# 1 Rule: Rules are stupid...

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi All, I took the liberty of pasting the below from the Telestial Board. It is far too important and universal to be 'relegated' to the bottom dominion. Thanks to Keene:

That is a hard call! Glad it's yours ;-) An experience on another quality forum left me with an impression that countered my original reaction: Into a thread discussing the high-road of socio-politico-religious stuff--like here :-)--someone injected a post of raw-verbal-porn. Shocked me, not the words, but the inappropriateness and stupidity of it. However i didn't immediately react. To my surprise, no one did. It was as if it wasn't there...absolute silence. With no reaction there was no reacurrence. Of course not all forums/groups are as objective.

I think to cloister, while it might make a comfortable and hospitable environment, (for some) serves as well to limit, rather than to expand experience (for all). This limiting, cesuring and controlling of individuals i think is what many LDS find objectional about that institution.

Could it be the sensitivity concern for "potential LDS signers-up" might in fact displace, to some degree, the "Mission Statement" of MD?

Doc, please don't read this as anything but respect for You and this Forum. It's serving a most usefull purpose. Its evolution is in all hands. Warm regards, Roger (bracketed added to my original.)

Ah see, this is a concept I can get behind. It was for this reason exactly why the Doc and I rewrote the rules to what they are now. The Doc of course wants a place where everyone can feel welcome and safe, whereas I want a place where freedom abounds. The two don't have to be at odds, but are, sadly.

I would much rather posts be censored in the way things should be done in all of real life -- that is, by the choice of the individual receiving the information. If a post is offensive, don't read that post. Don't give that post a response. Eventually, negative behavior will fade out and evolve into something much greater.

Unfortunately, the people have decided, quite loudly, that they're not ready for this more altruistic approach. They demand a higher moderation, and a structure that I find myself very unwilling to provide. The Doc and I have often discussed this. The result of our compromise has been the rewriting of the rules. Rule #1, Rules are stupid.

Eventually, I hope to see people take on the concept of rule-less governing. I would hope to create a community that, despite having a foundation of disagreement, can understand the fundamental realities of human understanding.

In many ways, this forum is my experiment. I ponder what "rules" and education are required to make an anarchistic society work. How should one be introduced? (Line upon line...) How can respect be kept, without a higher moderation? (Maturity>understanding>confidence>tolerance.) These are things I've often wondered, but have found no good answers for. (Evolution takes time and funerals--patience will be rewarded. Not necessarily by the patient souls who just let it grow.) (Bold added in respectful response.)

It's movin' folks! Praise "God" Warm regards, Roger

[_keene]

I just realized something in the way I worded the rules...

By saying "rules are stupid," I tend to give off the impression that we've got no morals. A lot of people associate rules and laws with moral purity (as I recently discovered in my other thread, "Religion is Obsolete."

This is entirely not the impression I want to give. Instead, I want to spread the impression that the rules simply don't need to be stated, because people treat eachother with respect (this includes respect to the right to rant, critisize, mock, etc.)

Hmm...

[_Mephitus]

this reminds me of one of my favorite sayings now. "live life ethically, not morally"

[_Gazelam]

That underlying fore-knowledge of "rules" that you state don't ned to be stated because we already know them.. that's called the Light of Christ. Its that inkling of how things were in the pre-existence. Some call it a concience.

Gaz

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . I want to spread the impression that the rules simply don't need to be stated, because people treat eachother with respect (this includes respect to the right to rant, critisize, mock, etc.)

I felt that way back in the days of MormonDiscussions 1.0. Now, however, I've seen firsthand that when it comes to message boards, "one rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel." Hence the reason for some form of moderation.

Let me tell you, I was dragged kicking and screaming away from the idealism you and Roger espouse. But now, having seen what does and doesn't work, my philosohpy on moderation is akin to the Reagan maxim: "Trust, but verify."

[_keene]

That underlying fore-knowledge of "rules" that you state don't ned to be stated because we already know them.. that's called the Light of Christ. Its that inkling of how things were in the pre-existence. Some call it a concience.

Gaz

Some could call it that. I don't, however. I would call it Ethics. I would base it off of logic and reason. I have often found that a conscience can be led astray, depending on what emotional reactions a person is trained (yes, trained) to have in certain situations.

This respect can be pre-known through the rules of religion as well, though. They don't necessarily have to conflict, even if one is emotion-based, and one is logic-based. Unless you have some wild and crazy mental disease, most peoples emotional guidance system leads them in the same ethical direction as logic, with few differences. None of these differences apply to online discussions, either.

Perhaps it's how things were in the Pre-Existance. Or perhaps it's an evolutionarily sound concept that emerged naturally. It doesn't matter where it came from, it matters whether or not you'll use it.

[_Roger Morrison]

. . . I want to spread the impression that the rules simply don't need to be stated, because people treat eachother with respect (this includes respect to the right to rant, critisize, mock, etc.)

I felt that way back in the days of MormonDiscussions 1.0. Now, however, I've seen firsthand that when it comes to message boards, "one rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel." Hence the reason for some form of moderation.

Let me tell you, I was dragged kicking and screaming away from the idealism you and Roger espouse. But now, having seen what does and doesn't work, my philosohpy on moderation is akin to the Reagan maxim: "Trust, but verify."

"Love is a many splendor thing..." a mid-century old song :-) As is human interaction. In its pure (refined) form quite different from its aggragate. Primitive>barbaric>tribal>self-centred>civilized>humanitarian>egalitarian>altruistic>>>>> All moved or maintained by rules, laws, policies framed at various stages of the humanizing process.

Hence, rules and policies of necessity must change to allow "laws" to come into their own. Confused?? A lot of semantics involved here, but... The Universe works through the application of "laws" which are consistant, without prejudice and immutable--under the proper conditions, (mix of ingredients). We are becoming aware of, and applying new ones by the moment to top-up the "fullness of life".

Rules and policies facilitate that "God" ordained progress. This however tends to slow down the creative, initiative takers. Which gives time for acceptance of the "new" by those of us less socially agile or mentally/emotionally dexterous.

The "rotten apple in the barrel" doesn't have the same effect if/when the other apples have a well developed immune system. Which generally is strengthened by exposure (education/knowledge/broad-experience/line-crossing)... A state that parents and "guardians" often tend to shrink from, and protect against. Allowing their fears and anxieties to shape the more timid in their respective "family"... Understandably so... We aren't ready for pure anarchism where the light-of-Christ (thanks Gaz) shines bright in everyone.

Interesting that the "apple" homily tends to middle-age religious negativity. Beyond their imagination to think of the "barrel" influencing the "apple", which is more to be seen. If nor the case the whole human experience would lead to Hell. Which was the constant fear of the ignorant unenlightened. Hmmm, wonder where we find our justification? In fear of the future or certainty of the present?

Imagine, when the light shows there's nothing to fear there will be NO rules! "God's"/natural laws will govern, and policies will flex simply as a social lubricant. Praise "God"! Warm regards. Roger

[_Dr. Shades]

Roger:

I have absolutely NO IDEA what you're trying to say.

Care to dumb it down a little for me?

[_keene]

Roger:

I have absolutely NO IDEA what you're trying to say.

Care to dumb it down a little for me?

Basically, we want the great barrel to change the one bad apple, not the other way around. The rest is philisophical fluff that I immensly enjoyed reading, but as far as practical application, isn't necessary to read.

[_Dr. Shades]

Basically, we want the great barrel to change the one bad apple, not the other way around. The rest is philisophical fluff that I immensly enjoyed reading, but as far as practical application, isn't necessary to read.

Fine in theory, but when it comes to the Internet, bad apples refuse to be changed by the barrel. That's partially what makes them bad apples to begin with.

Oh well, 'tis all part of the game.