Questions about how the mods function

[LittleWyvern]

One more tiny question...are we to not ever post anything about homosexuality here again? It is one of the most perplexing current trends that we as LDS have to deal with. It is extremely controversial but I feel it helps to talk to LDS members about it to sort it out in my own mind. I haven't found any friends willing to talk about it in real life. When I do bring it up, the reaction is usually "Ick!"- end of discussion-really closed-minded blanket dismissal of the topic. I don't think it's an issue to be swept under the rug. It's not going away and as LDS we need to prepare ourselves to face living with it all around us.

Any suggestions?

I personally agree with that bolded part, but with issues like these it's so hard to keep a discussion productive. Especially with homosexuality, most topics on this forum tend to degrade to "OMG you're EVIL" and "OMG you're STUPID" or "no, this is the correct, doctrinal stance because it comes from the church and all other views are apostate/denying God/going against a prophet/etc." or so on. I'm sure a healthy discussion on, say, how to keep traditional marriages sacred in a world that considers marriage anything but would be appreciated, but threads made simply to say something is evil won't ever work.

EDIT: dang, double ninja'd. Essentially, have a very clear, defined, narrow topic and you should be fine.

[Soulsearcher]

Frankly, it is kind of an icky topic. I also am of the opinion that the homosexual lobby wishes for people to keep talking about homosexuality -- pro, con, or otherwise -- to further the normalization process. So personally, I feel no dearth of homosexuality threads.

On the other hand, if someone is having issues with it or wants information or opinions, many a thread has already been spun on the topic. So I guess you can always spin another.

LOL isn't this the whole reason behind the current LDS PR campaign? Not exactly a new thing to try and make the world see the minority aren't quite the freaks people think they are.

[carlimac]

I personally agree with that bolded part, but with issues like these it's so hard to keep a discussion productive. Especially with homosexuality, most topics on this forum tend to degrade to "OMG you're EVIL" and "OMG you're STUPID" or "no, this is the correct, doctrinal stance because it comes from the church and all other views are apostate/denying God/going against a prophet/etc." or so on. I'm sure a healthy discussion on, say, how to keep traditional marriages sacred in a world that considers marriage anything but would be appreciated, but threads made simply to say something is evil won't ever work.

EDIT: dang, double ninja'd. Essentially, have a very clear, defined, narrow topic and you should be fine.

About the part I bolded, that goes on about all kinds of topics, not just homosexuality. It seems to me that that is one of the purposes of the forum, to clarify what is and isn't doctrine. It's always helpful if someone can link a quote from church leaders AND the context the quote it was given in so that there isn't a question.

[LittleWyvern]

About the part I bolded, that goes on about all kinds of topics, not just homosexuality. It seems to me that that is one of the purposes of the forum, to clarify what is and isn't doctrine. It's always helpful if someone can link a quote from church leaders AND the context the quote it was given in so that there isn't a question.

Helpful to know what the Church's stand on issues are: yes.

Helpful to use this as a kind of trump card during debates: no.

Sorry I wasn't very clear on this :)

[pam]

About the part I bolded, that goes on about all kinds of topics, not just homosexuality. It seems to me that that is one of the purposes of the forum, to clarify what is and isn't doctrine. It's always helpful if someone can link a quote from church leaders AND the context the quote it was given in so that there isn't a question.

You have the right at any time to ask for references. If someone appears to be quoting to state something is doctrine and you question it..they have the burden of proof.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Then why not start a forum for tithing? Why not start a forum for Word of Wisdom? Why not start a forum for modesty?

We can't start forums for every subject that can go on forever and ever. Which a number of subjects could do.

I didn't mean it like that. I meant it as one overall forum for all those discussions. So you would just start the one and then let people create threads for each topic they want to discuss. Or you could just not, that works too.

[Vort]

I didn't mean it like that. I meant it as one overall forum for all those discussions. So you would just start the one and then let people create threads for each topic they want to discuss. Or you could just not, that works too.

I think it's called "General Discussion".

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

I think it's called "General Discussion".

It'd be like that, except for more controversial topics...

Okay, maybe it was a stupid idea. Oh well.

[skippy740]

http://www.lds.net/forums/adult-advice/

There is the "Adult Advice" forum. All the forum rules still apply, but it discusses things that may not be appropriate for those under 18... or are more sensitive to such topics.

If you don't have access, PM Pam and indicate that you are over 18.

[Gwen]

http://www.lds.net/forums/adult-advice/

There is the "Adult Advice" forum. All the forum rules still apply, but it discusses things that may not be appropriate for those under 18... or are more sensitive to such topics.

If you don't have access, PM Pam and indicate that you are over 18.

unless you are not over 18, then you will just have to wait to enjoy that forum. lol

[carlimac]

Helpful to know what the Church's stand on issues are: yes.

Helpful to use this as a kind of trump card during debates: no.

Sorry I wasn't very clear on this :)

Why isn't it helpful to point out what the brethren have said? If it's doctrinal truth it should be OK, shouldn't it? Sometimes all that's needed to clear up a debate is to get the final word from the prophet. Isn't that like hearing the Lord's opinion? I can see how someone could go about it in a self-righteous manner. But I've always found the words of our church leaders to soften the rancor if they are taken in a spirit of humility.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

http://www.lds.net/forums/adult-advice/

There is the "Adult Advice" forum. All the forum rules still apply, but it discusses things that may not be appropriate for those under 18... or are more sensitive to such topics.

If you don't have access, PM Pam and indicate that you are over 18.

Might just do that, though I assumed that was more for something else... well I guess I'll find out.

(Gwen - no need to worry, I'm 20, fyi, haha.)

[Vort]

Might just do that, though I assumed that was more for something else... well I guess I'll find out.

(Gwen - no need to worry, I'm 20, fyi, haha.)

The "Adult Advice" forum is rarely used. Most issues can be discussed in open forum.

[Just_A_Guy]

Helpful to know what the Church's stand on issues are: yes.

Helpful to use this as a kind of trump card during debates: no.

Sorry I wasn't very clear on this :)

I would respectfully disagree with the bolded section, at least in part.

This is an LDS-oriented forum, founded on orthodox LDS principles and dedicated to the promulgation of mainstream-LDS doctrine. I don't think anyone has ever made any bones about that.

I agree that, in secular discourse, the Church's position on any given issue doesn't carry much weight. But among the contemplated users of LDS.net: it does. It certainly oughtn't shut down discussion entirely; but it merits substantial deference. People who start making bizarre arguments about how LDS leaders don't understand LDS doctrine--or start railing against LDS doctrine generally--probably won't be comfortable in this particular forum for long.

[john doe]

The "Adult Advice" forum is rarely used. Most issues can be discussed in open forum.

Let's just remember that the same rules apply in the Open Forum as the rest of the site, but it is reserved for more adult-type topics.

As I have not weighed in on the topic yet, I will take the time to do so now. People complain sometimes that this site does not allow more back-and-forth debate, with slings and arrows tossed around, and discussions of whether the LDS Church's positions are right or wrong. There's a good reason for that. This site does not exist for the purposes of debating the truthfulness of the LDS Church, or whether its leaders are leading the Church the way Christ would have them do. The way I see it, the purpose of this site is to strengthen peoples' testimonies of the gospel according to the LDS Church. While we are not an official site of the Church, we support the positions of the Church. Site rule #1 states:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

You can access the rules at the top of almost every page in the forums if you have any questions about them. I have suggested this approach to various offenders in the past, especially newer members of the site who run afoul of the rules, and that suggestion generally is met with disdain. There are other members of the site who like to run right at the edge of the rules, just inside the lines. As a mod staff, we know who you are and when we decide we have had enough of those games, we will take action. A good rule of thumb that I have found is to try to never post in anger or indignation. It generally does not end well when that happens.

There are some topics which come up from time to time, which tend to get everyone caught up in an uproar. Usually they are the same topics which have been discussed in the near past, and they ended with hurt feelings and circular debates with no agreements or conceding points by any of the participants. In those types of cases, it has been our policy to end new debates of the same topic fairly quickly and with little or no warning. It's not that we don't want to tolerate good discussion, it's that we want to foster goodwill between members of the site, and our experience has been that certain hot-button topics rarely end well. As a mod team, and as members of the site, we have seen this over and over again.

Sometimes we will let a new perspective or development on a topic get discussed, but the moment it starts to turn ugly, by any participant in the thread, we close it before it gets out of hand. It's not an exact science, I know, and sometimes people think they have the perfect post to help further a discussion and it was left out, but experience has shown us that generally when certain topics come up here, when the thread starts to go sour, it rarely gets put back onto a good track.

We as a mod team, and I speak of myself here as well, are not perfect. Sometimes we make mistakes, even after we have discussed situations to the point where we feel we are doing the right thing. Sometimes we make snap judgements that in retrospect, may not have been the wisest move. We're human. I'm human. If you have an issue with a moderator, as with anything in life, the best thing to do is to contact them directly and talk about it. If your problem can't be resolved with the person, there is a chain of authority you can move up to talk to. Posting a new thread just to berate any or all the moderators is a quick ticket to our bad place, and is expressly against rule #6.

I know I have a reputation as being some big bad meanie who exists to chew people up. Pam can tell you that that impression couldn't be further from the truth in real life. Yes, I know I come off as gruff sometimes, and that is usually a result of an unfortunate incident where I have taken on the mantle of being the one who informs people they have collected an infraction. I get it, no one likes the bouncers at the nightclub club either. But when I am in moderator mode, I have found it best to be forthright and to the point. Yes, I do sometimes volunteer to be the guy who informs of an infraction, even at times when I was not involved in the decision to give it. But I think that if you PM me (or any moderator for that matter) explaining your point of view calmly and patiently, without being accusatory or degrading, you will find me (us) willing to listen and patiently explain why we are doing things the way we are. I have found that when a person acknowledges that their actions may have played a role in them collecting an infraction, they generally take it to heart and come back to be some of the best members of the site.

Sorry Vort for hijacking your quote to rant, I hope you don't think the last 90% of the post was aimed at you. It was aimed at the members of the site as a whole.

[Vort]

Thanks, john doe, but I know it can't be aimed at me. I'm easily the most popular and best-liked person on the site.

[skippy740]

Where's that laugh button again? LOL! :)

Just teasin ya Vort!

[pam]

Pam can tell you that that impression couldn't be further from the truth in real life.

I can tell them what? Actually he is quite correct. I've known john doe for close to 24 years in real life and to be honest you couldn't meet a nicer guy.

Edited June 30, 2011 by pam

[RipplecutBuddha]

The general issue with many social matters is that they are quite contrary to the doctrines of the LDS Church. At the same time though, we need to emphasize that it is the sin that is evil, not the person, whether we're discussing homosexuality, mosdesty, WoW, or any other volatile social subject.

As such, during many of the related threads, there's often someone that in some way is indicating that it's time the LDS church 'loosen up' or 'get with the times' as it were. This can be a strong point of contention for those that accept the Word of God as it is given to us, rather than as some would have it 'really' be.

For myself, I tend to be better in these threads if I keep my emotional content in check, and simply address the facts of the matter in discussion. It's a tough thing to do though, just like a lot of other good ideas we ought to be doing.

Edited June 30, 2011 by RipplecutBuddha

[Jamie123]

This is one of those areas where chat was really helpful. Unfortunately, I think the rate of new member retention on the boards will suffer without the chat option. Us old timers may have to think of a way to satisfy the instantaneous need to learn about long term members with the limitations of the options available to us.

Boo hoo! It's not fair! How come MOE gets to use the "C" word without a smacked botty, and a dismal lecture about "Rule 6" from you-know-who?

[Just_A_Guy]

Boo hoo! It's not fair! How come MOE gets to use the "C" word without a smacked botty, and a dismal lecture about "Rule 6" from you-know-who?

I had no idea Lord Voldemort was moderating these forums now.

[Suzie]

Since we are talking about mods...lol

I have seen a few threads being closed or mods stating to members (specially new ones) that the thread is a "year old" or simply asking the member why they're replying to such old thread. So do threads have a specific "age"? If so, how old? Also, what exactly is wrong with bumping an old thread that may create new replies? Thanks in advance.

[estradling75]

Since we are talking about mods...lol

I have seen a few threads being closed or mods stating to members (specially new ones) that the thread is a "year old" or simply asking the member why they're replying to such old thread. So do threads have a specific "age"? If so, how old? Also, what exactly is wrong with bumping an old thread that may create new replies? Thanks in advance.

prior answers http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/39843-whats-wrong-zombie-threads.html

[john doe]

My main issue with ancient threads is that many times responses or questions are aimed at people who are no longer members of the site or who have not logged on in a very long while. And if it is over 6 months ago, I'm old enough that I have to jog my brain about what I was thinking about at the time the thread was active to form a cogent answer to a post asking questions. I'd rather post and live in the here and now.

[PrinceofLight2000]

My main issue with ancient threads is that many times responses or questions are aimed at people who are no longer members of the site or who have not logged on in a very long while. And if it is over 6 months ago, I'm old enough that I have to jog my brain about what I was thinking about at the time the thread was active to form a cogent answer to a post asking questions. I'd rather post and live in the here and now.

My main issue with your main issue () is that new discussions (not necessarily rule-breaking ones) can often grow from old ones. I will concede, however, that advice threads or news stories made for specific situations and not general topics ought not to be resurfaced without some kind of update.

Another issue I have with this, most often in the Current Events forum, is that I've often seen topics locked for being too old with the reasoning that the event itself doesn't apply anymore, or is no longer "current". This may be the case for very isolated news stories that people like to post, but I don't think every topic (at least the more ideologically/policy-oriented ones) needs an official update in order to continue discussion, because those issues affect us in different ways every day, and someone might want to post a new perspective on it.

Also, sometimes I feel like the only threads around here that contain real substantial discussion (specifically in Current Events) are closed because there is a single poster making the discussion turn into a flame war, and that these closures are often based on a single offending statement amidst that person's contributing point. Wouldn't it be better to edit or delete the offensive posts or thread-ban the offender rather than killing the discussion for the rest of us innocent bystanders? It's like putting out the campfire just because you have a couple kids being stupid and sticking their hands in.

Lastly, it has always seemed counter-intuitive to me that threads create greater strain on forums when they have a higher post count. Wouldn't it be more troublesome from a data storage perspective to continually make new threads about the same topics rather than to bump the ones that are supposedly "too old"?