Could this happen? Airing of grievances & simple apologies?

[_Dr Moore]

Reference to “Sty” is disqualifying. First and only warning.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Okay: I am willing to go on the record right now and say that I think we are seeing a pivotal moment in the history of Mopologetics. Recall that, for the past 30+ years, the Mopologists have maintained that they are *not* motivated by money, and that this is only something that Evangelicals and Rodney Meldrum do. And yet, here is Daniel Peterson openly urging Kiwi57 to "tone it down" so that $10,000 can go into Mormon Interpreter's coffers. What does Louis Midgley think of this?

And speaking of Louis Midgley, I'm wondering how he fits into this whole "Letter of the Law" schema.... Could it be that Peterson will have to choose between banning Midgley and the $10,000? Midgley recently described holocaust victims as "the numbers that went up the stack"....Is that acceptable, civil behavior? At minimum, you sort of have to wonder if Peterson will even *warn* Midgley...

I mean, $10,000 is on the line here...

[_moksha]

midgley:

Without faith in God and immortality, everything is not only an open option but is permitted and even sometimes encouraged.

Dr. Midgley points to a very real phenomenon where atheists, without the restraint of religion, have been known to massacre an entire wagon train of men, women, and children in cold blood.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Reference to “Sty” is disqualifying. First and only warning.

Louis Midgley Dr. Shades • 15 hours ago

I should, given the rubbish posted on Dr. Shades hate board, apply to him.

- Doc

[_Dr Moore]

Reference to “Sty” is disqualifying. First and only warning.

Louis Midgley Dr. Shades • 15 hours ago

I should, given the rubbish posted on Dr. Shades hate board, apply to him.

- Doc

Noted Doc. Thank you. Dr. Peterson appears to have renewed a commitment to eliminating such comments.

We'll call yesterday the one and only warning.

To be clear, in my mind, as the sole judge of this experiment, good faith effort includes a presupposition that Dr. Peterson, Dr. Midgley and Kiwi57 comprise a single decision vector, owing to the strong personal friendships there. Either he/they are serious about this, or he/they are not. The next negative reference at SeN to this board or the fine folks on it will formally void the deal.

Should that happen, no hard feelings either way. Chalk it up to naïvété, but I have noted a reduction in negative personal attacks between members of the two boards. For instance, the number of new and active DCP-themed threads on this board has dropped, to my mind, precipitously. And the comments at SeN are noticeably less personal and more focused on issues. Wonderful! That was my only desire all along.

I will take this opportunity to confirm publicly that both of the $1,000 donations have been sent, as promised. Dr. Peterson has evidence in hand regarding the Children's Foundation donation. He can also confirm receipt on behalf of Interpreter -- the grant check was approved (after a somewhat extended review period by Schwab Charitable) and mailed Sept. 13, on behalf of an anonymous donor, "In Acknowledgement of Civility", designated for wherever it is needed most.

Hopefully, all parties would agree good faith has been demonstrated on my part. I had, in return, hoped for a wee bit more sincere good faith by the core SeN participants regarding this 6 month deal. Two violations yesterday serve to remind of the accumulated years of negative personal attacks mingled with scholarship. I don't carry that baggage personally (lucky me!), but I realize the mere mention brings pain. Anyway, it remains my fondest wish that my experiment will yield some measurable benefit to the conversation.

DCP has already expressed his desired charitable awards after this six month experiment concludes. Upon completion, the $10,000 will be equally shared between the Bountiful Children's Foundation and the Interpreter Foundation, or $5,000 each.

Back to work,
M

[_Doctor Scratch]

Noted Doc. Thank you. Dr. Peterson appears to have renewed a commitment to eliminating such comments.

We'll call yesterday the one and only warning.

To be clear, in my mind, as the sole judge of this experiment, good faith effort includes a presupposition that Dr. Peterson, Dr. Midgley and Kiwi57 comprise a single decision vector, owing to the strong personal friendships there. Either he/they are serious about this, or he/they are not. The next negative reference at SeN to this board or the fine folks on it will formally void the deal.

You really are a true mensch, Dr. Moore: I admire the way that you've been so generous and even-handed throughout this experiment. Seeing this, it occurs to me that someone needs to tell Gemli about this deal: if Gemli registers here at MormonDiscussions.com, the Mopologists will no longer be able to insult him. They'll no longer have any means of responding to him.

I did have a technical question: How do banning (or attempted banning) figure into this? Of course, saying openly negative things will void the deal, but what if Dr. Peterson bans--or attempts to ban--people who make criticisms?

[_Lemmie]

So, an agreement.

Then, an agreement with one and only one warning.

Then, an agreement with two violations yesterday, which now constitute a day of one and only one warning.

I seem to recall a lot of comments like that when my mom and dad were dealing with 7 kids, 4 below the age of 5!

Also, your suggesting that the participation on and the number of “active, DCP-themed threads” are now somehow a part of your experiment is a bit disingenuous. It sounds too much like peterson’s complaint that when people point out his plagiarism they are just being mean to him.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Shall we agree that the $10k is in your hands to distribute to worthy causes on fulfillment of the following terms?

1. No derogatory mention of Dr. Shades board, or its members, through end of Feb. 2020. By yourself, and as host of this site, by your good faith effort to moderate such comments by others here.

I think Lemmie has pretty much nailed it. There have been multiple violations of this agreement, not just the one I posted.

- Doc

[_Dr Moore]

What were the other violations?

I saw only the references by Kiwi57 to "Sty" and Midgley to "Hate site" yesterday.

The warning was that DCP, to show good faith moderation efforts, would end all such comments from those two participants.

Don't think I have been moving the goal posts at all Lemmie. If you have seen otherwise, please share.

Cheers,
M

[Guest]

What were the other violations?

I saw only the references by Kiwi57 to "Sty" and Midgley to "Hate site" yesterday.

The warning was that DCP, to show good faith moderation efforts, would end all such comments from those two participants.

Don't think I have been moving the goal posts at all Lemmie. If you have seen otherwise, please share.

Cheers,
M

You moved them yourself, with the addition of a first warning, and then a second first warning that became a day of first warnings, followed by this:

Dr Moore:

”The next negative reference at SeN to this board or the fine folks on it will formally void the deal.”

[bolding added]

And in spite of the warnings, those comments are still up, with no comment by Peterson, right? So in what way is he showing good faith moderation? He just got two free passes, in an agreement where no free passes were mentioned.

I suspect Peterson will eventually argue that your agreement that he moderate such comments isn’t ethical in some way because it limits his posters’ free speech, therefore when he made the agreement for the 10k, in his mind it really meant he would get the 10k if only HE sort of didn’t mention this site. Kind of like crossing his fingers behind his back while shaking on a bet on the playground. Expect it to get ugly if the agreement is voided in the manner you set out above, because it will just give Peterson ammunition to post a blog entry excoriating this board. Did you see what he posted when he got kicked off a Facebook group recently? He plays fast and loose with the truth, and only gets away with it on a blog where he has total control. Your intentions notwithstanding, you are setting him up for another “win,” in his mind.

But it is a noble cause, so these are just my observations. If I could make a request, however, please don’t keep pulling other people’s posts or threads here into your agreement. An example from my end only, I don’t post on Peterson’s plagiarism thread here because I am being uncivil on a “DCP-themed thread,” as you called it. I post because a fellow professor is engaging in dishonorable behavior and the theft of intellectual property needs to be noted.