Insight into MAD moderating

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Yoda

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _Yoda »

rocket wrote:
LDSDoubter wrote:IMHO, the MAD board is a good example of how Mormonism cannot handle the criticism levelled against it.


Is MAD the Church? I think that all the moderators there who host the board are going to burn in hell, but what do I know?


Did lightning just strike? Bob and I actually agree on something! :mrgreen:
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _beastie »

Part of what nemesis said that altered my attitude about it a bit is that they receive a lot of emails from believers who are angry with moderators for allowing critics to say the things they say. These emailers accuse the mods of being in league with apostates.

The reality that any LDS-themed board is going to have to deal with is a certain amount of lack of awareness regarding problematic issues within the membership at large. Most members really aren't aware of these things, despite the seeming MAD insinuation otherwise (when so many of them claim they've known about this stuff since their teens...). So, to them, when critics make certain historically based assertions - like Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl - this seems like a base lie that ought to be simply censored. They shouldn't be "allowed" to say such a thing.

The dilemma is obvious. Defenders of the faith have to engage in sometimes subtle, and sometimes weak, explanations of facts that, on their face, are pretty damning to LDS truth claims. The believers in the peanut gallery just want a "smack-down", they just want the critics to stop "lying". So it's a difficult row to hoe. The LDS peanut gallery - the very population that provides believers willing to post to defend the faith - are the ones who already think the mods are too easy on critics. I think it's obvious moderators aren't too easy on critics at all, but are harder on critics than on believers. But it doesn't feel that way to someone who just wants the critic to be shown to be a base liar and forced to shut up.

I thought it was important that Nemesis noted how hard it is to get believers to post on a board like MAD. Even as it is - apparently it's still hard to do. My opinion is that it's hard to get believers to post because they know they likely will not be able to provide the type of rebuttals they'd like to see apologists provide, either. (which is again, not an explanation of why it was all right for Joseph Smith to marry a fourteen year old, but rather that he never did such a thing and anyone claiming otherwise is a base liar)

This is part of the nightmare for LDS defenders of the faith. What LDS who have just confronted these problems really want to hear is: "it's all a pack of lies from filthy anti-mormons, and these facts PROVE it". But what they really hear is a concession that the the skeletal facts of the assertions are, in fact, correct, but the facts aren't being "interpreted" correctly. That is a frustrating state of affairs.

I really don't see any resolution other than a MAD type of board, to tell the truth. ZLMB worked for a long time, and it probably would have continued to work had it been the only option. But as soon as some LDS figured out that having an openly biased moderating approach could ease some of this sting, it was inevitable that a place like Z died. And once having tasted the fruit of a biased moderating team, most defenders of the faith aren't going to want to give that up.

At this point, I'm thinking: whatever, baby. ;) I'll post there now and then until I can't handle walking an eggshells another minute, or until the insults get the best of me and I make a snarky comment back that gets me suspended again for a while. But I have changed my attitude about it, and think it's just a reality that critics might as well accept.

Besides, as I've repeatedly said, it's not a bad thing to be forced to stay on one's toes. It's not a bad thing to be forced, more or less, to abandon snarkiness in favor of simple facts. It ends up as a better presentation.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _Some Schmo »

The Nehor wrote: Doctor CamWHORE,

Maybe they don't desire to be insulted by the classy, highly intellectual trailer trash redneck morons who make up over 50% of this board.

Perish in Flames,

Fronzel Neekburm

The Nehor wrote: Doctor Communist Whore,

I am not a typical LDS poster and I do not provide an example of typical LDS posting habits. If I were to put this post on the MADB board and mention that you're a malignant cancer, and that your ideas and standards are a stain on collective humanity and that the sooner you sod off and die the better for all concerned I would be banned.

Death to the Infidel,

Herbert

Can't you just feel the spirituality dripping off these posts? Don't they just scream Christianity? I think I can feel the Holy Spirit!

I've had a change of heart. Where do I sign up for Mormonism?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _silentkid »

liz3564 wrote:Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, Nehor?


The Nehor's recent posts are a classic example of what happens when a Cliff Clavin gets mad. Keep em coming, The Nehor!!
_Seven
_Emeritus
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:52 pm

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _Seven »

"beastie"

Part of what nemesis said that altered my attitude about it a bit is that they receive a lot of emails from believers who are angry with moderators for allowing critics to say the things they say. These emailers accuse the mods of being in league with apostates.

The reality that any LDS-themed board is going to have to deal with is a certain amount of lack of awareness regarding problematic issues within the membership at large. Most members really aren't aware of these things, despite the seeming MAD insinuation otherwise (when so many of them claim they've known about this stuff since their teens...). So, to them, when critics make certain historically based assertions - like Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl - this seems like a base lie that ought to be simply censored. They shouldn't be "allowed" to say such a thing.


Do they have a high number of Chapel Mormon traffic there?
They should expect the e-mails. There are plenty of LDS themed boards out there where the people who glorify Joseph Smith won't have to come across any of the troubling issues.

The dilemma is obvious. Defenders of the faith have to engage in sometimes subtle, and sometimes weak, explanations of facts that, on their face, are pretty damning to LDS truth claims. The believers in the peanut gallery just want a "smack-down", they just want the critics to stop "lying". So it's a difficult row to hoe. The LDS peanut gallery - the very population that provides believers willing to post to defend the faith - are the ones who already think the mods are too easy on critics. I think it's obvious moderators aren't too easy on critics at all, but are harder on critics than on believers. But it doesn't feel that way to someone who just wants the critic to be shown to be a base liar and forced to shut up.



I thought it was important that Nemesis noted how hard it is to get believers to post on a board like MAD. Even as it is - apparently it's still hard to do. My opinion is that it's hard to get believers to post because they know they likely will not be able to provide the type of rebuttals they'd like to see apologists provide, either. (which is again, not an explanation of why it was all right for Joseph Smith to marry a fourteen year old, but rather that he never did such a thing and anyone claiming otherwise is a base liar)

This is part of the nightmare for LDS defenders of the faith. What LDS who have just confronted these problems really want to hear is: "it's all a pack of lies from filthy anti-mormons, and these facts PROVE it". But what they really hear is a concession that the the skeletal facts of the assertions are, in fact, correct, but the facts aren't being "interpreted" correctly. That is a frustrating state of affairs.

You nailed it. Well put!




Besides, as I've repeatedly said, it's not a bad thing to be forced to stay on one's toes. It's not a bad thing to be forced, more or less, to abandon snarkiness in favor of simple facts. It ends up as a better presentation.



I agree with this Beastie.

I try to imagine what it would be like to stumble on MAD as Chapel Mormon or someone who has just had their faith shaken by church history. By allowing apologists to viciously attack non believers and reprimand them over silly things, they are only validating the critics.
It has hurt MAD by creating a board full of intellectually honest, submissive, and civil critics, but allowing the most bigoted and inane views from believers to flood the board. (for example the recent disgusting threads justifying divorce for spouses of apostates)

What’s difficult for me to watch as a lurker even more than the unfair moderating is all the apologizing from the critics when none was necessary.
For example, a critic was called out by an apologist for just mentioning that in the temple sealing signs and tokens are revealed and that’s why non members are excluded. No details, just that general statement that we would hear in church. There was nothing at all inappropriate in what he said but he apologized. The groveling is hard to watch.

When I first found FAIR, it was the critics who were kind, compassionate, reasonable, and honest about church history and what is experienced in the Chapels. They were the most civil and understanding about the questions lurkers are searching out. I became immediately turned off by the apologists non sensical arguments and personal attacks. Shockingly (to myself at that early time) I felt more at home as an active Mormon with the apostates.


Conversely, if apostates behave with the same kind of personal attacks or use more direct foul language on a free speech board, I believe it will turn off lurkers who come here for questions and critics will lose credibility. And I wouldn’t blame TBMs for not coming to a discussion board if that is allowed.
As a person fresh out of Chapel Mormonism, if I had been searching for answers and stumbled on threads that mocked temple names/ordinances, foul language we would have never used as active LDS, attacking people’s personal appearance or intelligence, celebrating their freedom to get drunk or sexual freedom, lewd comments, etc. it would have made me fear that apostates were the miserable teeth gnashing pawns of Satan I had been taught in church all my life. It would have confirmed that once you leave the church, you lose your morals. The low class language and behavior some use reflects on all critics when it’s allowed.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence...
That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _moksha »

Seven wrote: The low class language and behavior some use reflects on all critics when it’s allowed.


Too much Laissez-faire can be like lazy fare in the world of moderating, eh?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _DonBradley »

Fascinating observations on the effects of MAD's stilted moderation. It keeps the more moderate and substantive critics on the board--and keeps them moderate and substantive, making the critical position look better than the apologetic position, which ends up being represented disproportionally by dingbats.

It's interesting too that most apologists don't seem to think they can hack it on a board where their position is not protected. We saw this on ZLMB too, where their position was certainly favored, just not favored enough for their tastes. So they left that thriving board in droves, killed it, and found sanctuary at FAIR/MAD.

Don
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _EAllusion »

The Dude wrote:
I have never been a moderator, but it seems to me that there will always be complaints about specific calls.


Well, sure. But this isn't complicated close calls that we all can agree reasonably occur within the fuzzy boundaries of moderating a set of rules. They out and out engage in Orwellian censorship on a routine basis. Perhaps it is because you have skirted the thumb of their more oppressive techniques in a way some others here haven't, but I don't think you are giving enough credit to exactly what they are doing.

Forget simply being locked out of a thread so the apologist can reply without receiving a response, I've had posts of mine silently edited out in a way that weakened the arguments I was making by ripping apart the connective context. One of my favorite MAD mod stories involves Gad teasing DCP for a spelling error. Shortly after he posted that, DCP's post was silently edited for him to fix the error, thus making Gad's teasing nonsensical. That was just petty and probably something DCP wouldn't want. But it shows just what kind of "protected environment" they really want.

I agree that doing this at least superficially makes them look better to the extent you aren't aware of what they are doing and thus artificially levels the playing field. I just don't think this is as simple as merely holding critics to a higher standard of civility or something like that. I think we're all familiar with instances where MAD mods themselves engage in offtopic posting while simultaneously declaring an apt on-topic analogy from a critic as "off topic" and censoring it. In many instances, I'm sure they actually thought it was off-topic and just weren't thinking clearly. I think Beastie gives them too much credit for their intelligence as message board participants. But the effect of this is to censor in way that is more than being about double standards. It's censoring in a manipulative, misleading way. Rather blatantly in more instances than I'll ever be able to remember. That's more than just having tough judgment calls as a moderator.
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _The Dude »

EAllusion wrote:
The Dude wrote:
I have never been a moderator, but it seems to me that there will always be complaints about specific calls.


Well, sure. But this isn't complicated close calls that we all can agree reasonably occur within the fuzzy boundaries of moderating a set of rules. They out and out engage in Orwellian censorship on a routine basis. Perhaps it is because you have skirted the thumb of their more oppressive techniques in a way some others here haven't, but I don't think you are giving enough credit to exactly what they are doing.


Oh, I've been oppressed, believe me. I've had my "personal message" file ransacked for evidence against other posters. Around the time I was debating David Stewart, I received a PM from Juliann Reynolds warning me that some of them were about to divulge confidential information about me. For a long time I was sort of protected but eventually they got tired of me and started targeting me personally. I would never again get so attached to a MADB identity as to allow myself to be drawn into exchanging PMs with the moderators, or joining their tepid Pundit's romper-room. I would laugh out loud if they tried to invite me back as The Dude. The only way to escape, to delay the inevitable, is to be anonymous and avoid drawing too much attention, and expect as little as possible. So I know exactly what you are talking about. Please review my above comments understanding that I have very low expectations for participation on MADB.

Forget simply being locked out of a thread so the apologist can reply without receiving a response, I've had posts of mine silently edited out in a way that weakened the arguments I was making by ripping apart the connective context. One of my favorite MAD mod stories involves Gad teasing DCP for a spelling error. Shortly after he posted that, DCP's post was silently edited for him to fix the error, thus making Gad's teasing nonsensical. That was just petty and probably something DCP wouldn't want. But it shows just what kind of "protected environment" they really want.

I agree that doing this at least superficially makes them look better to the extent you aren't aware of what they are doing and thus artificially levels the playing field. I just don't think this is as simple as merely holding critics to a higher standard of civility or something like that. I think we're all familiar with instances where MAD mods themselves engage in offtopic posting while simultaneously declaring an apt on-topic analogy from a critic as "off topic" and censoring it. In many instances, I'm sure they actually thought it was off-topic and just weren't thinking clearly. I think Beastie gives them too much credit for their intelligence as message board participants. But the effect of this is to censor in way that is more than being about double standards. It's censoring in a manipulative, misleading way. Rather blatantly in more instances than I'll ever be able to remember. That's more than just having tough judgment calls as a moderator.


Yes, EA, I know. But this all goes beyond what is being disgussed. I merely accept what the moderators have acknowledged to beastie as their basic reasons for bias against critics in general, and I think I understand it. I do not mean to say they aren't a corrupt gang of cheap bastards -- because they surely are this as well!
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Insight into MAD moderating

Post by _harmony »

EAllusion wrote:I think Beastie gives them too much credit for their intelligence as message board participants.


Amen. Which isn't to say they're stupid. Precisely.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Post Reply