Should the Dehlin/Rosebud drama be deleted?

[Kishkumen]

The vote isn’t on banning Rosebud.

“Should I remove the "The Rosebud MEGATHREAD" and ban accusations of criminal conduct?”

Does this include the LDS Church? I mean, fair is fair, and all we know about its criminal conduct in its SEC lawbreaking, which no one seems to care about because it is a “victimless crime” (hardy har).

I say Telestial is the appropriate place for criminal accusations against individual people. That said, if we are really in peril here in legal terms, the new rule may be the way to go.

[I Have Questions]

I am not responsible for what John’s actions imply. He is responsible for what his actions imply. This distinction is important.

John is responsible for his actions. You are responsible for what you have decided to say they imply.

[I Have Questions]

This is about bigger issues than Mormon Discussions and a democracy of Mormon Discussions voters is not representative of the population whose voices are being suppressed.

This is about the operating of the Discuss Mormonism board. Nothing else.

[I Have Questions]

I wonder what female Mormon historians like Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (who coined the well-known line “Well-behaved women seldom make history”) would think of the deletion of this important slice of women’s history in Mormonism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Thatcher_Ulrich

What would her vote be?

She’s still alive, why not approach her and ask? You could maybe publish something together? She’s probably going to be a little surprised at how scathing you’ve been about people like her who see Nelson as a Prophet. What was it you said about active, believing Mormons?

And weak-minded people make prophets out of Dehlins and Nelsons, lacking the self-awareness to understand what they’re doing.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159385&start=40
She might be surprised to read that you think she’s weak-minded and lacking self-awareness.

[Marcus]

The vote isn’t on banning Rosebud.

“Should I remove the "The Rosebud MEGATHREAD" and ban accusations of criminal conduct?”

Right. And Rosebud never exactly said that Dehlin is in cahoots with child molesters, but in both cases, that's what's clearly implied. In fact, it's not even just implied about banning Rosebud. Some are calling for her thread to be removed...

Just so I understand, you think this thread is clearly implying that Rosebud should be banned? Could you explain how you have come to that?

[jpatterson]

To that end, should I remove the "The Rosebud MEGATHREAD" and ban all further accusations of alleged criminal conduct on Dehlin's part, under the auspices that he is a poster here, even if his real name and user name aren't linked?

Shades, this kind of thread and discussion is exactly what public message boards are (or should be) about. This board has existed for the express purpose of being a Daniel Peterson punching bag, for crying out loud. The amount of vitriol that gets posted about that man here (deserved and not) is mind-boggling.

John Dehlin is a public figure. By virtue of him choosing to put himself and his marriage in the public spotlight, he accepts the reality that people are going to criticize him. This is not my opinion, this is what the legal system says about public figures. They have to assume a healthy level of criticism and, for that reason, private individuals are shielded from unnecessary lawsuits as long as they (like Jenn Kamp) don't say anything they definitively know is a lie.

I do not believe Rosebud has posted anything she knows to be a lie. Despite my misgivings about how she goes about criticizing Dehlin, I believe she believes her accusations against him. That's what the courts care about and that's the only thing, really, you should care about.

She has not done anything wrong, in the context of what this message board exists for. People may disagree with her and people like Marcus and drumdude may lack the maturity to simply, I dunno, not engage with her, but the beautiful thing is...that's their problem, not yours. Why should you go out of your way to placate posters who have zero self control? Why should you offer further protection to a public figure who literally has a non-profit with millions of dollars at his disposal to sue people who don't like him? Why shouldn't John be criticized for lying to the public and donors? Why shouldn't John be hotly scrutinized when he wields such influence?

I'd strongly encourage you to leave the MEGAthread exactly as is, for no other reason that it might literally be the only corner of the internet left where it's still acceptable to criticize one of the most powerful, vocal, wealthy people in exMormonism.

John Dehlin does not need protection here. John Dehlin will be just fine if an anonymous message board poster continues to post accusations about him. Public figures deal with this all day, every day. Dehlin shouldn't get a pass simply because a few immature posters can't control themselves.

[Marcus]

...I also note that those most loudly calling for Rosebud to be ousted are the same people who most often engage with her. There is a really easy way to avoid her posts: Don't read her posts. That's basically the same advice most here have given her about just forgetting Dehlin, and I think it's true. It's hard to take someone seriously who claims to be so sick and tired of Rosebud when they respond to virtually everything she says...

Interesting take. Responding to a post by noting Rosebud's defamatory statements, inaccuracies, conflagrations and out-right lies isn't exactly engaging with her. And just not reading posts doesn't solve the problem of posts being made in a forum where the rules prohibit personal attacks. Simply allowing those attacks to continue does not resolve the issue of our rules being broken.

[jpatterson]

in a forum where the rules prohibit personal attacks

This literally made me spit out my Diet Pepsi.

This forum would shrivel up and die overnight if Daniel Peterson died today.

This board LIVES for personal attacks. It thrives on them. It relishes them.

Just admit you love the drama of engaging with Rosebud, Marcus. It's okay. I went through it myself. You know what I didn't do, though? I didn't go out of my way to silence the people I couldn't stop engaging with. I did what most normal people do: I logged off and found something better to do.

[Marcus]

in a forum where the rules prohibit personal attacks

This literally made me spit out my Diet Pepsi.

This forum would shrivel up and die overnight if Daniel Peterson died today.

This board LIVES for personal attacks. It thrives on them. It relishes them.

Just admit you love the drama of engaging with Rosebud, Marcus. It's okay. I went through it myself. You know what I didn't do, though? I didn't go out of my way to silence the people I couldn't stop engaging with. I did what most normal people do: I logged off and found something better to do.

Lol. Learn the rules. Also, if you want to truncate a post, learn to indicate it properly.

...I also note that those most loudly calling for Rosebud to be ousted are the same people who most often engage with her. There is a really easy way to avoid her posts: Don't read her posts. That's basically the same advice most here have given her about just forgetting Dehlin, and I think it's true. It's hard to take someone seriously who claims to be so sick and tired of Rosebud when they respond to virtually everything she says...

Interesting take. Responding to a post by noting Rosebud's defamatory statements, inaccuracies, conflagrations and out-right lies isn't exactly engaging with her. And just not reading posts doesn't solve the problem of posts being made in a forum where the rules prohibit personal attacks. Simply allowing those attacks to continue does not resolve the issue of our rules being broken.

On a more personal note, Diet Pepsi for breakfast?

"Tell me you were raised Mormon, without telling me you were raised Mormon..."

[I Have Questions]

To that end, should I remove the "The Rosebud MEGATHREAD" and ban all further accusations of alleged criminal conduct on Dehlin's part, under the auspices that he is a poster here, even if his real name and user name aren't linked?

Shades, this kind of thread and discussion is exactly what public message boards are (or should be) about. This board has existed for the express purpose of being a Daniel Peterson punching bag, for crying out loud. The amount of vitriol that gets posted about that man here (deserved and not) is mind-boggling.

John Dehlin is a public figure. By virtue of him choosing to put himself and his marriage in the public spotlight, he accepts the reality that people are going to criticize him. This is not my opinion, this is what the legal system says about public figures. They have to assume a healthy level of criticism and, for that reason, private individuals are shielded from unnecessary lawsuits as long as they (like Jenn Kamp) don't say anything they definitively know is a lie.

I do not believe Rosebud has posted anything she knows to be a lie. Despite my misgivings about how she goes about criticizing Dehlin, I believe she believes her accusations against him. That's what the courts care about and that's the only thing, really, you should care about.

She has not done anything wrong, in the context of what this message board exists for. People may disagree with her and people like Marcus and drumdude may lack the maturity to simply, I dunno, not engage with her, but the beautiful thing is...that's their problem, not yours. Why should you go out of your way to placate posters who have zero self control? Why should you offer further protection to a public figure who literally has a non-profit with millions of dollars at his disposal to sue people who don't like him? Why shouldn't John be criticized for lying to the public and donors? Why shouldn't John be hotly scrutinized when he wields such influence?

I'd strongly encourage you to leave the MEGAthread exactly as is, for no other reason that it might literally be the only corner of the internet left where it's still acceptable to criticize one of the most powerful, vocal, wealthy people in exMormonism.

John Dehlin does not need protection here. John Dehlin will be just fine if an anonymous message board poster continues to post accusations about him. Public figures deal with this all day, every day. Dehlin shouldn't get a pass simply because a few immature posters can't control themselves.

There’s a difference between criticising someone for some of the assertions they make, for some of the content they put out etc, and public accusations of serious criminality. Rosebud isn’t criticising the content put out by Mormon Stories, she isn’t criticising what the proprietor of Mormon Stories says. She is making unsubstantiated accusations about behind-the-scenes criminal wrongdoing. Obsessively. And she is using this board to do so. That is not what this public message board is about. In fact, it’s specifically against one of the board’s operating rules.

“Do not make threats or take actions to cause another member to feel harassed or fearful for his or her safety "in real life."