Interesting Ploy in Moderation on the MDD Board

[_DrW]

Over on the old MADBoard (MDD), Minos posted the following as a reason for shutting down a thread started by Kevin Graham on the Book of Abraham.

There is no excuse for the reception this civil OP received. If the complaint is that posters are being asked to respond to scholarly spam then linking to previous answers and demonstrating that would be better than pages of one line insults.

So it would appear that when Wade (or any of the faithful) need to be rescued by moderators, all they need do is up the insult rate and thereby have the moderators shut down the critic's thread.

Once again, the Mormon logic at work here escapes me. Maybe it is just me, but this certainly appears to be a not so subtle way to reinforce bad behavior by the faithful.

[_MCB]

It is interesting in light of a recent move here http://forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14 Several debaters on the subject complained to moderators that there were too many Mormon-related threads. We then asked a member to back off, and mods reinforced, closing several threads.



Monkey see, monkey do.

[_Buffalo]

It's the best way they've figured out to censor Kevin without overtly censoring him. Send simpletons (Wade Englund and others) to spam the thread with insults and red herrings, and it gets shut down pronto. Wade and his fellow mouth breathers are never actually punished, and Kevin's damning data gets pushed off the front page. Brilliant!

[_bcspace]

You guys are only just noticing this?

[_DrW]

You guys are only just noticing this?

Yes, well with all of the time spent here battling for truth and justice, some of us do not have a lot of time to hang out over on MDD. Also, since such ploys are not employed by critics, I guess it takes us (me at least) a while to catch on.

But thanks for asking, and for an frank and honest confirmation that this apologetic tactic can be recognized for what it is by some (at least one) TBM(s).

[_Yoda]

You guys are only just noticing this?

Yes, well with all of the time spent here battling for truth and justice, some of us do not have a lot of time to hang out over on MDD. Also, since such ploys are not employed by critics, I guess it takes us (me at least) a while to catch on.

But thanks for asking, and for an frank and honest confirmation that this apologetic tactic can be recognized for what it is by some (at least one) TBM(s).

BC has never had any love for the moderating on MDD.

[_bcspace]

Yes, well with all of the time spent here battling truth and justice, some of us do not have a lot of time to hang out over on MDD

FIFY

[_ldsfaqs]

Whoever is running that place is opporating under the false assumption that they can FORCE perfection, by only allowing posts and posters who ONLY and ALWAYS provide "scholarly" answers and questions.

No one, no matter which side they are on are allowed to be "human", allowed to say anything if it's not full of scholarship.
Further, when you sign up under another username, trying to conform to the rules, they just ban you anyway, simply because you created another username.

That place is full of unrighteous dominion now. It used to be a good place before, now they've crossed a line and becometh as satan, trying to force total perfection, and anyone that doesn't perfectly comply, and if you are a no-body, even if you don't actually do something wrong and against board rules, they ban you.

Again, I last got banned for simply asking someone to stop causing problems to leave me alone, entirely trying to prevent a problem, and I get banned for it.

[_Buffalo]

Whoever is running that place is opporating under the false assumption that they can FORCE perfection, by only allowing posts and posters who ONLY and ALWAYS provide "scholarly" answers and questions.

No one, no matter which side they are on are allowed to be "human", allowed to say anything if it's not full of scholarship.
Further, when you sign up under another username, trying to conform to the rules, they just ban you anyway, simply because you created another username.

That place is full of unrighteous dominion now. It used to be a good place before, now they've crossed a line and becometh as satan, trying to force total perfection, and anyone that doesn't perfectly comply, and if you are a no-body, even if you don't actually do something wrong and against board rules, they ban you.

Again, I last got banned for simply asking someone to stop causing problems to leave me alone, entirely trying to prevent a problem, and I get banned for it.

They banned you because you're an embarrassment to Mormon apologetics. I can understand why you'd be bitter about that.

[_Yoda]

Whoever is running that place is opporating under the false assumption that they can FORCE perfection, by only allowing posts and posters who ONLY and ALWAYS provide "scholarly" answers and questions.

No one, no matter which side they are on are allowed to be "human", allowed to say anything if it's not full of scholarship.
Further, when you sign up under another username, trying to conform to the rules, they just ban you anyway, simply because you created another username.

That place is full of unrighteous dominion now. It used to be a good place before, now they've crossed a line and becometh as satan, trying to force total perfection, and anyone that doesn't perfectly comply, and if you are a no-body, even if you don't actually do something wrong and against board rules, they ban you.

Again, I last got banned for simply asking someone to stop causing problems to leave me alone, entirely trying to prevent a problem, and I get banned for it.

You are correct, ldsfaq. Unrighteous dominion abounds over there. It is nice to see some defenders such as you and BC acknowlege that.

I moderated on MDD when it was still known as the FAIR board. I am the only moderator to be banned. Basically, the rule of MDD is, cross Juliann or Dan G, or both, and expect to be banned. One thing I will give them credit for, though, is that if you read their board rules, they admit up front that they will choose how to stack their deck.

And, yes, I agree with you that they don't really like the "human side" of things emphasized. You are shot down if you share a personal experience. I think that personal experiences are the most influential representatives of either side of the aisle.

They definitely play favorites, and anyone in their "clique" is allowed carte blanche.