Can't We Do Something about All the Idiotic Sock Puppets?

[Res Ipsa]

I will comply. I will comply immediately.

Be careful what you ask for. This is a huge mistake by the way. HUGE MISTAKE. Not as bad as blowing through the “rules” for moderators, but still a mistake.

This is a triggered AF reaction, and not a response to the real issues.

I will respond by DM and comply. Thanks for the work and thoughts on this, Shades. I disagree but I respect the time and thoughts. I am sure that it will make the cabal moist/hard.

Binger, I have informed you that if you disagree with action we take or do not take, please let us know, citing what you think is the applicable rule. Instead, you simply seen us rants and insults. We are always happy to reverse a decision if we got it wrong. But the fact that you disagree with some of our decisions doesn’t mean we are blowing through the rules.

[Xenophon]

Binger, I have informed you that if you disagree with action we take or do not take, please let us know, citing what you think is the applicable rule. Instead, you simply seen us rants and insults. We are always happy to reverse a decision if we got it wrong. But the fact that you disagree with some of our decisions doesn’t mean we are blowing through the rules.

To expand on this further I have (and I know both Res and canpakes have) stayed out of certain discussions in order to keep at least a single "neutral" party available. We also spend a ton of time hashing out edge cases and close calls, there are no rogue actors here. Talk to us, we are reasonable humans. I can't promise you'll like the outcome but we at least strive to hear you out and then act within the bounds of the rules as they have been set by Shades.

[Jersey Girl]

I don’t know. I’ve never searched for a participant delete option or inquired about the permissions to do so. I’d have thought that the privilege is reserved for Shades.

Alternately, you don’t have to wait for Shades to help you; you can just go in and wipe any of your own posts that you feel are embarrassing or harassing, as you’ve done in the past.

I don’t think mods can delete accounts. Admins can. We can ban accounts, but I don’t think that affects posts before the ban.

Only admin can do it. You can set the timer on a suspension (temp ban) or enact a ban.

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t think mods can delete accounts. Admins can. We can ban accounts, but I don’t think that affects posts before the ban.

Only admin can do it. You can set the timer on a suspension (temp ban) or enact a ban.

Thanks. That’s what I thought. The ban hammer is hidden under a layer of dust, so it’s hard to tell how it works.

[Jersey Girl]

Only admin can do it. You can set the timer on a suspension (temp ban) or enact a ban.

Thanks. That’s what I thought. The ban hammer is hidden under a layer of dust, so it’s hard to tell how it works.

General rule of thumb. If you can't see it, you can't do it.

[Jersey Girl]

EVERYONE:

I have some basic philosophies regarding this board. Rather than list them all, here are the four that are relevant to this thread:

1. If someone comes here and insists on building a monument to his/her own inanity, why should I stop or prevent him/her from doing so?
2. What good is a Libertarian utopia if no one wants to live there?

Those two guiding principles can be mutually contradictory, so proper moderation is always a delicate balancing act.

3. Entertainment is the ultimate goal of this message board--even for new people, so as to avoid the formation of cliques.
4. When one person's entertainment degrades others' entertainment, we must play "Jeremy Bentham" and moderate according to what the greatest good is for the greatest number.

That, too, is a delicate balancing act.

K fine. Whatever you say.

But REGARDING THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP IN THIS THREAD, your voices have been heard. When I've been able to think straight, I have weighed and strongly considered the points you have made here. Here are my tentative conclusions, but before I start a new thread announcing my executive decisions, I'd like to see if any of you object or have compelling reasons why I shouldn't go ahead with this.

UPCOMING SHIFTS / RULE CHANGES:

1. HARASSMENT: Everyone naturally considers being called out as "harassment." If we prevent newcomers from calling out old-timers, then FAIRness demands that we prevent old-timers from calling out old-timers, too. As I said before, if you want moderators to clamp down on what Atlanticmike and Cultellus dish out to us, are you willing to allow moderators to clamp down on what you dish out to Ajax18? Or do you want the freedom of speech to carry on as you have been? If the latter, then you must grant the two of them the same privilege, because it is IMPERATIVE that newcomers enjoy all the same rights and privileges that old-timers have so as to avoid the creation of an elite class such as what exists at the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board or Recovery from Mormonism.

I'm confused. We (those of us who responded to your earlier question) already agreed to the clamping down. Those of us who did, brought ourselves in line with that clamping down. We self-clamped. Anyway, I say yes to clamping down pending the creation of a third forum. I think there's a difference between calling someone out and following them around on every thread they post on. I've always believed that calling someone out was a positive action so long as the poster created a separate thread for it so it didn't derail the topic. The derailing is the part I object to.

I dunno. Your call on that.

NEVERTHELESS, we can safely curtail the sexual harassment that's been seen here of late. Therefore, from this point forward, any criticism or "calling out" that expressly identifies a poster's gender will be either moved to the Telestial or Spirit Prison forums or deleted from within the post, whatever the moderator feels is best to preserve context. "Pussy hats" are fair game, since those are physical objects that people wore whilst protesting, but comments such as "Your husband must be sick of you" or "Are you on your period?" will be moved or deleted because, like I said, they identify a person's gender (well, maybe not the "husband" thing anymore, but you get the idea). To summarize, NO MORE SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHATSOEVER in the Terrestrial or Spirit Paradise fora.
.

I'm not going to profusely thank you for this because you should've done it as early as 2005/2006 when the issue was raised previously. It is LONG overdue.

That said, the use of the phrase pussyhat, wasn't the issue as I see it. It was the use of the phrase Pink Vagina Hat. Will that be given mod action going forward?

Also, is calling someone a dick (or any of it's variants: dickhead, dickweed, going to be off the table with this rule? Stuff like that? I'm asking for the micropeen brains who don't have any other way of relating to this world.

[*]SOCK PUPPETS: I am now convinced that sock puppet accounts are far too often created for trolling purposes, mild or otherwise. Plus, they invite their creator to break or circumvent the rules, because a throwaway identity has no "dog in the fight." Therefore, NO MORE SOCK PUPPET CREATION FROM THIS POINT FORWARD. It wouldn't be FAIR to go ex-post-facto, so you may keep the sock puppets you already have, but as a gesture of good faith I respectfully request that you voluntarily relinquish your sock puppet accounts if at all possible. Please send me a private message telling me the sock-puppet accounts you're willing to relinquish and have me delete, as a good faith gesture, but this is NOT a rule and you are NOT required to comply. It's simply a respectful request is all. But all new sock puppet accounts beginning now, as of this posting, will be deleted.

Would you consider tweaking that policy just a bit? I really liked Mormon Jesus. Or do you see allowing a second coming of Mormon Jesus as the gateway to more troll mischief?

Sometimes people may need to create a new account because they mistakenly signed up under their real name or something. Therefore, should I set the board software to allow people to just change their username the same way they change avatars or signatures? Up until now I've had that option turned off, but perhaps that restriction encouraged sock puppet creations.
.

You mean we could've done this prior? Why do you tempt me so? I would LOVE to muck around with my screen name. We could do that on my first board and I loved it. If I'm to be honest, I think it would cause widespread confusion. I dunno...I've only ever had this screen name on this board and years ago, only one sock account.

On the fence about this.

[*]A CELESTIAL-STYLE OFF-TOPIC FORUM: You have persuaded me that we need a celestial-style "Spirit _____" forum. The problem is, such a place doesn't exist in the LDS pantheon, so there wouldn't be a snappy name for it. I'll create it, but what should we call it? I'm thinking something like [Super Spirit Paradise Forum], yes, with the brackets because it was invented by fiat.[/list]

Paradise Inn. If you are the creator of this board, why can't you revelate and create a new forum any darn way you want it to be? Sheesh. Do something different. I mean if the Mormon Church can change it's name, why can't you as creator change this world in whatever way you want? And when I say in whatever way you want, I mean in whatever way the community wants. And when I say the community, I mainly mean, me.

I'm being sincere here. This is the Old Testament is it not? If that is so, then why does it have to relate to Mormonism? Why? Why can't I, a Never, have something around here for a change? Never is as off topic as it gets. Why do the Never's never get recognized? Some of us have been here since before you said, Let there be Light.

So, what does everyone think of this? Will these changes meet our needs or make the board better for you? The first two items--No sexual harassment and no new sock puppets--are effective immediately and will be rescinded if everyone convinces me they should be. The last item--a celestial style off-topic forum--will be implemented when someone comes up with a good name for it.

I'm good with most of it. Thanks for covering the bases.

Sincerely,
Runs with Scissors

[Res Ipsa]

Oopsie, as it’s the weekend, I totally forgot to be a good lawyer. I am basing my distinction between speech communicative speech and disruptive speech on this rule:

Do not make threats or take actions to disrupt the smooth operation of this message board, either through hacking, spamming, frivolous complaints, lawsuits against the board or its moderators, or any other means. Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either.

My argument: If the purpose of this board is discussion, then disruptive speech disrupts the smooth operation of the message board. If the purpose of the board is entertainment, including disruptive speech as entertainment, then I don’t think the rule would apply to disruptive speech.

I rest my case
Unless I forgot something else.

[Jersey Girl]

I didn't know the purpose of this board was entertainment. I mean, sure it's entertaining at times, but that's not why I participate here.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Chap]

As for the purpose of this board, it has never occurred to me that it had any central purpose other than discussion. My reasons are as follows:

1. The banner at the top of every page proclaims the name of the board as being 'DiscussMormonism.com', with the subheading 'Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!'

2. There is also a sub-board, buts its name 'Non-Mormon Discussions' clearly indicates the same purpose.

3. I discovered this board more or less accidentally some years ago, and became fascinated by the doctrinal, historical and socio-political ramifications of this strange creation called 'Mormonism'. I took part in the battles with visiting apologists that used to take place (mainly) in Terrestrial, and found that they drew on pretty well everything I had ever studied, from maths to Middle Egyptian hieroglyphs. It was fascinating, but that was because one was taking part in a rich and varied range of debates on subjects that mattered passionately to the participants, and where winning or losing involved high stakes.

4. I now participate down here in Spirit Paradise because I find it interesting to discuss (mainly) US politics and society as with a very varied bunch of people who in many cases have the exMormon experience in common, which tends to have given them a certain scepticism about following what other people say. Just to allay doubt, I have a lot of other things to keep me occupied, but I find visits here a worthwhile change from those other things.

This is called a discussion board, and functions as one quite effectively a lot of the time. And because it is Shades' creation, it is a broadly tolerant place that is slow to react to with sanctions to attempts to disrupt it. Seems fine to me.