DiscussMormonism.com

The following is my major treatise on how we can all, individually, make the Celestial Forum a better place for everyone.

Although this contains advice for everyone, I'm afraid I need to address three individuals in particular. Most of the complaints about this forum were generated subsequent to exchanges between and/or involving JAK, mark, and dartagan. Therefore:

JAK:
Although I'm not going to make any rules about this (we saw how the last one went over like a lead balloon), I need to ask you, as a personal favor to me, to not bring up the existence of God and/or the reliability of the Bible (or lack thereof) whenever a new topic comes up in this forum. By now, we all know that you don't believe in God or the Bible. That's fine. WE GET IT. We all know your position. We've read your arguments. In other words, WE KNOW YOUR FEELINGS ON THIS MATTER.

Therefore, in the future, will you please assume that if a poster asserts proposition C, then proposition C is hypothetically true for the purpose of the discussion only? Will you please not "backtrack" to propositions A or B, but simply run with C and examine its effects?

THIS DIFFERS FROM THE "FAITH-BASED" THING, because you're free to challenge the supposed effects of proposition C. You're free to argue that G, H, and/or I will result from C, even if the opening poster asserts that D, E, and/or F will result from C.

OR, BARRING THAT, if you must challenge the foundation of the person's testimony or belief, will you please do so in a brand-new thread? You may create such a thread, and even quote the person's opening post, right here in the Celestial Forum.

DARTAGNAN:
Once more, although I'm not going to make any rules about this (we saw how the last one went over like a lead balloon), I need to ask you, as a personal favor to me, to either:

A) be polite to JAK. This is the Celestial Forum, so it requires a whole new approach than the Terrestrial or Telestial Forums. It requires one to be a different person. If you think what he writes is "stupid," please don't come right out and say it. Please either suppress the urge or reword it to something Celestial, like "I find your argument to be lacking in intellectual merit." Similarly, if you think JAK himself is "stupid," please, again, either suppress the urge to say so or instead say something Celestial like, "I'm of the opinion that JAK's thought process isn't up to par."

OR. . .

B) If you want to respond to JAK, do so in a new thread, even right here in the Celestial Forum if need be. Even if this wasn't the Celestial Forum, every time you respond to JAK's derailment, you're perpetuating the derailment yourself. Please don't allow yourself to get caught up in that whirlpool. Even if JAK "backtracks" in any give thread instead of making a new one (which I hope he doesn't do), will you please respond to him in a brand-new thread yourself?

MARG:
Although I'm not going to make any rules about this (we saw how the last one went over like a lead balloon), will you, as a personal favor to me, not worry so much about what dartagnan says? I really, really need you to do the following things:

1. Please see things from a moderator's perspective. To whit, although dartagnan dances on the line (and perhaps even crosses it) quite often, please recognize that it's somewhat difficult for us moderators to make an uncontroversial decision on just what has crossed the line to the point that the integrity of the thread should be compromised by either a split or a delete. To please you, we're risking displeasing X amount of others.
2. Please realize that, at the end of the day, yes, even the Celestial Forum is about entertainment. It is not about changing the world. YES, IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, you are wasting your time here (just like you're wasting your time on any discussion board, for that matter).
3. Please realize that when we say this forum is "scholarly," we mean that scholarly discussions should be placed here, not that scholarly discussions are the only type allowed here. Please also realize that fallacious arguments are perfectly O.K. here, just so long as they're delivered politely.
4. Please grow thicker skin. If dartagnan says something which displeases you, please just take it in stride. YES, WE KNOW THAT DARTAGNAN'S MANNER OF DISCUSSION ANGERS YOU. Your point has been noted. WE GET IT. Have patience with us.

EVERYONE ELSE:
Please look at the requests made above and internalize them. Don't make any of the mistakes that you've seen those three make.

Now, let's all move on and make the Celestial Forum a truly Celestial place to be.

Thanks in advance.

Are you going to sticky this, Shades? I think it would be a good idea.

If it drops down too rapidly, I will.

T*

marg wrote:There were mistakes made Shades but not from all 3 of us, they came mainly from poorly constructed directions for moderation essentially coupled with the fact that while your board offers minimal moderation it also legitimizes attack type posts through its moderation policy. A completely non moderated forum is better in one respect and that is that no one with any sort of authority, interferes to specifically legitimize attacks.

<snip>

Shades takes a lot of effort to make his policies very transparent. My policies, however, are very simple: Deal with it.

Rule #1 is rules are stupid. The point of that rule is simple: Quit whining about rules! Either play with the hand you've been dealt, or move to another table.

So as far as mistakes go, we didn’t make any. There was nothing that we did in that thread that was wrong, which merited criticism or moving the thread to a level which legitimately allows attacks.

That's not your decision to make.

And this is why I like Keene. :)

T*

Marg wrote:And by the way Keene I'm sure Shades is quite able to handle his own affairs. He's not an idiot.

Keene is co-owner of the board. He was stating his view based on that perspective. I don't think his purpose in posting was to take up for Shades.

D*

marg wrote:

keene wrote:

marg wrote:There were mistakes made Shades but not from all 3 of us, they came mainly from poorly constructed directions for moderation essentially coupled with the fact that while your board offers minimal moderation it also legitimizes attack type posts through its moderation policy. A completely non moderated forum is better in one respect and that is that no one with any sort of authority, interferes to specifically legitimize attacks.

<snip>

Shades takes a lot of effort to make his policies very transparent. My policies, however, are very simple: Deal with it.

You obviously haven't been following along. It's rather stupic to jump in when you haven't been. I was not the one complaining, until after the fact. What I complained about has now been rectified with a new rule. So get your facts straight please. I didn't request anyone to move a thread. The complainers were behind the scenes other people who it seems don't like the way certain atheists discuss and probably didn't like the subject matter "Evidence for Jesus". Shades has already acknowledged that moving a thread didn't and doesn't solve anything as far as curtailing one individual from gameplaying. In fact in the future, he has a new policy of not moving threads if only one person causes trouble.

Rule #1 is rules are stupid. The point of that rule is simple: Quit whining about rules! Either play with the hand you've been dealt, or move to another table.

There were no rules to move threads, made public. But, it might have been agreed upon by him and mods behind the scenes. If there was no problem in moving threads Shades would not have changed his unspoken rule and made a change publically on this issue. It sounds like you are the one whining, but you don't know what it is you are whining about. Of course just because you say rules are stupid doesn't make it so.

So as far as mistakes go, we didn’t make any. There was nothing that we did in that thread that was wrong, which merited criticism or moving the thread to a level which legitimately allows attacks.

That's not your decision to make.

You obviously think I'm against Shades actions, because well you jumped in without gathering any facts and have no clue what is going on. Now that is stupidity. He's changed the rules slightly and I agree. One of the reasons he's changing the rules is because he's realizing things were not working. Essentially one person could manipulate at cost to others. And there was absolutely no difference between Celestial and Terrestial either even though he had attempted to present them as being moderated differently. I'd rather threads didn't get moved based on one disturber, which is his new rule of leaving threads rather than moving them. The only issue I have with Shades right now is his placing the blame for the recent problems he's had in the wrong place.

When and if you or he wants to list what mistakes "we" made in the thread or recently I'm quite ready to hear. That I will accept (if warrented). But vague accusations unsubstantiated are obviously easy to do and I'm not going to accept it. I'm going to place the blaime where it deserves it to be.

And by the way Keene I'm sure Shades is quite able to handle his own affairs. He's not an idiot.

Marg, perhaps you don't realize that I am the owner of this board. I made the rules, and I keep up on things.

Hush.