Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Moderation needs to be Fixed


Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't claim anyone here as my enemy.  I can still think they are jerks though.

I don't tend to get offended save by those who seem to get off on hurting other people intentionally, which includes enjoying insulting and/or angering them.

Posted
2 hours ago, etz said:

I had to learn, the hard way, that whenever I grow offended, it's because I've been hit where I'm weak, where either I'm morally wrong, or lacking in knowledge but with a vested interest in the belief.

So if someone came up and punched your lights out just for the fun of it, where is your moral wrongness or lack of knowledge in that case?

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't claim anyone here as my enemy.  I can still think they are jerks though.

I don't tend to get offended save by those who seem to get off on hurting other people intentionally, which includes enjoying insulting and/or angering them.

So, if you get angry at me, it's my fault?

Since when is your internal state under my sole control?  Or under my control at all?  Doesn't that break agency?

In fact, isn't that the principle that casts out, stones, and slays the prophets?  "My offense is your fault!"

Posted
8 hours ago, etz said:

So, if you get angry at me, it's my fault?

Since when is your internal state under my sole control?  Or under my control at all?  Doesn't that break agency?

In fact, isn't that the principle that casts out, stones, and slays the prophets?  "My offense is your fault!"

If someone is hurting others on purpose then they do hold responsibility for the consequences that follow. 

We reap what we sow. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not yet knowing my level of jerkiness..i guess i will refrain from posting. 

You couldn't be nicer.  But we all have our moments of course, even the truest believing mormon.  Also, those that are being jerks, are usually insecure.  

Posted
28 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not yet knowing my level of jerkiness..i guess i will refrain from posting. 

I think your level is very very low. :)

Posted
16 hours ago, etz said:

There would, indeed.  Who else do we esteem as our enemies except those who pain us in some fashion or other?

I consider you an enemy but I do not hate you and am not angry with you.

Posted

Thanks Tacenda and Bluebell.  I do have my moments I admit.  But my aim is to understand better the changes in the church and what they mean to each of you. You guys are so stuck with me for awhile.  I have become addicted.:rolleyes:

 

Posted
On 1/21/2016 at 11:28 AM, Tacenda said:

You couldn't be nicer.  But we all have our moments of course, even the truest believing mormon.  Also, those that are being jerks, are usually insecure.  

Depends on POV

Posted
57 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Do you mean I have to be nicer????

As far as I am concerned you are just fine. :D

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
50 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I would only ever ignore you if you spread your ASU loving propaganda about.

52-37.

Spaky1.png

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Moderation is inconsistent and delayed in this forum (imo). Attacks from anti's and cynics shouldn't be a bother for members, its the attacks from members that are more subtle and more damaging.

Posted

Yes, moderators have lives too and stuff happens so sometimes they can't show up every day.

Have you used the report function, many just assume the mods read everything and will do it all without help from the posters (by reporting, self control and not boardnannying)?  

Posted (edited)

I don't know why topics on sexuality are taboo on this board and always locked when it's such an important topic in the church. The law of chastity is one of the most important things in the universe and we can't have a mature discussion about it without either people getting uncomfortable or the mods making it against board rules. I have no idea why it's against board rules, when much more graphic details are asked by a Bishop to a teenage boy or girl in a meeting. I've given a lesson in elders quorum on porn and chastity once that all the Priesthood leaders said it was one of the best lessons they ever heard in EQ. My lesson would lead to a locked thread or a bunch of immature posters reporting to the mods. We have to face the issues that are seriously affecting today's church members, but we aren't even allowed to talk about them here for some unknown reason.

Edited by VideoGameJunkie
Posted
8 hours ago, Maedros said:

Moderation is inconsistent and delayed in this forum (imo). Attacks from anti's and cynics shouldn't be a bother for members, its the attacks from members that are more subtle and more damaging.

I agree. Ban anyone with a temple recommend.

37 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't know why topics on sexuality are taboo on this board and always locked when it's such an important topic in the church. The law of chastity is one of the most important things in the universe and we can't have a mature discussion about it without either people getting uncomfortable or the mods making it against board rules. I have no idea why it's against board rules, when much more graphic details are asked by a Bishop to a teenage boy or girl in a meeting. I've given a lesson in elders quorum on porn and chastity once that all the Priesthood leaders said it was one of the best lessons they ever heard in EQ. My lesson would lead to a locked thread or a bunch of immature posters reporting to the mods. We have to face the issues that are seriously affecting today's church members, but we aren't even allowed to talk about them here for some unknown reason.

Because people here do not want to hear about the latest rape story and you arguing about all the elements that can contribute to rape. It's creepy.

Posted
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I agree. Ban anyone with a temple recommend.

Because people here do not want to hear about the latest rape story and you arguing about all the elements that can contribute to rape. It's creepy.

But it's reality. People apparently want to stick their heads in the sand. I'm a realist and it's 2016.

Posted
1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

But if it does then we will just be ignoring the truth. The truth is very important to know.

As people have been trying to tell you - the truth is that the Law of Chastity (and therefore the Church) do NOT cause men to rape.

The fact that you either cannot or will not see that truth, does not make it untrue.  And your thread that promoted that lie was rightfully shut down.

Posted
33 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

As people have been trying to tell you - the truth is that the Law of Chastity (and therefore the Church) do NOT cause men to rape.

The fact that you either cannot or will not see that truth, does not make it untrue.  And your thread that promoted that lie was rightfully shut down.

I wasn't promoting it as the reason, I was just suggesting we look at possible reasons why an RM who served a full mission could act in such a way.

Posted
1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I wasn't promoting it as the reason, I was just suggesting we look at possible reasons why an RM who served a full mission could act in such a way.

The thing is we do not know so you are just making up reasons under the pretense of discussion and no one really wants to discuss your weird ideas about how LDS principles could indirectly lead to rape. Again, creepy.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...