If I had my way I wouldn't allow ad homs in the Celestial, the offender posts should be removed. The answer when someone in a thread dishes out ad homs is not to move the thread to an area where they are specifically allowed. Right now there is not much if any difference between Celestial and Terrestial. I just don't think it is worth taking a thread seriously and devoting lots of time, if it is going to deteriorate into off topic attacks.
Amen to that. In fact I would take it a step further and preclude certain posters from stepping foot in the celestial. In my opinion, some have to earn the right to be taken seriously, especially those who have established track records of drivebys.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Imwashingmypirate wrote:So it's like a mini MADb. LOL. Cool. That's kinda like having a mini market. Heehehehe. Great so now there are gonna be comments from celestial posts everywhere in the other forums?
The purpose of the new policy is to encourage members to engage in a different form of discussion. It is perhaps also to attract more posters or lurkers to the forum that may not be so inclined with the current policy. Most likely, the board is looking to expand its horizons and that would also be a wonderful thing for the board.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
dartagnan wrote:Amen to that. In fact I would take it a step further and preclude certain posters from stepping foot in the celestial. In my opinion, some have to earn the right to be taken seriously, especially those who have established track records of drivebys.
Oh - maybe we can have prospective celestial posters submit their credentials and an essay to a committee of self-appointed judges to be evaluated before being allowed to set foot in the celestial forum. And there should be a measurement for ego, self-importance pomposity, to make sure that those posters are properly qualified. And then we should put a double-secret password on it, to keep the riff-raff (e.g., me) out.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Scottie wrote: Do you know how boring it is to have to re-debate the existence of God all the time?
Amen to that. The Celestial forum could possibly be a thriving place otherwise. With non-bullying moderation policies, this place has the potential to be way more attractive than MAD. It just seems to keep hobbling itself by equating fair and equanimious moderating with no moderating at all. Keep the place respectable, the water flowing and the outhouses clean and the campers will come.
dartagnan wrote:Amen to that. In fact I would take it a step further and preclude certain posters from stepping foot in the celestial. In my opinion, some have to earn the right to be taken seriously, especially those who have established track records of drivebys.
Oh - maybe we can have prospective celestial posters submit their credentials and an essay to a committee of self-appointed judges to be evaluated before being allowed to set foot in the celestial forum. And there should be a measurement for ego, self-importance pomposity, to make sure that those posters are properly qualified. And then we should put a double-secret password on it, to keep the riff-raff (e.g., me) out.
I know! We could use the above process described by Skippy to cull from the board only the most worthy posters for a new forum: The Holy of Holies! The folks there could congratulate one another on their worthiness and intelligence whilst the rest of us hoi polloi remain at a respectable distance. Their forum could remain unsullied by dissent or contrary opinion.
Oh, and they should have a secret password accompanied by a secret handshake for admittance. ;)
KimberlyAnn wrote:There is a new feature in the Celestial Kingdom which I feel is antithetical to the purpose of this board. Take notice of the new sticky announcing the creation of "Faith Based" threads. "Faith Based" threads may now be made in the Celestial forum which will not allow for contradictory views. Follows a direct quote culled from the sticky atop this forum page:
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 being challenged or derailed. [bold mine]
Never did I imagine opposing views wouldn't be allowed on this board! We can all agree that it is sometimes frustrating when threads become derailed. And, yes, the Celestial forum should be free of personal attack and vulgarity, but to make challenging views "off-limits"? That effectively quashes discussion! If one wants nothing more than a back-patting session, those can be found on other boards. Like MADB.
I would like to strongly voice my opposition to the new "Faith Based" board rule. It is in direct opposition to the stated purposes of this board.
Kimberly Ann
I have, in the not-too-distant-past, had at least one participants here demand that I not post responses to her or participate in threads that she has innitiated. I have also had participants strenously and repeatedly suggest that I be ignored.
I am not sure how such demands and suggestions have been any less antithetical to the purpose of this board or any less effective in quashing discussions with me and to some degree making my opposing and challenging views "off-limits", than what is being proposed for Faith Based thread.
Yet, ironically, look whose pretending that discussions haven't been squashed here and who is all up in arms about the Faith Based thing? Yes--the very person who attempted, in not dissimilar ways, to disallow my opposing view as she bears her ex-testimony. ;-)
Can we say: "double standard?"
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by Gadianton on Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dartagnan wrote:Amen to that. In fact I would take it a step further and preclude certain posters from stepping foot in the celestial. In my opinion, some have to earn the right to be taken seriously, especially those who have established track records of drivebys.
Oh - maybe we can have prospective celestial posters submit their credentials and an essay to a committee of self-appointed judges to be evaluated before being allowed to set foot in the celestial forum. And there should be a measurement for ego, self-importance pomposity, to make sure that those posters are properly qualified. And then we should put a double-secret password on it, to keep the riff-raff (e.g., me) out.
I know! We could use the above process described by Skippy to cull from the board only the most worthy posters for a new forum: The Holy of Holies! The folks there could congratulate one another on their worthiness and intelligence whilst the rest of us hoi polloi remain at a respectable distance. Their forum could remain unsullied by dissent or contrary opinion.
Oh, and they should have a secret password accompanied by a secret handshake for admittance. ;)
KA
Calm down. Nobody but Dart is advocating this.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
dartagnan wrote:Amen to that. In fact I would take it a step further and preclude certain posters from stepping foot in the celestial. In my opinion, some have to earn the right to be taken seriously, especially those who have established track records of drivebys.
Oh - maybe we can have prospective celestial posters submit their credentials and an essay to a committee of self-appointed judges to be evaluated before being allowed to set foot in the celestial forum. And there should be a measurement for ego, self-importance pomposity, to make sure that those posters are properly qualified. And then we should put a double-secret password on it, to keep the riff-raff (e.g., me) out.
I know! We could use the above process described by Skippy to cull from the board only the most worthy posters for a new forum: The Holy of Holies! The folks there could congratulate one another on their worthiness and intelligence whilst the rest of us hoi polloi remain at a respectable distance. Their forum could remain unsullied by dissent or contrary opinion.
Oh, and they should have a secret password accompanied by a secret handshake for admittance. ;)
KA
Calm down. Nobody but Dart is advocating this.
We're not being serious. But you have to admit - Dart's next step is quite illustrative of the reasonings behind his position on this. It would seem he wants an elitist forum that only allows certain people to have certain viewpoints.
I think I've spent enough time on this anyways. Apparently the underlying principle is unimportant, and the decision has been made.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
KimberlyAnn wrote:There is a new feature in the Celestial Kingdom which I feel is antithetical to the purpose of this board. Take notice of the new sticky announcing the creation of "Faith Based" threads. "Faith Based" threads may now be made in the Celestial forum which will not allow for contradictory views. Follows a direct quote culled from the sticky atop this forum page:
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 being challenged or derailed. [bold mine]
Never did I imagine opposing views wouldn't be allowed on this board! We can all agree that it is sometimes frustrating when threads become derailed. And, yes, the Celestial forum should be free of personal attack and vulgarity, but to make challenging views "off-limits"? That effectively quashes discussion! If one wants nothing more than a back-patting session, those can be found on other boards. Like MADB.
I would like to strongly voice my opposition to the new "Faith Based" board rule. It is in direct opposition to the stated purposes of this board.
Kimberly Ann
I have, in the not-too-distant-past, had at least one participants here demand that I not post responses to her or participate in threads that she has innitiated. I have also had participants strenously and repeatedly suggest that I be ignored.
I am not sure how such demands and suggestions have been any less antithetical to the purpose of this board or any less effective in quashing discussions with me and to some degree making my opposing and challenging views "off-limits", than what is being proposed for Faith Based thread.
Yet, ironically, look whose pretending that discussions haven't been squashed here and who is all up in arms about the Faith Based thing? Yes--the very person who attempted, in not dissimilar ways, to disallow my opposing view as she bears her ex-testimony. ;-)
Can we say: "double standard?"
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I only asked that you keep your word to stay off my threads, Wade. You are the one who originally said you were going to leave me be, but then you continued to post on my threads. Even now, after your return to the board, you posted on my thread "Where is the Joy in Mormonism" first. No one stopped you. And, no one stopped you from posting on this one.
Immediately prior to your leaving the board this last time, you attempted to goad me into a conversation with you, but failed. I wasn't about to air all my grievances against you then, and I won't now. I'm finished with you on this thread. Keep posting if you choose. No one will stop you. But, I'm not responding.
Okay, wow. What a thread. On the one hand, I can relate to what Skippy and KA have been saying---i.e., that this move seems to contradict the "spirit of the board." On the other hand, I can't really see how giving this thing a "trial run" will hurt anything. I guess, in the end, I agree primarily with Dartagnan, however, I kind of question the notion that special amendments need to be made in order to "make Mormons feel welcome." This just sounds a trifle bit odd to me, and it recalls the whole mass exodus from ZLMB. In other words, I've long been under the impression that TBMs are uninterested in open debate and/or discussion unless they can completely control the terms thereof. Was not this the underlying rationale for FAIR/MAD?
That said, I can't see the harm in allowing (as was allowed before) one-on-one "sticky" debates, such as the Dart/Bokovoy thread. This will affect me personally, as a poster, in no way whatsoever. I tend to be more interested in Mopologetics than the sort of heady theology that Dart & et. al. frequently discuss. Thus, I can still engage in the debates and discussions which interest me, and those who are interested in a metaphysical discussion on whether or not the Bible proves that God has a physical phallus can do so without having to put up with noise from "one-liner" posters, or anybody else.
I suppose that I wonder a bit about the whole "faith-based" limiting device. What does this mean, exactly? I understand how some (e.g., Dartagnan) might want to launch threads in which it is a foregone conclusion that, say, God exists... But will this be applicable to other subjects? For example, would we expect threads considering the prophethood of Joseph Smith in which posters are prohibited from mentioning, say, polygamy, or stone-gazing?