New Faith-Based Threads Rule = Mormon NON-Discussions Board

[_skippy the dead]

You guys are SOOO over reacting to what is a minimal change!!

You are SOOO missing the fact that this "minimal change" is a rather significant change in the philosophy of this board. I'm weary of repeating myself - check out my millions of posts above on this thread.

[_dartagnan]

Go with your previous thought - dartagnan's professed overload on trying to defend god is no reason to be of two minds. He has no divine mandate to address every anti-god post on the board. He can ignore whatever he wants.

I highly doubt that is what Shades was referring to.

If you want to run a "Mormon" forum you have to take minimal measure to make sure Mormons are welcomed. just saying they are welcome has proven to be empty rhetoric - time has proved that few of them actually believe it, and for good reason.

These measures were probably considered for the purpose of making Mormons feel more comfortable here. You guys talk up a storm about wanting discussion, but the people complaining here are not generally the ones who do the leg work. Skippy, Kim, Pirate, infymus, etc., no offense, but I haven't seen any of you guys doing much of anything, aside from the occasional pithy comment, in a long ass time - if ever. Yet, the mods talk about a possible policy change regarding a tiny corner of the celestial forum (where none of you go anyway!) and suddenly you're all coming out of the woodwork with your protest banners, insisting you care about "discussion."

I know from experience that nothing you're doing now will ever allow this forum to become what the mods probably envision. Meaning, a place where serious discussion takes place between non-Mormon and Mormon. Mormons do not feel welcomed here. Now you guys can argue amongst yourselves whether or not their feeling is justified, but all of this is irrelevant to the fact that they aren't coming over.

So what are you going to do about it?

You can just say screw the Mormons, and let the forum devolve where atheists get to hammer theism all day long. And then when all the theists are run off (which is inevitable I think), and an echo chamber of uniformity is created, we can start arguing about politics or the superiority of Mac over PC, or whatever.

The name of this forum is looking funnier and funnier through time.

[_Nightingale]

... we've pretty much established that you were a crappy member before you left.

This remark was addressed to Infymus. Sorry, I'm not familiar with the history of every poster or every encounter. Who is the "we" who have "established" the above conclusion?

It seriously bugs me that some Mormons denounce ex-members with attitudes like the above. (You know the mantra: You left to sin, your faith was weak, you couldn't measure up, you took the easy way, you never had a testimony, etc.).

Judging externals to determine who is or is not a "good" member is a rocky road. (Let God be the judge, fingers pointing back at yourself 'n all that).

Just because some exmos are outspoken in their disbelief doesn't mean they were "crappy members". In fact, I often see that the opposite is true. The more someone believed and the more they sacrificed the harder it is to come to lose their belief. ("Losing belief" isn't a negative judgement against the ex-member - it indicates that they, for whatever diverse reasons, came to see things differently and determined that they couldn't believe in Mormonism after all. I always find it admirable when people speak up for what they believe is truth, especially if in so doing they risk loss and other challenges and still go ahead).

That kind of remark contains a lot of personal animosity and is a long way from responding to the subject under discussion. It also sets you up for getting the spotlight turned on your own quality of membership.


Yes, this is the kind of response that I found out the hard way gets you told off at FAIR/MA&D for "derailing". To me, threads are like conversations with multitudes of people and tangents pop out all over the place. Going off on a tangent isn't purposely derailing a thread, in my opinion. Isn't it tiresome to start a new thread for every piece of someone's reply that you wish to address?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I have decided I now like this rule. It means I get to talk in the CK now. And no smart asses will come making me feel inferior. Meheh...

[_The Nehor]

... we've pretty much established that you were a crappy member before you left.

This remark was addressed to Infymus. Sorry, I'm not familiar with the history of every poster or every encounter. Who is the "we" who have "established" the above conclusion?

It seriously bugs me that some Mormons denounce ex-members with attitudes like the above. (You know the mantra: You left to sin, your faith was weak, you couldn't measure up, you took the easy way, you never had a testimony, etc.).

Judging externals to determine who is or is not a "good" member is a rocky road. (Let God be the judge, fingers pointing back at yourself 'n all that).

Just because some exmos are outspoken in their disbelief doesn't mean they were "crappy members". In fact, I often see that the opposite is true. The more someone believed and the more they sacrificed the harder it is to come to lose their belief. ("Losing belief" isn't a negative judgement against the ex-member - it indicates that they, for whatever diverse reasons, came to see things differently and determined that they couldn't believe in Mormonism after all. I always find it admirable when people speak up for what they believe is truth, especially if in so doing they risk loss and other challenges and still go ahead).

That kind of remark contains a lot of personal animosity and is a long way from responding to the subject under discussion. It also sets you up for getting the spotlight turned on your own quality of membership.


Yes, this is the kind of response that I found out the hard way gets you told off at FAIR/MA&D for "derailing". To me, threads are like conversations with multitudes of people and tangents pop out all over the place. Going off on a tangent isn't purposely derailing a thread, in my opinion. Isn't it tiresome to start a new thread for every piece of someone's reply that you wish to address?

The 'we' in my comment was tongue-in-cheek based on a discussion/insult-hurling contest that started when Infymus described what he was like in the Church. I mentioned he was a pretty crappy member if that was what he was like. He then proceeded to declare that he was the ideal member. I disagreed. We met at dawn with dueling pistols and now he uses crutches and I have an eyepatch. Just a nice poignant reminder of the good old days.

[_skippy the dead]

Go with your previous thought - dartagnan's professed overload on trying to defend god is no reason to be of two minds. He has no divine mandate to address every anti-god post on the board. He can ignore whatever he wants.

I highly doubt that is what Shades was referring to.

If you want to run a "Mormon" forum you have to take minimal measure to make sure Mormons are welcomed. just saying they are welcome has proven to be empty rhetoric - time has proved that few of them actually believe it, and for good reason.

These measures were probably considered for the purpose of making Mormons feel more comfortable here. You guys talk up a storm about wanting discussion, but the people complaining here are not generally the ones who do the leg work. Skippy, Kim, Pirate, infymus, etc., no offense, but I haven't seen any of you guys doing much of anything, aside from the occasional pithy comment, in a long ass time - if ever. Yet, the mods talk about a possible policy change regarding a tiny corner of the celestial forum (where none of you go anyway!) and suddenly you're all coming out of the woodwork with your protest banners, insisting you care about "discussion."

I know from experience that nothing you're doing now will ever allow this forum to become what the mods probably envision. Meaning, a place where serious discussion takes place between non-Mormon and Mormon. Mormons do not feel welcomed here. Now you guys can argue amongst yourselves whether or not their feeling is justified, but all of this is irrelevant to the fact that they aren't coming over.

So what are you going to do about it?

You can just say screw the Mormons, and let the forum devolve where atheists get to hammer theism all day long. And then when all the theists are run off (which is inevitable I think), and an echo chamber of uniformity is created, we can start arguing about politics or the superiority of Mac over PC, or whatever.

The name of this forum is looking funnier and funnier through time.

Quite frankly I've been on a mini-sabbatical from this forum as a result of the dart-jak-marg cage matches that have filled the board. But if that's what you consider serious discussion, then I can see where we have a problem.

The solution is not to preemptively silence dissent or contrary positions. The solution is to moderate the celestial forum as it was intended. See the thread Don Bradley started a while back to see that discussion. If you don't want to argue about whether there is a god in a thread related to god, then just ignore those threads. If the no-god poster becomes a pest, have the thread moderated. But the idea of setting up a limited-speech zone is ridiculous.

[_Scottie]

Quite frankly I've been on a mini-sabbatical from this forum as a result of the dart-jak-marg cage matches that have filled the board. But if that's what you consider serious discussion, then I can see where we have a problem.

The solution is not to preemptively silence dissent or contrary positions. The solution is to moderate the celestial forum as it was intended. See the thread Don Bradley started a while back to see that discussion. If you don't want to argue about whether there is a god in a thread related to god, then just ignore those threads. If the no-god poster becomes a pest, have the thread moderated. But the idea of setting up a limited-speech zone is ridiculous.

How is this any different than the new rule?? What is wrong with pre-emptively saying "Don't be a no-God pest in the first place??"

[_KimberlyAnn]

You say "just ignore" these threads, well why can't you just ignore these threads under debate now?

No, I said ignore diversionary, "God isn't real so you're whole post is irrelevant" remarks.

I see this as a matter of principle. Yes, some arguments, even if mildly on topic, are irritating and, as Scottie mentioned, lazy. But allowing them, if they fit the parameters of the forum, is a small price to pay for the freedom of speech and lively discussion we enjoy on this board! Especially considering the fact that one is not forced to reply to every comment made on a thread.

It's a matter of principle. It's a higher purpose to support free speech than it is to quell annoying arguments.

KA

[_Scottie]

You say "just ignore" these threads, well why can't you just ignore these threads under debate now?

No, I said ignore diversionary, "God isn't real so you're whole post is irrelevant" remarks.

I see this as a matter of principle. Yes, some arguments, even if mildly on topic, are irritating and, as Scottie mentioned, lazy. But allowing them, if they fit the parameters of the forum, is a small price to pay for the freedom of speech and lively discussion we enjoy on this board! Especially considering the fact that one is not forced to reply to every comment made on a thread.

It's a matter of principle. It's a higher purpose to support free speech than it is to quell annoying arguments.

KA

So what is wrong with slightly adjusting the parameters of the CK forum to help curb derailments?

We're not saying don't disagree or debate. Not at all! Just keep it within certain parameters.

I really don't see this as some radical mutilation of the concept of the board! I really don't!

The Terrestrial, where a good 98% of all posts are anyways, will remain unchanged.

[Guest]

Quite frankly I've been on a mini-sabbatical from this forum as a result of the dart-jak-marg cage matches that have filled the board. But if that's what you consider serious discussion, then I can see where we have a problem.

There is nothing you can do about idiots posting here. What you can do is decide what kind of forum you want to have. Is it a Mormon related forum or isn't it? The JAK and Marg threads have absolutely nothing to do with Mormonism. They are the offspring threads of earlier anti-theism threads, which is becoming the dominant theme here.

The solution is not to preemptively silence dissent or contrary positions

Nobody is saying that. Try to pay attention.

The solution is to moderate the celestial forum as it was intended. See the thread Don Bradley started a while back to see that discussion. If you don't want to argue about whether there is a god in a thread related to god, then just ignore those threads.

Oh? And when you don't like debates between marg, JAK and myself, you can't "just ignore them," you have to remove yourself from the forum! See? That's exactly how Mormons react too.

If the no-god poster becomes a pest, have the thread moderated. But the idea of setting up a limited-speech zone is ridiculous.

The "no-god" assertion isn't what's being considered here.

And where were your complaints when Bokovoy and I participated in a "limited-speech zone" last year in the CK? That was between Mormon and non-Mormon and the blowhards were not permitted to enter the discussion. The ideal thing would be to encourage more one on one debates like that. I'd absolutely love to debate beastie or JAK one on one, but they rely on diversionary posts by the choir. But the issue here is the lack of Mormon participation.