Dan'S Announcement: The World Table

[wenglund]

I just had a look at some of the comments about The World Table over at the message board where my Malevolent Stalker publishes his work. They're yucking it up about this silly new Mopologetic venture, about my general ludicrousness, and etc. But, as they commonly do, they're yucking it up in consummate ignorance.

It's not going to be a Mormon board. It's not going to be "apologetic." It's not going to be only religious. And so forth. They haven't got the faintest clue -- which, of course, makes them that much more free to comment.

I think that people -- by which I mean many, many people, far and away not all of them Latter-day Saints -- are going to like this when they finally see it and come to understand it how it functions and what it will do.

So I encourage people here to keep an eye out for it.

 

I just found out about the World Table after leaving the MD board in disgust (I spent a couple weeks over there primarily for the purpose of developing interpersonal skills in dealing reasonably well in a highly adverse and counterproductive environment. However, when I learned today how a former moderator there, and a very descent woman, has been despicably treated--not unlike what you have been subjected to for years, and how it is being allowed and even defended, I couldn't take it any more and I refused to countenance the deplorable activity with my participation there).

 

So, I have signed up and have begun actively posting at WT, and I am enjoying myself.

 

I really value the ability to mix politics with religion.

 

And, I am a big believer in open discussions--realizing, though, that censorship comes in many forms, including ganging up, bullying, and repulsion, and that for decent people and decent conversations to occur, self-moderated discussions tend to only work among decent and accountable people.

 

So far, WT seems to provides that environment. I have had very pleasant interactions with a liberal and an Evangelical. I look forward to other discussions.

 

There are some downsides to the site, but they aren't important enough to mention here.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

How long, after one registers, does it take for the confirmation email to arrive giving further instructions?

 

Mine hasn't come yet, and it is going on an hour since I registered.

[cinepro]

Did these email issues ever get worked out?  I tried to register but never got one.

[Scott Lloyd]

Did these email issues ever get worked out?  I tried to register but never got one.

I noticed the email in my in-box some hours later. I have yet to click on the link. I'll probably go do it now.

[halconero]

I'm definitely enjoying it over there. I'm periodically advertising it to my friends on Facebook, as well.

[BCSpace]

I really value the ability to mix politics with religion.

 

My question is, will opinion truly NOT be judged as civil or uncivil?  I have my doubts that most humans can actually judge opinion as being separate from civility, but what has been your experience?  Plus, has the question been answered as to the moderation, if the moderators are also transparent?

[mfbukowski]

Has anyone figured out what it means to request to join someone's table?

 

It seems that "my table" is synonymous with "my activity", but I cannot figure out what joining someone's table might mean.  Does it mean that you follow their posts and get notifications- that kind of thing?

 

I also think the ratings system is complicated and fairly opaque.  Of course I am fairly clueless about this stuff anyway.

 

It would be nice if they dropped ty cutsie table analogies and just described things by their functions.

Edited October 13, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

People can rate you? I can tell you how it's going to go...

Instant feedback will make every pundit, newsman or news woman and congressman a pitch man or woman who only seek to be liked in the eyes of others. Fearing man more than God, the justification will be...if I can just do good this week I will other opportunities to do it right later.

[cinepro]

Not a fan of the user interface.

Edited October 14, 2013 by cinepro

[wenglund]

My question is, will opinion truly NOT be judged as civil or uncivil?  I have my doubts that most humans can actually judge opinion as being separate from civility, but what has been your experience?

 

In my limited experience, there seems to be some indication of correlation between low civility ratings and differing opinions, but it is far from universal. Some of my highest ratings have come from, and I have given to, people with whom I have a difference of opinion. The only unpleasantry I have experienced was with an Evangelical who was intent on speaking for the Church and who keeps beating the "LDS aren't Christian" dead horse, and with a hypocritical self-appointed board nanny who didn't like the way I called the Evangelical on his speaking for the Church and beating the dead horse. For the most part, I have had wonderful interactions with people I disagree with. including when I have been in the minority opinion on given threads (which, surprisingly, is most often the case).

 

Plus, has the question been answered as to the moderation, if the moderators are also transparent?

 

I am not sure. I don't personally have much interest in the question, and so I have continued to follow it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2013 by wenglund

[jkwilliams]

Not a fan of the user interface.

 

Agreed. There are a few people over there who have a long history of delighting in trying to push my buttons, so before I posted anything, I decided I would not interact with them. That's not because I care about ratings but because I'd rather spend my time discussing the topics. So far, so good.

 

Hate the interface, but there are some great people from different faith backgrounds whom I have enjoyed meeting.

[BCSpace]

The only unpleasantry I have experienced was with an Evangelical who was intent on speaking for the Church and who keeps beating the "LDS aren't Christian" dead horse, and with a hypocritical self-appointed board nanny who didn't like the way I called the Evangelical on his speaking for the Church and beating the dead horse.

 

Nevertheless that is his opinion and according to the policy he should be able to express it and not be rated down because it.  Is that then the case?

 

I have strong opinions that I'm quite certain others find offensive and I just want to be sure I can express them without penalty.  On this board I get penalized from time to time for expressing opinions even though they are actually LDS doctrine or can be backed up with LDS doctrine and scripture.

 

 

Plus, has the question been answered as to the moderation, if the moderators are also transparent?

I am not sure. I don't personally have much interest in the question, and so I have continued to follow it.

 

I think it's an important issue because a board that asks it's members to be transparent cannot hope avoid hypocrisy without the moderators also being transparent.

Edited October 14, 2013 by BCSpace

[wenglund]

Nevertheless that is his opinion and according to the policy he should be able to express it and not be rated down because it.  Is that then the case?

 

Not exactly. It depends somewhat on how the participant states their opinion (the self-appointed board nanny called me vile names in the process of claiming I was rude for stating my belief that the "LDS isn't Cristian" topic was low priority--in other words, he marked me down as uncivil for my "low priority" opinion, and I marked him down for vile names opinion), and it also depends on the nature of the opinion--the board has several "openness" guiding principles, one of which is letting people speak for themselves. I eventually marked the Evangelical down for persisting in speaking for or opining for other religions.

 

Like jkwilliams, I am learning to avoid interacting with certain participants, and it is working out well.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2013 by wenglund

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed. There are a few people over there who have a long history of delighting in trying to push my buttons, so before I posted anything, I decided I would not interact with them.

If they got a reputation as button-pushers, wouldn't they eventually get rated down? Isn't that the whole idea behind the board?

[BCSpace]

I eventually marked the Evangelical down for persisting in speaking for or opining for other religions.

 

Don't know if I agree with this notion.  A religion has doctrines and members believe and practice them a certain way.  It is not wrong to make judgements or come to conclusions about a religion, even though it may be in opposition to what members of that religion say and believe.  The members of a religion may think it's a certain way, but the effect on everyone else could be vastly different. 

 

It sounds more and more to me like The World Table is designed to have a deadening effect on truth because no one is supposed to be offended and no one dares to offend even if it means sacrificing the truth.

Edited October 15, 2013 by BCSpace

[wenglund]

Don't know if I agree with this notion.  A religion has doctrines and members believe and practice them a certain way.  It is not wrong to make judgements or come to conclusions about a religion, even though it may be in opposition to what members of that religion say and believe.  The members of a religion may think it's a certain way, but the effect on everyone else could be vastly different. 

 

It sounds more and more to me like The World Table is designed to have a deadening effect on truth because no one is supposed to be offended and no one dares to offend even if it means sacrificing the truth.

 

I have absolutely no idea how you came up with that. None. But, oh well...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stargazer]

I'm definitely enjoying it over there. I'm periodically advertising it to my friends on Facebook, as well.

 

I am inexplicably finding myself terribly confused by what is going on over there and very hesitant to do anything except look.  I was interested to find that the site is using Drupal as its backbone.  Having considered Drupal for my own personal website this was interesting, but Drupal always managed to confuse the heck out of me, so my personal website went to Media Wiki instead.

 

And I have to say that Drupal is apparently quite slow.  I have put in two bug reports so far to the site admins.

[Stargazer]

In my limited experience, there seems to be some indication of correlation between low civility ratings and differing opinions, but it is far from universal. Some of my highest ratings have come from, and I have given to, people with whom I have a difference of opinion. The only unpleasantry I have experienced was with an Evangelical who was intent on speaking for the Church and who keeps beating the "LDS aren't Christian" dead horse, and with a hypocritical self-appointed board nanny who didn't like the way I called the Evangelical on his speaking for the Church and beating the dead horse. For the most part, I have had wonderful interactions with people I disagree with. including when I have been in the minority opinion on given threads (which, surprisingly, is most often the case).

 

 

I am not sure. I don't personally have much interest in the question, and so I have continued to follow it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well, I noticed something interesting right off, aside from being somewhat put off at the user interface, too.  Wade has a 72 rating and John has a 99.  What's up, Wade?  Have you let Mr. Nasty out of the box already or something?  Or are there those there who are trying to beat you down because you're a believer?

 

That is one thing about this format that makes me nervous.  Are we going to get an influx of organized anti-Mormons who work together to dump negatives onto any Mormon who happens to be making a good case?  Is this happening already?  I say this because of the Wade/John contrast.  It definitely looks ominous.

[Stargazer]

Well, I noticed something interesting right off, aside from being somewhat put off at the user interface, too.  Wade has a 72 rating and John has a 99.  What's up, Wade?  Have you let Mr. Nasty out of the box already or something?  Or are there those there who are trying to beat you down because you're a believer?

 

That is one thing about this format that makes me nervous.  Are we going to get an influx of organized anti-Mormons who work together to dump negatives onto any Mormon who happens to be making a good case?  Is this happening already?  I say this because of the Wade/John contrast.  It definitely looks ominous.

 

And what is up with rating a religion?  The LDS church has an 89 rating?  What is up with that?  Every anti-Mormon in the world will flock to rate it down.  And with so many Mormons signing on to WT, it's just 89?  OMG.

 

I just rated Wade with 100% on one post, and this bumped him from 73 to 74.  On another topic I rated him again at 100%, and this time he got bumped to 76.  This suggests to my mind that some folks are dumping on Wade.  He's such a sterling guy that I can't imagine why.  But seriously, what safeguards does the system have to prevent organized attacks against people?  How many raters have rated Wade?  Do we have to organize defensive rating campaigns to keep haters from dumping on people unjustly?

 

I am not happy.

[wenglund]

Well, I noticed something interesting right off, aside from being somewhat put off at the user interface, too.  Wade has a 72 rating and John has a 99.  What's up, Wade?  Have you let Mr. Nasty out of the box already or something?  Or are there those there who are trying to beat you down because you're a believer?

 

That is one thing about this format that makes me nervous.  Are we going to get an influx of organized anti-Mormons who work together to dump negatives onto any Mormon who happens to be making a good case?  Is this happening already?  I say this because of the Wade/John contrast.  It definitely looks ominous.

 

If you can believe it, my current score is up from several days ago (if I recall correctly, it got as low as 56). For several days last week I ruffled the feathers of a couple people on the board (a former member turned Evangelical, a former member turned undecided--who objects to the moderating here and who seems to have a vendetta against me for supposedly being "protected", as well as a current member) because I thought that each religion should speak for themselves and because I thought the issue of "Are LDS Christians" was low priority. I returned the favor of a low rating to my antagonists, which put us into a ratings war--which has since subsided.

 

John, on the other hand, has apparently bumped heads with the former-member-now-Evangelical on the "speak for themselves" issue, but hasn't stirred the ire of the former member with a board vendetta, or gotten into rating wars.

 

Beside, John doesn't come across as arrogant and abrasive as I apparently do....that, and I have given him several 100 ratings because he is such a great guy.

 

Other than that, I can't explain the point difference.

 

Be that as it may, it is good to have a broad mix of religionists and non-religionist from across the political spectrum for the most part politely and open-mindedly raising points of interest. I am having some interesting discussions on a variety of topics including Obamacare (where, surprisingly, I seem to be a lone critic).

 

It will be good to have you join in when you finally surmount your fears.

 

[Edit; thanks for the high ratings. It helps.]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 16, 2013 by wenglund

[EllenMaksoud]

See theworldtable.org

http://theworldtable.org

It looks interesting, but with my vulnerabilities, I can't.  I hope it goes well.

[3DOP]

I just joined today. It is going to be difficult to make visually pleasing posts with references. Paragraphs get jammed together. Not many characters allowed will make me need to adapt. Is that what you all mean when you say you don't like the interface? 

 

It seems to me like the questions about ratings can only be answered over time. Without dancing around much, I was pretty straight forward in my second post in disagreeing with a video that everybody else was fawning over. No reaction yet. If somebody is caring too much about pleasing everybody, it will be obvious. We rate on being "likable" among other qualities. Who likes a "brown nose"? I don't think it will work if somebody just acts like a lovey dovey aiming for approval. We also judge honesty. We are supposed to be transparent and I think that will utlimately be rewarded the most unless we really are transparent jerks! Heh. I like the idea of negative ratings. If somebody has a cheering section, they'll probably have a jeering section too. As time goes on, if they grow, they will inevitably make necessary adjustments. If they don't grow, they'll quit. In any case, it seems to me to have potential and it is premature to judge the problems with the system as though they can't be fixed.

 

By the way BCSpace. Just go. Somebody already quoted you, unless it was you quoting yourself, when you talked about your faith here at MD&DB (yesterday?) being incompatible with certain forms of politics. I won't say more here because they don't like it here. I'll just say that if you don't worry about points from your fellow Mormons, you might be surprised at who would approve your way of thinking. That raises the question of unattributed quoting. Give them time is what I am saying and especially if you want to defend your politics, don't complain about it here. Go there!

 

3DOP, aka Rory McKenzie over there

Edited October 16, 2013 by 3DOP

[WmLaw]

Not exactly. It depends somewhat on how the participant states their opinion (the self-appointed board nanny called me vile names in the process of claiming I was rude for stating my belief that the "LDS isn't Cristian" topic was low priority--in other words, he marked me down as uncivil for my "low priority" opinion, and I marked him down for vile names opinion), and it also depends on the nature of the opinion--the board has several "openness" guiding principles, one of which is letting people speak for themselves. I eventually marked the Evangelical down for persisting in speaking for or opining for other religions.

 

Like jkwilliams, I am learning to avoid interacting with certain participants, and it is working out well.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Questions:  Is a former mormon not able to speak authoritatively about mormonism? are their experiences and opinions about doctrine any less valid than a currently practicing mormon?

Edited October 16, 2013 by WmLaw

[3DOP]

Questions:  Is a former mormon not able to speak authoritatively about mormonism? are their experiences and opinions about doctrine any less valid than a currently practicing mormon?

 

Hi WmLaw.

 

I rarely talk about being a Baptist even though I was a Baptist minister and I think I know more about it than most who are in it. Ordinarily, I am not much interested in what former Catholics, Mormons, or Protestants have to say about their former church affiliations. The problem is that when we talk about our former beliefs it is hard to offer the best arguments in their favor like we should. Instead we want to justify our changes. I have observed that sometimes there is even emotional hostility against the former faith. If the former Mormon demonstrates the desire to defend Mormonism, I would be more Interested. It's just my perception, but it seems to me like former Catholics and Mormons are particularly susceptible to anger. That's why I would not ordinarily consult their opinions.

 

Regards,

 

3DOP

[wenglund]

Questions:  Is a former mormon not able to speak authoritatively about mormonism? are their experiences and opinions about doctrine any less valid than a currently practicing mormon?

 

To me, it isn't so much a question of authority and experience, but representation and control of respective narratives. For whatever reason, some people are intent on representing and control the narrative for each side. That is their choice for themselves. However, I have little interest involving myself in such feigned discussions. I would just a soon leave such people to talk amongst themselves. Whereas, I am pleased to converse where each side is allowed to speak for themselves and their own respective faiths. And, that is my choice.

 

For me, it is also a matter of ineffectiveness. I have yet to see a productive discussion where people are intent on speaking for the other side and telling others what they believe. Too often it devolves into seemingly endless and pointless rounds of "no we don't...yes you do."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-