Calling Thayne, Can I Help With NOM?

[_Hagoth]

it cracks me up to hear, now, after the fact, how the moderating board changed and gave up on the ldsman's agenda and it was no longer a place for people to exist who were non-believing active Mormons. maybe that was a discussion or an idea. but ****. it ALWAYS had non-believers. it ALWAYS had transitioning people. it ALWAYS had people passing through and moving on and it ALWAYS had newbies.

what it did not have was this assholery pretentious condescending sickening moderating side forum and quorum that thought they had to protect these precious flowers that might stumble into NOM.

I came to NOM later than you did. I think I walked into the middle of the iron-fisted moderation you're talking about , but much of that seemed to have dissipated over the past couple of years. It became less church-friendly, sure, but it remained people-friendly. At least that's my observation. And yes, NOM had drifted from LDSman's dream of the middle way, but the moderation seemed to have mellowed a lot toward the end too, forces balancing out to something that was more realistic. I assume the change was because Thayne had either lost interest or felt that he had lost control. It's hard to say which, but it was probably why he ultimately let it die.

Whatever you feel about the whole thing, when NOM ended there were many people who were hurt and saddened to see it go. NOM had carved out a unique niche on the internet and it was the place of refuge for a subset of Mormons who needed that community.

I'm hoping the new incarnation that Red Ryder mentioned will keep the good stuff but not suffer from the issues that you find so distressing. As far as I'm concerned NOM was at its very best at the moment the ax fell. It was an incredible collective of intelligent, sincere, funny people and I hope to see them all back together again soon.

[_Mayan Elephant]

Whatever you feel about the whole thing, when NOM ended there were many people who were hurt and saddened to see it go. NOM had carved out a unique niche on the internet and it was the place of refuge for a subset of Mormons who needed that community.
.

i think it was always like this. i do not think that there was a moment, since inception, that would not have been sad and hurtful to turn off the lights.

hagoth, frankly, i think my respect and attachment to nom is as strong or stronger than yours. it is enormous. it wasn't always sustainable to participate there, but my affection for the place was never low. i was very disappointed how my friends were shown the door, but, we had other landing spots so it wasn't as big a deal as having the place turned off.

my feelings are pretty clear. thayne behaved poorly for a very very very long time. and he was unchallenged on that for too long and if there were any challenges they were not successful. the support of that bad behavior was a head-scratcher, and, as you point out, i was very vocal about it along the way. in the end, thayne chose to hurt people or make them sad. i will never ever understand why that inevitability was not a concern, but even if i did understand it, it would not change the current state - so all the best to a new better effort.

[_Mayan Elephant]

hagoth and ryder,

let me know when things are up and running. i moderate the New Order Mormons Facebook group. very loosely. moderate meaning, i could shut down if i wanted to - just kidding. but really, i am the moderator. there are some discussions about the demise of the original board there but not much is going on. it is a slow slow slow group, expected because there are real names not avatars. but it may help you reach out to a few others that are looking for information.

froggie is on there too and a few others from the old guard. some people have reached out to me but wont join a Facebook group for obvious reasons. i may be able to reach some of them too.

[_Hagoth]

hagoth and ryder,

let me know when things are up and running. i moderate the New Order Mormons Facebook group. very loosely. moderate meaning, i could shut down if i wanted to - just kidding.

but really, i am the moderator. there are some discussions about the demise of the original board there but not much is going on. it is a slow slow slow group, expected because there are real names not avatars. but it may help you reach out to a few others that are looking for information.

froggie is on there too and a few others from the old guard. some people have reached out to me but wont join a Facebook group for obvious reasons. i may be able to reach some of them too.

Thanks, ME. And thanks for helping me understand your position a little better. You tend to come in all guns a-blazin' and kind of catch people off guard.

[_alas]

Achilles has a point about us doing a post mortem on NOM. I have mixed feelings about it because some of what ME has said can be helpful for establishing a new world, like unto the old world where we used to live.

So, I am going to use my time toward what will help in the future. I won't name names or discuss things about things that I felt were wrong in the defunct NOM.

So, as the only person in this discussion with moderating experience for NOM, I will give my opinions for the things that may help the New NOM.

I do appreciate the feedback from ME on what he felt was wrong on NOM. Some I agree with, and some I am not sure of. For instance, I had no idea that Froggy or NannaP felt they were treated badly. They were both gone by the time I was moderating and I have no idea what happened. But, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE! In my humble opinion.

Personally, if someone is staying within guidelines, I think they should be able to decide when to move on, not the mods. NOM needs both the newbies and the old timers. It helps the newbies to know there is life after Mormonism and that all marriages to believers do not end in divorce. So, on our new NOM, (NNOM?) I hope old timers who stay within guidelines are welcome to stay. The ones who can't watch their language can get banned.

I mean, I am one of the old timers and I would not have appreciated being told to move on. But the old timers need to be supporting the ones who need it, not just making bitter comments. Not that some bitterness is against guidelines, but when it becomes nothing but bitterness then they detract.

Moderation needs to be consistent. There should not be some people who can say things while others can't. I saw that as a moderator and I confess, if six other moderators had already read it and they let it go, then I did too. I probably should not have.

Gotta get back to moving.

[_Amore]

It seems that there is a tendency in all of us to, well, speak from our own experience, and assume others have or at least could understand the same experience, but often that is not the case. It is truly a luxury to be understood.

Alas, thank you for your kindness and empathy. If I remember right, you have experience in counseling and it shows in how you often help others to know their feelings or thoughts are valid, even if you may not agree. I respect that.


Something several people have brought up that I strongly disagree with is that the middle way doesn't work. It's true that it is very hard and you often feel alone, but it can and does work. Despite not even believing in usual Christianity besides moving past Mormon doctrine, I go to church most Sundays STILL, after my faith crisis in 2009. I've had various callings. One bishop was cool about my beliefs evolving - another wasn't. At first, I struggled with boundaries, so when they were crossed, I told several people about how and why I could not say or do something they wanted. I'm still open, if need be, but I've learned to maintain boundaries better. Occassionally, I go to meet ups with NOMs or post-mos, which helps me feel a little less alone.

Really, most members are going the middle way - so many partly or completely "inactive" &/or taking what works for them & not worrying about the rest. And actually, taking religion in moderation was found to be the healthiest approach. A study sought to discover if religious involvement had any influence on physical healing. The 2 groups that did poorest were those who were not involved at all religiously and those excessively religiously involved. Those who did best were those moderately religiously involved.

[_alas]

I was always curious what went on with the moderators. How did Thayne decide who to pick? Was there a pool of volunteers?

Any insider scoops into the world of board moderation would be fascinating.

Someone would recommend someone for a new moderator and the other moderators would give their thoughts as to whether the person would be a good moderator. Sometimes there was discussion, pros and cons. Other times everyone just said yes. Then Thayne would give them moderation rights.

But toward the end, it got frustrating. We would agree that someone would be good, and then nothing. Thayne didn't give them moderating powers or say no to them. It just disappeared into cyber space. Or he would put someone in as a moderator and we found out when they caused a ruckus by jumping in moderating people before they knew what they were doing, and before anyone even knew they were a moderator. And the moderators dropped out one by one, without anyone new being called. After a while, fh451 and I were the only moderators still posting, and it was too much for two people.

Again, I don't want to do too much post mortem. But there needs to be several people with the power to ban trolls and trouble makers, call new moderators, and fix things when we get hacked. They need more computer skills than I have, and they need to be active posters.

[_alas]

Oh, and my description of NOM that ME objected to......yeah, that was the ideal that some of us were aiming for. NOM didn't always live up to that.

So, how are we going to do it to avoid certain pitfalls?

[_Hagoth]

Oh, and my description of NOM that ME objected to......yeah, that was the ideal that some of us were aiming for. NOM didn't always live up to that.

So, how are we going to do it to avoid certain pitfalls?

Hand it over to the correlation committee!

[_Mayan Elephant]

there needs to be several people with the power to ban trolls and trouble makers, call new moderators, and fix things when we get hacked. They need more computer skills than I have, and they need to be active posters.

temperament is a more relevant quality than the some of these things.

i am curious when it got down to two moderators. that is very very curious.

when i set up the Facebook group it was a specific response to a specific threat by thayne to just turn the board off if anyone caused him any grief. he always had that in his pocket and some time ago he made that suggestion. i am curious what was the trend line among moderators' activity. was the reduction more recent than a year or so ago when nom was breaking apart?

i would consider this board a good model for successful moderation. in fact, i would call it a great model.

set the boundaries at the get-go. trust the group. honestly, alas, again, with respect for what you have done, the moderating over there was too complicated.

keep it simple:


no trolling by TBMs
no use of naughty words
no use of personal information of non-public individuals, including names.
no classified ads
don't be a dick.

all those wanker ass rules over there about the word cult and pedophile and blather whining whatever. good lord. it is too much. who cares if people disagree and a thread goes on, so what. eventually, the board polices itself. the more the moderators dictate what is an acceptable thread length and what opinions are valid and who is angry and who is nice and who is experienced enough to say something and who might cry and who is sensitive - the less the board will host real dialogue. good Jesus baby in a barn, it is too damn much. any moderator that thinks A - that kind of moderation is reasonable and B - that level of moderation is feasible, is probably a nutcase.

don't take this personal, but if that board comes back, it really should be without a single repeat of those moderators. not after they shut the damn thing down like that.