- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This new person wrote a post that was just a link to his/her blog, inviting people to check it out. I deleted it and sent a PM explaining that we don’t allow posts that are nothing but promotions for other sites, regardless of the content of those sites. I asked for a more formal introduction or just participation in other threads. Just wanted everyone to know.
Thanks Ray. Good call Ray. Just to clarify – if an active participant would link to their blog occasionally that would be ok? Is it just the gratuitous self promoters we are trying to avoid?
I will be patient, but I still wondering if we are getting baited just a bit. His recent post on Cognitive Dissonance seems a bit circular to me, I’ll give him time, but I just don’t know. I see some people put their blog in their signature or avatar profile section. There is nothing wrong with that as they are participating in the discussions. They just should come here advertising for no other purpose.
I like it when sometimes people put a blog post for us to discuss. The links themselves aren’t a problem to me, just when they are doing nothing but promoting…like they just want to get our group on board with something…I don’t want it to look like we support a certain site or cause or something.
I’m waiting to see as well. I wonder if today’s post is what we should expect: here’s a topic to discuss and by the way my blog is linked or let’s discuss my blog post. Kind of a back door way of doing what he wanted to do from the start. But I’ll wait and see. He also mentioned he’s writing a book. I link to posts I’ve written quite often. It’s fine. 
I also am a bit skeptical at this point, given the pattern he is establishing.
I was going to point out that we have admins and mods that do this but decided not to say anything. Then I decided to say something. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with posting links to blog posts or things that might as well be blog posts (Kirby, for instance). Since I don’t spend much time at places like Wheat and Tares or By Common Consent I appreciate that people point out great posts on such sites and they often lead to valuable discussion here. I also don’t think anything of it when Ray or Angela (and others) respond to a post as part of the discussion and say “I wrote a blog once abut this, here’s the link.” I think that’s different than “here’s my blog this week.” My curiosity isn’t the blog post directly, he can even put it in his tag at the bottom, it’s the sense that he is fishing. Part of that sense is that he’s hoping to win us back or rescue the lost. Sort of like the old baseball soccer baptisms. Read my post here, but come get in the net of my blog. My skepticism hat is just tilted a bit too much. Where does the mormondiscussion podcast thread fall? I think one tell will be to see whether they revisit the thread and interact with people after the initial post.
Good point Nibbler. I hope I don’t get in trouble here, but I generally ignore that thread. Not that I don’t like Bill, I think he’s a great guy. I just don’t generally have time to listen to podcasts, so I ignore it. But you’re right, Nibbler, that thread is essentially “here’s my latest blog [podcast]” and is purely about promoting that site. If we’re referees, what’s fair for one needs to be fair for others…. nibbler wrote:Where does the mormondiscussion podcast thread fall?
I think one tell will be to see whether they revisit the thread and interact with people after the initial post.
In my opinion, I think Bill’s thread is exactly that but we have allowed it. I would rather he not do that, but no one has complained so whatevs. Bill used to participate more…he doesn’t really anymore…just posts his link and doesn’t discuss it. I just ignore it too, but should anyone complain we are letting him do that…I would have to agree and move his thread. That’s my take…just one vote among all your votes on it. For now…I don’t want to introduce action on it because no one is complaining it is not consistent. But I don’t like him advertising his podcasts without any discussion around it.Ray and HG post it to generate discussion and get it.
THat’s OK with me.
mom3 wrote:My curiosity isn’t the blog post directly, he can even put it in his tag at the bottom, it’s the sense that he is fishing. Part of that sense is that he’s hoping to win us back or rescue the lost. Sort of like the old baseball soccer baptisms. Read my post here, but come get in the net of my blog. My skepticism hat is just tilted a bit too much.
Good point. Definitely we should be looking out for him while we get a feel for his intentions. I’m OK with someone wanting to win us back if they keep to the guidelines. I would love to include true literal believers in our discussions to broaden our opinions on posts. I don’t want our site to only be “middle way” or unorthodox thinkers only.
I am one that does listen to podcasts and it helps when I see Bill post an update as a reminder. I have always thought Bill’s efforts run parallel to ours so it is helpful to link other resources. I see the “no links for promotions” rule as applying to other things that are not directly related to our mission. In the past I have wondered if we should set up regular links to Mormon Matters and other resources that run parallel to and compliment our mission. Unfortunately I don’t have much time for podcasts, or maybe it’s an attention span thing. It’s harder for me to remain focused on vocalized media. My intent wasn’t to question that thread, from everything I hear Bills’ podcasts are working miracles, I just wanted to point it out for consistency sake.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.