DiscussMormonism.com

Marg made a suggestion which the Mods have decided to incorporate into the Celestial Forum. If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.

If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as the base assumptions laid out by the OP being derailed. The following perimeters immediately exist:

If the discussion involves God, then someone shouldn't come in and start arguing the existence of God. For the purpose of that thread, God exists. That's the given. (I.e....God, Buddha, whatever the higher power being discussed is).


If the thread is discussing, for example, points of LDS doctrine, then someone shouldn't come in and start challenging the validity of LDS doctrine For the purpose of that faith based thread, LDS doctrine is valid. Or Catholic doctrine is valid...or whatever type of religious doctrine is being discussed.

As the thread originator, it is your responsibility to set the guidelines for this type of thread, and place "Faith Based" as part of the thread title. This will give participants a better understanding of the desired direction of the thread.

Alternately, if you would like to declare a thread "Atheist based", you may detail the parameters of your assumptions as well. Such as, "Atheists have morals". Thus, any argument about atheists and their perceived lack of morals would be off limits in this thread.

As a Moderation Team, we hope that this will help with derailment issues, and also allow those who desire to participate in faith based discussions an "attack free" zone to do so.

The more “rules” you have the more moderation you are required to do. What is the reticence for free and open discussion?

Posts which are primarily or exclusively personal attacks could and should be deleted by a moderator. Even that involves judgment which should require all the moderators to have a private discussion about whether to eliminate an entire post or allow it to stand.

Attempting to reword a post is a disservice to the one making the post and a distortion of the post. It configures that which was never said if it is edited (changed) in any way by moderators.

It’s your playground. What do you want? If you want free and honest exchange, allow that to take place. If you want particular bias to stand unchallenged, then delete all posts which raise questions or challenge statements which appear a threat to the bias you want standing.

Honest discussion flows from idea to other ideas and introduction of new and different considerations. That’s the nature of honest discussion.

Given your loose “rule” construction, moderators can do anything they please and honest discussion is diminished if not destroyed.

A fundamental issue for those who operate the board is: What do you want?

Religious mythologies overlap, are contradictory, and policing the board to be certain that a post which addresses a Roman Catholic view dare not have any comment or comparison with some other religious perspective is the antithesis of free and open discussion.

For example, currently, politics and religion have considerable overlap. What you call “derailment” may be added or extended perspective. If you do not want free expression of ideas, state that clearly in your rules. State that you will delete any posts you don’t like for any reason covered in your “rules.”

The more “rules” you make and attempt to enforce, the less free and honest the discussion of any topic or aspects of the topic.

JAK

JAK wrote:The more “rules” you have the more moderation you are required to do. What is the reticence for free and open discussion?

Posts which are primarily or exclusively personal attacks could and should be deleted by a moderator. Even that involves judgment which should require all the moderators to have a private discussion about whether to eliminate an entire post or allow it to stand.

Attempting to reword a post is a disservice to the one making the post and a distortion of the post. It configures that which was never said if it is edited (changed) in any way by moderators.

It’s your playground. What do you want? If you want free and honest exchange, allow that to take place. If you want particular bias to stand unchallenged, then delete all posts which raise questions or challenge statements which appear a threat to the bias you want standing.

Honest discussion flows from idea to other ideas and introduction of new and different considerations. That’s the nature of honest discussion.

Given your loose “rule” construction, moderators can do anything they please and honest discussion is diminished if not destroyed.

A fundamental issue for those who operate the board is: What do you want?

Religious mythologies overlap, are contradictory, and policing the board to be certain that a post which addresses a Roman Catholic view dare not have any comment or comparison with some other religious perspective is the antithesis of free and open discussion.

For example, currently, politics and religion have considerable overlap. What you call “derailment” may be added or extended perspective. If you do not want free expression of ideas, state that clearly in your rules. State that you will delete any posts you don’t like for any reason covered in your “rules.”

The more “rules” you make and attempt to enforce, the less free and honest the discussion of any topic or aspects of the topic.

JAK

Great post JAK - you might want to post this in one of the threads on the subject down below in the middle kingdom for a wider audience.

JAK wrote:The more “rules” you have the more moderation you are required to do. What is the reticence for free and open discussion?

Posts which are primarily or exclusively personal attacks could and should be deleted by a moderator. Even that involves judgment which should require all the moderators to have a private discussion about whether to eliminate an entire post or allow it to stand.

Attempting to reword a post is a disservice to the one making the post and a distortion of the post. It configures that which was never said if it is edited (changed) in any way by moderators.

It’s your playground. What do you want? If you want free and honest exchange, allow that to take place. If you want particular bias to stand unchallenged, then delete all posts which raise questions or challenge statements which appear a threat to the bias you want standing.

Honest discussion flows from idea to other ideas and introduction of new and different considerations. That’s the nature of honest discussion.

Given your loose “rule” construction, moderators can do anything they please and honest discussion is diminished if not destroyed.

A fundamental issue for those who operate the board is: What do you want?

Religious mythologies overlap, are contradictory, and policing the board to be certain that a post which addresses a Roman Catholic view dare not have any comment or comparison with some other religious perspective is the antithesis of free and open discussion.

For example, currently, politics and religion have considerable overlap. What you call “derailment” may be added or extended perspective. If you do not want free expression of ideas, state that clearly in your rules. State that you will delete any posts you don’t like for any reason covered in your “rules.”

The more “rules” you make and attempt to enforce, the less free and honest the discussion of any topic or aspects of the topic.

JAK

I disagree with you, JAK. The sticky addresses preventing derailment of topic.

If the discussion does not go to one person’s liking, it’s “derailment.” For another it’s an expansion and further elucidation of issues relevant to the topic.

Personal attacks are clearly irrelevant to issues under discussion.

Discussion particularly in a loose, free-flowing expression of ideas, is open and free to explore. Otherwise it’s policed expression. You, as a moderator, are part of the police.

What do you want? If you want control of ideas and expressions, by all means you want a highly policed forum. That is hardly a free flow of discussion as readers see extension and elaboration of considerations.

JAK

JAK wrote:If the discussion does not go to one person’s liking, it’s “derailment.” For another it’s an expansion and further elucidation of issues relevant to the topic.

Personal attacks are clearly irrelevant to issues under discussion.

Discussion particularly in a loose, free-flowing expression of ideas, is open and free to explore. Otherwise it’s policed expression. You, as a moderator, are part of the police.

What do you want? If you want control of ideas and expressions, by all means you want a highly policed forum. That is hardly a free flow of discussion as readers see extension and elaboration of considerations.

JAK

There is a difference between the natural flow of a thread and an out right derailment.

We are trying to limit derailments.

Scottie wrote:

JAK wrote:If the discussion does not go to one person’s liking, it’s “derailment.” For another it’s an expansion and further elucidation of issues relevant to the topic.

Personal attacks are clearly irrelevant to issues under discussion.

Discussion particularly in a loose, free-flowing expression of ideas, is open and free to explore. Otherwise it’s policed expression. You, as a moderator, are part of the police.

What do you want? If you want control of ideas and expressions, by all means you want a highly policed forum. That is hardly a free flow of discussion as readers see extension and elaboration of considerations.

JAK

There is a difference between the natural flow of a thread and an out right derailment.

We are trying to limit derailments.

Yes, and it is necessarily a subjective, judgmental call.

JAK

JAK wrote:Yes, and it is necessarily a subjective, judgmental call.

That is correct. I have never denied that all moderation is subjective to whatever degree.

Hence the reason I A) keep a tight leash on my moderators and B) try my best to earn y'all's trust.

Dr. Shades wrote:

JAK wrote:Yes, and it is necessarily a subjective, judgmental call.

That is correct. I have never denied that all moderation is subjective to whatever degree.

Hence the reason I A) keep a tight leash on my moderators and B) try my best to earn y'all's trust.

More important than number of posts is full disclosure of who is a “moderator.”

That information should appear every time a moderator posts in any thread so all understand who has the power to delete, move, move back, or whatever a moderator subjectively can do. We only know who is a moderator by accident of discovery. Pictures and labels may be cute, but they are irrelevant to the power to terminate discussion if a “moderator” or a committee of moderators caucus to entirely “derail” a discussion by termination.

Your RULES OF THE BOARD rely heavily on the word “stupid” as a criteria. “Spirit of the law” is highly ambiguous and means you or one of your moderators can do anything he/she pleases based on whim.

The “rules” are vague and mercurial. If #1 “Rules are stupid,” why make rules? And why use language which is vague and can be interpreted willy nilly?

I understand, Shades, this is your playground. You can do anything you like.

What more specific and focused “rules” would elevate the level of discussion?
Is that important to you?

JAK

Well JAK, as the leading derailer on this forum, I can see why you're taking the position you are. Your recent derailment on the Thomas Paine thread is just one example. The issue was whether Thomas Paine rejected the historicity of Jesus and you spent all day writing up posts arguing that he rejected religion. You've started more "dangers of religion" derailments than I can count on both hands.