PLEASE READ! Changes to the "culture" of MormonDiscussions

[_KimberlyAnn]

[MODERATOR NOTE: By "personal attack," before we'll moderate it it'll have to be obvious and blatant. Mere criticism isn't enough to warrant moderation on our part.

ALSO, if a criticism has a degree of flair and/or panache, it'll be a lot less likely to be moderated. I CAN'T OVERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT LAST SENTENCE. For example, the phrase "You're a douchebag" will be far more likely to be edited than the phrase, "When you entered mortality, the heavens wept."]

I recall a similar moderating overhaul back in the winter of 2008/2009 which was, as I predicted, a total failure. For a very brief while, personal attacks were moderated, sometimes overly so, and then the board settled back into its comfort zone in short order. So much for the forced cultural shift.

KA

[_Bond James Bond]

[MODERATOR NOTE: By "personal attack," before we'll moderate it it'll have to be obvious and blatant. Mere criticism isn't enough to warrant moderation on our part.

ALSO, if a criticism has a degree of flair and/or panache, it'll be a lot less likely to be moderated. I CAN'T OVERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT LAST SENTENCE. For example, the phrase "You're a douchebag" will be far more likely to be edited than the phrase, "When you entered mortality, the heavens wept."]

I recall a similar moderating overhaul back in the winter of 2008/2009 which was, as I predicted, a total failure. For a very brief while, personal attacks were moderated, sometimes overly so, and then the board settled back into its comfort zone in short order. So much for the forced cultural shift.

KA

That's what I'm expecting KA. Oh we're chatting in the chatroom as we speak. :D

[_RayAgostini]

I guess I came to a realization. I don't like it when people are attacked online and I also don't like having all the moderation. What does that mean? An impossible scenario.

In case you missed it, here how Shades put it:

As an addendum to the above, if you want to "go the extra mile" and become one of the truly great posters around here, then follow the additional instructions on this page.

viewtopic.php?p=124202&f=1#p124202

Follow the link and give it time to load. I'm pretty sure I'm the one who first brought this to Shades' attention, as I posted the link here many moons ago after horrible experiences with "Pharisaic" moderation on that board. How anyone could "enjoy" that, I wouldn't have a clue. The other extreme which turns people off is having too little moderation, and that has clearly happened here. Ultimately Shades is going to have to decide which tack attracts the greatest number of quality posters, and making a "democratic" appeal in the form of current board opinion, through polls or otherwise, is sort of like Captain Bligh having a mutineer poll on what's best for the destiny of The Bounty.

In short, Shades may have to stop trying to be too democratic, and exercise a little more "benign dictatorship" (he already has with the smilies). It's a predicament that calls for real leadership, and some obvious risks. I still maintain that, with some exceptions, the highest quality LDS defenders remain aloof from MDB because of the "atmosphere" here, and a more civil atmosphere is not only more conducive to them, but to the betterment of the board in general. Most people would prefer a more civil atmosphere.

This idea that the board will go in the direction the posters deem, now seems obsolete, because once one "side" becomes dominant, change is very unlikely. Shades (and the the Admin.) is in fact responsible for the culture of MDB to a large extent (I disagree with Wade here). They make (or don't make) the rules, and that determines the destiny of the board. As I've said (elsewhere) about the "Schryver threads", it's inconsistent to allow such uncivil discourse to take place, then crucify the person exercising his/her freedom of speech allowed under the rules. It's almost like blackmail. It's like inviting a person into your home and telling him/her "you can say whatever you like about me, my wife and children", and then when he/she expresses his/her honest opinion, you kick his/her ass out. Warn them from the start what is or is not allowed, and the "owner" of the house is the one responsible for that.

Edited to correct Cook/Bligh.

[_Dr. Shades]

I recall a similar moderating overhaul back in the winter of 2008/2009 which was, as I predicted, a total failure. For a very brief while, personal attacks were moderated, sometimes overly so, and then the board settled back into its comfort zone in short order. So much for the forced cultural shift.

Part of it had to do with the sheer volume that we moderators had to deal with. We became overwhelmed.

Of course, the judicial use of the "Report" feature will go a long way.

As I've said (elsewhere) about the "Schryver threads", it's inconsistent to allow such uncivil discourse to take place, then crucify the person exercising his/her freedom of speech allowed under the rules.

What's more consistent than to allow people to voice their opinions about someone else's opinions?

[_RayAgostini]

What's more consistent than to allow people to voice their opinions about someone else's opinions?

I think you may be missing my point. Here is an example of some rules I'm talking about, from the other forum I "infrequent":

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Example only.

The issue is how far (or low) you are prepared to allow "opinions" to go, and be debated. Moderators can't police everything (and sometimes justifiably won't), obviously, and as you noted the report button is there, but you have to have firm "ground rules" in the first place, and then operate by "the spirit of the law". in real life police don't charge every offender, and use their discretion according to circumstances, but the law is there for them to use it if necessary. Without firm "ground rules", you're just asking for trouble, and possible litigation, as we have seen in several instances in the past.

[_moksha]

I support Dr. Shades.

Sometimes it is better to surrender the trappings of a teenage board with grace and move to the the next phase of a young adult board. If you must insult use some creativity such as, "You have set a new paradigm for douchebaggery". Give it an academic cachet.

I mean, didn't it always rankle all of you that another board with bared and snarling teeth would bark at the relative immaturity of this board? Now we can point to our new gentle sophistication and realize that progress can occur.

[_Bond James Bond]

If you must insult use some creativity such as, "You have set a new paradigm for douchebaggery". Give it an academic cachet.

I expect a 400% increase in the phrase "deuce nozzle".

[_why me]

Nope, that's not why it was unstuck.

Why? That's a serious question.

I do remember one poster making a comment about the stickied thread. And I remember that the poster made a similiar point that the thread needed to be unstuck to allow the board war to simmer down. But I could be wrong.

With this board, I refer to peace as a way to stop the attacks against the other board and their personalities, ie, their moderators and posters. It has nothing to do with an engagement of ideas that may be found there. But rather the personal attacks against some of their posters. One can disagree with an idea or fact without mocking the poster making it.

[_why me]

I support Dr. Shades.

I mean, didn't it always rankle all of you that another board with bared and snarling teeth would bark at the relative immaturity of this board? Now we can point to our new gentle sophistication and realize that progress can occur.

For those posters who found an emotional outet by being a teenager again, may find becoming an adult with manners quite a challenge. Maybe the teenage posters will eventually leave and be replaced by mature adults who do not need to name call. But lets see what happens.

[_cafe crema]

Didn't the MAD board have a rule against "board nannies"? I kinda like that.