ELF1024 Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Biiiiiiig mistake to think mods are dissecting pages and pages of posts to pick up on what is supposed to be serious and what is not. Better safe than sorry, use a smilie as a marker if it is meant to be funny but cutting sarcasm isn't funny and can be more destructive than anything.GASP!!! You mean the mods aren't... hanging on our every word....
Calm Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I think I mistook what the board was supposed to be when I first go here, but it's changed names since then.I originally came here to get edified by highly intelligent LDS members on the mysteries of the faith. Delving into highly esoteric and meaningful uplifting conversation.In my opinion, the board has gone downhill since the renaming and we have a large number of ... people that I wasn't expecting to have to deal with on the board.Perhaps it is just time I call it quits and just stick to the FAIRLDS site or Maxwell Institute. I guess it should have been a hint when DCP stopped posting on a regular basis.Summertime tends to be a bit slower with substantive stuff. Be patient and see if things change again in the fall.
KevinG Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 GASP!!! You mean the mods aren't... hanging on our every word.... Yours maybe.
CARPE DIEM Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 GASP!!! You mean the mods aren't... hanging on our every word.... Careful! It's a Trap!
Calm Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I'm not smart enough to be scholarly... that's why I was coming here to listen... after many hours pouring over FAIRLDS and Maxwell I.Asking substantive questions is a good way to attract substantive comments.
Calm Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I've certainly made my sarcastic comments but I try to edit stuff before I hit enter. Some things just get out and some are well-deserved but they don't necessarily move the discussion along.Major point made here. If it does not advance the conversation (and especially if it is just repeating previous criticism without adding substance in rebutting), think very carefully about whether it is appropriate to post the comment or not.
ELF1024 Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Asking substantive questions is a good way to attract substantive comments.The threads I seem to enjoy the most are the ones I say the least in. There are several I've read thru and enjoyed, but posted not a comment.
Vance Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Elf,Don't feel too bad. The last time I got booted from a thread was for posting this,Moved to new thread. True story.
Calm Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 The threads I seem to enjoy the most are the ones I say the least in. There are several I've read thru and enjoyed, but posted not a comment.Same thing for me to. I do not enjoy the more contentious debate threads myself, only post rebuttals if I see the need, not because I like arguing. I do not need the frustration of being ignored or misinterpreted which happens too often to allow for a positive anticipation of a civil and informative discussion in most cases. On occasion I am surprised though. I prefer threads where people are asking for information and discussing their own POV without having to criticize the position that others hold.
Calm Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Elf,Don't feel too bad. The last time I got booted from a thread was for posting this,True story.http://www.mormondia...__p__1209016324link didn't work (probably board glitch)From what I've seen over the years, mods do not always post their moderating announcements in the offending post, but sometimes in the last post in the thread or the last post of the offender at the time of moderation so it is not safe to assume that just because that is where the moderator's comment is that is the reason for the banning. Better to look back a previous posts to see if something is there as well.Found the thread by searching for it. Could it be that your comment was reported as off topic prior to your editing and the mods were responding to the original comment? Edited June 23, 2011 by calmoriah
ELF1024 Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I will say in Minos' defense, that while I didn't agree with him for getting booted from that thread at the time. Had I not been booted then, I would be booted by now. There have been several comments made since my departure that I have wanted to hit the report button and/or verbally beat down the poster with a cattle prod.
MorningStar Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [#CSTART-6] The IP.Chat room limit has been reached. You will not be able to join the chat room until some users first leave. I have to wait for imaginary people to leave before I can enter the chat room. There's no one in there.
CARPE DIEM Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I have to wait for imaginary people to leave before I can enter the chat room. There's no one in there.Star, I had a few problems getting back in last night as well!
KevinG Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [#CSTART-0] There was an error connecting with the chat room. Please notify an administrator.Its not just you.
MorningStar Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Star, I had a few problems getting back in last night as well!Maybe it's divine intervention - God's way of telling me to go do the dishes.
CARPE DIEM Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Its not just you.DG, should we get the Union guys on this?
KevinG Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 DG, should we get the Union guys on this? Perhaps. What do they charge?
Pahoran Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Your posts weren't flagged I just ran across them in a contentious thread and you are known as being "a little harsh" as you put it. That puts you in the moderator's spotlight before you even say anything. Making announcements about who shouldn't have temple recommends and other judgmentalism is never going to be tolerated here.Well here's the problem, Minos: if you're talking about the thread I think you're talking about, another poster cyber-waved his Temple Recommend in our faces in order to tell us all what a good Mormon he was. And he was telling us what a good Mormon he was in order to claim that his position was not in opposition to the Church; which, in point of fact, it was.Now perhaps there might have been better ways of handling it, but saying "My TR is evidence of X" when X is in dispute virtually begs to have the validity of the TR questioned.I'm not saying that doing so was the best possible approach. All I'm saying is, next time you are about to drop the hammer on someone for taking a poke at another poster's glass jaw, why not first take a look to see whether the other poster is leading with the chin?Alternatively, if someone's eligibility for a Temple Recommend is not to be discussed, then perhaps the existence of the TR in question shouldn't be raised by either party. Just in the interests of a "level playing field."Regards,Pahoran
Mudcat Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Regarding the OP,Couple of things as I see it.Newbies start out with 0 board credibility if they are LDS and typically have an assumed negative balance if they are EV, Catholic, Athiest/ex-LDS or a struggling LDS. There isn't much to be done for that, it's just the board temperature it seems. Sometimes new posters say some silly things due to ignorance of a topic rather than vindictive hubris. I think giving the newbies a bit of leeway and assuming they are ignorant until proven idiots would be helpful.It is a different thing when you have someone who has been a poster for a bit say something off base or retarded, because you have a track history to go by. And for the record my snarky and retarded quota for the quarter has been filled.But with new folks, sometimes the best way to determine a persons character is to see their response to criticism. Newbies get more than their fair share, because of this I think. I know I did. But I think that is typical of any DF to some extent. So newbies may get a disproportionate number of lumps early on... I suppose its social Darwinism at its best, but I don't think that specifically is a negative forum reflection. It's just how life seems to work. Here is the thing that I notice that troubles me.If a poster asks a question or something and two or three people start responding at once... you notice a trend that if the first response was a really good point, the other responders might edit their post and say something like "So and so beat me to the point.. nice post." or.... a "what he said". This actually makes sense, if someone said it well and said it first.. then let it stand to their credit.On the other hand, if a poster (intentionally or not) says something offensive.. there is more of a gang mentality that can take place, everyone wanting to get in their licks and express their personal indignation, I suppose. No one really wants to just let one person make that sort of point.Not all the time mind you, in general this forum seems more fair minded than others I have been to, but still at times there seems to be this sort of thing going on. I think if people treated a "good" critical shot at a poster in the same way they treated a "good" point.. it would be better. ..........................The only other thing I would add would be that if the mods would allow us the use of throwing stars instead of verbal barbs many of our more tedious threads would be much less protracted. Respectfully,Mudcat Edited June 23, 2011 by Mudcat
Calm Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Here is the thing that I notice that troubles me.If a poster asks a question or something and two or three people start responding at once... you notice a trend that if the first response was a really good point, the other responders might edit their post and say something like "So and so beat me to the point.. nice post." or.... a "what he said". This actually makes sense, if someone said it well and said it first.. then let it stand to their credit.On the other hand, if a poster (intentionally or not) says something offensive.. there is more of a gang mentality that can take place, everyone wanting to get in their licks and express their personal indignation, I suppose. No one really wants to just let one person make that sort of point.Not all the time mind you, in general this forum seems more fair minded than others I have been to, but still at times there seems to be this sort of thing going on. I think if people treated a "good" critical shot at a poster in the same way they treated a "good" point.. it would be better. I have observed the same thing and think that letting the first criticism stand on its own without repeating it makes for a stronger argument in the long run as well as a more civil discussion because it is less likely for the one responding to the criticism to start playing the victim card. And if they do after one criticism, it demonstrates the weakness of their position pretty clearly.
KevinG Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I respectfully disagree that those of other faiths start with less credibility. The tone of the first few posts generally determines how credible a person is seen.A whole lot of posters charge into discussions with LDS assuming they have found the silver bullet against Mormonism or to try out a new argument critical of the faith and its history. These posters aren't always trolls. Many of them are well meaning but critical none the less (out to save Mormons, etc.)The fact that criticism doesn't always mean trolling is why I try to be more patient with those who ask questions and give them a chance to hear a variety of views. Then again some people have a history of dredging up any rumor or paradox and weilding them like darts. I reserve a little sarcasm for repeat offenders or those who prove themselves to be willfully ignorant in order to paint an unflattering picture of the Saints.
Calm Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I respectfully disagree that those of other faiths start with less credibility. The tone of the first few posts generally determines how credible a person is seen.I would tend to agree with this but would add that nonLDS tend to drop quicker in credibility if their posts are problematic than LDS do which leads to the appearance that they started out with less credibility that Mudcat describes.
Mudcat Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) I respectfully disagree that those of other faiths start with less credibility. The tone of the first few posts generally determines how credible a person is seen.You could certainly be correct, based on what you have said this seems to be true for you at the very least. We all view things from our own perspectives and the world doesn't look exactly the same to any who see it.I would speculate that it is possible that some of the more critical LDS posters here might actually handle things in a different manner than yourself. A whole lot of posters charge into discussions with LDS assuming they have found the silver bullet against Mormonism or to try out a new argument critical of the faith and its history. These posters aren't always trolls. Many of them are well meaning but critical none the less (out to save Mormons, etc.)I agree. Edited June 23, 2011 by Mudcat
Minos Posted June 23, 2011 Author Posted June 23, 2011 Well here's the problem, Minos: if you're talking about the thread I think you're talking about, another poster cyber-waved his Temple Recommend in our faces in order to tell us all what a good Mormon he was. And he was telling us what a good Mormon he was in order to claim that his position was not in opposition to the Church; which, in point of fact, it was.Now perhaps there might have been better ways of handling it, but saying "My TR is evidence of X" when X is in dispute virtually begs to have the validity of the TR questioned.I'm not saying that doing so was the best possible approach. All I'm saying is, next time you are about to drop the hammer on someone for taking a poke at another poster's glass jaw, why not first take a look to see whether the other poster is leading with the chin?Alternatively, if someone's eligibility for a Temple Recommend is not to be discussed, then perhaps the existence of the TR in question shouldn't be raised by either party. Just in the interests of a "level playing field."Regards,PahoranPoint taken but I don't think declaring that people aren't following the WOW if they have food allergies, thus making them ineligible for a TR, has anything to do with keeping a level playing field.
Recommended Posts