Rule clarification

[TripletDaddy]

And in comes the moderation of the board and discussion goes out the window

I was simply having fun with woot. his silence speaks volumes.

I am not a moderator. If I were, I would have already locked this thread and force everyone to post in the WIZARDS thread.

[tooblue]

It would be very limited. There are only a couple of posters on this site that I believe add zero value and sap resources.

tooblue is not on that list, btw. I consider tooblue to be an old school compatriot who happens to be amped up on testosterone from all his nude drawing freakery this past week.

Well she did have rings in strange places and a very strange tatoo.

[UtahDan]

I was simply having fun with woot. his silence speaks volumes.

I am not a moderator. If I were, I would have already locked this thread and force everyone to post in the WIZARDS thread.

Fortunately, mods don't abuse their powers.

[TripletDaddy]

Well she did have rings in strange places and a very strange tatoo.

oh my.

tooblue is back.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I can't resist. I am going to get into this fray. I think this board has a liberal tilt to it.

CB has a conservative tilt to it.

The liberal tilt allows for more open discussion.

Neither tilt allows for anyones idea's to be universally accepted as brilliant.

[byu71]

This thread is sucking the life out of my deeply thought provoking Ammish thread.

[RobinFinderson]

Well she did have rings in strange places and a very strange tatoo.

Purnography!

[TripletDaddy]

Fortunately, mods don't abuse their powers.

I agree with this. I am expressing what I would do if I were a mod. In essence, I am lobbying for greater moderater abuse but nobody is listening to me.

[UtahDan]

I agree with this. I am expressing what I would do if I were a mod. In essence, I am lobbying for greater moderater abuse but nobody is listening to me.

You missed it. Look again.

[TripletDaddy]

You missed it. Look again.

iambic pentameter?

[UtahDan]

iambic pentameter?

You were the victim of more than iambic pentameter. Look again. #166.

[TripletDaddy]

You were the victim of more than iambic pentameter. Look again. #166.

MY BLOOD IS BOILING!!!!!!
:swear::swear:

[UtahDan]

MY BLOOD IS BOILING!!!!!!
:swear::swear:

See! You give people what they want they immediately realize it isn't what they wanted.

[TripletDaddy]

See! You give people what they want they immediately realize it isn't what they wanted.

I asked for some abuse, not full-fledged sadism. sheesh!

[tooblue]

My use of "high fives" is not intended to be flippant. When I say liberal, I'm not talking about mocking or denigrating though certainly that does happen. I'm not sure I can easily put my finger on what that does mean precisely, but I suppose it is, in general, not a whole lot different than what FARMS and others do. For example, the idea that the garden story is an allegory, or that the flood may not be a literal event, or the idea that the BOM might have a limited geography, or the idea that Joseph might have translated primarily with a seer stone, or the idea that Joseph was a polyandrist, or the idea that the priesthood ban was a mistake policy rather than a revealed doctrine...none of these views are "traditional" and would (and are) rejected by more conservative/traditional church members. Our mainstream is more accepting of ideas of this nature and open to hearing others. That is all I really meant. None of that is denigrating or insult, though as I have said before, there certainly are insults and denigrations that occur.

But lets be clear, tb, this is not what I or anyone on the EC intends, it is simply the state of things that has developed naturally. Do you have a suggestion as to how it could be made otherwise without very robust moderation that would be oriented toward a conservative viewpoint? While I accept your characterization of how things are as a legitimate view point, I reject your accusation that it has been orchestrated by Jeff or myself and ask for what evidence of this there is. I further ask what you think we could do to change it?

I have a lot of personal experience with you and Jeff that is not worth bringing into the discussion suffice it to say from my perspective you have demonstrated to me, directly and indirectly, that you favor the negativism and are outspoken about it, and therefore in my opinion the discussion here is often not a natural development.

I am not a fan of moderation in the sense that there is a mod watching over the forum etc. Furthermore, I am not suggesting it be oriented toward a conservative viewpoint. I can see that there is value in exploring topics completely. I have (in many discussions in private for many years) and always will be in favor of balance. Is it possible that in the religion forum there is no moderation and that posters would be required to speak to multiple perspectives equally when introducing a subject? And if not, why? Simply stating it’s not practical is defeatist. There are posters that often operate in this manner, namely Solon and sometimes Sleeping in Elders Quorum.

So you are against the existence of the SE, duly noted. Also, you keep saying and implying that people are unable to participate. What you really mean is that they don't want to expose their ideas to being challenged. That is fine, I get it. And I am perfectly serious when I tell you that if you don't want your ideas exposed to disagreement, that a composition tablet or even a nice bound journal can be had virtually anywhere. Again, even if I am inclined to agree with you that the tone could be more cordial (which I actually agree is the case) I'm at a loss to know that the solution is, other than for people to either be part of the solution by pushing back or alternatively not participating. There is no perfect world here on this issue, tb. There is never going to be support here for moderating the Foyer for content. We can talk about how we might influence it, but that is all we can really say. You seem to just want it to be something it isn't. Again, what specifically would you have any of us do?

In my experience very few posters here harbor the expectation that their ideas not be challenged. On the contrary to post here is to invite challenge. It is a hyperbolic characterization. No one is asking for a perfect world or solution, but the fact of the matter is if your expectation is for the conservative to push back then there should be good faith efforts made to support said push back. In my experience the opposite is often true.

Doesn't your continued presence here undermine your argument that anyone has a "my way or the highway" approach? Maybe that is a poor choice of words on your part. Obviously no one is being shown the highway over their view point. If you mean that I, like everyone else, has an opinion that I share and that you don't find yourself agreement very often, okay. Are you saying that Lebowski and I and others should refrain form taking a side in religious discussion because we are so influential that it skews the debate? Seriously? This seems to be the trust of your argument as best I can tell. Should he and I not get to enjoy this board?

Unfortunately you, Lebowski and others bear the burden of ownership -- that is your choice. So, yes your influence does skew the debate whether you want it to or not. You can’t claim that all perspectives are welcome and then proceed to take a side and hope that your intent is not seen as heavy handed.

Just say what is on your mind! If you chose not to because you don't want to be challenged, as I keep saying, that is not my fault. Neither I nor anyone is omnipotent here, nor do we have the time to be, nor do we desire to be.

This isn’t about fear of being challenged. No one least of all me expects omnipotence.

Well, you certainly are guessing about what people's intentions are. If you think that you are drawing a reasonable inference from evidence that there is an intention on the part of the EC or its members to cleanse this forum of traditional thinking, I again ask you for your evidence. Some may have that agenda, but not the EC. As you consider that, I invite you to read my exchange with sooner in this thread:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=11265

I'm glad that you agree that ideas need to be exchanged and discussed. I'm not looking for anything here other than to try to persuade you that the characterizations you have made about me and others, and the notion that anyone is prevented from saying what is on their mind, are incorrect. I don't need any pats on the back nor does disagreement bother me in the least. Discussion is what this board is for.

You correctly note that some people view your concerns as having more to do with your personality than they do with authentic problems that exist here. I'm not going to address that, there is no point. Still, if I wanted to simply insult you and focus on you, I could have. I have not. What I'm trying to do is look past your assertions that I find to be personality driven and address the underlying factual assertions you are making. We may have a different view of what the facts mean, but perhaps we can move toward agreement about what they are. Perhaps not. Insulting you is truly not my objective here.

You have put a lot of words and ideas into my mouth that don't belong there. I have told you what I meant by liberal above, and maybe that will clear up some of your confusion. I don't agree with your characterization of what the mainstream is, but even accepting that you are correct, the idea that I or anyone on the EC would seek to discourage that viewpoint being challenged is the opposite of the truth. In fact, I and others have been very encouraging in private of many conservative posters to post more and let their influence be felt. I encourage you to do the same, tb. I have exerted not a small amount of energy on this front. You didn't know this, I assume. I hope that knowing it will change your perspective.

I have not put words in your mouth. You have now explained what you consider liberal or non mainstream. I contend that your explanation is not applicable …

So you withdraw your assertion you made in the previous paragraph that I and others don't want a "negative" view of the church challenged? That is good to hear. But let me ask you again how you envision your idea of "respect for all opinions" being enforced. Let us imagine you share a deeply felt traditional view and someone expressed a very cynical, disrespectful view of what you have said. In your perfect world, what is the next step that I or Jeff or the EC collectively should take? If your request is simply that moderators be more encouraging of respect, then that is a criticism that I can accept. That is something that I and many others have privately said is something we could, and should do. I hope that this is a responsibility that every one will accept. If, however, your ideal next step involves moderation in the sense of editing or imposing a penalty, I again say that this is not that kind of board.

But what inaction or action, specifically, are you talking about? Until you move beyond a generality it is hard for me to address your comment. What would you like to see done, or not done? Your last statement I truly don't understand, but again maybe you have misunderstood what I meant by liberal. Regardless, what change do you advocate? I think you have explained your complaints at length. I have done my best to listen. Do you have a solution you would like for every one to consider?

EDIT: Wow this is long. SU is proved right again.

Based upon my past experience in private forums over a long period of time with you and jeff I do not withdraw my assertion. I would have to refer to specific threads or instances to which I no longer have access … a pointless exercise.

I made a conscious choice to speak up in this thread, not because I think lingo is great and should not have been banned, but because I want to participate here more carefully -- though I am about as careful as a 400 lb gorilla (I’d choose an image of one for my avatar but I don’t want Creekster to have ape envy). In so doing I have completely alienated one board member to whom I am truly sorry. Regardless, when you state:

that moderators be more encouraging of respect, then that is a criticism that I can accept.

it rings hollow to me.

There is a private forum that recently has become an unhealthy focus for those that have never had access. I find it distasteful that a lack of access is used to taunt some posters or as motivation to cajole them into behaving better. It’s inception was flawed from the get go IMO. I think it has outlived its ambiguous purpose.

At least two posters recently have been banned for an extended period of time. What about those who goaded them? Where was your ‘more encouraging of respect’ in those instances? Had it been there in the first place would the persons have acted out to such and extent to warrant a ban? Maybe with a good chance of maybe not!

Note: I am not contesting the bans but rather see them as impetus for discussing change.

Ultimately, change is something you should ask all board members about. I have offered some opinions. I think the biggest thing would be to encourage balance in the religion thread and I do not think my suggestion above is far fetched. Religion is so highly charged that it demands a little more effort on all fronts.