The New Message Board Thread On The MA&D Board

[_Brackite]

Here is a Post from Juliann ((who was also formally known as Dunamis the Moderator) in response to another Poster there, on Page #2 of that Discussion Thread:

QUOTE(Hawkmoon @ Dec 3 2006, 12:25 PM)

By divesting itself from the mb my fear is that they (Apologists/Scholars) will begin to fade away... no longer feeling the need to truly participate. If that happens, and this mb turns into ZLMB, Mormon Discussions, Mormon Think Tank, et al—

ZLMB used to have as much high end (maybe more) posters than this board. Their problem was that they had such a cumbersome rule system that the antis quickly figured out how to push it to the limit without breaking a rule until the Mormons got disgusted with the continual abuse and left. This board was pretty dead. When I had had enough I got moderators here and LDS started coming here one by one. That is why I started FAIR with the "no rules" policy, if a poster of any stripe adds to the board s/he stays, if he doesn't s/he leaves. DanG has been even tougher on the posters who do nothing but poke at Mormons and I think it has improved the tone. Only a certain subset of LDS use message boards anyway because they are treated like ducks in a shooting gallery by the antis that come in. From what I have seen...the determining factor as to LDS staying is how much target shooting management allows. DanG isn't allowing that at all. Snipers have been thrown out quite quickly and I'm sure that will continue.

Wow! I guess it is a good thing that they have that jerk Dan G. taking over as the Moderating Head at the MA&D Board, (formally called the 'FAIR' Message Board).

[_beastie]

The irony of Juliann's comments is that, during my time as moderator, the BELIEVERS were every bit as much of a problem as nonbelievers. Moreover, certain believers were the most problematic posters out of anyone, particularly in terms of "flying under the radar". Juliann didn't like the moderation at Z, all right. We moderated just on the basis of behavior, and not status as believer.

Juliann, I'm sure no one will be surprised to learn, was a problematic poster as well. She posted with the same snide derision and propensity to derail that she displayed on FAIR. It was inevitable she take part in creating some board with her own version of moderating - it was the only way to find a board that would stand her behavior.

I consider Juliann's statement an outright lie, and am disappointed that no former moderators challenged her version of history. But I guess that is too much to ask of fellow believers and personal friends.

[_Runtu]

The irony of Juliann's comments is that, during my time as moderator, the BELIEVERS were every bit as much of a problem as nonbelievers. Moreover, certain believers were the most problematic posters out of anyone, particularly in terms of "flying under the radar". Juliann didn't like the moderation at Z, all right. We moderated just on the basis of behavior, and not status as believer.

Juliann, I'm sure no one will be surprised to learn, was a problematic poster as well. She posted with the same snide derision and propensity to derail that she displayed on FAIR. It was inevitable she take part in creating some board with her own version of moderating - it was the only way to find a board that would stand her behavior.

I consider Juliann's statement an outright lie, and am disappointed that no former moderators challenged her version of history. But I guess that is too much to ask of fellow believers and personal friends.

The funniest thing that happened to me on FAIR:

When I was a believer, I was always chiding people for getting personal instead of dealing with the issues. I was publicly praised for my evenhandedness and kind demeanor.

I went back later as a critic, and at one point I chided a couple of people for the same kind of personal nastiness. I got an official warning from "Dunamis" for being a "board nanny" and "scold" and was told that if I did it again, I'd be placed on the queue.

Really, the critics there have to tread much more carefully than the believers, lest they bring down the wrath of the mods.

[_moksha]

Here is a Post from Juliann (who was also formally known as Dunamis the Moderator) in response to another Poster there, on Page #2 of that Discussion Thread:

Only a certain subset of LDS use message boards anyway because they are treated like ducks in a shooting gallery by the antis that come in. From what I have seen...the determining factor as to LDS staying is how much target shooting management allows. DanG isn't allowing that at all. Snipers have been thrown out quite quickly and I'm sure that will continue.

So if you plunk at them one joke at a time, do they eventually lose their buoyancy? DanG as a Game Warden, eh?

[_beastie]

So a message board is created that invites critics, but when critics criticize they're "sniping" and risk being booted out the door?

There is a serious disconnect from reality going on there. The problem isn't that critics criticize, but rather that the apologetic response is usually so weak and often relies on ad hom. I have zero doubt that if apologists were able to provide clear, strong rebuttals they would not require such protection - in fact, they would welcome "sniping", because it would be just another opportunity for the brute strength of the "true gospel" to be demonstrated.

[_Yoda]

So a message board is created that invites critics, but when critics criticize they're "sniping" and risk being booted out the door?

There is a serious disconnect from reality going on there. The problem isn't that critics criticize, but rather that the apologetic response is usually so weak and often relies on ad hom. I have zero doubt that if apologists were able to provide clear, strong rebuttals they would not require such protection - in fact, they would welcome "sniping", because it would be just another opportunity for the brute strength of the "true gospel" to be demonstrated.

Further irony is that, in the short time I was a Moderator for the old FAIRboards, apologists' sniping was a much larger problem than critics' sniping. This was also something I noticed as a poster. When I tried to make a more even playing field, I was often chided by the other Mods if I got after an LDS poster for the same type of negative behavior that had either qued or banned a critic.

Also....as an FYI....I posted this in its' entirety on another thread, but on the FAIR website, Scott Gordon has stated that the Message Board link, both old and new, will eventually be completely removed. They are leaving it up for a short period of time. Here is his statement:

At this point all decisions and management have been given over to the new Mormon Apologetic & Discussion Board management team. In the very near future the old URL for the message boards (http://www.fairboards.org) will be retired, so you will want to update your bookmarks for the new URL, noted above. FAIR will maintain a hands-off policy and does not endorse the actions nor the posts on this new message board. Those who currently post on the FAIR message boards won't need to do anything differently, other than create a bookmark on their computer to the new URL. For a short time we will continue to have a pointer from the FAIR Web site, but after a reasonable amount of time has passed, we will be removing the link.
--Scott Gordon
President

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So a message board is created that invites critics, but when critics criticize they're "sniping" and risk being booted out the door?

There is a serious disconnect from reality going on there. The problem isn't that critics criticize, but rather that the apologetic response is usually so weak and often relies on ad hom. I have zero doubt that if apologists were able to provide clear, strong rebuttals they would not require such protection - in fact, they would welcome "sniping", because it would be just another opportunity for the brute strength of the "true gospel" to be demonstrated.

The glory days of FAIR are over (and have been for some time); I believe it will eventually go the way of ZLMB. But at least we have this bb! Thanks, good Dr.!

[_beastie]

I'm pretty certain I saved some old examples of Juliann's exemplar behavior on Z. Perhaps if I have time later tonight I can locate the file. (snicker)

[_Dr. Shades]

The glory days of FAIR are over (and have been for some time); I believe it will eventually go the way of ZLMB. But at least we have this bb! Thanks, good Dr.!

You're certainly welcome! I hope this BB is--or evolves to the point that it becomes--what people expect from a message board.

[_moksha]

Well, not having a message board will seriously decrease traffic at FAIR. Of course, they have made repeated statements that FAIR itself is not connected to the LDS Church, much like Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbus are not connected to the Catholic Church.