MAD declares SUCCESS

[_Sethbag]

Nah, Bond, you need some Arrogant Bastard Ale. ;-)

[_gramps]

Nah, Bond, you need some Arrogant Bastard Ale. ;-)

Gosh, that looks delicious. Simply delicious. Hard to get a nice looking and tasting ale here in Germany.

[_why me]

Are the chances of keeping "anchor" posters greater if they aren't subjected to constant rudeness and insults?

From the Mopologetic Dictionary:

"Constant Rudeness and Insults" (n.) 1. Politely requesting clarification of one or more of Mormonism's teachings. 2. Respectfully disagreeing with one or more of Mormonism's doctrines. 3. Tactfully expressing variance with a MA&D poster's point-of-view.

I would agree with this definition. Now if some of the critics on this board would have had such an attitude some would still be at MAD today. What I have noticed is that those critics who pretended to show respect over there at MAD are now actually showing their true colors here. And that is interesting. However, I still like the critics here...even PP and Vegas and all the new people from the Saltlaketrib sight. Everyone seems to have an interesting personlity and it doe not matter if they have negative attitudes toward an organization that is basically good.

They seem to be good humans, nonetheless. :=)

[_beastie]

I would agree with this definition. Now if some of the critics on this board would have had such an attitude some would still be at MAD today. What I have noticed is that those critics who pretended to show respect over there at MAD are now actually showing their true colors here. And that is interesting. However, I still like the critics here...even PP and Vegas and all the new people from the Saltlaketrib sight. Everyone seems to have an interesting personlity and it doe not matter if they have negative attitudes toward an organization that is basically good.

They seem to be good humans, nonetheless. :=)

In determining people's "true colors", I hope you make the distinction between negative attitudes towards the church and negative attitudes towards MAD and how it is run.

I don't have a problem with a board that requires certain behavior from its participants. I have a problem with a board that requires one set of behavior from one set of participants, and a different set of behavior from a different set of participants.

Could it have been made any more clear in this post from Orpheus?

No matter. I have concluded that, with some few exceptions, interactions between LDS and exLDS are hopeless and doomed from the get-go, so it's all good. It's all just entertainment now.

[_gramps]

This latest soap opera at MAD has convinced me that one of the most significant problems facing LDS apologetics is the very fact that it apparently needs a biased climate to survive at all. It's reflected in the entire Z/FAIR/MAD history, as well as the insulated nature of FARMs apologia.

Aside from the weak specific arguments, this reality seems very damning.

Exactly!

[_harmony]

Are the chances of keeping "anchor" posters greater if they aren't subjected to constant rudeness and insults?

From the Mopologetic Dictionary:

"Constant Rudeness and Insults" (n.) 1. Politely requesting clarification of one or more of Mormonism's teachings. 2. Respectfully disagreeing with one or more of Mormonism's doctrines. 3. Tactfully expressing variance with a MA&D poster's point-of-view.

I would agree with this definition. Now if some of the critics on this board would have had such an attitude some would still be at MAD today. What I have noticed is that those critics who pretended to show respect over there at MAD are now actually showing their true colors here. And that is interesting. However, I still like the critics here...even PP and Vegas and all the new people from the Saltlaketrib sight. Everyone seems to have an interesting personlity and it doe not matter if they have negative attitudes toward an organization that is basically good.

Why should MAD's rules be still adhered to here, where the rules are different? Why would someone get banned from MAD for something they said here, when that something didn't break the rules here?

I'm trying to understand your "true colors" comment, and I fail to see the connection.

They seem to be good humans, nonetheless. :=)

Well, that's something. I'm not sure most apologists consider the critics to be good humans.

[_Jersey Girl]

Just a little clue here, folks. When the participants start talking about how to keep posters, they're losing them. They're thisclose to talking about a supposed "Golden Age". Need evidence? Just look at Jan's post there.

What "mean spirited" anti's are they talking about? Are they trying to give the appearance that anti's are to blame for the deterioration of that board? Is this another ZLMB in the making? Please stay tuned.

So, what I'm getting is this...

UTLMB was over taken by the opposition so the TBM's left and created ZLMB
ZLMB was over taken by the opposition so the TBM's left and went to FAIR
FAIR/MAD has now purged itself of the opposition and....

Lawdy Miss Clawdy! They're all coming here and along with them, some great FAIR/MAD TBM posters.

Can you say "win-win"?

Jersey Girl

[_gramps]

<snip>

Lawdy Miss Clawdy! They're all coming here and along with them, some great FAIR/MAD TBM posters.

Can you say "win-win"?

Jersey Girl

I sure hope their best ones come here, like Hammer, et. al.

[_beastie]

Just a minor correction, Jersey Girl -

UTLMB wasn't "taken over" by the opposition - it was a board created for EVs. I came on the scene after its demise, so I'm not sure how it was designed (I think RichardMD knows about it) so I can't say if it was supposed to allow LDS "defense of the faith" or if the LDS just decided to start posting there. The LDS were upset at the unfair, biased moderation (which I believe Richard has explained was the action of one moderator, webguy or something like that) so they created ZLMB, which was specifically supposed to have neutral moderation. No weighted dice, no handicaps - just the strength of the argument would hold sway. ZLMB tried to have very specific rules so moderators could make rulings without being overly subjective, which could result in unintended bias. Certain posters, like Pahoran, learned to "fly under the radar" and violate the spirit of the law while keeping the letter, so moderators had to expand their rules a bit to allow for that. It was very difficult being a moderator at Z since it was known we tried to be unbiased, posters on both sides were constantly looking for signs of bias.

What "mean spirited" anti's are they talking about? Are they trying to give the appearance that anti's are to blame for the deterioration of that board? Is this another ZLMB in the making? Please stay tuned.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do. Juliann, as always, sets a great example in that. She has consistently claimed that ZLMB was ruined by the behavior of critics. This is simply false. I'm sure she believes her own story, however, but any moderator from Z KNOWS that believers were often more problematic than critics. Juliann, of course, doesn't think this "counts" because believers are being provoked, I suppose by the sheer existence of critics who are willing and eager to point out the innumerable problems within LDS belief. She flat out admitted this is her attitude on Z. (if I have time and and in the mood to deal with Z's horrific search engine, I may be able to find the thread in which she admitted this.) So I think MAD has been "infected" with this attitude. The poor, beleaguered LDS sometimes behave poorly but it's understandable, their most cherished beliefs are under constant attack. As I've said too many times to count, if LDS can't handle their cherished beliefs being constantly attacked, they ought to have enough sense to stick to fellowship boards - but LDS don't want to appear "chicken". They want to present the case that LDS apologetics is actually quite strong and able to successfully refute critic's assertions, so they have to be willing to face the critics. Sadly for the apologists, they are defending what to any outsider is clearly a bundle of nonsensical, magical claims that have no serious evidence. So they are in a tough spot.

This is why I suggested that the only way to keep believers really happy, which clearly the MAD mods want to do, is for the MAD mods to create a staff of critic sock puppets, through which they can regurgitate inane arguments that apologists can feel good about refuting. It could be kind of a matrix type thing - the believers don't have to know they are living a staged fantasy, designed to keep them happy and feeling successful. It really is the only solution.

[_moksha]

Orpheus

Where is the line between that and keeping compelling discusions going? Posting stats have gone up after many of the predatory posters were shown the door, by the way. Some people think the more controversy the more activity but post stats have gone up since mean spirited anti-LDS posters were shown the door after the board change.

Thoughts from our LDSers?

There is undoubtedly a market niche for a board that has one sided apologetics, presented in a droll but substantive manner. Make it as bland as possible. Sprinkle it with sugar and mark it with a J and put it on the internet for the Bishop and me.

Can you hear this answer from over there?