Well, an interesting turn of events on MAD. The thread was shut down, but not due to Pahoran's name-calling. Here's the message "skylla" left:
Done. Leave your vendettas off the board. Contribute substance.
Skylla
So the problem for the moderators wasn't Pahoran's behavior. It was my bringing up past behavior of Pahoran's. No matter that it was clearly directly related to the topic at hand.
I will share more of this mess for interested folks, but first want to address a hope some of you have expressed - which is that the MAD mods finally realize that allowing Pahoran, and others who follow his example, to remain unleashed does not benefit civil, intelligent discussion.
It’s not going to happen.
The reason I know it’s not going to happen is because ZLMB was set up with the express purpose of allowing both sides of the question full participation. The board was set up as a response to the former Tanner’s Lighthouse board. I never participated on that board, but LDS report that it was governed by a highly biased moderator who would not allow arguments to stand on their merit, and moderated in favor of the anti-LDS point of view. LDS felt censured and prohibited from defending their faith.
Now, again, I don’t really know anything about the Tanner’s board other than through these second-hand reports. I don’t even know if the board was designed to allow interaction between LDS and nonLDS, or if the board was primarily meant for the EVs and LDS intruded on it. I don’t know these things (I believe Richard knows more about that board). But I do know the perception that the LDS on ZLMB had of that board, and that includes many of the folks we still see on MAD today. They felt the Tanner board was unfair and moderated in such a biased way it was not possible for the LDS to truly represent their side.
ZLMB was meant as the solution to that problem. Although the board owner was LDS, the board was designed to be moderated in the most unbiased manner humanly possible. The board owner deliberately chose LDS and exLDS as moderators. There were strict guidelines about moderating in order to try and avoid too many subjective calls, which would be more subject to personal bias. Of course, this goal is only attainable to a certain degree, and ZLMB had varying degrees of success with the goal, but it was the goal.
At its height, ZLMB really did have interesting, civil discussions between the two sides. There were always some folks in trouble with moderators, and conversations often became heated – but it seemed to work for years. But, eventually, LDS fled ZLMB in favor of the openly biased moderating policies of FAIR. FAIR never presented itself in the manner that ZLMB did, and in the manner I think some of you are longing for. FAIR was always open in that they are very biased in favor of believers. Critics are second-class citizens, whose presence is tolerated for the sole purpose of providing a foil, against with the apologetic argument can be launched.
For whatever reason, this is the setting in which it appears most LDS who engage in these sort of exchanges feel comfortable participating. I have my own opinion about why that it is so, but that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is so.
The irony is, of course, that LDS fled the Tanner’s board, and, in the end, created the mirror image of the Tanner’s board.
Technically speaking, biased pro-LDS moderating doesn’t have to mean that someone like Pahoran is allowed to continue to spill his bile without restraint, although it makes it more likely. And there are probably LDS posters who could not get away with his type of behavior. There is something more personal going on there, and I know this from my time as a moderator on Z.
Pahoran has been around on the internet for a long time – even longer than me. He originally posted on ARM, If I recall correctly. The story is that supposedly he was a very mild-mannered, fair poster on ARM. The story is that he was embittered due to the treatment he received at the hands of cruel anti-mormons. In other words, anti-mormons created Pahoran. At least, that’s the story – I personally cannot imagine a mild-mannered Pahoran. I think this is part of the reason he is given so much leeway. But there’s more. There’s simply affection and friendship between Pahoran and certain other defenders of the faith. I think he has enough friendly connections with enough LDS that participate on these type of boards that it is unlikely that he will ever be treated with the censure he truly deserves. I know that was a strong factor at Z. But there’s even more. I think that many believers are secretly gratified by Pahoran’s aggressive behavior. It’s difficult to face these constant criticisms of one’s most cherished beliefs. Yes, I know these believers seek out the circumstance which allows these criticisms to be aired, so there is a bit of “you get what you ask for” going on here. But that doesn’t change the fact that they will likely experience a certain amount of frustration – and maybe, just maybe, part of them would like to mouth off the way Pahoran does, and maybe, just maybe, a good part of them really agree with what he’s saying – but they’re just too inhibited to say it. In other words, he’s their proxy attack-dog, and they enjoy watching him growl.
I don’t mean to imply that I think all believers secretly are gratified by his behavior. I think there are many – perhaps just as many – who wish Pahoran would stop it. I suspect there are many who wonder if Pahoran – and the others like him – really do their cause more harm than good. But there are enough on the other side to ensure protection for him.
I have no doubt that, just like on Z, Pahoran is, at times, punished by moderators - maybe a suspension here or there, like on Z. Sometimes even biased moderators really have no other choice. But I feel safe guessing that he will never, never, be banned from the site. I also feel safe guessing that behavior like his will always be tolerated to a great degree by the moderators.
And here’s the irony behind this – and I can’t take credit for realizing this, Gadianton pointed it out long ago. There is a law of unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of a moderating team heavily biased in favor of LDS, a moderating team that, for example, allows Pahoran to call someone a “cur” in the title of a thread, and yet close that same thread with a rebuke to the victim of Pahoran’s name-calling – is that the behavior you allow will breed. More and more LDS posters will act like Pahoran, to various extents – because it is allowed, and because it can be gratifying. If critics who provide sharp arguments that could arguably keep apologists on their toes, which keep apologists from getting sloppy, are continually hounded off the board, the unintended consequence will be sloppier defenses of the faith. The unintended consequence will be apologetics that are off-putting to doubting LDS – for the sloppiness as well as the harsh personal tone.
And maybe that’s ok for the folks who direct MAD. Maybe the purpose of MAD isn’t really to provide quality apologetics for LDS who are confronting troubling issues. Maybe it doesn’t matter if those type of people are chased away – there are vocal posters there who don’t seem to mind at all that they may chase away sincere doubters. Maybe the purpose of MAD isn’t to provide a forum for quality debate. Maybe the purpose of MAD really is something as simple as giving individuals who are involved in the sometimes frustrating past-time of apologetics an opportunity to “get back” at those mean, mean folks who criticize their most cherished beliefs.
I hope this doesn’t sound like a blanket condemnation of all believers on MAD. I genuinely like several of those posters, and some of those posters stood up for me on this recent episode – consig, for example, who even came here to express his support. I really appreciate those folks, and hope that my criticism of the board in general doesn’t feel like a personal criticism of those folks.
If anyone’s interested, I’ll provide the background information and some of the posts regarding that issue. It’s pretty long, though, so don’t want to do it if there’s not really interest in that level of detail.
by the way, for all you folks in love with me – I don’t want your wedding ring!! I want your TITHING. ;)