DiscussMormonism.com

I have always had a problem telling who is Mormon and who is not on these forums. How one can immediately tell the difference between an LDS poster who is just being honest and forthright and a fair-minded non-LDS is beyond me. I can however spot the flamethrowers from both sides.

I think there has been a unfortunate mix-up in banning posters at MAD not for flame throwing, but by reason of association: They have posted on this board. My feeling about this type of banning is that it is wrong.

One of the prime freedoms granted to people of the civilized world is the freedom of association. Your are free to belong to what you choose and not be penalized for it. It is unfortunate when this freedom is taken away and these bannings constitute exactly that. While I suspect that many at MAD would defend the moderators right to take this action, I also suspect that there would be many posters who would question both the wisdom and the ethics of such an action.

What are your thoughts?

Technically, now that MAD has disassociated itself from FAIR, it's "just another private message board".

The owners of the board are free to ban whoever they choose to for whatever reason they wish. We could do the same thing here if we really wanted to.

I think it's unfortunate that they are, in essence, "cutting their noses off to spite their faces". They have banned some really great posters who had thought-provoking material to contribute.

However, their loss is our gain.

:)

moksha wrote:I have always had a problem telling who is Mormon and who is not on these forums. How one can immediately tell the difference between an LDS poster who is just being honest and forthright and a fair-minded non-LDS is beyond me. I can however spot the flamethrowers from both sides.

I think there has been a unfortunate mix-up in banning posters at MAD not for flame throwing, but by reason of association: They have posted on this board. My feeling about this type of banning is that it is wrong.

One of the prime freedoms granted to people of the civilized world is the freedom of association. Your are free to belong to what you choose and not be penalized for it. It is unfortunate when this freedom is taken away and these bannings constitute exactly that. While I suspect that many at MAD would defend the moderators right to take this action, I also suspect that there would be many posters who would question both the wisdom and the ethics of such an action.

What are your thoughts?

I trust there are some who don't like what is going on. I trust there are others who do.

I, of course, defend their right to ban, but I too agree that the wisdom of it is questionable.

What will Pahoran have to do when all the critics are banned? Will he start going after the investigators and even the members themselves? I'd love to see that!

I say let them ban whoever they want to ban. The more people who are banned, the more people will thumb their noses at the place.

MAD is not the church; I'd venture to say that, if church leaders knew about it, they would be ashamed and embarrassed by the people who are supposedly defending the church (well, maybe Packer wouldn't be ashamed, but the others would be). MAD is so over the line as far as acceptable behavior by the LDS owners and moderating staff, it makes RfM look balanced. FAIR was smart to disassociate from them.

liz3564 wrote:Technically, now that MAD has disassociated itself from FAIR, it's "just another private message board".

The owners of the board are free to ban whoever they choose to for whatever reason they wish. We could do the same thing here if we really wanted to.

I think it's unfortunate that they are, in essence, "cutting their noses off to spite their faces". They have banned some really great posters who had thought-provoking material to contribute.

However, their loss is our gain.

:)

I agree. I don't have any ill will toward them. I hadn't felt welcome there in a long time, anyway.

I have to first clarify that I take the following stance only because I have no emotional investment in the LDS church. I can understand if someone still cares about the LDS church that they would like to see it save itself from its followers. I also have to clarify that my antipathy is not towards the LDS church, but rather towards its MAD internet apologists.

With that said, I am delighted by the turn of events. I was curious as to what direction the mods would take after the breakdown at MAD. By all logic, the blowback should have been more rigorous control/censoring of both critics AND believers in order to temper the climate. Instead, in the mode of Juliann's apologetics for the apologists, it seems the mods have concluded the entire problem was due to the fact that they were too loose with the critics. Only the most egregious cases of misbehavior among believers catches their attention, but the critics - just by the fact of their constant criticism - are to blame for the bad behavior of believers. The believers are excused for their misbehavior because the critics always "start it", just by the sheer force of their constant criticisms. So now the mods are weeding out significant numbers of critics. What will remain of the critics are either those who have such a reputation and name that it would make the MAD board appear ridiculous to ban them (like Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe, Uncle Dale, etc) or critics who are very, very careful to couch their criticisms in terminology that could not possibly offend believers. So they will be left with a critic pool that will look pretty darn good to objective parties. They'll be either extremely informed and knowledgeable, or extremely polite and careful.

But believers, due to the lack of similar weeding, will still look the same as they do today. Some appear knowledgeable and on-topic. (they seem to post less and less) But far more appear so eager to take and give offense that it leaves a bad impression.

It's amusing to me because they are cutting off their nose to spite their face, and apparently don't have the slightest clue as to the final unintended consequence.

The can do as they please. The whole day I've been laughing at the obsurdity of being banned from an anonymous internet message board. Honestly, it's freaking hilarious to me.

The MAD board is going to get really boring. It's already going in that direction. Threads are dying quickly because there are fewer and fewer critics. People can only take so many back slapping and faith promoting posts. They need someone to play the anti-Christ so they can feel oppressed and feel like one of the elite. That board is going to end up a Fellowship Hall.

Well.... to be really honest, I would probably do the same thing....sort of (eeekkk)! (I'm not talking about banning individuals... but generally speaking).

The thing is.... if I owned a board and had a particular mission or purpose to the board, I would not want those who I believe thwart my efforts, to post.

I think the purpose of RFM is to be a place for former believers to get support.

I think the purpose of MAD is to discuss church issues in a way that supports LDS belief.

I think the purpose of MD is to discuss LDS related issues.

I'm not saying that I would ban those who have been banned... (of course not), I'm saying that if I were the owner of a board I would only want those who supported my efforts to participate.

Am I going to get banned? LOL!

;-)

~dancer~

So now the mods are weeding out significant numbers of critics.

And this is the part that's been cracking me up all day. I have not built up a reputation as a critic over there (or here, for that matter). I'm usually an observer - I've only got 24 posts at MAD, for pete's sake. There are plenty of people who post here and there without banning, so that can't be the trigger (oh, but since they're faithful, maybe it's okay?). I've never stirred the pot. I don't think I've done anything so offensive that I would warrant banning. It boggles the mind. Yup, just don't get it.

skippy the dead wrote:

So now the mods are weeding out significant numbers of critics.

And this is the part that's been cracking me up all day. I have not built up a reputation as a critic over there (or here, for that matter). I'm usually an observer - I've only got 24 posts at MAD, for pete's sake. There are plenty of people who post here and there without banning, so that can't be the trigger (oh, but since they're faithful, maybe it's okay?). I've never stirred the pot. I don't think I've done anything so offensive that I would warrant banning. It boggles the mind. Yup, just don't get it.

It's those sunglasses. Some people just object to red!