Mister Scratch wrote: 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?
Yes, it would.
Here is what the Sticky thread announcing the new guidelines has to say:
If you indicate this [that it's a Faith Based thread], then the thread is off limits as far as being challenged or 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.
I take that to mean that if the OP suggests that Joseph Smith was a prophet, then that premise is to be taken as fact, and not challenged. What then, is considered a challenge? Anything that would challenge the OP's notion that Smith was a prophet? This new policy is just a can of worms, in my opinion, not to mention at odds with the stated purpose of the board.
Mister Scratch wrote: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?
Okay - I guess I'm not done with this thread.
I suppose my answer would be that under the currently contemplated rule, the answer to your questions could conceivably be "yes". It starts to get silly.
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)
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.
If a drive by is a fallacious attack it should be removed. There should be zero tolerance of fallacious attacks. No need to limit posters, just limit those posts where the poster has resorted fallacious ad homs.
Mister Scratch wrote: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?
Okay - I guess I'm not done with this thread.
I suppose my answer would be that under the currently contemplated rule, the answer to your questions could conceivably be "yes". It starts to get silly.
Well then, I going to have to agree that it would be very silly indeed. Still, however, I'm all up for this "noble experiment." Let's see if it succeeds in "luring" over any of the TBMs. (I kind of doubt that'll happen. On the other hand, I kind of suspect that, if the mods were to implement an RfM-style "no TBMs!" rule, we'd see swarms of trolling TBMs on a regular basis. Just a suspicion.....)
I think this was a good idea in theory, just not practical. If someone really wanted to post about matters of faith without argument, you think they would be here?
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.
Are you making the assumption that this board would benefit from more participation? Isn't it being a vehicle to skewer Mormons and religion in general, in a relaxed atmosphere enough?
Another thought: Dartagnan has suggested that one of the main motivating factors behind this suggested change is to bring over more TBM posters. Now, am I wrong, or is one of the underlying principles here that some topics (as far as TBMs are concerned) are "verboten"? If that's the case, why not just make a list of things critics cannot ever mention or discuss, and then prohibit them from mentioning them when talking with TBMs? Wouldn't that be easier that giving carte blanche, limit-wise, to each individual poster? I'd actually be kind of interested to see what sort of "off-limits" list we could generate---i.e., what sorts of things Wade, Coggins, juliann, Nehor, and so forth think that critics should never, ever be able to mention. We can pass along the list to MAD, so that folks know going in when they can expect to be reprimanded.
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.
KA
Rationalize the past however you wish (I didn't even mention your efforts to ban me from attending a gathering of board members last summer), and proceed now in whatever manner you desire, but either way, you can't excape the fact that your actions (like choosing not to respond to me now) essentially place me "off-limits" to you, disallow you from hearing my opposing views to your ex-testimonies, and effectively quash discussion between us, and are thus little different than what is being proposed for the Faith Based threads--about which you are ironically quite beside yourself. ;-)
wenglund wrote:Rationalize the past however you wish (I didn't even mention your efforts to ban me from attending a gathering of board members last summer), and proceed now in whatever manner you desire, but either way, you can't excape the fact that your actions (like choosing not to respond to me now) essentially place me "off-limits" to you, disallow you from hearing my opposing views to your ex-testimonies, and effectively quash discussion between us, and are thus little different than what is being proposed for the Faith Based threads--about which you are ironically quite beside yourself. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Don't be facile. An individual can determine how he or she behaves and who he or she chooses to interact with. There's a big difference between that and an across the board limitation on general participation.
Thanks, -Skippy the Dead-
eta - left off ending hyphen on pretentious signature
Last edited by Guest on Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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)
wenglund wrote:Rationalize the past however you wish (I didn't even mention your efforts to ban me from attending a gathering of board members last summer), and proceed now in whatever manner you desire, but either way, you can't excape the fact that your actions (like choosing not to respond to me now) essentially place me "off-limits" to you, disallow you from hearing my opposing views to your ex-testimonies, and effectively quash discussion between us, and are thus little different than what is being proposed for the Faith Based threads--about which you are ironically quite beside yourself. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Yes, and in an even further twist of irony, it was YOU, Wade, who lectured continually about how FAIR/MAD has every right to boot people out, limit debate, and manipulate the terms of discussion. So: do you or do you not support the Faith Based threads? ;-)