I have closed the Honesty thread because it became unproductive and strayed into a violation of Bountiful rules. I hope that no one perceives intentional or unintentional censure of any of the thread participants by this action. Please do not open a new thread to continue the discussion. Any such new threads, or posts on this topic to other threads, will be deleted.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Aw, dangit! I broke one of my own rules - never say "some people are just jerks" unless you want a random sampling of people listening, to assume you're talking about them.
I'm sorry that I contributed negatively on this important thread. I don't think anyone here is a jerk. This isn't an appeal to the moderation decision, just an appeal for forgiveness.
fwiw, hsr, I was disappointed in your last response. I think you lacked a lot of empathy for mormons in general by stating that they're jerks.
I think it's ironic that so many people hold mormon history against mormons, and then get mad when mormons react negatively to it. When mormon history is rife with examples of folks who've claimed to want to leave us alone, only to turn against them.
That said, I agree the thread should be closed... and I'm a big jerk and a rulebreaker.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
You need to be more specific about how rules were broken, so that we can improve our performance in the future.
Saying "rules were broken" with zero explanation is a complete dodge of moderator responsibilities.
This is for four reasons:
A: This board belongs to all of us.
B: Just because a moderator thinks the rules were broken doesn't necessarily mean that they were.
C: Did we ever finally define "the rules?"
D: The power to close threads requires explanation. It's not something a moderator should just be able to do by fiat. It really is like walking into a conversation and yelling "SILENCE."
For what it is worth, I agree that the thread should be closed, because it was rude to Shiz and completely unhelpful to Casi.
Arbi explained what he would accept as "the rules" for that thread in the thread. There were a number of times when Arbi asked that we not probe or provide conjecture for why Shiz's choice was made. That led to some very general discussions about why these things happen, which could be constrewed as breaking the rules.
Since you saw them as rude, I think it's hypocritical to accuse Arbi of being unclear... you can read the thread and decide for yourself, where the line was crossed.
I somehow doubt that threads like this will be the trend for Bountiful. If they were to become such, I don't think I'd stick around much longer anyhow. I have too much realworld loving to do... to worry about members turning the group into a gripefest about mormonism in general and how it's failing the members of the board.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Arbi explained what he would accept as "the rules" for that thread in the thread.
Um, hello? We have rules for the forum. Moderators, don't get to set rules for a particular thread by fiat. You're moderators, not bishops.
There were a number of times when Arbi asked that we not probe or provide conjecture for why Shiz's choice was made.
And by what right did he do that? What rule did that break?
That led to some very general discussions about why these things happen, which could be constrewed as breaking the rules.
Really? Cite chapter and verse, please.
Since you saw them as rude, I think it's hypocritical to accuse Arbi of being unclear
How in the world was I being hypocritical? I found them "rude." I did not necessarily find them against "the rules."
... you can read the thread and decide for yourself, where the line was crossed.
I can think whatever I want, but I do not have the authority to close threads. Those who do must justify their reasons or give up the power.
I have too much realworld loving to do... to worry about members turning the group into a gripefest about mormonism in general and how it's failing the members of the board.
Fine. If we cannot discuss this, that or the other, that rule must be stated clearly, and must be cited distinctly as a reason for closing threads.
You need to be more specific about how rules were broken, so that we can improve our performance in the future.
Saying "rules were broken" with zero explanation is a complete dodge of moderator responsibilities.
This is for four reasons:
A: This board belongs to all of us.
B: Just because a moderator thinks the rules were broken doesn't necessarily mean that they were.
C: Did we ever finally define "the rules?"
D: The power to close threads requires explanation. It's not something a moderator should just be able to do by fiat. It really is like walking into a conversation and yelling "SILENCE."
For what it is worth, I agree that the thread should be closed, because it was rude to Shiz and completely unhelpful to Casi.
While I did give several explanations in the thread itself, I will give specific citations from the rules.
BTW, I am puzzled by your question as to whether we ever got around to defining the rules. They have been posted since the day the forum was created. Here they are, for reference:
The Rules 1. We are all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on this board. You are not allowed to participate if you are not LDS, either active or inactive.
2. We do not speak out against the church leaders, the church doctrine, the church practices, etc. We start from the assumption that everyone agrees with church doctrine as set forth in ancient and modern revelation.
3. We will at all times do our best to be civil. If you disagree, do it civilly.
4. Political discussions will be confined to the political forums. The same rules apply there. If a discussion ceases to be civil, it will be locked or deleted.
5. Your opinion may be better than someone else's, but that does not give you license to use personal attacks, harsh language, or to give the impression that if only they were as intelligent as you, they would agree with you.
The rules that were specifically violated were 2 and 3. There were uncivil elements to the thread, and church doctrines were challenged.
I stated from the beginning how the rules should be followed for the thread. When it looked like the thread was headed in the wrong direction, I gave warning a couple of times. When it crossed the boundary, I closed it.
You state in your point B that rules aren't necessarily broken just because a moderator thinks they were. You are correct that there should be good reasons for closing a thread. But those reasons existed. Warning was given. No action was sudden. Moderators have to use their best judgment in enforcing the rules. Moderators do make mistakes. But they are the ones tasked with the responsibility of taking action in a situation where they perceive a rule violation. If we were to moderate by consensus, with no action taken until a majority of the board members had voted on it, this board would be bedlam.
That said, if you still feel that the moderation action was taken in error, feel free to ask the other moderators to review it.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I'm glad it was closed. I think we may have hurt Shiz and Casi's feelings. It is very difficult to discuss things in posted threads. Most communication is non verbal, facial expressions, gestures, tone, inflection, none of which can be communicated in a forum. Something can come across as insulting a lot easier.
