Trying to control information sharing

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

However, people have been banned for bringing up controversial topics, correct?

Not usually.

It is not generally the topic that leads to a banning, but the approach to the topic.  The guidelines for discussion are posted for all to read.
I think almost every gospel topic is allowed to be discussed politely.
 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not usually.

It is not generally the topic that leads to a banning, but the approach to the topic.  The guidelines for discussion are posted for all to read.
I think almost every gospel topic is allowed to be discussed politely.
 

This is a mormon believing discussion board.  So, I suspect that if I continually bring up topics challenging belief, I would be banned.  Of course you could always say it is tone (read mere disagreement) and not the topic per se.  However, I think the distinction is meaningless.  Any disagreement could be couched as not being polite.  In any event, non-believers are guests here and I don't think banning for bringing up controversy is remarkable. 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is a mormon believing discussion board.  So, I suspect that if I continually bring up topics challenging belief, I would be banned.  Of course you could always say it is tone (read mere disagreement) and not the topic per se.  However, I think the distinction is meaningless.  Any disagreement could be couched as not being polite.  In any event, non-believers are guests here and I don't think banning for bringing up controversy is remarkable. 

We have many non-believers who discuss here in good faith.
We have other non-believers who post aggressively, negatively, repetitively, and on occasion insultingly.  They don't last.
The primary reason is they aren't interested in "discussion".

In my years posting here I have seen those in disagreement come and go and come and stay.  It is usually pretty easy to see who will be banned and who will not.  And the topic of choice has nothing to do with it.

Edited May 28, 2017 by JLHPROF

[BlueDreams]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is a mormon believing discussion board.  So, I suspect that if I continually bring up topics challenging belief, I would be banned.  Of course you could always say it is tone (read mere disagreement) and not the topic per se.  However, I think the distinction is meaningless.  Any disagreement could be couched as not being polite.  In any event, non-believers are guests here and I don't think banning for bringing up controversy is remarkable. 

I've been here since 2004. As long as the topic follows board rules, I haven't seen someone be banned for bringing something up. And all of the bullets brought up I've seen be discussed more than once on this board. Even topics that are more explicitly no-go's (e.g. politics, sex, and temple content) are still talked about in a limited fashion from time to time if certain parameters are met and its civil.

This board obviously can choose what it will and will not tolerate. But the parameters that Tacenda suggests are simply not true.

 

With luv,

BD 

[JLHPROF]

On 5/26/2017 at 5:07 PM, Tacenda said:

I'm sure your not alone Rev, in fact I remember sitting in plenty of SS classes where there was always that guy that knew more than the rest of us. I think that guy, is all of you on here lol! You who speak so openly here, but I bet you have to bite your tongues constantly in Sunday School class.

Bit of an understatement.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

However, people have been banned for bringing up controversial topics, correct?

Only depends on how they bring them up from what I have seen, such as if they violated Godwins, or are proselyting and not discussing.

Only topics that gets banned no matter what is explicit Temple content, vulgarity, and significant gossip/speculation about nonpublic figures that I remember.

Is there some topic you can think of that hasn't been talked on the board that you think should be?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is a mormon believing discussion board.  So, I suspect that if I continually bring up topics challenging belief, I would be banned.

Probably not if you are civil, you don't shotgun or don't jump from one topic to another without engaging others' comments and wait until one topic has died down before putting up another or at least a few days in between and avoid non Church related politics (though the mods appear to be loosening up on that as long as it stays in one or two threads in In The News.  And don't make it all about you....  If you have more than three open topics, you might want to consider slowing down as I have seen this get believers and nonbelievers put on limited more than anything else if I have been keeping track correctly.

Please come up with a topic you think might get someone banned even if civil.  It would be interesting to see if it has (to the extent one can)

Edited May 28, 2017 by Calm

[Pete Ahlstrom]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably not if you are civil, you don't shotgun or don't jump from one topic to another without engaging others' comments and wait until one topic has died down before putting up another or at least a few days in between and avoid non Church related politics (though the mods appear to be loosening up on that as long as it stays in one or two threads in In The News.  And don't make it all about you....  If you have more than three open topics, you might want to consider slowing down as I have seen this get believers and nonbelievers put on limited more than anything else if I have been keeping track correctly.

Please come up with a topic you think might get someone banned even if civil.  It would be interesting to see if it has (to the extent one can)

Johnny Cake was banned on several occasions and I think he is still banned.  From my reading of what he posted, he was civil, but didn't believe and pointed out what he thought were weaknesses in mormonism.  As I said earlier, this is a discussion board for mormon believers and it isn't remarkable that non-believers would be banned in the end.  The non-believer poster may not be banned immediately, but gets banned eventually for what looks like mere disagreement.

[JulieM]

On May 27, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Calm said:

2007 thread about polyandry:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/27070-questions-about-polyandry/

2012 thread about seer stone in hat:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58318-joseph-smiths-seer-stone/

2004 Teancum gives a link to multiple versions of the First Vision and is not banned as far as I can tell:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/5288-first-visionfirst-actual-documentable-written/

2005 Adam-God

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/12304-oh-no-the-adamgod-theory-returns/

Do I need to continue? On each of these threads, believers, doubters, and non believers discussed the topic. No one was ever banned, faithful or nonbeliever or doubter for just "mention[ing]" these topics that I have seen.

Getting banned was a bit of an exaggeration, but to be fair, all of those topics got locked (the one by Teancum on the versions of the first vision was locked rather quickly and the others allowed to go on for a few pages before the mods locked them.)

That still happens when certain topics are posted and I understand most of the time.  The owners of this board do have the right to regulate discussions on potentially troubling topics.

Edited May 28, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Getting banned was a bit of an exaggeration, but to be fair, all of those topics got locked (the one by Teancum on the versions of the first vision was locked rather quickly and the others allowed to go on for a few pages before the mods locked them.)

That still happens when certain topics are posted and I understand most of the time.  The owners of this board do have the right to regulate discussions on potentially troubling topics.

Maybe because those closed threads plainly say: 

              Archived 

When software changes, that is how the older threads are saved. It doesn't always have to be something sinister. 

[BlueDreams]

44 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Getting banned was a bit of an exaggeration, but to be fair, all of those topics got locked (the one by Teancum on the versions of the first vision was locked rather quickly and the others allowed to go on for a few pages before the mods locked them.)

That still happens when certain topics are posted and I understand most of the time.  The owners of this board do have the right to regulate discussions on potentially troubling topics.

I think most of those are closed because they're archived. Not because they weren't allowed or okay to have discussion on.  

 

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Johnny Cake was banned on several occasions and I think he is still banned.  From my reading of what he posted, he was civil, but didn't believe and pointed out what he thought were weaknesses in mormonism.   

So you think that going into a Mormon forum, plastering it with Mormonleaks threads,  and then building to a crescendo of mocking missionaries who started singing "I Am A Child of God" to calm terrified people on an airplane is civil. We have far too many critics in here to get away with that. We have also had far too many LDS posters who are just as rude banned to get away with the victim stuff. 

I find the disconnect between "disagreement" and mean spirited rudeness when it comes to people who have no other purpose than to instruct someone else about their weaknesses to be bewildering. But that is always how it is portrayed when critics are informed we have had enough of it. They become the victims of a message board. I would really like to understand the thinking behind this. 

 

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Maybe because those closed threads plainly say: 

              Archived 

When software changes, that is how the older threads are saved. It doesn't always have to be something sinister. 

I never stated it was "something sinister".  All of those threads aren't archived either. I understand why some topics are locked after a short discussion.  Members usually aren't banned for posting some topics, but many are locked rather quickly.  And again (as I already stated), that's the right of the board owners and most of the time I understand why they are locked.

Edited May 28, 2017 by JulieM

[Pete Ahlstrom]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you think that going into a Mormon forum, plastering it with Mormonleaks threads,  and then building to a crescendo of mocking missionaries who started singing "I Am A Child of God" to calm terrified people on an airplane is civil. We have far too many critics in here to get away with that. We have also had far too many LDS posters who are just as rude banned to get away with the victim stuff. 

I find the disconnect between "disagreement" and mean spirited rudeness when it comes to people who have no other purpose than to instruct someone else about their weaknesses to be bewildering. But that is always how it is portrayed when critics are informed we have had enough of it. They become the victims of a message board. I would really like to understand the thinking behind this. 

 

I guess what is mere disagreement and what is mean spirited behavior depends on one's point of view.  The board rules are sufficiently vague to allow any disagreement to be termed mean spirited rudeness. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom
repetition of a prior point

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Maybe they could add a fourth hour "Church History Class" for those who are interested.

 

Good Idea...really..I would have loved it..it make 3 hour blocks endurable if I have had something like this to look forward to.  I loved the adult seminary I took for 3 months

 

 

 

 

goo

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

What would you have done had you learned of the things you don't like much earlier in life?

 

I can speak for that.  It might have gave me the heebie jeebies for a bit...but I would have something that I do not have now and that is...trust.

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I guess what is mere disagreement and what is mean spirited behavior depends on one's point of view.  The board rules are sufficiently vague to allow any disagreement to be termed mean spirited rudeness. 

So do  you think that going into a Mormon forum, plastering it with Mormonleaks threads,  and then building to a crescendo of mocking missionaries who started singing "I Am A Child of God" to calm terrified people on an airplane is civil? This isn't a board rules question. What is your point of view on this behavior?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

So do  you think that going into a Mormon forum, plastering it with Mormonleaks threads,  and then building to a crescendo of mocking missionaries who started singing "I Am A Child of God" to calm terrified people on an airplane is civil? This isn't a board rules question. What is your point of view on this behavior?

I read the airplane story shortly after he wrote it.  If I recall, he was saying that he cringed when he heard the singing because he no longer believed in the mormon paradigm.  I don't think he was mocking.  As for the mormon leaks, there hasn't been too much, if anything, by way of scandal in the leaks.  So, I don't see why discussing the leaks would be a problem.  Information that general authorities earned a living by being a general authority was already known.  In fact, I think they should be paid and it is not surprising to me that mission presidents are paid as well and given some perks.

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I read the airplane story shortly after he wrote it.  If I recall, he was saying that he cringed when he heard the singing because he no longer believed in the mormon paradigm.  I don't think he was mocking.  As for the mormon leaks, there hasn't been too much, if anything, by way of scandal in the leaks.  So, I don't see why discussing the leaks would be a problem.  Information that general authorities earned a living by being a general authority was already known.  In fact, I think they should be paid and it is not surprising to me that mission presidents are paid as well and given some perks.

So it doesn't matter that the Mormon denizens of a board created for them do consider it a problem and did feel mocked. Do you think that the people you are speaking to ever have a reaction that is valid?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

So it doesn't matter that the Mormon denizens of a board created for them do consider it a problem and did feel mocked. Do you think that the people you are speaking to ever have a reaction that is valid?

This is a believing board and the believing mods have the right to excommunicate anyone from the board they please.  I didn't think Johnny Cake was mocking but you obviously did.  As for valid reactions, I think there are valid reactions and over-reactions and many types of reactions in between.  Defensive reactions from both non-believers and believers tend to be of the over-reaction kind. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

What would you have done had you learned of the things you don't like much earlier in life?

 

You've misunderstood. It isn't about being taught things I don't like.  

What I don't like is being misled by those in whom I placed my greatest trust.  The problem isn't the tough issues it's the abuse of trust.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I never stated it was "something sinister".  All of those threads aren't archived either. I understand why some topics are locked after a short discussion.  Members usually aren't banned for posting some topics, but many are locked rather quickly.  And again (as I already stated), that's the right of the board owners and most of the time I understand why they are locked.

Sometime in the last decade, Nemesis switched threads being open forever to threads being automatically locked after 6 months (it might have been 3 or might have been longer, but this is what I remember).  That changed again a while back, but I think there is still a time limit for automatic closure, but I could be wrong; haven't looked, but some old threads have been raised from the dead.

The threads that were put into the Library were put there back when memory was a huge cost for the site so when one or two updates happened, three or four (some believers, at least one critic iirc) posters volunteered to help the moderators choose the substantive ones from the over a thousand threads iirc to save rather than just flushing the oldest ones down the pipes.  Each helper had their own standards of what they wanted.  I did it once, my standard was if they provided references for future research either in content themselves or useful links.  I could tell another poster was saving some of the substantive discussions about controversies.  Still there were a lot lost in these updates and in at least one or two updates that dumped without culling first (I believe they were just locked after the first few moves to the Library, but unless I misremember some still had to have been dumped).  My favorite Helen Mar Kimball thread has gone missing, for example.  One of Brant Gardner's interesting discussions has vanished as well.

PS:  it becomes obvious threads are locked automatically after a certain age by looking at locked threads in Social, such as this one:

 

Plus threads die a natural death and thus on the older pages, there would be a mixture of locked and moribund threads.  There is not, they are all locked.

Looks like page 61 in the main forum has the last cutoff for locked threads as of today.  Cutoff point was sometime around January 15, 2016.

Social looks like mid December so I am guessing that the tech person, probably Nemesis ( pardon me, I am supposed to say Juliann now...for those not paying attention, see Boardgudelines pinned thread), just chose a page that was around Jan 15, 2016 last update or so and locked all older pages, so a few active older thread snuck through.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Calm

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You've misunderstood. It isn't about being taught things I don't like.  

What I don't like is being misled by those in whom I placed my greatest trust.  The problem isn't the tough issues it's the abuse of trust.  

Thought that the main problem was finding out about situation xyz after years of it not being taught or mentioned in church. What are the things you feel you have been misled about?

 

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is a mormon believing discussion board.  So, I suspect that if I continually bring up topics challenging belief, I would be banned.  Of course you could always say it is tone (read mere disagreement) and not the topic per se.  However, I think the distinction is meaningless.  Any disagreement could be couched as not being polite.  In any event, non-believers are guests here and I don't think banning for bringing up controversy is remarkable. 

There are people who post here with challenges to the Church constantly who do not get banned. LGBT is one such issue that a good number of posters challenge the Church on, and still do so after at least a year of posting about it. 

There is also a poster who I will not name who has regularly posted against the Mesoamerican theory of the Book of Mormon who is some kind of Mormon - I consider him to have been rude and somewhat obnoxious, and last I know he was put on limited - he may have gotten himself banned. I am not a fan of the Mesoamerican theory but I don't go out of my way to denounce those who support the theory as traitors and such. Rather, I feel many have done important work, even if I disagree with the theory as a whole. I have been booted off particular threads, but never put on limited or banned. 

[Glenn101]

54 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I can speak for that.  It might have gave me the heebie jeebies for a bit...but I would have something that I do not have now and that is...trust.

Do you feel the church actually hid the information or just did not publish it? Much of the information was available, just not readily accessible.