DCP Threatens to Flee the MADboard!

[_Ray A]

Hi Ray

Thanks for the concise explanation. What is the reason for this rule, do you know? I think the more I understand about it the less nervous I will feel, maybe. (Do you find it confusing at all?)

I meant to thank you over there for your positive comments about me a while back. Nobody has ever called me "not the village idiot" before!! :)

Nightingale,

I don't find it confusing. Part of the problem is that some posters would come on with LONG entrance or exit stories, and this focused on the person rather than on a general subject for open discussion. So it became too personalised and opinionated, with no reference to sources or verification of the claims made. I can understand that.

I've always enjoyed reading your posts, and very much like your balanced and (non-fanatical) Christian perspective on life.

[_Nightingale]

Thanks, I get it now, I think. Personalized as in about yourself or specifically about another poster as opposed to a general topic. So they want it more academically slanted and less testimonial? I can see that. I thought you weren't allowed to post an exit story anyway.

Oh well, I just spent time on there writing a response on the Hofmann thread. That was fun. Fascinating case. Too bad he had to stoop to murder. How shocking and sad for the families. What makes people tick, eh?

I am very short of time these days and could barely keep up with RfM any more and now I've gone and started posting on two more boards. Just for a new experience and a bit of variety. It can get to be like a part time job!!

Thanks again, Ray.

[_Ray A]

I thought you weren't allowed to post an exit story anyway.

You can't now, but there was a time they were allowed to go on for a bit before being locked.

From the unofficial, amateur, self-styled FAIR historian/observer.

[_Yoda]

Amateurs run to correcting spelling. You run to spelling, therefore you display characteristics of an amateur.

Ahh yes, a fruitful poster for an amateur. Fruitful indeed.

If you'll check my prior post, I admit to being an amateur. I don't get paid to post on boards like this. But, if you want to keep telling me what I already know, carry on!

P

Since you're correcting everyone's spelling, I'll correct your grammar. It should read fruitful post instead of fruitful poster.

[_moksha]

They're setting up the reasoning for when they ban Tal, which will probably happen in the next few days (or whenever Tal makes another post with any type of sarcasm/humor/smart-Alec remark) I seriously didn't think he'd last the night, but he must have been slacking off.
It doesn't matter what he says, they're going to ban him. Just a matter of time.

Are you saying they are just looking for an excuse after Dr. Peterson declared that forum was not big enough for both of them?


Hear no Tal, See no Tal, Tal no speak

[_Jersey Girl]

Moksha! I had to laugh when I saw your post here. How fitting an image! If I could post on FAIR/MAD right now, all my posts to Tal would end something like this:


regards,
Jersey Girl

*Haven't you been banned yet?

[_moksha]

I guess I'm nervous that I might put my foot in it unwittingly and give a bad impression or fail to communicate well. (The impression part is important because I would like to continue to have the choice to participate there). I also don't enjoy getting an earful from a mod. Maybe you get used to that at some point?

You can get used to getting an earful from the mods, but the pain of the red type they sometimes use lasts much longer.

I'm interested in analyzing board dynamics too.
Thanks for any light you can shed.

Good luck in your quest for understanding their board dynamics. It would be interesting to get the MAD Board on a couch and have it describe its inner most anxieties. Maybe even give it a shot of prolixin at the end of your session.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Moksha,

I saw this post and thought it was about the MAD Mods, and that you would say something like:


Here no reason, see no reason, speak no reason

[_Mister Scratch]

On another occasion, Pahoran told a person who was contemplating suicide that it was the person's own fault.

Hold on a second. Didn't Pahoran already address that? I seriously doubt that Pahoran was aware that the person was contemplating suicide. Sometimes it's hard to tell these things. If a person isn't contemplating suicide, then I think it is actually a good idea to make them accept the consequences of their actions--to be a man and deal with it. Suicide is something else. Someone in that situation is obviously not in a position to think rationaly and handle their problems.

Yep---he addressed it all right. He was a completely callous and insensitive jerk.

I agree that Dr. Peterson is probably unwilling to engage the issues, but unlike you I don't think that's because he's afraid. I think it's because he finds no pleasure from doing it.

And why? He tends to repeat over and over again---before any discussion has even begun---that he will be "misunderstood."

And wonder of wonders, he actually is misunderstood time and time again. People love to read a lot into what he writes as though they are looking for something to criticize.

Any evidence for him being misunderstood "time and time again"? Both he---and you, evidently---claim that he gets repeatedly "misunderstood" (rather than embarrassed, or whooped), but where's the evidence? I bet you can't come up with even one example. Thus, this is just blather, I'm afraid.

Even The Dude ended his discussion with Dr. Stewart--not out of fear but a sense of futility.

The key difference being, of course, that those two actually engaged in discussion.

Yes, but Dr. Peterson has probably been on message boards for much longer. Furthermore Dr. Peterson is often the focus of criticism. I don't find it hard to imagine that anyone would lose interest in such exercises in futility and frustration. Furthermore, hasn't Dr. Peterson actually engaged criticism many times only to be frustrated at being misunderstood?

Professor Peterson has been equally guilty of namecalling and smear tactics. They are both guilty.

I don't know if it's equal and I don't care. Still, I don't see how Dr. Peterson's expression of disguist is a smear tactic.

If you "don't care" then why did you swoop in to come to His Highness's defense? Basically, I think his behavior has been hypocritical: he wants to show how horrible, immature, and awful his opponents are, and yet he stoops to namecalling and smear tactics.

Further, citing insults is not the same as "expressing disgust." If he had said, "You know, my opponents have said a lot of really disgusting things about me, and it upsets me greatly," I would agree with you. But that's not what we get from him. Instead, we get this lengthy "poisoning the well" business, along with his threats to abandon the board if he doesn't get his way.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi. First post here. I recognize some of the board names. Good to see people around.

I guess I'm particularly slow-witted on one particular point. Maybe someone with more experience on the FAIR/newFAIR board can clue me in. I seriously don't get the "personalized thread" concept. I've asked for clarification and didn't get enough specifics to get it through my head. Is it that you can't direct a post at a specific poster by name or even innuendo? Is it that you can't discuss another poster, just their comments? (Unless they are "a public person"?) I have tried to be observant and see what that's about but I am missing the point badly on it. I'd appreciate any clarification.

I think that Ray's post was pretty spot on, but in my opinion, the rule has a somewhat further reach. In my reading, the rule functions to protect certain members on the board, such as DCP, or Prof. Hamblin, or Pahoran. While the mods will shut down "personalized" threads regardless of who starts them, the fittingly named MADmods are clearly more tolerant towards the more apologetic posters.

I was quite surprised to see how defensive many posters there seem to feel and I haven't got used to it yet. Maybe they feel under constant attack? If so, that makes it somewhat more understandable. Unfortunately, it can lead to terrible communication and misunderstandings that would be impossible to sort out. In this particular case, I can quite relate to Tal's seeming confusion about what he was being directed to do. I have felt quite confused there myself. I think it takes some getting used to when it's such a different environment as a new non-Mormon poster. Maybe being so familiar with their own environment they don't extend newbies any leeway for that. (I felt that way in the church too). Also, perhaps some posters there read more into things than you intend or realize. If they assume that as a non-Mormon you are automatically "anti" I guess that explains some of the difficult dynamics. I find the subject matter of interest but don't as yet feel very comfortable posting there, mostly because of that I think. I guess I'm nervous that I might put my foot in it unwittingly and give a bad impression or fail to communicate well. (The impression part is important because I would like to continue to have the choice to participate there). I also don't enjoy getting an earful from a mod. Maybe you get used to that at some point?

I think you are quite right. There is very much a "clannish" environment on the fittingly named MADboard, and the people there seem to relish the thought that they are constantly under siege. It makes them feel righteous and valiant, apparently, and some of them (e.g., Pahoran) seem to view themselves as "warriors" of a sort. But I think there's no question that they feel "under attack," as evidenced by the frequent bannings, the blocking of IP addresses, the redirects to "Sons of Perdition" entries on LDS.org, the severing of the MB from FAIR, etc., etc.

Is there a limit on how many threads of yours they can lock before they decide you're a royal pain? Because I've had quite a few locked already and I have only made 50 or so posts so far.

So far as I'm aware, there is no limit, but I think you can rest safe knowing that they already view you as a "royal pain," or at least as a potential threat. You need to start embarrassing them and scoring points for them to give you the boot. Start up a debate with DCP on, say, the Church and race, or the Church's treatment of women, and I'm sure you can kiss your posting privileges goodbye.

I've just started reading this board in the past week. I'm interested in analyzing board dynamics too. Does that make me one of the "obsessed" ones? :)

Yep. Welcome to the club. ;) You will know you've made it once you get chastised/ridiculed by Plutarch and/or "Monitor," who may or may not be Prof. Peterson himself.

I think I read here that participating here gets you the long walk off a short pier at MA&D. Is that true? They seem somewhat more reasonable to me than that. But I'm often wrong. I hope not though.

It can be true. They've probably tried to back off from that a little as of late, as they have embarrassed themselves in this regard on a number of occasions.

Be very wary of sending PMs on that board, by the way, since the moderating team reads them.