Should MCB become a moderator?

[Guest]

As an example in this thread she has an opportunity to explain what she means by "mormonish".

Sorry for my invention of a word. "TBM-ish" describes a person who has some negative LDS cultural characteristics. Some of these might be xenophobia, religious and racial prejudice, inability to see things from another's POV, tendency to impose one's beliefs on another, belief that God rewards in this life those who please him, desire that everyone be alike, misogyny and/or belief that one's beliefs are right, and others' beliefs are wrong. Those are just some, and the term does not mean that a person has all those characteristics.

After having read the characteristics of dependent personality disorder, I have worked to overcome them. Part of that is my own hesitancy to disagree with others. If you believe that I don't have the right to disagree with you, that is your problem.

[_marg]

I think your objections to MCB are personal. I'm quite sure that if MCB were to moderate here, she would not allow any personal feelings (such as yours) to influence her judgement.

Sure it's personal, but I've had experiences which I've explained, have you? If it was simply personal I shouldn't want EA to moderate. So it does boil down to that I don't think she'd be a good moderator as opposed to this being simply personal.

For example in the thread I'm involved in on Spalding if she was a mod and had interjected speaking as herself not a mod ..as she did with comments indicating she didn't like people to disagree with Dan and in general didn't like disagreement in the discussion...that would have put a significant damper on discussion.

EA would be fine, as well. There are very few on this board that I would find objectionable. Maybe everyone would do a good job if willing to follow the standards here.

Well in my opinion it would help if mods had a separate account to the moderating one and a person who is a mod, in a discussion should refrain from moderating that discussion.

I remember seeing Onadangus (sp ?) in a discussion with Harmony. He wanted to put her on "ignore" but couldn't and suggested a separate account be used for mods. There have been times I've wanted to look at a thread but take a mod's (personal) posts out.

[_marg]

Sorry for my invention of a word. "Mormonish" describes a person who has some negative LDS cultural characteristics. Some of these might be xenophobia, religious and racial prejudice, inability to see things from another's POV, tendency to impose one's beliefs on another, belief that God rewards in this life those who please him, desire that everyone be alike, misogyny and/or belief that one's beliefs are right, and others' beliefs are wrong. Those are just some, and the term does not mean that a person has all those characteristics.

Now tell me what you mean by "mormonish" in this sentence of yours.

"Marg,
I don't know how to say this in an appropriate way for the celestial. However, your behavior is somewhat Mormonish. You have a pattern of disagreeing and arguing with everyone."

(If you need the link for context it is in a previous post in this thread.)

After having read the characteristics of dependent personality disorder, I have worked to overcome them. Part of that is my own hesitancy to disagree with others. If you believe that I don't have the right to disagree with you, that is your problem.

Disagreeing on some issue is not the problem MCB. In the Spalding thread you did not like those who disagreed with Dan and you wouldn't post to the substance instead you'd voice that you didn't like disagreement..but you yourself weren't posting anything. And when you would make a critical comment and then asked to explain you'd go silent.

So I'm not saying you have no right to disagree. Sure disagree, but explain yourself.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg

Well in my opinion it would help if mods had a separate account to the moderating one and a person who is a mod, in a discussion should refrain from moderating that discussion.

That was my personal policy as a mod. I wouldn't take action on a thread wherein I was a participant. Even though mods are more likely to see violations on the threads where they're participating, I think the better policy is to hand that violation off to a different moderator lest one be accused of bias or conflict of interest.

Just how I see it.

[Guest]

In the Spalding thread you did not like those who disagreed with Dan and you wouldn't post to the substance instead you'd voice that you didn't like disagreement..but you yourself weren't posting anything. And when you would make a critical comment and then asked to explain you'd go silent.

On the Spalding thread. Although I am a Spaldingite, I also respect Dan V.'s scholarship. The battle between the truth of the Spalding witnesses and the truth of the Book of Mormon witnesses will go on forever. Neither is 100% truth, and we don't know where truth is. It needs someone to take another look at the whole problem. That is why, academically, I am a generalist in terms of sources for the Book of Mormon.

I would have thought you knew that.

And I backed off because I didn't like the hostility in the discussion. I was not personally criticizing your view, or yourself. It is just the way you were going about it. This tells me something about your own personality characteristics, which you can change.

I guess I was moving into moderator mode, as Jersey Girl mentioned.

Another TBM-ish characteristic-- intrusive curiousity.

[Guest]

On the Spalding thread. Although I am a Spaldingite, I also respect Dan V.'s scholarship. The battle between the truth of the Spalding witnesses and the truth of the Book of Mormon witnesses will go on forever. Neither is 100% truth, and we don't know where truth is. It needs someone to take another look at the whole problem. That is why, academically, I am a generalist in terms of sources for the Book of Mormon.

I would have thought you knew that.

What on earth does that have anything to do with your quoted words:

"Marg,
I don't know how to say this in an appropriate way for the celestial. However, your behavior is somewhat Mormonish. You have a pattern of disagreeing and arguing with everyone."

And I backed off because I didn't like the hostility in the discussion. I was not personally criticizing your view, or yourself. It is just the way you were going about it. This tells me something about your own personality characteristics, which you can change.

Backing off is not interjecting with "Marg,
I don't know how to say this in an appropriate way for the celestial. However, your behavior is somewhat Mormonish. You have a pattern of disagreeing and arguing with everyone." And that wasn't the only time you posted jabs.

The person by the way displaying hostility are not those expressing a difference of opinion. You showed your hostiltiy as well as your bias in favor of Dan by your comment.

I guess I was moving into moderator mode, as Jersey Girl mentioned.

Where does Jersey Girl mention you were moving into moderator mode? by the way if you were moderator and you said what you said in that thread I'd be annoyed..because I'd be wondering when you were going to post with comments like that in mod mode. And it would have an effect on what people would post, even though you might not post in mod mode.

There is a difference in discussion between focus on personal attacks, going off on tangents, using fallacious tactics versus expressing differences of opinion. I don't think you understand the difference which is one reason you wouldn't be good at moderating. And quite frankly I don't think you are a good judge of where fallacious tactics and reasoning are occurring.

Another mormonish characteristic-- intrusive curiousity.

So in this sentence "Marg,
I don't know how to say this in an appropriate way for the celestial. However, your behavior is somewhat Mormonish. You have a pattern of disagreeing and arguing with everyone." are you saying I have an "intrusive curiousity"? If not what is the point of your sentence?

As far as I can see you still haven't explained what you meant by "mormonish" is the sentence I quoted.

I asked you to explain it then, I've asked you to explain it now..I still don't know what you mean. I understand you were being supportive of Dan and you want the discussion to go a particular way, your way. But posting jabs to express your bias, is not indicative that you even appreciate what is appropriate in the celestial and what isn't. And yet you want to moderate.

by the way, do you really think on an ex-mormon /Mormon board that when you are attempting to annoy or be critical that it is a good idea to use your word "mormonish" in the context that it appears intended as a slur against Mormons? I had no idea what you meant by using it other than I understood it as a personal jab given the context, but why involve "Mormons" when that had nothing to do with what was bothering you?

You still haven't explained the quote. I doubt very much you can. It appears what you meant to do was use your word as a jab because in your mind to ascribe to someone that they behave as a Mormon is a criticism. And you don't seem to care what you are communicating and whether it is effective or not.

[_MCB]

I really don't want to engage in arguments with someone who argues for the sake of argument.

I also know that many faithful LDS tend to get quite irritated with the frequency of those personality traits among themselves.

[_marg]

I really don't want to engage in arguments with someone who argues for the sake of argument.

I also know that many faithful LDS tend to get quite irritated with the frequency of those personality traits among themselves.

Then let the record show..your passive aggressive tendency.

I didn 't initiate the uncalled for attack/jab MCB, you did. I asked you to explain what you meant then by "mormonish" and you ignored. You haven't explained in this thread either, except now it appears you are saying that when you perceive others as disagreeing in a discussion and you haven't sided with them, ..they are behaving "mormonish". Or something along those lines, who knows.

You are still attacking by the way in lieu of explaining what you meant by "mormonish".

I don't want to argue with you MCB, I just don't want you moderating for the reasons I gave.

[_Jersey Girl]

Clarity Alert :-)

This is what I stated:

That was my personal policy as a mod. I wouldn't take action on a thread wherein I was a participant. Even though mods are more likely to see violations on the threads where they're participating, I think the better policy is to hand that violation off to a different moderator lest one be accused of bias or conflict of interest.

Just how I see it.

I don't wish to be misunderstood here and not saying that either marg or MCB misunderstands what I intended to convey, but it's possible. I remember seeing a comment by marg regarding the possible difficulty in moderation by one who engages in debate.

So, this is what I'm saying. When I was a moderator, I never took action on a thread wherein I was a participant to avoid the appearance of bias or conflict of interest.

I think that what marg is saying here (I could be wrong, but offering another way to express it) is that if she were to be discussing/debating with someone who was also a moderator and read comments directed at her personally (specifically negative comments) that she would be skeptical of that person's intentions or perhaps ability to remain objective as a moderator.

I don't know if she means she'd be skeptical of that person's ability to remain objective as a moderator with regard to taking actions on her (marg) posts or in relation to all types of mod actions.

I'm not all that sure that I've made myself clearer here. It was an attempt.

:-)

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

A question for you and I know that I mentioned this years ago on MDB. Do you remember how rpcman used to come into the threads to caution posters to get back on topic? This was on both F1 and F2.

I always felt that I liked that type of moderating. What about you? Is that something you think would lend itself to MDB or a particular MDB forum? Celestial, for example?

Jersey Girl