[POLL] What is the Future of the FAIR/MAAD Boards

[_Sam Harris]

Since the same people are going to be heading it, not much is going to change. However, they won't be as much of a public embarrassment to the church anymore. Mormons looking for apologetic information go to FAIR, they think they're straight...then they see those boards, and are shocked.

Same ole same ole...

[_harmony]

juliann has made a lot of enemies over the years. Now she will have to answer to them in a far more substantial way, in my opinion.

How so, Scratch? Juliann isn't nearly as involved with the board as she used to be. And the board is being run in the same way as it has always been run.

In my opinion, I don't think that Juliann's role will be as significant as it has been in the past. And, frankly, this is by her personal choice. She has been backing away from the boards due to real life issues for a while now.

Juliann went out of her way to make enemies. Not just people who ignored her, but enemies. Every critic was a liar, every fencesitter was evil, every questioner was guaranteed to be ridiculed and rejected. She rarely participated in discussions; instead, she derailed threads she thought would be detrimental or dangerous to the church. Her intent was never to discuss, but rather to derail, through personal attacks and mockery. She was FAIR's dragon (where Pahoran was the pit bull), and she reveled in her role.

With Juliann, it was always personal. And she did not like being caught in her own web.

[_Bond...James Bond]

It just occurred to me that disconnecting with FAIR means the board is really going to fade. I wish I could change my answer to alot of dropoff. Here's my reasoning.

Whilst FAIR was connected to the FAIRBOARDS it had instant legitimacy because of all the apologists righting all those articles. Many people look at PhD's and assume that there has to be something to Mormonism. Many people leave the church based on the things they learned there (and other boards), but a large board connected semi officially with the Church is a huge faith promoting instrument.

Regardless of saying "all the opinions of this board are only the opinions of those who write them" and "the LDS has no systematic theology" I think most people looked on the FAIRboards as THE board for LDS apologetic work. Without its connection to FAIR for legitimacy it becomes just another private board. It may take a number of months or years but I think significant casual traffic will fall.

Of course traffic could also lessen as more and more people leave the church, or don't join.

Bond

[_harmony]

It just occurred to me that disconnecting with FAIR means the board is really going to fade.

I think this is the reason and the intention of FAIR disconnecting from it. I think they are embarrassed at what's been going on there, and this is the way they've chosen to distance themselves from it.

[_Runtu]

How so, Scratch? Juliann isn't nearly as involved with the board as she used to be. And the board is being run in the same way as it has always been run.

In my opinion, I don't think that Juliann's role will be as significant as it has been in the past. And, frankly, this is by her personal choice. She has been backing away from the boards due to real life issues for a while now.

Juliann went out of her way to make enemies. Not just people who ignored her, but enemies. Every critic was a liar, every fencesitter was evil, every questioner was guaranteed to be ridiculed and rejected. She rarely participated in discussions; instead, she derailed threads she thought would be detrimental or dangerous to the church. Her intent was never to discuss, but rather to derail, through personal attacks and mockery. She was FAIR's dragon (where Pahoran was the pit bull), and she reveled in her role.

With Juliann, it was always personal. And she did not like being caught in her own web.

I've never figured her out. In her private communications with me, she was kind and helpful. Never so in the public threads, though. I understand why she has adopted the antirational stance she has (she would yell "fundamentalist!" at the first sign of trouble), but in the end it undercuts the truth claims of the church she loves.

[_beastie]

I voted for a lot of drop-off due to the fact that there has been moderating movement towards even more aggressiveness towards critics than normal (which was pretty aggressive in the first place). It is beginning to have far more sunday school threads than in the past, and that will soon bore even the most prolific posters.

And yes, I think the church realizes it can't help but be viewed as associated with FAIR and its apologetics, due to the FARMs connection. I always said all it would take is one GA's grandkid going to FAIR with genuine questions, confused about just finding out the Joseph Smith married a fourteen year old girl and other men's wives, be attacked by Juliann, and the boom would fall on that board.

Occasionally there are threads on RFM asking who was influenced to leave due to FAIR, and they always have several positive responses (positive in yes, FAIR helped me to leave). The ones I've seen usually have at least five posters saying heck, yes, FAIR helped me to leave. Multiply five over and over for the passage of time, and you have a real effect.

Of course, some of the problem is the fact that when people are troubled by initially discovering the seamier side of church history, they really want to be told "THESE ARE ALL LIES" and given the proof thereof. But apologists can't say that, because they aren't lies. The most they can say is "the anti's slant it unfairly", but that is little comfort to someone just finding out Joseph Smith married other men's wives, or the Book of Abraham was "translated" from a routine Egyptian funerary text.

I've noticed some people returning to Z lately, and wonder if that means a movement back to there. I am wondering what the moderating style will be, though, and am not happy that Shades and LSD seemed to have been punished for complaining about personal information being shared on Z. I am on the fence regarding continued participation there to any extent, even as minimal as I have been since it died its slow death. Z's history is another interesting facet in this story. Believers fled because, according to a comment made recently on MAD by Juliann, "nonbelievers" pushed the envelope on offensiveness, once having figured out how to fly under the radar of the letter of the law. This is an extraordinarily distorted view of what actually happened, and I know because I was a moderator there for a while. Believers were JUST as bad as nonbelievers about being offensive without technically "breaking the rules", with posters like Pahoran and Juliann predictably excelling that that. Just as much moderator attention was spent babysitting the behavior of believers as nonbelievers. It's quite bizarre to hear Juliann make such a comment.

But what happened on Z was secular critics became more numerous, and this frustrated believers, who liked to use arguments like "the prophets in the Bible did nasty stuff too" (paraphrasing, of course ;) So believers fled. Z did its best to apply the rules in a even handed manner, regardless of religious position, and THAT is what believers couldn't tolerate. They need/want a "handicap" in these arguments. To me, that is so telling. People who know they have the stronger argument don't tend to ask for handicapping the opponent.

But it will be interesting to watch from the sidelines.

But more importantly - what will happen to scratch's blog????

[Anonymous]

I voted for a lot of drop-off due to the fact that there has been moderating movement towards even more aggressiveness towards critics than normal (which was pretty aggressive in the first place). It is beginning to have far more sunday school threads than in the past, and that will soon bore even the most prolific posters.

And yes, I think the church realizes it can't help but be viewed as associated with FAIR and its apologetics, due to the FARMs connection. I always said all it would take is one GA's grandkid going to FAIR with genuine questions, confused about just finding out the Joseph Smith married a fourteen year old girl and other men's wives, be attacked by Juliann, and the boom would fall on that board.

Occasionally there are threads on RFM asking who was influenced to leave due to FAIR, and they always have several positive responses (positive in yes, FAIR helped me to leave). The ones I've seen usually have at least five posters saying heck, yes, FAIR helped me to leave. Multiply five over and over for the passage of time, and you have a real effect.

Of course, some of the problem is the fact that when people are troubled by initially discovering the seamier side of church history, they really want to be told "THESE ARE ALL LIES" and given the proof thereof. But apologists can't say that, because they aren't lies. The most they can say is "the anti's slant it unfairly", but that is little comfort to someone just finding out Joseph Smith married other men's wives, or the Book of Abraham was "translated" from a routine Egyptian funerary text.

I've noticed some people returning to Z lately, and wonder if that means a movement back to there. I am wondering what the moderating style will be, though, and am not happy that Shades and LSD seemed to have been punished for complaining about personal information being shared on Z. I am on the fence regarding continued participation there to any extent, even as minimal as I have been since it died its slow death. Z's history is another interesting facet in this story. Believers fled because, according to a comment made recently on MAD by Juliann, "nonbelievers" pushed the envelope on offensiveness, once having figured out how to fly under the radar of the letter of the law. This is an extraordinarily distorted view of what actually happened, and I know because I was a moderator there for a while. Believers were JUST as bad as nonbelievers about being offensive without technically "breaking the rules", with posters like Pahoran and Juliann predictably excelling that that. Just as much moderator attention was spent babysitting the behavior of believers as nonbelievers. It's quite bizarre to hear Juliann make such a comment.

But what happened on Z was secular critics became more numerous, and this frustrated believers, who liked to use arguments like "the prophets in the Bible did nasty stuff too" (paraphrasing, of course ;) So believers fled. Z did its best to apply the rules in a even handed manner, regardless of religious position, and THAT is what believers couldn't tolerate. They need/want a "handicap" in these arguments. To me, that is so telling. People who know they have the stronger argument don't tend to ask for handicapping the opponent.

But it will be interesting to watch from the sidelines.

But more importantly - what will happen to scratch's blog????

I wonder if this is a part of a general downturn in apologist and centralized boards (I consider this one pretty centralized, as its pretty uncensored) and the continuing growth in posters at sites such as RFM. I wonder if that's part of the general downturn in numbers for the Church or the fact that most LDS apologetic arguments are being proved wrong by science, logic, and common sense.

Scratch said the blog was stopping for now, but he could continue critiquing the MAD board if he felt like it. Same game, different name.

Bond

[_Mister Scratch]

juliann has made a lot of enemies over the years. Now she will have to answer to them in a far more substantial way, in my opinion.

How so, Scratch? Juliann isn't nearly as involved with the board as she used to be. And the board is being run in the same way as it has always been run.

In my opinion, I don't think that Juliann's role will be as significant as it has been in the past. And, frankly, this is by her personal choice. She has been backing away from the boards due to real life issues for a while now.

I'm basing my observations on the assumption that "MA&D" is, in effect, the "Dan_G and juliann Messageboard," perhaps with Allen Wyatt on drums. Thus, any moderator action can be addressed directly to those two (and a half?) individuals. Any screw-ups, any discrepancies in the moderating: blame juliann and Dan. Whereas before any gripes could be directed at "FAIR," now they will be directed at individuals. The keystone of the institution has crumbled.

As to her "real life issues," I have no idea what that could be. I have seen her mention a daughter at BYU, and that she was abused by her ex-husband, but beyond that I know little about her personal life.

[_Mister Scratch]

Dan G is definitely running the new board. He has done all of the "techy" things, and is the primary Mod.

Juliann has never been that computer savvy, and I don't think she ever really had a desire to completely run the old or the new board. However, I'm sure that Juliann still has "creative license" to make her opinion known, and that she will more often than not be accommodated. I'm also fairly certain that she has at least some limited Admin power to allow her to moderate forums when she chooses to.

Alan Wyatt was a "second in command" on the FAIR board after the transition to the new server, so I see no reason why that wouldn't be the case with MAAD as well.

I'm fairly sure that Jan was also involved in the moderating team. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess. ;)

Interesting. I think this is going to be a major obstacle for them. Whereas before, the institutional FAIR could absorb some of the criticism about moderation, etc., now those critiques can be aimed at actual individuals. In the past, the ironically named FAIRboard strove to avoid personal accountability via a "shell game" with the mod names, and also via deflection off onto the institution itself, but now that is impossible. juliann has made a lot of enemies over the years. Now she will have to answer to them in a far more substantial way, in my opinion.

But we'll see!

Scratch, you never answered the question from your blog concerning who all were the FAIR moderators were. Care to give an answer here, or a guess on the unknown ones?

Bond

Well, I don't know. Liz knows some of them, but has refused to tell, apparently because she is still friends with him/her. I hardly see how that matters any more, but whatever. I guess what I'm saying is that I have some guesses, but they are mostly just speculation:

Dunamis: probably juliann. I have heard that other mods would use Dunamis from time to time, but that D. was principally juliann's sockpuppet.
Dexios: I don't know; perhaps Dan G.?
Hypnos: could have been urroner, since Hypnos called himself "DCP's Henchman," and urroner has described himself as a "piss boy" of DCP.
Oreos: Some people thought this was SlackTime
Nomos: This is the one I have always been most curious about, but Liz refuses to tell. RoadtoHana thought Nomos was Calmoriah. My best guess was Nighthawke, but Liz says I'm wrong. I think it could have been Jan or possibly even Charity, too.
Orpheus: I think O. was Scott Lloyd, mainly because I saw a strange computer glitch in which the screen name morphed practically before my eyes from "Scott Lloyd" into "Orpheus." Others think O. is Dan G.
Chaos: I thought that this was most likely Dan_G. Not sure, though. Could be Jan, I guess.
Argos: I think this is probably juliann's new sockpuppet.

Again, these are all just guesses, and could be way off. What I think is funnier is the extreme agitation that such speculating stirs up amongst those mods. They have said that they don't want anyone to know who they are, due to the fact that a lot of people complain---quite vituperatively, I'm told---about the moderation. In other words, maintaining this double veil on anonymity is a means of skirting around accountability. A worthwhile comparison is this way of moderating anonymously with, say, RfM, or ZLMB, where you knew who the mods were.

[_Bond...James Bond]

In other words, maintaining this double veil on anonymity is a means of skirting around accountability.

Perhaps the leaders of the church should go to annoymous ancient names.

Packer=Publius Testicles

etc.

Bond