SHADES-LIZ-JG

[_marg]

Just to make things perfectly clear...

I would NOT have betrayed a confidence, or specifically mentioned that Kevin had PM'd me had Kevin not stated himself that he had PM'd one of the Mods in that very thread. Here is Kevin's quote from page 9 of the Evidence Thread:

I PM'd the mod just to suggest moving the thread to terrestrial. Why? Because JAK started with the baseless accusations, and when he does this, the discussion only deteriorates from there.

I was the mod he was referring to.

I haven't been able to locate where JAK accuses Kevin of being a liar though I did see where Kevin accused JAK of that.

As far as a debate goes, that notion that Kevin had not said "all" historians is not quite true, he had implied it. I could go back and find the examples. But in context one doesn't necessarily need to say the word "all" in order to have it implied. And the fact that kevin is challenging anyone to find a historian who claims Jesus doesn't exist is evidence that in fact that is what he thinks..that all historians agree Jesus existed. Yes he did specify at one point that "virtually all"..but the implication he gave on numerous occasions and it was his argument for the existence of Jesus is that all historians accept Jesus existed and if one could find one that didn't they were basically nut jobs.

Kevin should be the last person to listen to, to move a thread to terrestial from celestial as he is one of the worst offenders when it comes to fallacious ad homs.

by the way, sometimes accusing someone of lying is not necessarily fallacious, particularly if there is evidence they are lying. And oftentimes there are subtle ad homs which aren't noticed but are just as bad if not greater than ones which seem obvious.

Anyhow I think JAK would be interested in this. At the very least, it makes sense now. I really couldn't figure it out before. It just was not adding up.

[_Yoda]

Kevin should be the last person to listen to, to move a thread to terrestial from celestial as he is one of the worst offenders when it comes to fallacious ad homs.

by the way, sometimes accusing someone of lying is not necessarily fallacious, particularly if there is evidence they are lying. And oftentimes there are subtle ad homs which aren't noticed but are just as bad if not greater than ones which seem obvious.

Kevin was, indeed, guilty of ad homs on that thread. He was warned by Shades at least once. This was part of what prompted me to move the thread, to be honest.

I hope you understand that the moving of the thread was not done as some type of "punishment". I really didn't view it that way. It was simply to maintain the integrity of the thread, and avoid splitting/editing.

It was BECAUSE so much research had gone on during the course of the thread that I was hesitant to attempt any types of edits or splits. I think the other Mods felt the same way.

In retrospect, what I would have done differently was PM'd Richard. To be honest, I didn't realize that he was the originator of the thread until he said something. The thread had taken so many twists and turns, that for some reason, I had thought that Kevin had started the thread. That's why when he PM'd me, I was so quick to move it. It wasn't until after it had already been moved, that I realized he was not the originator. I will admit that was my fault in not being more careful to review who the originator was. That is also why, when Richard did speak up, I acted as quickly as I did to move it back.

Look, we're all human here. Moderation is done on a volunteer basis. We try and handle things on a case by case basis, maintain Shades' vision for the board, and basically moderate AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.

I was a Mod on FAIR/MAD! Believe me, I know what a nightmare over-moderation is! It's definitely a nightmare I don't want to re-live! LOL

[_Dr. Shades]

First of all, Shades' description of the Celestial Forum is as follows: The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.

Now, let's take a look at the description of the Terrestrial Forum: The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

To be perfectly honest, I was using those two words interchangeably. It's perfectly fine to have debates in the Celestial Forum (just as it's perfectly fine to have discussions in the Terrestrial Forum). Maybe I should've thought it through a little more; my bad.

The only differences between the two forums are tone, language, and tolerance of ad hominems.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

Here is an example of what I meant when I mentioned in a previous post to you how splitting off posts becomes an impossible task because "questionable" comments are embedded in topical posts.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=136635#136635

That will send you to a post made by JAK where he states that Kevin isn't truthful and then makes fully topical comments. In Kevin's reply that immediately follows, you will see Kevin address the "truthful" remark and go on to address at least a small portion of the more topical content of JAK's post.

Kevin could receive the "truthful" comment as an accusation of lying or ad hom. Kevin, in turn, accuses JAK of lying outright. If you read through there, you can see it's almost like a game of leap frog. JAK writes the "truthful" comment, Kevin responds to it, and in another post, Kevin begins to respond fully to the topical portion of JAK's post.

What would you do with those posts, marg? Would you split them off? Edit from within?

I think you can see there that splitting is no easy proposition when one wants to maintain the integrity of the discussion. Splitting off JAK's post where he makes the "truthful" comment would result in a chain reaction where the integrity of the actual discussion is cannibalized.

So far as I know, with the exception of private information, editing from within isn't an option on this board and I am completely against that to start with. If you examine the thread, you will see repeated instances of back and forth such as that where splitting just isn't feasible.

That's a case where I'd consider (had I not been a participant) moving the thread to a lower forum since it contains topical information however, it's still building the "Terrestrial feel" that Liz mentioned.

[_marg]

One would think that if all you guys were honest you'd want clarity for all, to be upfront and open abut this.
How are JAK , Kevin or I going to appreciate what has been violated so that it isn't repeated?

So if you have nothing to offer as evidence for what the problems were and why the thread should have been moved, then that speaks volumes to me in and of itself.

If you were honest and upfront you'd have no problems answering my question in the OP insted of going off on your tirades.

Those are character attacks and innuendo that have not a thing to do with the reality of what has been presented to you for I have been nothing but honest and upfront on these threads. How much time do you expect people to spend detailing things for you? These aren't "tirades", marg. These are the words of one who has given you information and explanations repeatedly to someone who doesn't seem able to read and absorb them.

For the last 4 days or so, I have been trying to understand why that thread got moved and I haven't been getting satisfactory answers, including from yourself.

You told me the problem was ad homs, that it was difficult taking those out of posts, and it was difficult moving posts because it takes away from the flow of discussion.
You also agreed with that moving threads to other areas doesn't solve the problem, ad homs are not decreased if anything it opens the thread up to increased ad homs.

Then you added that you agreed with the moving of the thread. So you contradicted yourself which gave me the impression something other than ad homs was involved. That is why I asked you to explain these contradictions in a post near the end of your dart-marg-Kevin thread. But you didn't.

Then when I brought that question to this thread to focus on it, you essentially went on the attack , I attacked back. Quite frankly what this was looking like to me was more a function of mod bias than anything that has so far been explained.

I will look at that thread again, but JAK doesn't typically post ad homs unless they are deserving.

And I think you didn't help matters by 1) accusing me of misrepresenting Kevin's words and point, and implying I wasn't taking the thread seriously whereas you were 2) interfering in the sub argument between Kevin and JAK on what historians' position is on this matter of Jesus' existence. JAK was not out of line to pursue that. It is a little rich that Kevin complained to a mod because someone accused him of lying after all the personal attacks he makes. But when i got to the thread and before it was moved, I conceded to kevin by clarifying his point further with the idea the discussion could move forward. It was right after that it got moved.


As shades pointed out in this thread which I just read he doesn't object to debate, he objects to vulgar language and excessive ad homs in the Celestial. Warnings that they (personal attacks) are noted would be a heck of a lot better than moving threads. It is not fair to participants who take a subject seriously, to have it sabbatoged. I assume when I write in the Celestial if there is going to be any moderation it will help to keep the thread on track, I don't assume "heavily moderated" means those who disrupt will be supported by the thread being moved to an area where they can escalate what they are doing.

On top of that when the thread gets moved, and it isn't explained with clarity why, no one knows who has done what. I even had Sam lambasting me, thinking I did something in the thread, because that is her impression, based on what you said probably and that the thread got moved. So that's one of the negative affects when what happened isn't made clear.

It did appear to me you were manipulating. And I don't think it was farfetched for me to assume that. You wrote that you tracked moderators down, agreed with the way it was handled, and the next morning after your reprimand post, the thread got moved. Had you said you disagreed with the way it was handled then you wouldn't have appeared to be involved and attempting to manipulate.

I'm not personally convinced that ad homs were a major problem in that thread, I will have to review it later. Not that it is going to make any difference at this point , but just for myself to verify whether that was a legitimate issue.

[_Jersey Girl]

Look at the post I made just above your new one here, marg. I gave you a link to examples.

[_marg]

Look at the post I made just above your new one here, marg. I gave you a link to examples.

Yes I just saw it.

I can't respond on it tonight. I will address it tomorrow. It will take me some time to go through the chain of the discussion back to when I first said kevin said.."All historians..."

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't plan to reply on this thread again.

[_Sam Harris]

I don't plan to reply on this thread again.

I don't blame you. This is so utterly redundant, it's insane.

Marg, you and JAK were as guilty as Kevin in the ad hom area. The thread moved from a dialogue in which many opinions could be shared and information exchanged to a three-way battle (well, two on one) between you, JAK, and Dart. And the fact that you still continue to attack Jersey Girl speaks volumes.

No mod has the time to sit here and walk you through what is in plain view so that you can feel you reached the proper conclusion for yourself.

[_marg]

marg,

Here is an example of what I meant when I mentioned in a previous post to you how splitting off posts becomes an impossible task because "questionable" comments are embedded in topical posts.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=136635#136635

That will send you to a post made by JAK where he states that Kevin isn't truthful and then makes fully topical comments. In Kevin's reply that immediately follows, you will see Kevin address the "truthful" remark and go on to address at least a small portion of the more topical content of JAK's post.

Kevin could receive the "truthful" comment as an accusation of lying or ad hom. Kevin, in turn, accuses JAK of lying outright. If you read through there, you can see it's almost like a game of leap frog. JAK writes the "truthful" comment, Kevin responds to it, and in another post, Kevin begins to respond fully to the topical portion of JAK's post.

What would you do with those posts, marg? Would you split them off? Edit from within?

Well I took a look and address it in the Celestial forum because it did have to do with that thread http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/search.php?search_author=marg

Essentially kevin was into gamesmenship, it wasn't JAK. Kevin had consistently implied quite anumber of time he was referring to "all historians" and he believe all historian accept Jesus's existence and that was his argument for Jesus' existence.

He focused on the word "all" not me. I was not incorrect to take that as the implication. But it wasn't my main point anyhow.

This was just another example of Kevin's gamemenship to wear others down and shift the focus off issues. JAK was correct to bring it up. It showed 2 things, how easily words or argued over, miscontrued, and that Kevin was not being truthful. He really wasn't. Just because someone leaves out the word "all" does not mean they aren't implying it.

I think you can see there that splitting is no easy proposition when one wants to maintain the integrity of the discussion. Splitting off JAK's post where he makes the "truthful" comment would result in a chain reaction where the integrity of the actual discussion is cannibalized.

Jaks' comment was not fallacious! Post after post after post of Kevin's was laced with fallacious ad homs. Not all ad homs are fallacious though. But if you look at Kevin's post he focusing on attacking the person time after time. He also misrepresents what they've argued. JAK ignores him when he does that because it is too time consuming to counter it and besides Kevin is disingenous and so there is little reason to engage him.

When one is into the a thread it is much easier to see gamesmenship. I don't fault liz for not seeing what was going on.

So far as I know, with the exception of private information, editing from within isn't an option on this board and I am completely against that to start with. If you examine the thread, you will see repeated instances of back and forth such as that where splitting just isn't feasible.

No I do not see that Jersey Girl, I see the fallacious gamesmenship by Kevin not by JAK. You got sucked into it though. You focused on the word "all" which is what Kevin wanted others to focus on. Yet time after time the implication he made, included "all". And by the way, that was his argument so why the denial. He admitted he doesn't think there are any historians who do not accept Jesus' existence. You fell for his game J.G.

That's a case where I'd consider (had I not been a participant) moving the thread to a lower forum since it contains topical information however, it's still building the "Terrestrial feel" that Liz mentioned.

Isn't it interesting that the person who is writing ad hom post ..one after another, I don't think I read any to JAK that weren't ...wants to move it to terrestial?

Why because JAK said he wasn't truthful? One post by JAK..and yet every post of his is an attack on JAK.

I don't know what you do with someone like Kevin. I think if it were me, I'd move his posts each time he had any ad hom ones. Because that would make him more careful. And they could be preserved in a separate thread. I don't like mod interferance but I think when a person is consistent, it is the only way to stop them.

I know there are lots of word/spelling errors in this thread, it's late and I rushed through. will correct them tomorrow.