Pot Shots And Jabs Will Now Result In Discipline

[bluebell]

Regarding the list, only the first could be innocuous--depending on the context of the rest of the post-but the rest are clearly 'pot shots' and 'jabs', which is what Ares was referring to.

And if you don't think they are pot shots, imagine one of those remarks directed at YOU on a thread. I don't care if you have a thick skin or not, if three or four of those remarks were made to a post you made, you'd feel insulted and the natural reaction would be to respond in kind---which makes more work for the moderators as they have to come in and referee because a bunch of educated, intelligent adults can't play nice!

????

ldsfaqs, you've been here what? 4 days? And yet, you have such a strong opinion and 'concern' for the well-being of the board with this request by the moderators. Let me allay your fears. I've been here (on and off) for five and a half years and I can assure you it will only help.

What they are asking should be no problem for LDS and if the 'critics' here have difficulty with following the guidelines set up, they get booted pretty quick. I cannot see how asking for civil conversation will harm the board. Most of those comments Ares cited would NEVER have been said to someone in a face to face discussion, because the discussion would devolve into an argument--and it's no different here--it ends the discussion and moves it into an argument.

This is a message board which is owned and operated by LDS members. I understand their desire to set standards and agree that it will improve the board, not hurt it. But without our cooperation, they'll have a tough time doing it. Let's help them.

And if asking posters to focus on discussion and avoid getting personal ends up hurting the board, then the moderators can always loosen up the rules.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You...Obey The Fist

Hahaahha, you do have a sense of humor.

[Doctor Ninja]

If an anti-Mormon is offended by my signature is it considered a "pot shot"?

[Nomad]

I can't imagine how you could have expected a different result than the one you got.

[LeSellers]

Are images no longer allowed?

I posted one yesterday, so if they are not, it's a really new development.

Let's try again.

It's the type of image file that isn't allowed, not images in general.

Lehi

Edited July 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[alter idem]

If an anti-Mormon is offended by my signature is it considered a "pot shot"?

I can't think of any 'anti-mormons' on this board, though I could be wrong and I don't have enough time to read all threads to know for sure. However, having spent time at Mormondiscussions where there are a handful of true anti's, I'd say there is a difference between a 'critic' and an 'anti-mormon'. IMO, we have critics here at Mormondialogue, but anti's don't really last long enough to read signatures.

[alter idem]

This seemed appropriate

Are images no longer allowed?

very cute.

[Jeff K.]

I posted one yesterday, so if they are not, it's a really new development.

Let's try again.

It's the type of image file that isn't allowed, not images in general.

Lehi

Must be doing something in error.

[LeSellers]

Must be doing something in error.

It's the type of file. It has to be a jpeg, bit map, or some other kind. The Pearls strip you tried to post was not in a format the software here understands.

Lehi

[ebeddoulos]

This seemed appropriate

Are images no longer allowed?

The image you linked was not in one of the formats allowed by this board, i.e., GIF, JPG, PNG.

You can determine that that by the associated url:

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/99c73eb07ddb012ee3c400163e41dd5b?width=900.0

Edit:

I see that LeSellers beat me to the punch. That'll teach me to post with a graphic added.

Edited July 1, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[Doctor Ninja]

I can't think of any 'anti-mormons' on this board, though I could be wrong and I don't have enough time to read all threads to know for sure. However, having spent time at Mormondiscussions where there are a handful of true anti's, I'd say there is a difference between a 'critic' and an 'anti-mormon'. IMO, we have critics here at Mormondialogue, but anti's don't really last long enough to read signatures.

Fair enough.

If someone uses the same anti-Mormon tactics: misrepresent, use quotes out of context, use non-doctrinal sources, use secondhand sources, ignore members stating correct doctrines, acting as experts in doctrine and history, lie, bear false witness and the likes then let's call it what it is, an anti-Mormon. You can easily see these tactics used on each thread on here.

Granted, critics do have a tendency to have one foot in anti-Mormon land (using the above tactics here and there) and carry on civil discussions which is fine, but we should definitely point out the tactic if used to keep those critics "honest". We also should welcome honest critics who don't have to resort to such tactics in any of its forms.

And an entire thread can be discussed on honest truth seekers, apostates and those struggling in the faith. Of course it isn't "p.c." to label, but you learn really quick to look for the tactics early to avoid being deceived by believing someone was "genuinely" seeking answers from their questions. Always give the benefit of the doubt, but always be weary when you start seeing the above tactics.

[Nemesis]

This seemed appropriate

Are images no longer allowed?

That site doesn't allow hot linking that's why they image wont post. It has to have a img file extension.

Nemesis

[ldsfaqs]

Just a gentle reminder and warning of what such policy's can turn into. I may be "officially" new here, but I'm not new to the net, nor reading this forum and reading and participating elsewhere.

That's why I said "to be fair"..... I understand the intent, but it is also true what they say about "good intentions". People should be dealt with fairly and justly. It's important.

Love the forum by the way. Thanks all for such a great place.

[Jeff K.]

That site doesn't allow hot linking that's why they image wont post. It has to have a img file extension.

Nemesis

darn,

[Mark Beesley]

So, there you have it. A nice, non-contentious discussion about image-posting. Now the only thing left is to adopt this same style into all discussions touching on the Church.

[Ares]

Just a gentle reminder and warning of what such policy's can turn into. I may be "officially" new here, but I'm not new to the net, nor reading this forum and reading and participating elsewhere.

That's why I said "to be fair"..... I understand the intent, but it is also true what they say about "good intentions". People should be dealt with fairly and justly. It's important.

Love the forum by the way. Thanks all for such a great place.

Let me ease your worries. My warning is not about changing the tone of the boards or the board rules (they have been in place for years).

The pattern that was emerging in several threads was crossing the line between passionate defense of ideas into jabs, insults and pot shots about other posters intelligence or intentions.

Just like in a sports event most athletes are smart enough not to throw a punch, but there is often a lot of elbowing and jabbing going on if they feel they can get away with it. It is the jabbing and elbowing that takes away from the game and could lead to out and out brawls.

This board has an excellent history of hosting discussions and dialogue (note the word debate is not in the title - but we even host those) where people stick to the content of their ideas and dont get too embroiled in personality disputes.

If a poster presents themself in an arrogant way, presents ideas in a way that is insulting to any reasonable audience or seeks to get away with a jab - the effect is to invite response in kind and distract from or kill an otherwise good discussion. That will destroy a good thing as fast as any moderator action.

Communication is a reciprocal process: Mature posters need to be as attuned to how their presentation affects how others receive their ideas. They also need to be charitable in how they receive others words.

[BCSpace]

That's the long way of saying, "If you can't be big, don't belittle."

Ha! I've been waiting to say that for a long time. Thanks for the opportunity.

I may call on you as an editor.

Urge....to....take....pot....shot....on....new....Mod....avatars....rising. Must....resist....temptation....help!

[Ares]

Urge....to....take....pot....shot....on....new....Mod....avatars....rising. Must....resist....temptation....help!

Make my day!

[Skylla]

Seriously, Minos? These are "insults" for you?

Do you feel complimented when someone calls your statements illogical or absurd?

Those comments aren't necessary and only lead to dragging a thread down. Disagreement can be expressed without insulting anyone.

[BCSpace]

Urge....to....take....pot....shot....on....new....Mod....avatars....rising. Must....resist....temptation....help!

Make my day!

LDS Toronto?

Do you feel complimented when someone calls your statements illogical or absurd?

Those comments aren't necessary and only lead to dragging a thread down. Disagreement can be expressed without insulting anyone.

We can no longer call upon the abstract gods of Logic and Rationality?

[Ares]

We can no longer call upon the abstract gods of Logic and Rationality?

Feel free to call upon them and follow their ways. Just don't personally accuse others of being Logic and Rationality apostates. Allow the content of the discussion to demonstrate that as a natural course of events.

[Doctor Ninja]

Urge....to....take....pot....shot....on....new....Mod....avatars....rising. Must....resist....temptation....help!

Speaking of avatars. What is yours about?

[Mordecai]

So you're saying I'm the god of rationality? Awesome! (For the record, I don't actually look anything like Vicini).

[Doctor Ninja]

I wish Nemesis would change his avatar to this:

O

Or a more human form.

[Ares]

Now now! No political threads. Al Gore is OK but don't dis the house of Hutt!