- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There hasn’t been a problem yet, but I wanted to bring this topic up. At some point in the future, we are going to have people come here who just want resistance to argue against. We will end up having someone who is very angry. I wanted to get feedback from everyone on how we will handle that.
It’s my opinion that we actively moderate and control the environment here. I am fine with someone who has honest questions and wants to discuss various angles. I am comfortable having pretty much any topic discussed and challenged. What I see us doing here though is building a pool of material — thoughts and feelings about staying in the Church.
What I want to actively censor are people who just want to argue, or that we determine are not here to participate in the mission of the community. There’s a fine grey line somewhere. We should all talk about it when we think someone has crossed the line. I would like us to take purposeful action to control and direct the discussions.
Thoughts?
I agree 100%. I’m all for giving someone a second chance, we all say things that we could have worded better with more thought, but when it becomes a habit and they don’t respond to our pleas – definitely, they should not be allowed to be a distraction. I like the idea of voicing concerns here – where they can obtain more positive responses (and hopefully more food for thought) than they would obtain other places.
The site is here to help people work through all these ideas. I feel I can be supportive of someone who comes with problems, who is seeking answers and discussion. They can be angry or disappointed. They can express that hurt. It’s therapuetic. If someone just stops in and rants, especially in terms of absolutes, with no point beyond stirring the pot up, I intend to just delete and get rid of them.
Examples:
“I feel really hurt the Church did ______. It makes me think they are a bunch of liars. Joseph Smith sometimes really seems like all he wanted was women and money. What’s the deal? How can I look past this?”
Observation: Person is upset, but they are looking for answers and want to talk about it.
“Joseph Smith was nothing but a liar and a whoremonger! The Church is an evil cult, and it’s only purpose is to control people and make them miserable. All you people here are just trying to keep people trapped and make lame excuses.”
Observation: Fixed in their thinking. Lumping everyone into one pile. Offering nothing positive. Only here to make people feel worse. This does not support the mission of the community. I would delete this post and warn the person (explain in a nice way at first).
Yes, agreed. Well said. I am concerned a little that some jump so quickly to the “apologetics” card (and not just because I am the one who has been singled out – I anticipate and am ok with that and am trying to be as “soft” as I can in my comments) and try to stifle faithful perspectives, but I agree completely with the overall distinction here. Honestly, I would rather lose a handful of those who won’t progress than lose one who will – but I’m not certain how to accomplish that, and I don’t want to be overly-quick to curtail someone.
In my experience with online types of communities there are two important things to keep in mind: 1. Define the community as clearly as possible.
2. Stick tenaciously to that definition.
People will sort themselves correctly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.