Jersey Girl wrote:Um....Tal Bachman is now being accused of trolling the MAD board by Orpheus whom, unless I am mistaken, told him to enter a specific thread and he has. The thread in question appears to be about a podcast that Tal either made or participated in. He has entered the thread as directed and now he's being accused of lack of substance or some such thing...and the topic of the thread are his comments on the podcast.
I'm confused...
Having said that, I give it less than 48 hours before he's banned entirely.
Jersey Girl
They're setting up the reasoning for when they ban Tal, which will probably happen in the next few days (or whenever Tal makes another post with any type of sarcasm/humor/smart-aleck remark) I seriously didn't think he'd last the night, but he must have been slacking off.
It doesn't matter what he says, they're going to ban him. Just a matter of time.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Jersey Girl wrote:Um....Tal Bachman is now being accused of trolling the MAD board by Orpheus whom, unless I am mistaken, told him to enter a specific thread and he has. The thread in question appears to be about a podcast that Tal either made or participated in. He has entered the thread as directed and now he's being accused of lack of substance or some such thing...and the topic of the thread are his comments on the podcast.
I'm confused...
Having said that, I give it less than 48 hours before he's banned entirely.
Jersey Girl
They're setting up the reasoning for when they ban Tal, which will probably happen in the next few days (or whenever Tal makes another post with any type of sarcasm/humor/smart-aleck remark) I seriously didn't think he'd last the night, but he must have been slacking off.
It doesn't matter what he says, they're going to ban him. Just a matter of time.
I agree with you 007, this is an example of the behavior patterns I mentioned just previously. I agree with the moderators who first identified two (?) of Tal's threads as "personal" but the remainder, so far as I can tell, are not personalized threads. Certainly, his posting on a thread that was created to address his own comments on a podcast, and posting there as directed by a moderator...isn't a bannable offense. Unless of course you function in bizzaroland.
A series of similar events took place when Bob McCue posted on the then "FAIR" board.
If you look over those threads, you can see that many posters are willing to dialogue with Tal and then the moderator steps in to admonish him. How do they justify their admonishments in light of the number of posters who are attempting to engage him?
Jersey Girl wrote:If you look over those threads, you can see that many posters are willing to dialogue with Tal and then the moderator steps in to admonish him. How do they justify their admonishments in light of the number of posters who are attempting to engage him?
Just muttering to myself, Jersey Girl
I don't see how they're not going to ban him (or didn't ban him immediately upon showing up). Pretty much everyone knows who Tal Bachman is if they've spent any time looking at internet LDS apologetics, and they know that he has written very negatively about DCP and FAIR/MAD and the LDS faith and doctrine. It just seems obvious that after all the things he's said about them that they wouldn't ban him immediately to prove that "he can talk about us, but not in our living room".
Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Jersey Girl wrote:If you look over those threads, you can see that many posters are willing to dialogue with Tal and then the moderator steps in to admonish him. How do they justify their admonishments in light of the number of posters who are attempting to engage him?
Just muttering to myself, Jersey Girl
I don't see how they're not going to ban him (or didn't ban him immediately upon showing up). Pretty much everyone knows who Tal Bachman is if they've spent any time looking at internet LDS apologetics, and they know that he has written very negatively about DCP and FAIR/MAD and the LDS faith and doctrine. It just seems obvious that after all the things he's said about them that they wouldn't ban him immediately to prove that "he can talk about us, but not in our living room".
The part I bolded, I hadn't really thought of it in that way. When McCue started posting on there, I observed it from the onset. He was mentioned several times and as I recall, it was Daniel who said he was welcome to post on there and when he showed up, it was quite predictable. Threads started being locked down left and right. The length of his posts was criticized (compare that to the response Tal is getting), Daniel was suddenly too busy to engage, but I don't think that Bob was ever banned.
Jersey Girl wrote:Brackite, you say: Anyway, Tal Bachman member status is now 'Members Ltd.', which means he cannot start anymore more new Discussion Threads anymore over there.
I'm not familiar with "Members Ltd." status. He can't start anymore threads at all? Ever? Is there a place on the board where it describes these statuses and their meanings?
Jersey Girl
Hi Jersey Girl,
Yes, that is correct that Tal Bachman can't start anymore threads at all over there. He can still Post in a Thread that another Poster Posted and started over there, but Tal can't anymore start any threads at all over there.
Jersey Girl wrote:Brackite, you say: Anyway, Tal Bachman member status is now 'Members Ltd.', which means he cannot start anymore more new Discussion Threads anymore over there.
I'm not familiar with "Members Ltd." status. He can't start anymore threads at all? Ever? Is there a place on the board where it describes these statuses and their meanings?
Jersey Girl
Hi Jersey Girl,
Yes, that is correct that Tal Bachman can't start anymore threads at all over there. He can still Post in a Thread that another Poster Posted and started over there, but Tal can't anymore start any threads at all over there.
That's really too bad that they've chosen to limit him in that way. I strongly suspect that's the last step just prior to them showing him the way out. This kind of stuff is the reason I stopped posting there, the behavior on the part of the moderation team is contrived nonsense.
Hi. First post here. I recognize some of the board names. Good to see people around.
I guess I'm particularly slow-witted on one particular point. Maybe someone with more experience on the FAIR/newFAIR board can clue me in. I seriously don't get the "personalized thread" concept. I've asked for clarification and didn't get enough specifics to get it through my head. Is it that you can't direct a post at a specific poster by name or even innuendo? Is it that you can't discuss another poster, just their comments? (Unless they are "a public person"?) I have tried to be observant and see what that's about but I am missing the point badly on it. I'd appreciate any clarification.
I didn't see all those threads there that you have mentioned. I did see a mod advising Tal to start threads with "substance" but now it appears that is not an option for him. If you are confined to just responding on existing posts and can't "derail" by going tangential, it definitely shuts you down in a big way. Maybe that's what they are trying to do. Maybe I'm laughably naïve but from what I've seen in his posts I find Tal to be upfront and open and quite casual with a quirky sense of humour that not everybody gets and I really don't think he meant any harm at all in going there and trying to engage (although it can't be denied that he has at times made comments that some people would undoubtedly find very offensive). I thought maybe forgive and forget might apply but I guess not. I can see how DCP etc wouldn't want to interact with him but the whole board? That's really too bad.
I was quite surprised to see how defensive many posters there seem to feel and I haven't got used to it yet. Maybe they feel under constant attack? If so, that makes it somewhat more understandable. Unfortunately, it can lead to terrible communication and misunderstandings that would be impossible to sort out. In this particular case, I can quite relate to Tal's seeming confusion about what he was being directed to do. I have felt quite confused there myself. I think it takes some getting used to when it's such a different environment as a new non-Mormon poster. Maybe being so familiar with their own environment they don't extend newbies any leeway for that. (I felt that way in the church too). Also, perhaps some posters there read more into things than you intend or realize. If they assume that as a non-Mormon you are automatically "anti" I guess that explains some of the difficult dynamics. I find the subject matter of interest but don't as yet feel very comfortable posting there, mostly because of that I think. I guess I'm nervous that I might put my foot in it unwittingly and give a bad impression or fail to communicate well. (The impression part is important because I would like to continue to have the choice to participate there). I also don't enjoy getting an earful from a mod. Maybe you get used to that at some point?
Is there a limit on how many threads of yours they can lock before they decide you're a royal pain? Because I've had quite a few locked already and I have only made 50 or so posts so far. Maybe my first mistake was mentioning "Tal" or "Bob" but they're kind of on my radar as I'm Canadian too. Maybe that's why it is confusing to us there, lol? Like, (eek, cancel that word whisker!) the interview approach Tal obviously enjoys. To some of those posters and mods it apparently seems very strange. To Tal it's just a natural part of his day. There's nothing sinister in that at his end, I'm sure. But it didn't seem to fly.
I've just started reading this board in the past week. I'm interested in analyzing board dynamics too. Does that make me one of the "obsessed" ones? :)
I think I read here that participating here gets you the long walk off a short pier at MA&D. Is that true? They seem somewhat more reasonable to me than that. But I'm often wrong. I hope not though.
As silly as this may sound, Tal's subject "My topic is communication", could be considered personalised. If he had eliminated the "MY", it may have been different, and if he had just written "Communication", and left the thread open as a general subject, he might have gotten away with it. Any focus on the individual is discouraged, and "my" is a personal pronoun. They discourage individuals starting threads that focus on them, but some have been allowed personal threads, for example, when Rhinomelon got engaged (If I recall correctly) he was allowed to start a personal thread, which was very benign. Someone can start a thread on Daniel Peterson (who is a public figure), but if Daniel Peterson starts a thread on himself, it could be locked.
Thanks for the concise explanation. What is the reason for this rule, do you know? I think the more I understand about it the less nervous I will feel, maybe. (Do you find it confusing at all?)
I meant to thank you over there for your positive comments about me a while back. Nobody has ever called me "not the village idiot" before!! :)