considerably. In terms of sheer aggressive tone, though, you would rate quite high. So keep your chin up.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I had originally intended those rankings to function illustratively. They aren't hard and fast numbers, in other words.

Gosh. Ya think?

[_The Nehor]

I welcome any and all constructive criticism.

Eat a bullet.

[_Some Schmo]

This is one of you more entertaining and thought provoking posts, Scratch. Good stuff. A couple of thoughts:

What you are lumping under the umbrella of "aggression" others might consider "assertive." I think if an apologist has a high post count (addressing your specific example) but is friendly in tone, it strikes me as more assertive than aggressive.

Also, a distinction should be made based on the kind of power the apologist is attempting to exert. From this website:

1. Coercive power. This means the power to punish. It can typically be used in an online community by a moderator, who can ban an account or certain comments.

2. Reward power. As there are many kinds of rewards, this power can be used in a variety of ways, ranging from a positive comment to financial reward.

3. Legitimate power. This is the power granted by some kind of authority. On a social networking site, it normally belongs to the organization operating the site, which can define the rules to be followed and execute them.

4. Expert power. Extremely relevant in the online world, expert power comes from experience or education. If you are recognized as an expert, people will count with your opinion and are more likely to follow your leadership.

5. Referent power. This is probably the most important type of power in the online communities. Referent power comes from admiration or respect. In the online world without hierarchies and boundaries people with referent power are the most influential ones. This power comes from character, the values and integrity that a person represents.

It seems meaningful or safe to say that the MAS would go up if the mopologist is trying to exert coercive power than referent power, for instance. So in your example, I think juliann should score higher because she uses her coercive power than someone like Allen Wyatt using expert power, since that seems far more "aggresive."

These were just a couple of notions I had while reading through your very entertaining post.

[_why me]

A basic theory would center on the effect of RFM or other negative anti LDS sites on LDS apologists. I think that the effect is major because of the tone on those boards and the low level of attack on the LDS church. And when RFM missionaries come to other boards to engage in smearing certain apologists, the result can be a reverse reaction by the apologist. And when antimormons engage on internet boards in a negative manner, they get a certain reaction from certain apologists who have been smeared.

Now I think that apologists should not go to the level of certain antimormons but it can be difficult not to. I like Pahoran. He is tough and takes no prisoners. It is a great asset to MAD. But likewise, the more mild mannered are great to: deborah, calmoriah, emiliza, and others do a good job to. In other words, apologists are human beings with distinct personalities. And these personalities can come out in internet forums. And all the personalities create a wonderful rainbow of human interaction.

[_William Schryver]

After reading this classic Scrotch post tonight, my wife asked: "“Does this mean you’re now the “first chair?”

Color me honored.

Of course, I couldn't have done it without you, Scrotch Rot.

Hello there, Will. You'll be pleased to know that I've revised the sample MAS list for accuracy. The downside here is that your Index Number is now a great deal lower. Unfortunately, your lack of Ivy League degree, your lack of real association with FARMS, FAIR, etc., and so on and so forth, have lowered your score considerably. In terms of sheer aggressive tone, though, you would rate quite high. So keep your chin up.

Scrotch Rot,

I was pretty sure your preliminary judgment would be altered once you realized that your giving me preeminence would be counter-productive to your overall objective. It is for that reason that I was quick to copy your initial post into my reply.

Oh, sure, now you're going to backpedal and cast about for any justification to drop me from my lofty perch at 9.5, but the fact remains that your initial reflex was to plant me at the top of the heap of those you consider to be obnoxious mopologists--an honor I shall not soon forget.
.
.
.
by the way, what constitutes a "real association with FARMS, FAIR, etc."?

[_why me]

Hello there, Will. You'll be pleased to know that I've revised the sample MAS list for accuracy. The downside here is that your Index Number is now a great deal lower. Unfortunately, your lack of Ivy League degree, your lack of real association with FARMS, FAIR, etc., and so on and so forth, have lowered your score considerably. In terms of sheer aggressive tone, though, you would rate quite high. So keep your chin up.

I was under the impression that your scores were based on tone and not education. Are you now including education or perceived education? Actually, I am quite glad to be a four. I don't like name calling or put downs. But they can be entertaining if done for fun and not for hurting.

[_Daniel Peterson]

by the way, what constitutes a "real association with FARMS, FAIR, etc."

Our Real Associates have the number 666 tatooed on their chests, have at least one random fatal drive-by shooting under their belts, own and know how to use our secret Mopologist decoder ring, and have been asked to play a specific role in our fiendish plan to extinguish the light of the sun and, thus, end all life on Planet Earth.

Or something of that sort.

Perhaps I should just let Scratch rant and rave for himself.