Rules and Moderator information

[Jersey Girl]

Then wouldn't you say that the simple solution would be for Shades to address it?

Simple for me, yes. Simple for you, yes. Simple for Shades, no.

Why wouldn't it be simple for Shades?

[Marcus]

...I've spent hours and hours thinking about and talking about the trolling situation and how to effectively address it short of taking action that I don't believe is within my remit.

Thank you for sharing that, I am sure I am not alone in saying that the efforts of our moderation board are greatly appreciated.

Based on my own experiences with Binger and Atlanticmike, I have no reason to believe that posting a general plea in response to behavior that anyone around here characterizes as "disruptive" would have a positive effect.

No argument there, sadly. Although I would take small exception with the description:

"behavior that anyone around here characterizes as 'disruptive' ".

Short of the most volatile 4chan locations or maybe the Stormfront forum where Ajax posts, the behavior described here as "disruptive" is described as such because it would be described as "disruptive" anywhere, by anyone.

[Binger]

If you, or anyone else, thinks of two sentences that I can post in the form of a general plea that will alter Binger or Atlanticmike's behavior, please post them or PM them to me. If I'm persuaded that they'll be effective, I'll do it.

Done.

[Res Ipsa]

Simple for me, yes. Simple for you, yes. Simple for Shades, no.

Why wouldn't it be simple for Shades?

in my opinion, because of the core values that led him to establish this discussion board in the first place. He has a genuine, classical liberal commitment to free speech. He created a space where people could be super aggressive and nasty, as long as it happens in the right place. I've read a bunch of the interchanges back when LDS apologists hung out here to "debate." It had an aggressive and nasty tone. But it functioned, at least for a time, as an arena where believers and critics could do battle, including knock down drag out fights.

Banning posters based on the contents of their posts is anathema to those core values. So is requiring pre-approval of posts. The old slogan used to "yes, you can say that here." At the same time, if he doesn't place some limits, this place will follow the typical path of free speech forums and dwindle to nothing because no one can have, as a practical matter, a discussion on any given topic without being subjected to all kinds of written abuse.

So, I think this is anything but a simple issue from Shades' perspective: core values running smack into the depressing reality of human behavior. IMHO.

[Res Ipsa]

...I've spent hours and hours thinking about and talking about the trolling situation and how to effectively address it short of taking action that I don't believe is within my remit.

Thank you for sharing that, I am sure I am not alone in saying that the efforts of our moderation board are greatly appreciated.

Based on my own experiences with Binger and Atlanticmike, I have no reason to believe that posting a general plea in response to behavior that anyone around here characterizes as "disruptive" would have a positive effect.

No argument there, sadly. Although I would take small exception with the description:

"behavior that anyone around here characterizes as 'disruptive' ".

Short of the most volatile 4chan locations or maybe the Stormfront forum where Ajax posts, the behavior described here as "disruptive" is described as such because it would be described as "disruptive" anywhere, by anyone.

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate your appreciation.

With respect to the latter, point taken. My intent was to avoid giving the impression that there was a consensus about what constitutes disruptive behavior in general.

[Binger]

So, I think this is anything but a simple issue from Shades' perspective: core values running smack into the depressing reality of human behavior. IMHO.

Another BINGO.

[Jersey Girl]

[malkie]

Why wouldn't it be simple for Shades?

in my opinion, because of the core values that led him to establish this discussion board in the first place. He has a genuine, classical liberal commitment to free speech. He created a space where people could be super aggressive and nasty, as long as it happens in the right place. I've read a bunch of the interchanges back when LDS apologists hung out here to "debate." It had an aggressive and nasty tone. But it functioned, at least for a time, as an arena where believers and critics could do battle, including knock down drag out fights.

Banning posters based on the contents of their posts is anathema to those core values. So is requiring pre-approval of posts. The old slogan used to "yes, you can say that here." At the same time, if he doesn't place some limits, this place will follow the typical path of free speech forums and dwindle to nothing because no one can have, as a practical matter, a discussion on any given topic without being subjected to all kinds of written abuse.

So, I think this is anything but a simple issue from Shades' perspective: core values running smack into the depressing reality of human behavior. IMHO.

I believe that in the past 5 years or so we have had several posters put on pre-approval.

According to my recollection (always a tricky idea) the posters were not particularly disruptive. One, a gentleman from Eastern Europe, If I recall correctly, made thoughtful and thought-provoking posts and comments that seemed to be quite innocuous, though perhaps not as directly relevant to Mormonism as some others would like. by the way, although I don't recall his name, I miss his posts. Heinrich, or something similar?

So I believe it's not without precedent, even for posters who caused (again, in my opinion, and If I recall correctly) minimal disruption to the operation of the board.

Perhaps I'm completely missing the point - an omnipresent possibility.

[Res Ipsa]

in my opinion, because of the core values that led him to establish this discussion board in the first place. He has a genuine, classical liberal commitment to free speech. He created a space where people could be super aggressive and nasty, as long as it happens in the right place. I've read a bunch of the interchanges back when LDS apologists hung out here to "debate." It had an aggressive and nasty tone. But it functioned, at least for a time, as an arena where believers and critics could do battle, including knock down drag out fights.

Banning posters based on the contents of their posts is anathema to those core values. So is requiring pre-approval of posts. The old slogan used to "yes, you can say that here." At the same time, if he doesn't place some limits, this place will follow the typical path of free speech forums and dwindle to nothing because no one can have, as a practical matter, a discussion on any given topic without being subjected to all kinds of written abuse.

So, I think this is anything but a simple issue from Shades' perspective: core values running smack into the depressing reality of human behavior. IMHO.

I believe that in the past 5 years or so we have had several posters put on pre-approval.

According to my recollection (always a tricky idea) the posters were not particularly disruptive. One, a gentleman from Eastern Europe, If I recall correctly, made thoughtful and thought-provoking posts and comments that seemed to be quite innocuous, though perhaps not as directly relevant to Mormonism as some others would like. by the way, although I don't recall his name, I miss his posts. Heinrich, or something similar?

So I believe it's not without precedent, even for posters who caused (again, in my opinion, and If I recall correctly) minimal disruption to the operation of the board.

Perhaps I'm completely missing the point - an omnipresent possibility.

Your recollection matches mine. There were specific reasons for placing each in "the queue," and I don't recall Shades basing any of those decisions on UR 8.

[canpakes]

Your recollection matches mine. There were specific reasons for placing each in "the queue," and I don't recall Shades basing any of those decisions on UR 8.

Bach was queued for his volume of personal attacks. That could also be interpreted as a type of UR 8 violation.

I can point you to a mod thread about his situation if you haven’t already located it.