Scott Lloyd Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Excellent, based on your interpretation I should be good to go. I’ll try posting again and see what happens.Maybe in the interest of good faith and transparency, you could tell us what your screen name was when you were kicked out last time.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) I think this is an elaborate cover-up. It's been said before that Pahoran is a moderator here, so of course he would ban himself to make it look like he's not a moderator. Then he can continue banning people as he cackles an evil cackle.It's been said that I'm a moderator as well. I'm sustaining the coverup by pretending to openly object to Pahoran's banning. And now I'm appearing to confess my role in the coverup.Keep them confused and guessing on the Mormon Defamation Board. And then sit back and laugh at the theorizing. That's what we do here. Edited April 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) I dislike that thread originators have the ability to lock threads they start. While one person may have initiated a discussion, IMO, they don't "own" the discussion any more than others that have contributed to it, and participants can find it frustrating when one person closes a thread while they are still engaged in dialogue (I'm only referring to thread originators here, not moderators--I can understand mods closing threads when they devolve into insults or pettiness). Allowing such thread closures gives unrighteous dominion over controlling--and prematurely and strategically stifling--discussion just as opposing points of view are raised. I would ask the powers that be to reconsider that ability...Prior to my recent spate of indignant thread-locking before almost departing this board for good, I had been very sparing in my use of the privilege. Other than I and calmoriah, who on one occasion warned that she would lock her own thread, I'm unaware of anyone here who has availed himself or herself of that privilege. It should be kept in force, and I would earnestly urge and ask that it be so, if for no other reason than it affords a thread originator some limited recourse if he encounters what I did the other day. An individual posted offensive content on a thread I started and wouldn't cease carrying it on when asked to take it elsewhere. In such an event, it can be useful to be able to close the thread temporarily in hopes that the offender will lose interest in his mischief-making and go off to other pursuits, as happened in the case I mentioned here. As for your ludicrously overwrought charge that it gives opportunity for "unrighteouls dominion" (I know you said later that your use of that phrase was tongue-in-cheek, but it was ludicrously overwrought notwithstanding) there is scarcely any "dominion" at play here, unrighteous or otherwise. As has been pointed out here, if someone doesn't like that his/her discussion was put in check by a locked thread, in most cases he/she is free to open his/her own thread to continue that discussion. In conclusion, it has brought no real harm that I can see and has considerable scope for good to allow a thread originator some degree of control over the tenor and content of the discussion he/she begins, especially when dealing with would-be thread hijackers. Edited April 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) I agree. Thread authors too often kill threads just as the discussion gets interesting or they start losing the argument.Other than my recent thread lockings (which I'm bracketing as anomalous becasue they were brought on by my strong displeasure over the banning of Pahoran) I seriously question whether there have been all that many instances of authors killing threads. Can you cite some? If it happens "too often," there must be specific examples that come to mind. Again, other than myself, I'm unaware of anyone who has done it for any reason, let alone because they "start losing the argument." If the privilege starts to be widely abused, then attention to it might be in order. But for now, I submit that you are calling for a remedy without a problem. Edited April 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) All I know is that anyone that can get themselves banned, reappear with a new name, and still take swipes at the moderation, has got some kind of clout!With Pahoran, I would suggest the reason is that, caustic or not, his substance-to-noise ratio tends to be very high. Such a thing is an asset that the board can't afford to lose. Edited April 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Russell C McGregor Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Like Scott's timers, I'm starting one ... it will require significantly smaller scale but much greater resolution. hehe ... Hey Russel, long time no see! I don't believe we've been introduced, and I wasn't aware we were on first name terms.
canard78 Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Reading that whole page, I can see it. Personally I would have given him 1 to 2 weeks to cool off unless this was already a pattern.I don't post often enough to know if it was a pattern or not.Having been on this board for a couple of years it was certainly a pattern. It wasn't simply that he'd be strong-minded, it was his tendency towards being aggressively rude. 1
canard78 Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Other than my recent thread lockings (which I'm bracketing as anomalous becasue they were brought on by my strong displeasure over the banning of Pahoran) I seriously question whether there have been all that many instances of authors killing threads.Can you cite some? If it happens "too often," there must be specific examples that come to mind. Again, other than myself, I'm unaware of anyone who has done it for any reason, let alone because they "start losing the argument."If the privilege starts to be widely abused, then attention to it might be in order. But for now, I submit that you are calling for a remedy without a problem.Make sure you're sitting down for this Scott, but I completely agree with you. The idea that you were exercising "unrighteousness dominion" (as suggested earlier) is laughable. I think thread originators have a level of responsibility to participate in and respond to posts in threads that they start. I also agree that the "never stronger" Elder Cook thread was becoming circular and that people were simply starting to repeat arguments you'd already given a response to. Given that there will probably be no additional data forthcoming it had got as far as it could. Besides... There are plenty of people who could start a tangent thread if they still wanted to discuss it. 2
Russell C McGregor Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Having been on this board for a couple of years it was certainly a pattern. It wasn't simply that he'd be strong-minded, it was his tendency towards being aggressively rude. Good thing I didn't say that about any poster here, isn't it?
Damien the Leper Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Russell, you can call me David. That is my real first name. Though I prefer the German pronunciation. I count you as a friend and a great source of information. Peace be with you, brother.
canard78 Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Good thing I didn't say that about any poster here, isn't it?Hello Russell. Pleased to meet you. I don't think we've met.
Senator Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) With Pahoran, I would suggest the reason is that, caustic or not, his substance-to-noise ratio tends to be very high. Such a thing is an asset that the board can't afford to lose. I suggest the powers that be should then modify their board rules to include something such as: Moderators reserve the right to create exceptions to any rule for certain posters that some other posters really like. Edited April 11, 2015 by Senator
BlueDreams Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) I have been posting on these boards for almost 15 years now. Ironically, I was a devout temple attending Mormon when I started. I don't notice any huge differences either, Bluebell. I remember you when you were like that and nearing the major decision to change belief systems. I was active lds and still am, but with WhyMe's odd definition I wonder if I'd qualify as 3rd-which-ever mormon (not because I'd believe it, but if I fit, that is one loosely constructed definition). I don't remember any major shifts....except I think the quality of posters has generally increased in aggregate. There are also far fewer rabid anti-mormons and I feel like fewer trolls. The boards then had a shift in topical focus but they were just as likely to cycle and become excessive (switching out gay marriage for faith v works threads, for example). Edited April 11, 2015 by BlueDreams 2
sethpayne Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) Other than my recent thread lockings (which I'm bracketing as anomalous becasue they were brought on by my strong displeasure over the banning of Pahoran) I seriously question whether there have been all that many instances of authors killing threads. Can you cite some? If it happens "too often," there must be specific examples that come to mind. Again, other than myself, I'm unaware of anyone who has done it for any reason, let alone because they "start losing the argument."If the privilege starts to be widely abused, then attention to it might be in order. But for now, I submit that you are calling for a remedy without a problem. I wasn't referring to you. I'd be happy to cite some examples but I'd rather not dredge up old arguments. PM me if you are really interested. Edited April 11, 2015 by sethpayne
Scott Lloyd Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I suggest the powers that be should then modify their board rules to include something such as: Moderators reserve the right to create exceptions to any rule for certain posters that some other posters really like.This is actually not a bad idea if you end the sentence at the word "rule."
Senator Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 This is actually not a bad idea if you end the sentence at the word "rule." "It's great to be the King!'
CCRW Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Maybe in the interest of good faith and transparency, you could tell us what your screen name was when you were kicked out last time.http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65208-a-new-old-guy/ I don't recall ever having any interface with you Scott, so I'm not anyone you would likely remember/know.The people I've noted I've known from other boards.
CCRW Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I don't believe we've been introduced, and I wasn't aware we were on first name terms.Brother McGregor; I apologize for improperly addressing you. We never were on first name terms.
tonie Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 With Pahoran, I would suggest the reason is that, caustic or not, his substance-to-noise ratio tends to be very high. Such a thing is an asset that the board can't afford to lose. "Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation..., but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down." - Michael Otterson, representing the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (October 2010, mormonnewsroom.org) Caustic or judgmental dialogue is not an asset.
CCRW Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Dr. Green was one of the most well respected men in our community, stake and ward. One day I had a missionary upset with me because I addressed him as Brother instead of Elder and he strongly corrected me. Sister Green was the RP at the time and Dr. Green would sit in the lobby patiently waiting for his wife, who was always busy. Shortly after the above incident I sat next to this great man and asked him; Doc Green, to show you the greatest respect how should I address you? He responded the greatest way I could ever address him was as Brother. If you would prefer Elder, or Mr. or have some other desired title, I will gladly address you as such.
Teancum Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Rockpond, since my banning has become a topic of conversation here, I'd like to ask you a question.In the now-closed thread, you wrote: Question: is there any possible way that Pahoran could have made that point that would not have had you firing off multiple reports to the moderators?You see, Rockpond, I have a theory, and it is this: However objectionable you may claim to find Pahoran's "style," what you really object to is the substance of those posts. Whatever metaphors, similes, portmanteaux, cuts or slap-downs you may find to hang your hat upon, I think what you really don't want to see is the plain, indisputable fact that LDS doctrine is utterly irreconcilable with the changes you like to daydream about.Am I wrong?Are you really perfectly happy to allow the readers of this forum to be reminded that your fond imaginings could only exist in some kind of alternative universe?Or would you rather find ways to stifle that point of view entirely?Regards,Russell I love Pahoran. Such a warm and cuddly fellow. So happy to see he has been reincarnated and that his same warm personality is shining through.
Senator Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 "Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation..., but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down." - Michael Otterson, representing the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (October 2010, mormonnewsroom.org) Caustic or judgmental dialogue is not an asset. Didn't Jesus call some people "vipers" and "whited-sepulchures"?
CCRW Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Sorry, I'm still being rude .... I'm CCRW ... which is an acronym for one of my favorite bands.
CCRW Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I love Pahoran. Such a warm and cuddly fellow. So happy to see he has been reincarnated and that his same warm personality is shining through.I noted that my timer would require much greater resolution, heck it expired before I could even start it.
Teancum Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 With Pahoran, I would suggest the reason is that, caustic or not, his substance-to-noise ratio tends to be very high. Such a thing is an asset that the board can't afford to lose. Really? Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. And since this is becoming a "why did Pahoran get banned" thread, even though he has been reincarnated I will opine as well. Pahoran is not only caustic he is nasty. He does more harm to your apologetic cause than he does good. In fact I have viewed his postings as abusive of many he opposes. I am sure you and Russell will disagree. Scott you can be strong and forceful for the cause you love. I am ok with that. We clash at times. But I do not view you as mean spirited. Pahoran on the other hand is just mean. He is bright, he argues well and could leave the nastiness off and do quiet well. Instead he uses his skill and whit to demean and intimidate. If you want someone like that defending your cause more power to you. As noted he harms your cause more than he benefits it. I can guarantee that. He deserved to be banned and should have been banned long ago. That fact that he is back seems odd. I don't really care and it is not my decision. So there you have it. If Russell bothers to read my post I will say directly to him that I think he is bright, smart, witty and one of the best writers I have ever seen in a board debate. And Russell you can do it without the mean spirit and still likely be the winner in most of your debates.
Recommended Posts