Ideas, suggestions, regarding FORUM RULES?

[BrianM]

Hey all...

I'm thinking of revising the forum rules, hopefully to make some things more clear, or just for fun, or whatever...

If anyone has any input regarding the forum rules please let me know. Yes, people are bound to break the rules and get away with it sometimes, because myself and the forum moderator's aren't doing this as a paid job or anything... but still the rules at least set forth the expectations and help people know that IF you do THIS, THEN we might ask you to leave.

[BrianM]

I overheard someone saying that they knew someone who predicted that you would say that.

[A Random Phrasecaptain of 1,000]

I overheard someone saying that they knew someone who predicted that you would say that.

LOL

How about if someone has multiple personalities, they are upfront about it from the beginning?

[Nancaptain of 1,000]

No name calling at all.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

Maybe ban the intellectuals!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRU27gPd-RA

"The one who supposes that he "understands the mind-set of both groups (the brethren and the scholars)" needs to understand that the doctrines of the gospel are revealed through the Spirit to prophets, not through the intellect to scholars." -Boyd K. Packer

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I think forum moderators should be held accountable for their actions. BrentL just "locked" a topic but gave no reason for doing it, and he has done that before too. I think all moderators should be required to state the specific reasons as to why they lock a forum. Looking at the posts one can come up with different possible reasons for doing it, but without a specific charge by the moderator we can't be sure as to why he did it....was it because he favored one poster over the other?.....or some other reason? I think as forum members we have the right to know specifically the reason for the action.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Jules is always negotiable. What a great quality!

( should there be a rule about no brown-nosing the moderators?)

[Legioncaptain of 1,000]

Just get rid of all of the rules because they are restricting our freedom and liberty...give the moderators back their free time that they sacrifice to keep this place halfway clean and sane...sarcasm off...

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

Just get rid of all of the rules because they are restricting our freedom and liberty...give the moderators back their free time that they sacrifice to keep this place halfway clean and sane...sarcasm off...

Don't really think your sarcasm is working, why not comment about my post above?

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

One thing I suggest is that if someone posts a claim about the church or the leaders - especially one that could be seen as negative, they should be required to site a source - ESPECIALLY if one is requested. I don't think this forum should be a source of rumors and gossip. If it is opinion, that should be stated. If someone claims that something has been "confirmed", they should disclose the source of that confirmation - or not post it as "factual".

It appears the contention has ramped up ever since you had to use Google ads...now everyone can find this forum on Google, and it seems to bringing a lot more fundamentalists/ New Order Mormons/ as well as pro-govt trolls (Cass Sunstein model). I wish I had the money to give you to take you completely off the ads, so you could create no follow links/what not, to take you completely out of search engines.

Several topics get extremely contentious - 9/11, Romney, Ron Paul, etc - but those are political issues, highly subject to different interpretations...those I really don't care much about, because there really is no divine absolute regarding the political topics at hand...they are interesting, and provide food for thought...but a testimony of them won't get likely help you obtain exaltation.

Where the contention becomes a problem (in the sense of violating forum rules) is when the topic is about how the LDS Church has fallen, claims that the Prophets have lied about doctrine, history, scripture, etc, or the Prophets were immoral, dishonest, etc...

I recommend banning certain topics & comments entirely, and rather than just locking them because it gets too contentious/controversial (Col Flagg's anti-polygamy threads)... why not just delete the entire threads? As well as the offensive comments that show up in other threads... Give the offender a warning or two, but be ready to ban them all together (after first recording the IP address), and delete the offense comments (possibly EVERYTHING they have written).

Is there anyway to also delete or at least block the quotes made by a user (with their name attached) that has either been blocked as a foe, or the original comment has been deleted by you?

The Gospel/LDS topics I would make off-limits are:

-Polygamy (no matter what view point - though particularly "manifesto was nothing but a political fake")
-Adam-God
-LDS Church has fallen away (institutionally), lost gift of revelation
-LDS Prophets have lied about doctrine, history, scripture, etc, or the Prophets were immoral, dishonest, etc...
-Current/recent General Authorities are trashing earlier ones (1800's)
-Correlation committee/"milk before meat" is holding us back
-City Creek mall is bad (primarily because of the next item)
-Tithes used improperly/lack of financial disclosure
-Denver Snuffer (Second Comforter/ Calling & Election discussions are okay, without going into Passing of the Heavenly Gift)
-Kingdom of Zion (the poster)(he has actually mellowed somewhat, though still openly calls the Church fallen)
-Thinker (the poster)
-chasetafer0707 (the poster)
-LDS Church 501c3

There are certain topics I would like to discuss (trying to figure them out), but I choose not to as to avoid becoming a snare for anyone else, or to lead them away from the LDS Church, or providing ammo for anti-Mormons (either to anyone on this forum, or once my topic shows up in Google).


Lately in Gospel discussion, Amonhi has been issuing a string of threads dealing with Calling and election...while there are some gray areas, and some have slight uneasiness with his claims (myself included), I & others have noted several times that at least he conducts himself respectfully, doesn't attack the LDS Church (though at times seems to imply that it is not all that necessary), and is a model in how he responds...hence, those of us with doubts have an easier time asking for clarification, and the combativeness is almost non-existent (contrast to anything with Denver Snuffer, Kingdom of Zion, or Thinker).


Much of the success you will have here has to do with how well the moderators do their functions...and if they start with a point of view favorable to any topic/position I suggest to be banned (particularly LDS Church has fallen/Fundamentalist) - then I believe that due to bias, they will not likely be able/choose not to reign things in.
I think Jason actually did a decent job of it (so far as my limited knowledge informs me), but it was the contention on the polygamy threads (Flagg's & Glenn's) that caused him to quit.

Some here have stated that they thought LDS Freedom Forum is a place where they can openly question the Church's stance/policies/doctrine (I billion starving thread, especially around pages 7-8, Thinker & Chastafer 0707). Somehow I thought this forum was actually geared towards discussing how to uphold the Constitution and liberty, and towards an active LDS/church doctrine & policy point of view. Maybe I am wrong in this...

If you are serious in your forum rules about not bashing the Church or church leadership (general authority level), then you and your moderators will need to be truly serious about it...and I recommend stopping anything critical of the LDS Church/scriptures/GA leadership (I realize lots of people have issues with bishops). I would like for us to be able to have respectful conversations about things like "when did the ban on blacks & priesthood start?" without it degenerating into the LDS Church is fallen-type arguments. But you may have to ban/delete that type of topic.


Believe it or not, I am myself willing to hold back on somethings, trying to be patient/not combative. I totally ignore the Adam-God threads, for instance. I hate to think that I'd have to utterly avoid all gospel discussion because of the Fundamentalists/LDS Church has fallen bent to them - or quit the forum altogether.

One last thing....the time may come when you may feel it is best to utterly close down and delete this forum. Do not be afraid to do so. It may be necessary to halt either gov't surveillance of the posters...or to not be a snare regarding the gospel & church. We could all use the time away from the Internet...

Thank you Brian for all you have done.

[Legioncaptain of 1,000]

Just get rid of all of the rules because they are restricting our freedom and liberty...give the moderators back their free time that they sacrifice to keep this place halfway clean and sane...sarcasm off...

Don't really think your sarcasm is working, why not comment about my post above?

Why? I'm not a moderator. The ironic thing is Brent locked my post. I'm sure he has his reasons and they are probably just. Even if they weren't he's still the moderator and somebody has to do the crappy job for free or else this place would look like the backside of hell.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the forum as it is. Lets not get too complicated about it or consider closing it down.
Good grief!!
If I have a gripe, which I try not to be a bother to the administrator or moderators all the time, I feel that they handle it appropriately.
I wouldn't want that job. ( if I had it, I would be the only one here.)

Having been on other forums, I am honestly impressed at the way problems are handled. They give me warnings, and I try to do better. If I get out of line, I get warned and I try to do better.

We are at a rough period in time with the election of our POTUS close. Lets all just try to do out best. I would like to be able to thank people for their posts. I like that option.

[BrianM]

Why? I'm not a moderator. The ironic thing is Brent locked my post. I'm sure he has his reasons and they are probably just. Even if they weren't he's still the moderator and somebody has to do the crappy job for free or else this place would look like the backside of hell.

I like it.

[BrianM]

It appears the contention has ramped up ever since you had to use Google ads...now everyone can find this forum on Google, and it seems to bringing a lot more fundamentalists/ New Order Mormons/ as well as pro-govt trolls (Cass Sunstein model). I wish I had the money to give you to take you completely off the ads, so you could create no follow links/what not, to take you completely out of search engines.

Sorry but placing Google Ads on the website has nothing to do with it being in the search engines. Those are two completely separate things. The forum was showing up in the search engines long before the ads were put on the site. Also it has nothing to do with 'no-follow' links... that's not how you get out of the search engines (you can do that with a robots.txt file, which I am not going to do).

[ChelCThe Law]

We don't need new rules. We need enforcement of this one:
No apostate behavior. No evil speaking of the Lord's Anointed. Do not promote teachings that directly conflict with Church doctrine.

[BrianM]

We don't need new rules. We need enforcement of this one:
No apostate behavior. No evil speaking of the Lord's Anointed. Do not promote teachings that directly conflict with Church doctrine.

There is enforcement, at least when it's brought to my attention that it is going on... but still there are some who don't know what "apostate" and "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" IS, and they call it something it's not.

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

We don't need new rules. We need enforcement of this one:
No apostate behavior. No evil speaking of the Lord's Anointed. Do not promote teachings that directly conflict with Church doctrine.

There is enforcement, at least when it's brought to my attention that it is going on... but still there are some who don't know what "apostate" and "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" IS, and they call it something it's not.

So how would YOU describe it - since this is YOUR forum? (Thinking of Padawans calling older Jedi's "Master")

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

And to clarify what I was saying in my original post you commented on, I was saying that if someone makes a claim and states it as FACT or CONFIRMED, I believe they should site the source rather than spreading RUMORS and GOSSIP. That is clearly different than expressing OPINIONS.

I know what you meant, and to what discussion it latest applies...

I was agreeing with you, and just transitioned into my post...

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

I was a head/senior moderator at LDS.net for quite a while and I've been a mod/admin for other forums in the past. Here is a link to site rules at LDS.net that we can use to fine tune the rules here:

http://www.lds.net/popup/file_terms/dir_language/

Obviously the rules of politics don't apply here as this forum is privately owned. Once there are a set of ground rules, the mods (perhaps a set of mods and chief mods ala BoM) can work to keep the peace around here and lock, unlock, move threads, etc as needed based on established rules. There will be times for leniency and times for strictness. Perhaps a three strikes you're on time-out will suffice for the stubborn types. Mods ought to be able to judge whether or not people are here for honest dialog or are here to cause trouble. If there isn't already, there should be a private forum strictly for moderators to discuss and deliberate forum issues, violations, etc.

[sadie_Mormoncaptain of 1,000]

I was a head/senior moderator at LDS.net for quite a while and I've been a mod/admin for other forums in the past. Here is a link to site rules at LDS.net that we can use to fine tune the rules here:

http://www.lds.net/popup/file_terms/dir_language/

Obviously the rules of politics don't apply here as this forum is privately owned. Once there are a set of ground rules, the mods (perhaps a set of mods and chief mods ala BoM) can work to keep the peace around here and lock, unlock, move threads, etc as needed based on established rules. There will be times for leniency and times for strictness. Perhaps a three strikes you're on time-out will suffice for the stubborn types. Mods ought to be able to judge whether or not people are here for honest dialog or are here to cause trouble. If there isn't already, there should be a private forum strictly for moderators to discuss and deliberate forum issues, violations, etc.

Hate to have to say this but you can't model the rules that lds.net has to this forum. That forum caters to the ones seeking information on the church, are newly baptized, or going through the process of becoming members (missionary lessons etc). Of course there are many longtime members there as well so they can add and answer question that people post. I've been on their board and what they do is right for what their goal is, and that's to help people who are learning or want to learn about the church and its members. Finally their rules are so over the top and micromanaging 98% of us would be banned in this forum!

I joined this forum because of the openness of dialog as well the great variation of opinions. It is great that we have a forum like this, and I think a few of us can call ourselves LDSFF-Addicts lol! You are drawn to this forum because it’s challenges what you think and takes you out of your comfort zone. If I don’t enjoy a certain topic or a topic gets me angry I just don’t go to it. Or I might go read it but not comment.

If your testimony is strong then there is nothing that can be said on this forum to sway you from your beliefs.

I think everything is great on this forum and I wouldn’t change a thing. Well except for the idea of including the reason a thread was closed which I thought was a great idea.

Please don’t make micromanaging rules because lots of people would leave this forum. There is a forum with those types of rules (lds.net) so if that’s what one seeks then they would do best to be on that forum.

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

I agree. It was only an example, of course. I didn't mean to imply that this forum adopt their set of rules.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

I think we should have a random poster ejection rule.

For every post that a poster makes during a given time period, their name is entered into a lottery. Then a winner is selected from all the entries for the time period. The "winner" is temp banned until the next lottery.

[sadie_Mormoncaptain of 1,000]

[BrianM]

President Monson is not perfect, makes mistakes, is not always right, has human weaknesses and opinions, may do things I don't agree with, does not seem to be awake in all areas

Looks like I've got to ban Jules now...

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

President Monson is not perfect, makes mistakes, is not always right, has human weaknesses and opinions, may do things I don't agree with, does not seem to be awake in all areas

Looks like I've got to ban Jules now...

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

One thing I suggest is that if someone posts a claim about the church or the leaders - especially one that could be seen as negative, they should be required to site a source - ESPECIALLY if one is requested. I don't think this forum should be a source of rumors and gossip. If it is opinion, that should be stated. If someone claims that something has been "confirmed", they should disclose the source of that confirmation - or not post it as "factual".

That is just not very well thought out. If I post something, could not I be a source. It came from me. Sourcing your comments gives more credibility to those comments but really does not mean that they are true. You would spend all day asking for sources on my opinion. Good luck.

Also, sourcing is good but you are going to make a policy that you have to do it or you get banned after so many infractions. Please.

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

One thing I suggest is that if someone posts a claim about the church or the leaders - especially one that could be seen as negative, they should be required to site a source - ESPECIALLY if one is requested. I don't think this forum should be a source of rumors and gossip. If it is opinion, that should be stated. If someone claims that something has been "confirmed", they should disclose the source of that confirmation - or not post it as "factual".

That is just not very well thought out. If I post something, could not I be a source. It came from me. Sourcing your comments gives more credibility to those comments but really does not mean that they are true. You would spend all day asking for sources on my opinion. Good luck.

Also, sourcing is good but you are going to make a policy that you have to do it or you get banned after so many infractions. Please.

Having yourself be the source is perfectly fine as long as you aren't claiming it is from someone else.

OK - I think clouds are marshmallows.

Not OK - It is proven clouds are marshmallows. (no source cited)

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

No name calling at all.

Look in general I agree with this, HOWEVER, have you ever watched political debate. IE Romeny, Ron Paul and Obama. Name calling is part of the game and can in fact be useful to convey a message. Jesus called people names all the time. Look it up. The difference was he was right all the time. The name meant something and it was true, yet it was name calling.

So no name calling at all is just dumb. (is that name calling? no I said the idea was dumb not you. see the difference. Free speech should be free, the more you curtail freedom the less open and fully engaging discussions you will have on the forum.)

I fully agree that malicious name calling with intent harm or mentally disturb users should not be allowed. However, I think it is already a rule. This is where the monitors judgement comes in. If a debate gets too heated a friendly PM, warning, ban ect.... is warranted.

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

One thing I suggest is that if someone posts a claim about the church or the leaders - especially one that could be seen as negative, they should be required to site a source - ESPECIALLY if one is requested. I don't think this forum should be a source of rumors and gossip. If it is opinion, that should be stated. If someone claims that something has been "confirmed", they should disclose the source of that confirmation - or not post it as "factual".

That is just not very well thought out. If I post something, could not I be a source. It came from me. Sourcing your comments gives more credibility to those comments but really does not mean that they are true. You would spend all day asking for sources on my opinion. Good luck.

Also, sourcing is good but you are going to make a policy that you have to do it or you get banned after so many infractions. Please.

Having yourself be the source is perfectly fine as long as you aren't claiming it is from someone else.

OK - I think clouds are marshmallows.

Not OK - It is proven clouds are marshmallows. (no source cited)

Actually you can state clouds are proved to be marshmallows.... does that mean you have to believe it. no. If I found a source for it would you believe it then? I hope not. Sources only help support an argument or fact or theory. Also, can't you just reply to someone by saying can you provide a source for clouds are marshmallows? Don't even get me started on 9/11 or conspiracies.

Jesus is the Christ... ha prove it to me. What is your source? You are going down a slippery slope. Somethings can not be proven even with sources.

Are you seriously going to take the time to source out all your comments. Heck many times I only remember bits and parts of speeches of what an apostle said. If someone questioned me FURTHER then I would have to dig deeper and find the source but making it a rule is simple not good for the forum if you want free and open discussions.

In a debate you should ask for sources but it should not be a RULE that if you don't provide them that you will be banned.

[BrianM]

There are some good ideas here, I'll definitely keep them in mind as I revise the rules. "No chewing gum" will possibly be first on the list.

And yes, clouds are marshmallows, but you wouldn't know that until you've walked on one like I have.

However, if I said: "Joseph Smith said that you won't make it to the celestial kingdom unless you have walked on marshmallow clouds", I would need to backup that claim with a source, because I'm attributing someone as having said something that maybe they didn't actually say.

But as 7cylon7 mentions... it can get very time-consuming to source every comment - which is understandable, so basically, if you're asked to provide a source for something you have attributed to someone, you should do it, or retract your comment.