Ideas, suggestions, regarding FORUM RULES?

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

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.

Well put.

mmmmmmm marshmallows

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

I agree with no chewing gum...that is unless you can walk at the same time.

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

My point again is (because it seems that it's still not coming across clearly), if someone is going to make a claim about the church or the leaders - especially one that could lead to bad feelings against them, it should be sourced.

For example, if I claim that the church has done baptisms for the dead and temple ordinances for Jesus and Mary, I need to provide the source of that information. If I heard while I was eating at David's Kitchen from someone's cousin that their maid's brother who used to work for the church said so, then I think I need to state that, and not just claim it is a fact. Or if I read it on an anti-mormon website, or in the church news.... I think I need to site that source so people can see for themselves.

Maybe this won't be done every time, but if someone (or multiple someones.....) specifically ASKS for a source, then I think it needs to be provided. And if that source is " I heard while I was eating at David's Kitchen from someone's cousin that their maid's brother who used to work for the church said so"..... then so be it. That gives the readers the opportunity to decide how much weight to put into the claim, and decide if it's gossip and can be disregarded as bunk, or if it's coming from a credible source.

AGREED

[gr8ideascaptain of 100]

Sure seems like alot is being discussed in David's Kitchen. Where is it located anyway?

[BrianM]

Click this link to read a new thread I started: "Is David's Kitchen Why People Are Going Astray?"

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

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.

I think the first rule should be "no running with scissors!"

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

I would like to know why mingano was banned. I enjoyed reading his/her posts, and while there was some back and forth with a few people, it didn't rise to the level of some other threads. Its not like we don't see that day to day with other users who have been around for a while either. I actually learned a few things while reading his/her posts and felt mingano had more knowledge to contribute.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I would like to know why mingano was banned.

Me too.

[Squallycaptain of 1,000]

Click this link to read a new thread I started: "Is David's Kitchen Why People Are Going Astray?"

I clicked but it didn't take me anywhere. I was actually looking forward to commenting on that thread.....

[BrianM]

I would like to know why mingano was banned.

Me too.

I wasn't the one that temporarily banned him but it was for breaking forum rules.

[A Random Phrasecaptain 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.

I second (third? fourth? -?) the mods giving a reason for closing threads - just to satisfy my curiosity if/when I come across them.



Edit: Wait! I just noticed that! A "random" poster. Thanks a lot!

[A Random Phrasecaptain of 1,000]

I would like to know why mingano was banned. I enjoyed reading his/her posts, and while there was some back and forth with a few people, it didn't rise to the level of some other threads. Its not like we don't see that day to day with other users who have been around for a while either. I actually learned a few things while reading his/her posts and felt mingano had more knowledge to contribute.

Mingano was banned? Bring him back, puhleeeeeeeeeeeze. He had good stuff to say.

[A Random Phrasecaptain of 1,000]

Click this link to read a new thread I started: "Is David's Kitchen Why People Are Going Astray?"

I clicked but it didn't take me anywhere. I was actually looking forward to commenting on that thread.....

You're not the only one who tried to see if that was a real link. It woulda, coulda been a fun thread.

[A Random Phrasecaptain of 1,000]

Okay, this is not a RULE, but it would be nice to be able to hide certain threads we aren't interested in, so that they wouldn't come up on the "latest posts" list.

[Legioncaptain of 1,000]

I would like to know why mingano was banned. I enjoyed reading his/her posts, and while there was some back and forth with a few people, it didn't rise to the level of some other threads. Its not like we don't see that day to day with other users who have been around for a while either. I actually learned a few things while reading his/her posts and felt mingano had more knowledge to contribute.

Mingano was banned? Bring him back, puhleeeeeeeeeeeze. He had good stuff to say.

Well its subject to personal opinion that is for sure.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

Well its subject to personal opinion that is for sure.

Like most everything else on this forum right?

[Stella Solariscaptain of 1,000]

Okay, this is not a RULE, but it would be nice to be able to hide certain threads we aren't interested in, so that they wouldn't come up on the "latest posts" list.

Yes, this would be a very nice feature to have!

[Legioncaptain of 1,000]

Well its subject to personal opinion that is for sure.

Like most everything else on this forum right?

LOL...tends to be the case. Generally most show good judgment though and are respectful to each other for the most part. Occasionally emotions can get a little heated and there is a departure from track record.

Consistent abuse on the other hand isn't nice nor to be tolerated.

[karen2cruisecaptain of 100]

So, does the "banned" get a PM to tone it down first, or do the moderators just whip out the guillotine and whoosh they're gone?

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

So, does the "banned" get a PM to tone it down first, or do the moderators just whip out the guillotine and whoosh they're gone?

HAHA Karen! I just hate that guillotine. Have you never been warned? You are so good! The moderators are very fair in my opinion.
I have had several warnings and one time out with " I can be reverent" tape over my mouth.

[A Random Phrasecaptain of 1,000]

Mingano was banned? Bring him back, puhleeeeeeeeeeeze. He had good stuff to say.

Well its subject to personal opinion that is for sure.

I am sure I hadn't read the posts that caused the banning. If it was in the political section, I don't go there very often.

[Robthe Sunbeam]

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.

Providing primary sources is a bit foreign to some folks here. A good rule would be to ban for persisting in an argument without backing up one's claim, or continuing the argument while ignoring/refusing requests for sources. I'd be glad to provide an example of said persisting behavior.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

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.

Providing primary sources is a bit foreign to some folks here. A good rule would be to ban for persisting in an argument without backing up one's claim, or continuing the argument while ignoring/refusing requests for sources. I'd be glad to provide an example of said persisting behavior.

I'm sure you would Rob!

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

So, does the "banned" get a PM to tone it down first, or do the moderators just whip out the guillotine and whoosh they're gone?

No. There was no warning, no explanation - I was in the middle of typing out a response when I was banned and learned of my fate when I hit the submit button - just poof and I was gone.

[A Random Phrasecaptain of 1,000]

So, does the "banned" get a PM to tone it down first, or do the moderators just whip out the guillotine and whoosh they're gone?

No. There was no warning, no explanation - I was in the middle of typing out a response when I was banned and learned of my fate when I hit the submit button - just poof and I was gone.

That sucks, big time!

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

I do not feel any willingness to discuss. Immediately after it happened I even sent an email and was ignored. No biggie though, I'm just going to ignore the people who brought out the worst in me and move along.

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

I suggest a ban on derogatory nicknames like "Paulista" and "Mittite", which has no real purpose but to mock and deride someone because of their political leanings.