BCSpace Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Urge....to....take....pot....shot....on....new....Mod....avatars....rising. Must....resist....temptation....help!Speaking of avatars. What is yours about?It is the character Lady Eboshi in the movie Princess Mononoke, one of my favorite works of Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miyazaki. When I first used it, some feminists on the board initially posted in response to me erroneously (on both counts) assuming I was female and a feminist (Lady Eboshi is also not a feminist). I may also use a Star Blazers avatar. My first avatar ever was the penguin smackdown: Edited July 1, 2011 by BCSpace
Ares Posted July 1, 2011 Author Posted July 1, 2011 Another timely hint: If you do get disciplined for a pot shot, elbow throw or jab, it won't help your case to argue with the moderator who did it.
HeatherAnn Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Disagreement can be expressed without insulting anyone.That sums it up, IMO.When people resort to put-downs or calling names, it's like Bill Cosby said about cussing, it's because they have nothing substantial to share.Often the tone in which someone communicates reveals more about them then anyone else.
Calm Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 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!From what I've seen over the years, three or four personal remarks, even if they are only slightly off are very effective in turning the conversation personal, just as you say.'Innocuous' or not (and it's pretty consistent behaviour as well that when posting remarks the poster perceives them as more innocuous than when s/he is the target of such remarks...even if they appear pretty equal to observers), they are personally directed which at the very least derails the topic. It seems clear to me the goal that the mods are trying for is to drop the personal comments no matter how tame you think they are and stick with the argument or discussion itself.
Calm Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 The new avatars you guys have are awesome, I have got to say =D.Oh yes!
Calm Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 My first avatar ever was the penguin smackdown:Which is still one of my all time favourites.
Nemesis Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Well mine is more fitting then flame warriors admin image because in the end the fist will be obeyed or it will turn into a fist-o-ban-athon!Nemesis
TAO Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) Well mine is more fitting then flame warriors admin image because in the end the fist will be obeyed or it will turn into a fist-o-ban-athon!NemesisI wish I could give you a plus. But no plus icon. Edited July 2, 2011 by TAO
LDSToronto Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 LDS Toronto? What? You uttered my name, I am here. Hope this wasn't a veiled pot shot...H.
LDSToronto Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 This has been addressed in several threads but unfortunately it needs to be posted for everyone to see:There has been an excessive amount of "throw away" statements in postings lately. Statements that reflect arrogance, intolerance, belittling of others intelligence, etc. are not permitted. This is common sense and common courtesy. Please review the board rules:http://www.mormondialogue.org/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrulesIt is particularly troubling when long time posters or scholars indulge in this bad behavior. Edit yourselves before posting and check for jibes, insults and other "throw away" remarks. Who did it first is not an acceptable excuse and if you are caught you lose priveledgesSerious question - is this limited to those who post? I've been accused of taking potshots at the Quorum of Twelve when I've stated that I don't believe X about them. When referring to general church leadership, is there a limitation on criticism?Also, how far will you go with intolerance? Will you penalize intolerance of views that are contrary to the teachings of the LDS Church?H.
Doctor Ninja Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 There is nothing "wrong" with having contrary views or criticism. This would not fit in the "intolerance" category.It would be acceptable to say: "I don't believe the Quorum of the Twelve are inspired by God and will not follow their directions." or "I don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet for what he taught was not Biblical and this is why".It wouldn't be acceptable (which is way too common and fits in the "intolerance" category) to say: "I don't believe those old farts are inspired by God and will not follow their directions because they have beach houses that are paid by tithing money which obviously shows they are greedy" or "I don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet because he was an adulterer and liar and whoever believes otherwise is deceived".
PacMan Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 I am happy to say not a single quote of mine has been cited. I am sad to say that someone is losing their edge.
Ares Posted July 3, 2011 Author Posted July 3, 2011 Serious question - is this limited to those who post? I've been accused of taking potshots at the Quorum of Twelve when I've stated that I don't believe X about them. When referring to general church leadership, is there a limitation on criticism?Also, how far will you go with intolerance? Will you penalize intolerance of views that are contrary to the teachings of the LDS Church?H.Dr Ninja said it well. Its not what you say that will get you in trouble as much as how you say it. ...and yes we try to be very even handed, even when someone brings up a timeworn often answered objection the Mormonism.I cannot speak for the other moderators but I will not take kindly to bashing of other religions or views, even if they are opposed to official LDS practices (see the proposition 8 discussions). Anyone regardless of background or religion should feel free to present and discuss ideas without fear of personal ridicule as long as they are respectful themselves.On the flip side I wont overreact to offensisensitivity and jump on every perceived offense. If someone has an aggressive or arrogant style they must be prepared to receive as well as they give. If it gets out of hand or threatens to turn into a brawl then I will stop it.Any questions?
frankenstein Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) in posting a link how does one format the link to go directly to the part of article, that is a reference link? Edited July 4, 2011 by frankenstein
cdowis Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) Responding to a CFR is unnecessary if one is expressing a general opinion== "Mormons worship Joseph Smith.""Mormons do not believe in evolution."A response to a CFR is necessary when dealing with a specific fact (unless it is clearly made as an opinion):"The LDS church is the fastest growing church in the US""Thomas Monson is the president of the LDS church" Edited July 4, 2011 by cdowis
Log Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) A response to a CFR is necessary when dealing with a specific fact (unless it is clearly made as an opinion):"The LDS church is the fastest growing church in the US""Monson is the president of the LDS church""[intelligent Design theory] is not consistent with LDS theology" would appear to be an assertion of specific fact requiring a response. I only bring it up because you made that statement, I issued a CFR, and you are very decidedly not responding to it appropriately. Edited July 4, 2011 by Log
Calm Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 in posting a link how does one format the link to go directly to the part of article, that is a reference link?As in linking to a specific location on a webpage rather than the entire webpage location?
frankenstein Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 As in linking to a specific location on a webpage rather than the entire webpage location?yes. say I need to reference a claim I made. Rather than posting to the paper or article and thus making someone read the entire thing (for instance Judge Walker ruling on ssm is 135 pages long) I would like the link to go directly to statements that supports my claim.
Calm Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) yes. say I need to reference a claim I made. Rather than posting to the paper or article and thus making someone read the entire thing (for instance Judge Walker ruling on ssm is 135 pages long) I would like the link to go directly to statements that supports my claim.My computer generally does it automatically for me when I do a "find" and locate the quote that way, I use the address that comes up once I click on the specific instance of 'find' that I want. Have you tried that?Okay, now that I'm thinking about it, this may not be the case but only that my computer is bookmarking my spot for me, but doesn't do it for others..... Edited July 4, 2011 by calmoriah
Ares Posted July 5, 2011 Author Posted July 5, 2011 Automatic generated message This topic has been closed by a moderator. Reason: Its my topic and I'll close if I want to... Kind regards, Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff
Recommended Posts