Pot Shots And Jabs Will Now Result In Discipline

[Ares]

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&section=boardrules

It 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 priveledges

[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.

[Ares]

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.

[Nemesis]

Ares knows kung fu!

[blackstrap]

I'm sure Ares is really a Panda,I mean Teddy bear!

[Xander]

Crap, if only I had read this earlier.

[Doctor Ninja]

Ignorance is no justification. There have been fair warnings for all of us!

[Xander]

I wish I had seen this earlier, meaning I would have known that pointing out who started it would be considered irrelevant to the mods. I had always thought that this actually meant something. But I can appreciate that I'm not in their shoes, constantly having to deal with dozens of reports all day, and don't have the time to read through every thread.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Xander

[bluebell]

I wish I had seen this earlier, meaning I would have known that pointing out who started it would be considered irrelevant to the mods. I had always thought that this actually meant something. But I can appreciate that I'm not in their shoes, constantly having to deal with dozens of reports all day, and don't have the time to read through every thread.

I think anyone who's a parent would know just how retarded the excuse 'he started it' really is.

[Minos]

I made a list of some of the insults for those who don't know what an insult is, and these come from just one thread.

You must be confused

Now, I couldn't rightly refer to it as a "rational debate" because...well...you were involved.

Your statement was simply illogical and absurd.

Did you really just write 70 words to tell me the obvious?

OK, you're still have trouble understanding the basic fact that you're way behind on this.

confusing facts with [ name's ] delusions

You're all over the place in contradiction land tonight.

We will keep that in mind as you share with us your uninformed opinions.

You should be embarrassed by this statement.ay closer attention next time

The more you struggle the more you infect the wound.

you were making a "true lie."

you're just too smart for me

you and your little claque of "superior" intellects

overweening [name] malice

Yes you have managed to misrepresent what I said in an absurd fashion. How absurd. I hope you are proud of yourself.

Is this really the best you can do?

[Xander]

I think anyone who's a parent would know just how retarded the excuse 'he started it' really is.

Ah, so now I'm retarded.

Ok, well this was never an "excuse" but rather a request for even-handedness. That's it.

And yes, in the everyday real world, the instigator usually does get the brunt of the criticism.

[bluebell]

Ah, so now I'm retarded.

Let's recap:

I didn't say 'xander's retarded', i said 'the excuse' is retarded.

Edited July 1, 2011 by bluebell

[Franktalk]

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&section=boardrules

It 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 priveledges

Interesting, one million posts in six days. This post has about 50 words so that is 50,000,000 words in six days. Or 8,333,333 words per day. 347,222 words per hour. 5787 words per minute.

OK, I will be nice.

[Ares]

Interesting, one million posts in six days. This post has about 50 words so that is 50,000,000 words in six days. Or 8,333,333 words per day. 347,222 words per hour. 5787 words per minute.

OK, I will be nice.

Fear the mysteries of Ares!

[Ares]

And yes, in the everyday real world, the instigator usually does get the brunt of the criticism.

In real life its the guy who pushed back when the parent, the teacher or the referee was watching that gets the brunt of the criticism.

There are no victims here.

[elguanteloko]

You must be confused

Your statement was simply illogical and absurd.

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

[elguanteloko]

Fear the mysteries of Ares!

I keep mistaking you for an unbeliever for some reason.

[Nemesis]

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

Directed at people sure are. Perhaps that's why we say deal with the posts and keep personalities out of it. When you don't it creates walls and people entrench themselves to bickering. I could do with less bickering.

Nemesis

[elguanteloko]

Directed at people sure are. Perhaps that's why we say deal with the posts and keep personalities out of it. When you don't it creates walls and people entrench themselves to bickering. I could do with less bickering.

Nemesis

"You must be confused, Sire, I'm not Mr. Watson."

I guess we just have different ways of speaking, then. Anyways, you're the boss.

[TAO]

The new avatars you guys have are awesome, I have got to say =D.

[ldsfaqs]

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

I agree. These are not insults. Are they slightly negative, yes, but not anywhere close to actual insults.

Frankly, I'm amazed at what I'm seeing here.

Are we really entering the realm that anti-mormons live in, that any sort of negative or contrary view is considered an insult and a flame, and then people are banned for it?

LDS are banned from multiple anti-mormon forums in this manner, and I find it seriously troubling to see the Moderators here thinking and wanting to engage in the same behavior.

It's one thing to ban someone for serious flames, but it's another to ban all even slightly "negative" speech.

I mean, this is already the best quality forum on the internet when it comes to decorum and respectful discussion.

Isn't there a point in which trying to control speech enters into Fascism and unrighteous dominion? I think this forum has just crossed it.

Of course, to be fair, I can see how many of the other statements quoted are relatively so or are actually insults, and I think it's reasonable to "personally" discuss with those individuals to LIMIT such behavior.

But this is a discussion forum concerning religion, that and politics all negative speech cannot be escaped from, or you will have no participants but "elites" who pat themselves on the back and think themselves better than others, and so there must be some degree of tolerance of some negative speech. Obviously I understand the desires of the mods to make this an even higher quality place, but really, not everyone is a passionless scholar without feeling. You must allow some degree of negativity, and those two statements are well within reasonable negativity, especially the first one. Yes, the second starts to approach some unreasonable negativity, but even it is still not there.

I'm being very serious that you need to think what you are doing here. Do we really want to be like anti-mormons, two sides of the same coin that some accuse both mormons and anti-mormons of?

[Nemesis]

I agree. These are not insults. Are they slightly negative, yes, but not anywhere close to actual insults.

Frankly, I'm amazed at what I'm seeing here.

Are we really entering the realm that anti-mormons live in, that any sort of negative or contrary view is considered an insult and a flame, and then people are banned for it?

LDS are banned from multiple anti-mormon forums in this manner, and I find it seriously troubling to see the Moderators here thinking and wanting to engage in the same behavior.

It's one thing to ban someone for serious flames, but it's another to ban all even slightly "negative" speech.

I mean, this is already the best quality forum on the internet when it comes to decorum and respectful discussion.

Isn't there a point in which trying to control speech enters into Fascism and unrighteous dominion? I think this forum has just crossed it.

Of course, to be fair, I can see how many of the other statements quoted are relatively so or are actually insults, and I think it's reasonable to "personally" discuss with those individuals to LIMIT such behavior.

But this is a discussion forum concerning religion, that and politics all negative speech cannot be escaped from, or you will have no participants but "elites" who pat themselves on the back and think themselves better than others, and so there must be some degree of tolerance of some negative speech. Obviously I understand the desires of the mods to make this an even higher quality place, but really, not everyone is a passionless scholar without feeling. You must allow some degree of negativity, and those two statements are well within reasonable negativity, especially the first one. Yes, the second starts to approach some unreasonable negativity, but even it is still not there.

I'm being very serious that you need to think what you are doing here. Do we really want to be like anti-mormons, two sides of the same coin that some accuse both mormons and anti-mormons of?

I think we are pretty used to the negativity and have grown pretty thick skins over the years. I think cooler temperaments and tongues open up dialogue more.

Nemesis

[Minos]

Of course, to be fair, I can see how many of the other statements quoted are relatively so or are actually insults, and I think it's reasonable to "personally" discuss with those individuals to LIMIT such behavior.

It is not reasonable to expect mods to tutor each poster when it is crystal clear that we want a forum where we discuss the message instead of verbally abusing and mocking the messenger. When a thread has descended into cat calling it doesn't matter if each slam is equally awful. What matters is that filling a thread with sly insults drives good posters away just as surely as in your face insults do.

[alter idem]

I agree. These are not insults. Are they slightly negative, yes, but not anywhere close to actual insults.

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!

I'm being very serious that you need to think what you are doing here. Do we really want to be like anti-mormons, two sides of the same coin that some accuse both mormons and anti-mormons of?

????

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.

[Jeff K.]

This seemed appropriate

Are images no longer allowed?