When Did the MAD Board "Jump The Shark"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

That's not true at all, by the way. FAIR started out with a pretty standard TBM message board culture with the ultra-protective moderating that implied. When it blossomed into a full-fledged message board around the time that a bunch of posters emigrated from ZLMB, it existed with very biased moderation in favor of LDS posters. And that was a major, if not primary, attraction point to that influx of posters. Critics followed because that's where they could continue to access the apologetic names. The attempt wasn't so much an open and honest dialogue so much as a format where critics posts could be controlled in a more heavy-handed manner. The goal was to create a format in which apologists could best the critics on issues that surround Church criticism. Granted, the people in question aren't going to express it that way - instead they'll see it as necessary removal of "bad behavior" and "rabbit holes" from critics that wasn't done in a more genuinely open format like ZLMB, but there never was an effort to get at what you are discussing. Indeed, even adopting the wrong sort of apologetic approach was always a risk for poking the moderator hornets nest from the get-go.

I thought the latest incarnation (MD&D) was an attempt at that in my opinion, they started to clamp down on some of the mouth breathers.

I sort of see what you're saying, Stak, but then again, they still allow Pahoran, Jeff K, Droopy, and Mola Ram Suda Ram (among many others) to post. Just who are these "mouth breathers," exactly? I saw Ares saying something along similar lines to Kevin--i.e., that they've supposedly banned a ton of LDS posters. Well, who are they? Did stemelbow get canned? What about Simon Belmont? Both of these guys are "mouth breathers," more or less.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I know they've kicked a few folks like JeffK off a thread before, and perhaps suspended a few. Droopy is the only one who comes to mind who has suffered banishment, but he's always able to talk himself back in.

[_Sethbag]

I thought the latest incarnation (MD&D) was an attempt at that in my opinion, they started to clamp down on some of the mouth breathers.

The Kevin Graham thing induced me to go have another look over there today, and I read a thread in which some doofus named Zarinus simply responded to everything the critics said with "the church hasn't got any problems, and doesn't need your help. You need the church's help." Over and over and over. This is the kind of stupidity that I got sick and tired of at MAD to the point where I could never bring myself to go back and post again even after I became unbanned.

That they've allowed Kevin back at all is utterly shocking to me.

[_asbestosman]

MDD hasn't got any problems, and doesn't need your help. You need MDD's help.

[Guest]

ROFL

In my view, it's precisely the opposite: it used to be a discussion board, but they have turned it into an apologetic board where only one side gets to discuss anything. That's their prerogative, but I agree that the mass bannings a few years ago (full disclosure: that was when I was banned) started a downward trend in the quality of the board.

I think that we need to remember that it was tied to FAIR and this clouded the board in favor of apopolgetics and debate. When FAIR let go of the board, many felt that it would fold. But it continued on with its new format. But still it couldn't shake the apologetic sterotype. Now with a new name stressing dialogue and discussion, it is more or less away from the apologetic name. It mission is not to defend Mormonism as it did under FAIR but to have a dialogue about it.

Old time critics may or may not have gotten it but the change was made to make life easier for those who own the board.

[_MsJack]

I know they've kicked a few folks like JeffK off a thread before, and perhaps suspended a few. Droopy is the only one who comes to mind who has suffered banishment, but he's always able to talk himself back in.

Kicked him off the thread? So the most volatile pro-LDS posters at MDD get little wrist slaps here and there while people like me get banned altogether while not even posting there?

As far as moderation goes, MDD is about the same as it was when it was MAD. All that the name change accomplished was to get rid of the easily belittled "MAD" as an acronym while providing an excuse to delete some of their more embarrassing archived threads. There may be well-meaning people somewhere at work behind the scenes, but their voices have been drowned out by those who want to control the conversation in whatever way is necessary to make apologists look good.

[_why me]

All that the name change accomplished was to get rid of the easily belittled "MAD" as an acronym while providing an excuse to delete some of their more embarrassing archived threads.

Probably not. Threads tend to get repeated eventually. From all the years I have been on the board and other Mormon boards, I have seen very little original threads about Mormons and Mormonism, especially on this site. It is usually the same old, same old with the usual responses. No different on any board that discusses a specific subject.

[_why me]

The Kevin Graham thing induced me to go have another look over there today, and I read a thread in which some doofus named Zarinus simply responded to everything the critics said with "the church hasn't got any problems, and doesn't need your help. You need the church's help." Over and over and over. This is the kind of stupidity that I got sick and tired of at MAD to the point where I could never bring myself to go back and post again even after I became unbanned.

.

And yet, you are here with our posters on this board? Is it because the posters here are more intelligent or is it because you see more opinions that are critical of the LDS church? We certainly have people just alittle more or less intelligent than zerinus from the post you showed us.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

by the way, if anyone needs an excellent example of what a douche is, take a look above at where Ray A wrote up a nice little insult to draw Harmony in and falsely attributed it to me. Yes, Ray A lied to sow discord. Please remember this the next time he shoots anyone some condemning words. Ray A is now at the bottom of my list.

[_beastie]

That's not true at all, by the way. FAIR started out with a pretty standard TBM message board culture with the ultra-protective moderating that implied. When it blossomed into a full-fledged message board around the time that a bunch of posters emigrated from ZLMB, it existed with very biased moderation in favor of LDS posters. And that was a major, if not primary, attraction point to that influx of posters. Critics followed because that's where they could continue to access the apologetic names. The attempt wasn't so much an open and honest dialogue so much as a format where critics posts could be controlled in a more heavy-handed manner. The goal was to create a format in which apologists could best the critics on issues that surround Church criticism. Granted, the people in question aren't going to express it that way - instead they'll see it as necessary removal of "bad behavior" and "rabbit holes" from critics that wasn't done in a more genuinely open format like ZLMB, but there never was an effort to get at what you are discussing. Indeed, even adopting the wrong sort of apologetic approach was always a risk for poking the moderator hornets nest from the get-go.

This is accurate.

I was moderator during some of the period in which these "issues" were discussed. The FAIR board was created with one goal: create a board that would be more comfortable to believers. The playing field had to be openly manipulated to create that condition.

Of course, the unintended consequence of this open manipulation was an environment in which bad behavior of believers was actually encouraged, while critics were forced to behave. So you end up with a board that displays bad behavior of believers, contrasted with the more controlled and better behavior of critics. Pretty funny, if you ask me.

I actually sympathize with these people. The fact is that they continue to believe in the church despite the mountains of problematic evidence contraindicating that proposition. So they're entering the field severely handicapped. Of course in an open, evenly moderated situation, believers are going to be continually frustrated. It's not that critics are smarter or better debaters. It's just that critics don't have the handicap that believers do: trying to defend what is often simply indefensible. So the game has to be rigged.

And of course believers will deny this. They have to. But, at some point, they must ask themselves why it is necessary to create such a biased playing field in the first place. Either they have to resort to some nonsense like critics are just more prone to bad behavior and hence, have to have stricter controls, or they have to admit that believers are suffering some sort of preexisting handicapping condition that needs balanced.

I think they jumped the shark at practically the moment of conception. It may have taken a while to kick in, but sooner or later their practice of banning critics for little to no reason, and also having critics simply leave because they are sick of walking on eggshells was going to result in a board so uninteresting that most critics ignore it. My impression is that it's little more than a Sunday School class led by a liberal teacher in a liberal ward who will allow some topics to be actually mentioned.