Civility And Respect

[Pahoran]

Point 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.

Sorry. In that case I don't think we're talking about the same thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MorningStar]

Elf,

Don't feel too bad. The last time I got booted from a thread was for posting this,

True story.

That thread is in focused discussions where the person who started the thread does the moderating.

[bookofmormontruth]

Minos, on 23 June 2011 - 06:39 PM, said:

Point 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.

Pahoran, that was in reference to me in this thread: My link. Minos for some reason thinks that I believe in this, but when you read my post - you can easily see it was in regards to the tone of the entire thread. Apparently, I was the only one to believe it was a good point.

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.

Now, I am completely confused for my sincere questions go answered?

I was banned because I didn't put a "smiley marker" to make my post "funny"? And this is the first time to hear about my confrontation with "the one" who randomly let us all know how he got his Temple recommend while in the same very sentence, rejecting the restoration and the prophetic role of Joseph Smith.

I have to be honest and true to myself.

I can be civil and respectful to those who deserve it, but those who mock our sacred faith, defame our beloved Prophet Joseph Smith with random cheap shots, and make desperate and snide remarks toward faithful members do not deserve one ounce of my respect. I also refuse to give my respect to those who are in sheep clothing and are among our members lying to get in the Lord's Temple. (These types should be automatically banned IMO).

This type of anti-Mormon mentality, I have complained about before in a Nemesis' post and I was told it would be monitored more and that I should just "flag it". Unfortunately, I am guilty in engaging head on with these types instead of "flagging" the post as asked. I apologize to Nemesis I didn't follow his suggestion and I am sure these types are grinning big time with this thread and how they can "push the limits" and get away with it. Congratulations, you should all be proud of yourselves!

I can work on being more civil (with feedback that I was asking for in private messages to no avail), but these anti-Mormon to the core types will never have my respect so I obviously cannot follow these new rules.

To not trouble the moderators anymore (which I apologize for doing so) and let them do their work that I do appreciate - I will be one of those persons "who come and goes".

And finally, (minus the members who were mini-moderators), I enjoyed my fellow brothers and sisters greatly. I learned a lot from them and I have a long way to go, but I hope to be half the man and a example like the woman that they are today. Without being extremely lame and cheesy (too late) - I thought I would leave with these thoughts on my "favorites".

To those who I offended - I apologize, I hope you look toward better examples on here.

Pahoran - who doesn't love your posts (anti-Mormons of course)? I sense your loyalty to the Lord's Church and you would be the type of brother that would have a member's back even if they were in the "wrong". This is how I imagined the brethren in Joseph Smith's time and how they defended Joseph Smith with no fear whatsoever. Maybe that is why I am a very defensive when Joseph Smith is made a cheap target for I definitely long to be in those days of loyalty.

ELF1024 - I love your story and I am glad you came back to the Lord's Church. It is an honor to call you a brother and I hope you continue to post.

Deborah / Mercyngrace - great examples of the Lord.

mfbukowski - I imagine you as Paul Teutul Sr. on Orange County Choppers. Your testimony and knowledge was admirable!

Vance - you cracked me up, seriously. You were consistent in who you were and I admired that. Glad to see fierce defenders of the Gospel!

Jeff K. / Lesellers - good men. I appreciated your testimony and thoughts.

Hamba Tuhan - amazing experiences, thanks for sharing!

Nemesis - I wish I could give more support to you and Juliann. I don't necessarily agree with the approach you are taking, but I definitely would have your back with those ruthless anti-Mormons.

Rob Bowman - what can I say? I hope you can come over for a BBQ? I enjoyed it, but know it was all for entertainment, don't take me too seriously.

Mudcat - you were real and I respect that for what it is worth. Even if you said a "not so nice" comment, you at least recognized it and apologized. We need more of you.

Anti-Mormons / Apostates / critics / the likes - we need you believe it or not. It is better here to learn that you are completely wrong, but even with your mockery, I still pray for you.

Honest critics - where the heck are you? I heard about you with Mosser and Owens, but seriously where are you?

Honest truth seekers - you won't be reading this for you are probably out serving the poor or finding primary sources for information on the Church, but you deserve our entire respect and civility.

[alter idem]

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 have to second what Mudcat said. I think he's spot on that new posters get treated suspiciously and if they are of another faith or known to be ex-LDS, that makes what they say scrutinized more.

I want to voice my support of the moderators efforts to help us interact on a more respectful level. I'm really appreciative of their efforts and I don't think they are too sensitive, I think they are pretty patient with us and don't take action until it's necessary.

For those who were unsure of what got them in trouble; I think if you use the golden rule--interact with others the way you would want to be interacted with. In other words, if you wouldn't like someone suggesting you're stupid or lying, if you don't want others to denigrate your opinions or comments, if you'd like others to give you the benefit of the doubt, then you might do the same.

Also, reading through a post and editing it before you post is a good idea. Oftentimes, it can come off harsher than expected when in print.

[Vance]

link 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?

That was my only post in that thread.

A lot of things are possible. But there was some time lapse between my edit of the post and being booted.

But hey, we are human. And things happen.

[Vance]

That thread is in focused discussions where the person who started the thread does the moderating.

He denied being the one who booted me.

[Vance]

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 think it depends a LOT on the attitude conveyed in the initial posts. If sincerity is conveyed then they are given lots of credibility (until shown otherwise). But if they convey insincerity then no credibility is extended.

Unfortunately what they initially convey may not be their true attitude.

[KevinG]

To Mudcats point - I have seen netizens jump quickly on a new poster and I have been guilty of that. I guess I can only speak for myself.

I try to withold judgement with new posters now because I've burned a few well meaning newbies who had questions that they had heard other places. (Did Joseph Smith really drink alcohol? Do you guys really think that Jesus was Satans brother, etc.)

Sometimes they come honestly knowing what we think but it appears as though they are trolling because we've heard the questions 100 times before or because they picked it up from another source that was hostile.

In short it is sometimes difficult to tell and a little patience says more for us than a quick retort. (Now let's see if I can live up to that...)

[Calm]

I think it depends a LOT on the attitude conveyed in the initial posts. If sincerity is conveyed then they are given lots of credibility (until shown otherwise). But if they convey insincerity then no credibility is extended.

Unfortunately what they initially convey may not be their true attitude.

I think if the initial posts use any phraseology that typically comes from anti-mormon sites, the poster is viewed as having lower credibility by LDS readers even though there is an excellent chance that it was the extreme nature of the claim that caused the individual to be curious enough to come looking for more accurate information; they are not asking LDS to defend the position or attacking LDS for holding the position, but rather asking if this is an actual position in the first place.

I have seen this happen quite a few times, though if the sincere questioner is willing to put up with the initial distrust triggered by the phrasing and expresses acceptance of and gratitude for any correction, minds are usually changed pretty quickly.

[Vance]

I think if the initial posts use any phraseology that typically comes from anti-mormon sites, the poster is viewed as having lower credibility by LDS readers even though there is an excellent chance that it was the extreme nature of the claim that caused the individual to be curious enough to come looking for more accurate information; they are not asking LDS to defend the position or attacking LDS for holding the position, but rather asking if this is an actual position in the first place.

I have seen this happen quite a few times, though if the sincere questioner is willing to put up with the initial distrust triggered by the phrasing and expresses acceptance of and gratitude for any correction, minds are usually changed pretty quickly.

Yes, using the same old tired refuted anti-Mormon language does convey insincerity whether real or imagined.

[KevinG]

Yes, using the same old tired refuted anti-Mormon language does convey insincerity whether real or imagined.

Sometimes it just conveys someone who was fed bad information and wants to hear the other side of the story. Those are the times I regret jumping on someone too hard.

I have a lot of very good Baptist and Evangelical neighbors who know some pretty weird stuff about my religion that just ain't so. Fortunately if they have the courage to present that stuff to me it can start some good teaching moments.

On the other hand some people insist on remaining ignorant no matter how many facts are presented to them.

[Vance]

I have a lot of very good Baptist and Evangelical neighbors who know some pretty weird stuff about my religion that just ain't so.

WOW!!! Where on earth would they get that stuff?

Fortunately if they have the courage to present that stuff to me it can start some good teaching moments.

Agreed.

Some of the falsehoods are so whacky that they do more good than the initiator intended.

On the other hand some people insist on remaining ignorant no matter how many facts are presented to them.

Unfortunate, but real.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Vance

[Nemesis]

Fear Ares: God of war, blood-lust, violence, manly courage, and civil order!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! His presence is near!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nemesis

[Minos]

I can take him.

[Vance]

Fear Ares: God of war, blood-lust, violence, manly courage, and civil order!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! His presence is near!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nemesis

WOW!!!!

The earth was shaking there for a moment.

It didn't scare me much.

Excuse me while go change my underwear.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Vance

[Ares]

Thanks for the introduction. I'll try to go easy on the bannings for the first couple of posts.

[ELF1024]

Fear Ares: God of war, blood-lust, violence, manly courage, and civil order!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! His presence is near!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nemesis

Ares, introduced in a thread about Civility... irony anyone?

Yeah, this will promote all kinds of pleasantness...

If I ever get to be a mod, I think I'll choose a name like "fluffy"...

(I'm kidding, just ribbin' ya'll)

Edited June 24, 2011 by ELF1024

[ELF1024]

From another thread, presented without the person in question's name so as not to "out" that person. An attempt at being civil and respectful.

Yes, he is our guest and by invitation.

Nemesis

Thank you; Nemesis for resolving the mystery. I think this was a better way of handling it, as it lets us know that yes indeed, the person has been here before, (addressing the comments) but that they are back by invitation, which explains the situation completely.

Edited June 24, 2011 by ELF1024

[Nemesis]

Ares, introduced in a thread about Civility... irony anyone?

Yeah, this will promote all kinds of pleasantness...

If I ever get to be a mod, I think I'll choose a name like "fluffy"...

(I'm kidding, just ribbin' ya'll)

Fluffy was a rabid three headed dog in Harry Potter!

Separate from the above.

I'd like to say something about this whole thing that Minos has brought up. We have enough personalities and attitudes here that it doesn't help anyone to make it worse by

responding to it with more attitude.

Nemesis

[ELF1024]

Fluffy was a rabid three headed dog in Harry Potter!

Nemesis

/pout Fluffy was NOT rabid...

[CARPE DIEM]

/pout Fluffy was NOT rabid...

actually his weakness was the inability to resist falling asleep to the sound of music!

[Deborah]

Having had two threads closed for derailment and bickering, I and other people who start threads with a specific topic would appreciate civility. Stick to the topic, play nice and for goodness sakes stop calling names. We are supposed to be adults not kids on the playground.