Jump to content

Open Stories Foundation---Dehlin, Money, and compensation


Recommended Posts

Alright facebookers.  Why was it I could go to Kate's facebook page yesterday and read what was being said, not having a facebook account myself, and yet today I cannot?  Does that mean Kate locked it from such use, or yesterday I was just given a trial run or something? 

Link to post
17 hours ago, Calm said:

...I was thinking perhaps my style is too cluttered to absorb info effectively and thus I am looking for suggestions how to be better at it.

Biting my tongue....Shakespeare and all... -_-

I don't follow the Dehlin narrative much, and over the years, have listened to a grand total of perhaps one of the podcasts there. So his team's infighting hasn't been on my radar.

That said, as to the issue of transparency, my view on that goes back to something I said earlier this month about businesses being wise to harvest feedback from those they serve (both those grateful, and those disgruntled) as benchmarks. It gives customers a channel to voice their input, and provides the dual means for the organization to continually improve by knowing what it's doing right (and needs to keep doing), and where the greatest pain points are that it should rapidly improve upon.

That said, I believe Dehlin's organization would be better off if it simply allowed the negative comments about him to be aired, within his own house. Then, such expressed concerns could be addressed promptly - either privately or publicly...and resolved publicly, if preferred. From my limited perspective, such an approach seems a much better/healthier approach than blocking access to former coworkers, and nixing comments he might not want to hear or see aired. That would apparently be more consistent with his professed standards.

I've considered that board's stated preference for the public perception of Dehlin, and to some degree, I can understand why a group might feel/act that way. However, wrapping him in bubble wrap and teflon seems to be having the opposite of their desired effect.

 

If that direct response to your thread ends up assisting/strengthening his organization (whose teachings are contrary to those of the church), are the outer courts my home? -_-

 

Edited by probablyHagoth7
Link to post
17 hours ago, Calm said:

We have three women's accounts posted in this thread:  Alyson Draper, Kristy Money, and the woman whose post I posted above Draper's account.

Kate Kelly's info has been linked to.  She is not the most socially graceful, but she was also banned and blocked iirc when she publicly criticized Dehlin last Nov iirc.  While I can understand him being offended by what she said as she was actually vicious imo, I do think their history together merited more than just an immediate cutoff...but since this type of response by Dehlin (often referred to as "excommunicating" in the community) has been reported to occur numerous times over the years, it was not surprising.

There may be others that were posted, Lost track of what I posted of what I read.  There were definitely many more I neglected due to not having a name attached, some I thought lacked enough details to merit special attention as my intent was not to demonstrate that this was standard operating behaviour by Dehlin.

 

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Can we consider them one at a time?  I'm trying to figure out this whole accusation of sexism. 

<snip>

Hey if Dehlin has been sexist in his behavior, then I'm all for the condemnation.  I hate to risk my mainsplaining here, but I like to be part of the conversation because I detest sexism and I think it remains quite pervasive in the culture we all reside and in a lot of ways the Church is no help and may be worse.  Anyway, there's some of my take.  I get that there is a whole host of women posting on Kate's page that are focusing on this issue and so it is likely they have something to gripe about.  So, this post may mean nothing in the long run.  The complaints above, I will note, could very well be based off of his sexism.  But I can't conclude that with this information at this time. 

If you want to read more you can head over to the unnamed forum and in the "Falling out" thread read rosebud's first hand account. She explains how as a vunerable person in a difficult marriage struggling with mormonism she came to JD for help. He ended up manipulating her (from her perspective) into having an emotional affair with some physicality. Things went badly, she was publicly shamed and humiliated. Again on its own, maybe she just has an ax to grind, but taken in the larger picture, it certainly seems credible.

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to post
15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

If you want to read more you can head over to the unnamed forum and in the "Falling out" thread read rosebud's first hand account. She explains how as a vunerable person in a difficult marriage struggling with mormonism she came to JD for help. He ended up manipulating her (from her perspective) into having an emotional affair with some physicality. Things went badly, she was publicly shamed and humiliated. Again on its own, maybe she just has an ax to grind, but taken in the larger picture, it certainly seems very credible.

I read some of what she wrote at one time (I think it's the same woman).  

Did she also state that Dehlin suggested living polygamy with her?

She seemed very damaged and destroyed over what happened, but also came off as pretty unstable, IMO.  

(I admit I haven't kept up to date regarding this or much of anything to do with Dehlin.)

 

Edited by JulieM
Link to post
9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

If you want to read more you can head over to the unnamed forum and in the "Falling out" thread read rosebud's first hand account. She explains how as a vunerable person in a difficult marriage struggling with mormonism she came to JD for help. He ended up manipulating her (from her perspective) into having an emotional affair with some physicality. Things went badly, she was publicly shamed and humiliated. Again on its own, maybe she just has an ax to grind, but taken in the larger picture, it certainly seems very credible.

holy Crap.  That caught me by surprise.  Did not expect this:

Quote

This is hard to write, but it needs to be said. Like a lot of women, I have been violently raped more than one time. What JD did to me with his emotional manipulations, and, well, I'm not going to get into everything he did or the whole drama he's created of his life that I unfortunately am now part of, was far worse than the rapes.

I know there will be those who will argue and defend, say that I am wrong to have experienced my life the way I have, that my response to JD is hardly JD's "fault," or whatnot, but if I could have exchanged this experience for a few more violent rapes, I would gladly have done so. There is great harm in emotional, sexual and power manipulation coupled with Internet intimidation, public exposure, and the power games he's playing with the church.

He is a very dangerous man.

As a young boy (about 11) I had experienced rape by an older boy.  I don't know that rape is anything but violent, but I will admit what I went through was less violent then what most rape victims experience.  And no, I would never want that for anyone.  I imagine multiple violent sexual acts like this would be most devastating.  If what JD did to her was worse than those rapes, to this lady, well....there's nothing good there to say the least.  If it was really this bad, he needs to be exposed.  That really sounds terrible.  Although in the whole thread I can't really get much specifics from her. Sounds like they did some extra-marital stuff and they had some connection and then he turned on her for some reason.  It sounds possible that she was devastated by him breaking it off with her and after the whole affair she had made it something ti was not.  But, none of us were involved, so we simply could not know. 

Then again it appears everyone there is piling on her while thinking she is crazy (a common practice over there)

Says the respected (amongst the troops there) poster Kishkumen:

Quote

The thing that gets me is that this Rosebud/JD affair is pretty run-of-the-mill Mormon drama. So many ex-Mos, dissident Mos, active Mos, and fringe Mos fantasize about polygamy or other sexual experiments (wife swapping, swinging, etc.). It is a huge part of Mormon culture. And it's not just men doing the fantasizing. A favorite pastime among Mormon women is to size up men in the ward to see which guy would be the best plural marriage partner. That's why I don't think much of this entire drama. Infidelity is pretty common; Mormonism just provides a particular kind of fantasy to accompany the infidelity.

In fact, what is truly amazing here is that the big catastrophe amounted to (consensual) necking and petting between two people in a volunteer para-ecclesiastical organization. Oh, the horror! That's how we know this is a Mormon drama--only a culture in which the Miracle of Forgiveness was pounded into people's heads could this kind of minor-league indiscretion become a life-altering cataclysm of some kind for all or some of the parties involved.

Somehow this is all linked to John having been Mormon so he gets a pass? What kind of crazy Mormonism was he involved with?  "A favorite pastime among Mormon women..."  seems to be as upside down view of Mormons as anything.  And did he just pretty much condone sexual harassment on the grounds of consensual necking and petting?  I shouldn't call him out because I know how upset he gets, but man, this is nuts on his part, even if Rosebud is crazy. 

Is Rosebud's story credible?  has anyone found support for it from Kate's thread or anywhere else?
 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I read some of what she wrote at one time (I think it's the same woman).  

Did she also state that Dehlin suggested living polygamy with her?

She seemed very damaged and destroyed over what happened, but also came off as pretty unstable, IMO.  

(I admit I haven't kept up to date regarding this or much of anything to do with Dehlin.)

 

Yeah, she basically suggested he danced around the issue to get her feel for it and then somehow in someway proposed it.  I've always seen him as a strong opponent of polygamy.  But if she's right, that really hurts his credibility there. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

holy Crap.  That caught me by surprise.  Did not expect this:

As a young boy (about 11) I had experienced rape by an older boy.  I don't know that rape is anything but violent, but I will admit what I went through was less violent then what most rape victims experience.  And no, I would never want that for anyone.  I imagine multiple violent sexual acts like this would be most devastating.  If what JD did to her was worse than those rapes, to this lady, well....there's nothing good there to say the least.  If it was really this bad, he needs to be exposed.  That really sounds terrible.  Although in the whole thread I can't really get much specifics from her. Sounds like they did some extra-marital stuff and they had some connection and then he turned on her for some reason.  It sounds possible that she was devastated by him breaking it off with her and after the whole affair she had made it something ti was not.  But, none of us were involved, so we simply could not know. 

Then again it appears everyone there is piling on her while thinking she is crazy (a common practice over there)

Says the respected (amongst the troops there) poster Kishkumen:

Somehow this is all linked to John having been Mormon so he gets a pass? What kind of crazy Mormonism was he involved with?  "A favorite pastime among Mormon women..."  seems to be as upside down view of Mormons as anything.  And did he just pretty much condone sexual harassment on the grounds of consensual necking and petting?  I shouldn't call him out because I know how upset he gets, but man, this is nuts on his part, even if Rosebud is crazy. 

Is Rosebud's story credible?  has anyone found support for it from Kate's thread or anywhere else?
 

Vulnerable story. Thanks for sharing. It breaks my heart that these things happen. Like you said, if JD was involved in any kind of harassment, manipulation, and/or abuse, he should be exposed.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
14 hours ago, Calm said:

Kelly shares this info about the OSF Board, explains why it was so small, though not the current status:

Quote

Also important to note, in 2012 the OSF Board was much larger & more autonomous. That year these people were all board members:

Natasha Helfer Parker

Sara Begely
Joanna Brooks
Michael Ferguson
Brian Johnston
Anne Peffer
Ryan Millencamp
Elizabeth Calvert Smith
Tyson Jacobson
Jacqueline McArthur

Because of a big dustup with John (including the sexual harassment lawsuit I mentioned in the OP), every single person resigned by the end of 2012 (except Natasha).

This is nothing new w OSF, sadly.

 

 

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

holy Crap.  That caught me by surprise.  Did not expect this:

As a young boy (about 11) I had experienced rape by an older boy.  I don't know that rape is anything but violent, but I will admit what I went through was less violent then what most rape victims experience.  And no, I would never want that for anyone.  I imagine multiple violent sexual acts like this would be most devastating.  If what JD did to her was worse than those rapes, to this lady, well....there's nothing good there to say the least.  If it was really this bad, he needs to be exposed.  That really sounds terrible.  Although in the whole thread I can't really get much specifics from her. Sounds like they did some extra-marital stuff and they had some connection and then he turned on her for some reason.  It sounds possible that she was devastated by him breaking it off with her and after the whole affair she had made it something ti was not.  But, none of us were involved, so we simply could not know. 

Then again it appears everyone there is piling on her while thinking she is crazy (a common practice over there)

Says the respected (amongst the troops there) poster Kishkumen:

Somehow this is all linked to John having been Mormon so he gets a pass? What kind of crazy Mormonism was he involved with?  "A favorite pastime among Mormon women..."  seems to be as upside down view of Mormons as anything.  And did he just pretty much condone sexual harassment on the grounds of consensual necking and petting?  I shouldn't call him out because I know how upset he gets, but man, this is nuts on his part, even if Rosebud is crazy. 

Is Rosebud's story credible?  has anyone found support for it from Kate's thread or anywhere else?
 

The timing of the alleged affair appears to match the resignation of most of the board. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

The timing of the alleged affair appears to match the resignation of most of the board. 

Interesting.  So Kate mentioned a sexual harassment lawsuit, it seems.  Maybe this is it. 

Link to post
52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yeah, she basically suggested he danced around the issue to get her feel for it and then somehow in someway proposed it.  I've always seen him as a strong opponent of polygamy.  But if she's right, that really hurts his credibility there. 

Iirc, she also states that she had evidence or documents that can prove what happened, but Dehlin went after her publicly and discredited her and humiliated her.   She backed off for her own emotional and mental health, but still has the docs.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Iirc, she also states that she had evidence or documents that can prove what happened, but Dehlin went after her publicly and discredited her and humiliated her.   She backed off for her own emotional and mental health, but still has the docs.

Now I'm curious about these documents but also what is meant by "Dehlin went after her publicly and discredited her and humiliated her".  There must be record of that too.  I'd hate for her to have to relive it, if it happened (am I being to cautious in questioning this?) but I'd imagine someone else knows about the public discrediting and humiliation.  I wonder what that might be.  if it's out there, that'd go a long way to confirming her story. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have never understood this to be the case and I have never seen such blatant use of an assumed power to control a thread. I don't recall ever seeing anyone "declare" certain avenues of discussion off topic AND then enforce it. After all commentary that is "unwanted" is in the eye of the beholder.

This is the 2nd time in just a couple of weeks where I have seen certain posters act with greater power and authority over others in the way the interact on threads and/or ignore CFR's. Perhaps they simply understand the rules better. That's possible.

I'd love to hear from a moderator who can verify whether or not a thread originator can narrowly define and then enforce a thread topic based upon what kind of commentary they want to hear.

From the mod in a reply to mfb-

To all: going forward posters who disrespect the OP's request will be removed instead of their posts. We have ALWAYS had a policy that the OP can control their own thread especially if it is a hot topic. If you haven't been around long enough to know that listen to those who have. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

From the mod in a reply to mfb-

To all: going forward posters who disrespect the OP's request will be removed instead of their posts. We have ALWAYS had a policy that the OP can control their own thread especially if it is a hot topic. If you haven't been around long enough to know that listen to those who have. 

I'm happy the mods weighed in and I will trust their statement of unwritten policy more than another poster who seems to have been around for a while.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Now I'm curious about these documents but also what is meant by "Dehlin went after her publicly and discredited her and humiliated her".  There must be record of that too.  I'd hate for her to have to relive it, if it happened (am I being to cautious in questioning this?) but I'd imagine someone else knows about the public discrediting and humiliation.  I wonder what that might be.  if it's out there, that'd go a long way to confirming her story. 

I think it is good to be cautious. But once you start hearing similar stories from so many different sources, and they all have a familiar ring, it starts getting hard to ignore.

Link to post
1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think it is good to be cautious. But once you start hearing similar stories from so many different sources, and they all have a familiar ring, it starts getting hard to ignore.

Granted. but her story elevates the complaints of sexism to a whole other disturbing level.  In that it's unique. 

Link to post

I think that one of the accusations against Dehlin is that he's in it for the celebrity and as such he focuses more of his efforts/interviews on famous people than on regular people.  This at least seems like an accusation that would be easy to prove because all one has to do is go back through the people he's interviewed and compare the numbers.

I have spent very little time on this and probably won't spend anymore but this is what i've found in a very preliminary search online.  I have never listened to any podcasts so this is just information i'm passing on that i've found online.

Here are the people that he interviewed for April and May.  What's the ratio (for those who know because i don't know who any of these people are) between celebs and regular folks?

May

  • London Flynn - transgender LDS woman
  • John/Margi Dehlin discussing marriage with Natasha Helfer Parker
  • Alex Autry - transgender LDS man
  • Mormon Transgender Experiences - panel of 4 trans LDS
  • Kimberly Anderson - all trans LDS
  • Ashlie - sexual abuse victim (didn't disclose last name)
  • Scott Duke and his meeting with Elder Christoffel Golden Jr.

April

  • Meg and Jake Abhau
  • Nicki and Lance Miles
  • Noah Rasheta
  • Panel on gay suicide: Wendy & Thomas Montgomery, Daniel Parkinson
  • Heidi and Josh Packard
  • Panel discussion with Kristin Marie, Michelle Ross, Paul Smith, and Ryan Stott

I suppose there's always a chance that whatever these numbers represent, they aren't representative of older interview ratios so anyone who wants to dig in to early months and compare to make sure that Dehlin didn't suddenly change his style or something, that's fine.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that one of the accusations against Dehlin is that he's in it for the celebrity and as such he focuses more of his efforts/interviews on famous people than on regular people.  This at least seems like an accusation that would be easy to prove because all one has to do is go back through the people he's interviewed and compare the numbers.

I have spent very little time on this and probably won't spend anymore but this is what i've found in a very preliminary search online.  I have never listened to any podcasts so this is just information i'm passing on that i've found online.

Here are the people that he interviewed for April and May.  What's the ratio (for those who know because i don't know who any of these people are) between celebs and regular folks?

May

  • London Flynn - transgender LDS woman
  • John/Margi Dehlin discussing marriage with Natasha Helfer Parker
  • Alex Autry - transgender LDS man
  • Mormon Transgender Experiences - panel of 4 trans LDS
  • Kimberly Anderson - all trans LDS
  • Ashlie - sexual abuse victim (didn't disclose last name)
  • Scott Duke and his meeting with Elder Christoffel Golden Jr.

April

  • Meg and Jake Abhau
  • Nicki and Lance Miles
  • Noah Rasheta
  • Panel on gay suicide: Wendy & Thomas Montgomery, Daniel Parkinson
  • Heidi and Josh Packard
  • Panel discussion with Kristin Marie, Michelle Ross, Paul Smith, and Ryan Stott

I suppose there's always a chance that whatever these numbers represent, they aren't representative of older interview ratios so anyone who wants to dig in to early months and compare to make sure that Dehlin didn't suddenly change his style or something, that's fine.

Depending how you define celebrity, but ti seems to me he has about 2 celebrities on his whole list, from the beginning.  That lead singer from Neon Trees' Tyler or whoever it is and someone else.  But I have no idea why this is a criticism.  Who cares?  my goodness we're talking about him sexually harassing women here.  That's serious stuff. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Depending how you define celebrity, but ti seems to me he has about 2 celebrities on his whole list, from the beginning.  That lead singer from Neon Trees' Tyler or whoever it is and someone else.  But I have no idea why this is a criticism.  Who cares?  my goodness we're talking about him sexually harassing women here.  That's serious stuff. 

 

Yeah, I don't see any celebrities on the MS podcast list. Seems like a frivolous claim.

This is partly what bothers me about this entire thread. We are seeing many accusations fly with little or no verification of random people on facebook. This thread seems more like a gossip fest than a substantive discussion, partly because there is no verification and partly because the thread originator is limiting any dialogue that could draw parallels to actual Mormonism.

I'll just throw this out as food for thought. From the board guidelines regarding banned behaviors and topics-

Quote

Banned Behaviors

  • Spreading malicious gossip

Banned Topics

  • Sensational or tabloid topics about public or private figures

This thread seems to be spreading malicious gossip (unsubstantiated accusations) based on sensational/tabloid claims about a public/private figure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, I don't see any celebrities on the MS podcast list. Seems like a frivolous claim.

This is partly what bothers me about this entire thread. We are seeing many accusations fly with little or no verification of random people on facebook. This thread seems more like a gossip fest than a substantive discussion, partly because there is no verification and partly because the thread originator is limiting any dialogue that could draw parallels to actual Mormonism.

I think this is odd too since Calm introduced that topic in one of her opening posts (I think in a quote stating something about Dehlin's criticism of the church for not being more financially transparent).  I understand if she didn't want to only focus on that, but why can't it be at least a part of the discussion?

If we can't discuss this relating to Mormonism, why is it in this forum rather than "in the news" forum?  I thought this one is for LDS Doctrine and history, or topics related to Mormonism or the gospel, etc. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, I don't see any celebrities on the MS podcast list. Seems like a frivolous claim.

This is partly what bothers me about this entire thread. We are seeing many accusations fly with little or no verification of random people on facebook. This thread seems more like a gossip fest than a substantive discussion, partly because there is no verification and partly because the thread originator is limiting any dialogue that could draw parallels to actual Mormonism.

I'll just throw this out as food for thought. From the board guidelines regarding banned behaviors and topics-

This thread seems to be spreading malicious gossip (unsubstantiated accusations) based on sensational/tabloid claims about a public/private figure.

I sympathize. Fair enough. 

I'm conflicted. 

One hand: I was completely perplexed yesterday trying to figure out why Money would bring this out publically.  Her criticisms were at least half too vague, and the ones that weren't didn't feel like anything worth bringing up in public.  It felt like she was personally trying to throw dirt on Dehlin for some unknown reason (she was replaced on the podcast or something).  Then Calm suggested there were multiple women who were offering allegations.  I felt like I picked apart the three fromt his thread.  I don't see much to their criticisms, albeit the one who alleged that Dehlin would make women feel uncomfortable by talking about their breasts and the like sounded problematic...

then...

I read the mentioned thread over at MDB and was appalled and didn't react well.  I'm still feeling pretty upset and disgusted by it.  In the end, there's not a lot to support the allegations.  But, what is truly disturbing about sexual harassment and this type of stuff is there is no easy way to corroborate.  It's often one's words vs another's.  Sadly others have spoken to the tight control he has, the dismissiveness he's exhibited to others, and women.  That is not good sounding.  Of course it could all be made up imagined, overblown and all of that.  But let's face it, nearly every thing we discuss about the Church can be the same.  I'm afraid he's put himself out there, his org out there, and people, women in particular, who have been involved have come forward.  What do we do?  Ignore it?  I feel less good about ignoring it at this point, then I do about furthering the messages.  If they are wrong or lying, so be it.  They would have done something completely terrible too--attacking someone unfairly.  But this does not sound good. 

Link to post
12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I sympathize. Fair enough. 

I'm conflicted. 

One hand: I was completely perplexed yesterday trying to figure out why Money would bring this out publically.  Her criticisms were at least half too vague, and the ones that weren't didn't feel like anything worth bringing up in public.  It felt like she was personally trying to throw dirt on Dehlin for some unknown reason (she was replaced on the podcast or something).  Then Calm suggested there were multiple women who were offering allegations.  I felt like I picked apart the three fromt his thread.  I don't see much to their criticisms, albeit the one who alleged that Dehlin would make women feel uncomfortable by talking about their breasts and the like sounded problematic...

then...

I read the mentioned thread over at MDB and was appalled and didn't react well.  I'm still feeling pretty upset and disgusted by it.  In the end, there's not a lot to support the allegations.  But, what is truly disturbing about sexual harassment and this type of stuff is there is no easy way to corroborate.  It's often one's words vs another's.  Sadly others have spoken to the tight control he has, the dismissiveness he's exhibited to others, and women.  That is not good sounding.  Of course it could all be made up imagined, overblown and all of that.  But let's face it, nearly every thing we discuss about the Church can be the same.  I'm afraid he's put himself out there, his org out there, and people, women in particular, who have been involved have come forward.  What do we do?  Ignore it?  I feel less good about ignoring it at this point, then I do about furthering the messages.  If they are wrong or lying, so be it.  They would have done something completely terrible too--attacking someone unfairly.  But this does not sound good. 

I agree.  I do hope someone is looking into the more serious allegations (mainly any sexual abuse but others may be included here too).   If someone has taken legal action, we may learn more.  

I've just wondered from the beginning of this thread, why it was posted in this forum (rather than "in the news" for example)?   And it became more puzzling when posters are now not allowed to relate it to Mormonism. 

Edited by JulieM
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

From the mod in a reply to mfb-

To all: going forward posters who disrespect the OP's request will be removed instead of their posts. We have ALWAYS had a policy that the OP can control their own thread especially if it is a hot topic. If you haven't been around long enough to know that listen to those who have. 

I was unaware we had to return moment by moment to the OP to see if the rules had been changed.

An interesting policy. 

I'm out of this thread at least.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have never understood this to be the case and I have never seen such blatant use of an assumed power to control a thread. I don't recall ever seeing anyone "declare" certain avenues of discussion off topic AND then enforce it. After all commentary that is "unwanted" is in the eye of the beholder.

This is the 2nd time in just a couple of weeks where I have seen certain posters act with greater power and authority over others in the way the interact on threads and/or ignore CFR's. Perhaps they simply understand the rules better. That's possible.

I'd love to hear from a moderator who can verify whether or not a thread originator can narrowly define and then enforce a thread topic based upon what kind of commentary they want to hear.

The red in my post was not me, but a moderator.  I am not enforcing it myself if that is your confusion.  I send in reports to the moderators just like anyone else on the thread can do.  So if someone is banned, it is the moderators' decision, not mine. 

And no, this is not me being coy.  I am not a moderator no matter how determined some people are to believe that.

I have been paying attention for years when opening posters have called for a narrow discussion without going off in whatever direction.  Mods have always backed up the OP though that I can remember sometimes it can be slow.   There have been a number of them.  I think this may be my third time.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

How does one contact a moderator? I've never needed to, but I'm curious because of the prominent, non-customer service-friendly reminder:

"It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us."

What are the "normal channels?" The email address "is pretty much ignored," and the contact us feature "is broken."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...