Should MCB become a moderator?

[_MCB]

Certainly. I would refrain from moderating if the individual were someone who had taken a dislike to me. Simply because they would tend to claim bias.

I am wondering if the moderation policy should delegate LDS to moderate LDS, exMos to moderate exMos, and nevermos to moderate nevermos.

And, yes, there are pages and pages on the Schaalje thread which are off topic. The witnesses debate is a derailment, but none of the other debaters seemed to mind it.

[_why me]

Certainly. I would refrain from moderating if the individual were someone who had taken a dislike to me. Simply because they would tend to claim bias.

I am wondering if the moderation policy should delegate LDS to moderate LDS, exMos to moderate exMos, and nevermos to moderate nevermos.

And, yes, there are pages and pages on the Schaalje thread which are off topic. The witnesses debate is a derailment, but none of the other debaters seemed to mind it.

But then again you are a taliban catholic from the catholic apologetic site. Maybe that should be considered too.

[_marg]

Certainly. I would refrain from moderating if the individual were someone who had taken a dislike to me. Simply because they would tend to claim bias.

I am wondering if the moderation policy should delegate LDS to moderate LDS, exMos to moderate exMos, and nevermos to moderate nevermos.

And, yes, there are pages and pages on the Schaalje thread which are off topic. The witnesses debate is a derailment, but none of the other debaters seemed to mind it.

Oi Vey as if a moderation policy could be in effect to have "LDS to moderate LDS, exMos to moderate exMos, and nevermos to moderate nevermos". How about only Catholics to moderate Catholics? Atheists to only moderate atheists? Would that be good?

MCB..you are not a good communicator. As I've pointed out you still haven't explained what you meant in that sentence I quoted. I don't think it would work for you to not moderate those who think dislike you. This is not about disliking you .this is about you on a message board wanting to moderate a Mormon/Exmormon board all the while having deep seated emotional baggage against Mormons and Mormonism which one way you express it is by is using "mormonish" as a slur...even against an atheist such as myself who was in discussion with someone you apparently seem to be in awe of...and it seems that was the main reason for your jab. You also apparently have emotional issues in general which you describe as a disorder you are working on. But that disorder you describe seems to connect with discussions because you don't like disagreements.

It's also about you being in a discussion in the Celestial and using jabs to manipulate, as opposed to expressing yourself honestly and openly.

I really wonder why you want to be a mod on this board, when you have emotional issues against Mormons apparently.

[_marg]

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

I don't remember rpc man doing that. I remember vaguely someone being a bit of a nut case and he got involved, but just a vague recollection of that happening and not the details. I don't know if he banned his ip address or what.

I generally prefer individuals moderate themselves..but what happens when it's a free for all, individuals don't and others will leave the discussion and of course it goes nowhere. It's possible that participants in a discussion want to veer off onto some relevant but side issue so to have someone caution to get back on topic might not be good.

So on the whole I like an off hands approach but when it's obvious that one person's intent is to prevent by fallacious means the discussion moving forward ...then it would be nice to have someone who appreciates what's going on to referee. That's probably not very practical or an easy thing to do for message boards generally. So I don't have great expectations for message board discussions.

[_madeleine]

for what it's worth, I've know MCB for a long time. I've never seen her argue as a lot of LDS like to argue. Especially how it's done by LDS on internet forums. I like her style, actually, she says what she means. I think it's pretty straightforward myself. *shrug*

That being said, berating her until she says what you want is not going to be very fruitful! (It doesn't work well with me either.)

Peace.

[_cafe crema]

Certainly. I would refrain from moderating if the individual were someone who had taken a dislike to me. Simply because they would tend to claim bias.

I am wondering if the moderation policy should delegate LDS to moderate LDS, exMos to moderate exMos, and nevermos to moderate nevermos.

And, yes, there are pages and pages on the Schaalje thread which are off topic. The witnesses debate is a derailment, but none of the other debaters seemed to mind it.

But then again you are a taliban catholic from the catholic apologetic site. Maybe that should be considered too.

Calling people names now are you, where's all that lofty talk about not attacking people?

[_marg]

for what it's worth, I've know MCB for a long time. I've never seen her argue as a lot of LDS like to argue. Especially how it's done by LDS on internet forums.

What does that mean " I've never seen her argue as a lot of LDS like to argue"? Are you digging a deeper hole? by the way, how do Catholics argue?

I like her style, actually, she says what she means. I think it's pretty straightforward myself. *shrug*

Ok since you seem to understand her, explain to me what she meant by the quote I gave directed to me in which she says my behavior is "mormonish"

That being said, berating her until she says what you want is not going to be very fruitful! (It doesn't work well with me either.)

And playing passive aggressive doesn't work with me.

[_madeleine]

Marg,

Mormonish, as I see it, is just a way to describe behaviors that are prominent among Mormon culture. All cultures have them, so yeah, there are aspects about Catholic culture that make us Catholicish.

No one is being passive-aggressive. A person can express how they feel and leave it at that. People have their own reasons for saying what they say, or don't say. Those reasons don't have to be shared. People are allowed to keep to themselves what they want to keep to themselves. When you can't accept that, it comes across as intrusive. MCB thinks that behavior is Mormonish. I see it as part of Mormon culture, in the sense that, Mormons are close knit and the breaching of personal boundaries is a part of the culture. It is accepted and expected behavior.

It is not so for Catholic culture.

I think the most pointed example of this are bishop interviews in Mormonism. Very specific questions are asked, in a manner of probing. This would never go over with a Catholic in a million years. Personal boundaries are a matter of modesty, really, in Catholicism.

Hope that helps.

[_marg]

No one is being passive-aggressive.

Her comment from this thread is passive aggressive

“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.”

And this one from this thread as well, in which she’s pretending she’s not doing any personal criticizing but then says “This tells me something about your own personality characteristics, which you can change” which had followed “I was not personally criticizing your view, or yourself. It is just the way you were going about it.”

A person can express how they feel and leave it at that. People have their own reasons for saying what they say, or don't say. Those reasons don't have to be shared.

That’s fine, but then her use of “mormonish” comes across as being as being unnecessarily derogatory towards Mormons when Mormons and Mormonism had nothing to do with the issue she had..and that reflects negatively on her.

People are allowed to keep to themselves what they want to keep to themselves. When you can't accept that, it comes across as intrusive.

I’m not Mormon, not a part of that culture. When someone tells me my behavior is “mormonish” it raises a red flag about their personality issues and when they won’t explain what they mean..it only serves to reflect negatively on their attitude, not mine.

MCB thinks that behavior is Mormonish. I see it as part of Mormon culture, in the sense that, Mormons are close knit and the breaching of personal boundaries is a part of the culture. It is accepted and expected behavior.

If MCB thinks when someone wants her to explain herself after she’s criticized them, that that’s intrusive and breaching personal boundaries I’ve got news for her and yourself. It’s reasonable to expect someone to explain themselves after they’ve used a word in a context meant to be derogatory..to then explain what that word means ..that's simply effective communication. If she can't or won't communicate effectively then she shouldn't wish to be a mod.

It is not so for Catholic culture.

Well I’m not catholic, nor Mormon and I think it’s rude to post a jab ..and use a term as a slur against a group of people and not explain oneself.

I think the most pointed example of this are bishop interviews in Mormonism. Very specific questions are asked, in a manner of probing. This would never go over with a Catholic in a million years. Personal boundaries are a matter of modesty, really, in Catholicism.

So my asking her to explain herself has led to a slippery slope of now I'm being compared to Bishop interviews. Asking MCB to explain what she means by her choice of words directed at me, is not overstepping personal boundaries.

There are lot of things that go over with Catholics not appropriate so don't be so smug.

[_MCB]

Well I’m not catholic, nor Mormon and I think it’s rude to post a jab ..and use a term as a slur against a group of people and not explain oneself.

Perhaps "mormonish" is not appropriate. One can see a parallel with the word "Jewish" and the negative stereotypes. Which is not my intent. And it certainly encompasses a broad range of concepts.

Perhaps we already have it. How about TBM-ish? There. I went through and changed the word wherever I could. Is that a good enough apology?

See-- I respond well to criticism. I can change.

The argument in that thread started when you accused Dan V. of being a closet Mormon. I rephrased it. He has some TBM-ish characterististics, as a result of his cultural heritage. This is in terms of his adherence to the Joseph-only theory, and refusal to look at contrary evidence.

I wass a closet Native for years. That is because I was rejecting the Native stereotypes of laziness, welfare dependency, substance abuse, promiscuity, non-verbal, tending towards violence, minimally literate, etc. People would force those expectations on me, and I fought them. The only way I could reject them was by denying my racial and cultural heritage.

I think part of this was the dynamics behind the breakup of my marriage. Early on, he expressed confusion at my desire to live close to the earth, and my moderately liberal political tendencies. There seemed to be some cog-dis in his confusion.

It was only when I came to know some tribal people who did not fulfill those stereotypes that I began coming out of the closet. And only by moving to Wisconsin did I really begin to feel comfortable in my own tannable skin and strong cheekbones.

So I understand where you are coming from.