- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What are we going to do with MWallace – and her invisable ink post? I moved it to the moderator parking lot. I was just going to delete the whole thread, but the parking lot makes it retrievable for whatever reason. I think the last post said it all: she is having a “geschwind,” having stopped taking her seizure medicine. The post does not really relate to the Book of Abraham, concerns about the Church, and she posted 4 replies to herself before anyone else even had a chance to chime in. It’s bad forum use and it’s off-topic for the site IMO.
I’ll send her a nice PM explaining why I removed the thread.
Everyone feel free to disagree with me.
The more I read from MWallace, the stranger she becomes. Mental illness. Lady Wisdom, too. Whatcha gonna do? That’s one of the things we find in the DAMU. I think often about suggesting that we drop MWallace from active posting. It isn’t so much that she says any single thing that rises to the level of causing an immediate ban, but more the overall quality of her participation in the conversations over time. She is very borderline IMO as a content creator on the site, and I don’t think she generally adds useful points in the discussion. The bulk of her participation is copy-paste text (scriptures, talks, links to other sites). They are usually too long, to the point that I don’t even read what she is pasting (except a light skim to make sure there isn’t something inflammatory).
On the other hand, I challenge myself by asking if this is just my personal annoyance with her? What do you all think?
In addition, I think she is a little mentally ill. She represents in my mind a group within the Church that needs attention and care (those who are sick and in need). StayLDS isn’t the whole LDS Church though. We aren’t here to replace the Church and existing support structures.
Bottom line: The users we approve to post create content for our site. I think MWallace probably doesn’t produce content that we want. I don’t feel comfortable making the decision or championing it alone. What do the other moderators think?
We ended up removing LadyWisdom for similar reasons.
Yes, it can be a tough spot between injuring someone personally (feeling rejected from the site) and keeping the forum on purpose. Could we send constant reminders of our scope and mission – maybe until she decides her mission doesn’t match up??
I like Ray’s suggestion. Is this a possibility? I will respond over at NOM. Handled well, IMO. Kudos for NOM’s mods for backing StayLDS’s mods. Group hugs all around. Nom de Cypher and I exchanged a few messages over the Morzen thing. I expressed my support for their board, and let him know to get in touch with us at any time if there are ever any problems. Very well-handled. Now let’s get back to the discussion of how to handle approval of posts, in general.
Ray, I split your response here out and created a new topic — with ideas on “probationary” status and post gatekeeping. OK, I wimped out on pushing to boot MWallace … again… I am going to actively watch for her walls-o-text pasting. I chopped it out of her recent post, and then sent her a PM explaining to keep it to 5 or 6 lines of text at most, and to make her point quicker.
Please if you see her doing that elsewhere, and have the time, go in and chop out the text and send her a PM to remind her.
Thanks
I have to say this or it will drive me bonkers. I know the issue is largely over, and you know I support all of you here, so I’ll just throw it out there, and you can take it with a gigantic bucket of salt. I don’t think I agree with the way the Morzen post was handled. Let me analyze it more carefully to be clear:
I think Morzen brings up some very important points. His statement about a cult is entirely accurate, that type of behavior that he described is consistent with what a cult would do. I do not believe that our church is a cult, but there are cultural elements of it that often remind me of cult-ish behavior. It’s not clear to me why this is taboo to say. Any strong organization will have cult-like elements. Sports teams are the most cult-like units outside of normal cults.
I do not agree with his statement to blame the leaders of the church, although he is right that they could do more to address interfaith marriages, indeed they could do more to help people in situations like we are in. But this isn’t news to us, and I think we understand why they don’t.
Such an issue is near to my heart as my own mother-in-law told me, in almost those exact words, that I was going to lose my family here on earth because of my “disaffection.” Although my MIL encourages us to stay together, she most definitely feels I am the source of our marital conflicts because, in her eyes, I no longer believe the church is true.
At the end of the day, I saw his post as venting, a ranting, and someone who needs some persuasion on realistic expectations. However, I’m not sure why his post contradicted our mission statement. It reads in part:
Quote:We are here to listen, and to offer advice to each other. You can talk about it here. This is a safe place to discuss difficult subjects — many of which we simply can’t talk about within our normal social support network.
and then
Quote:We openly discuss problems in history, doctrine, practices and culture. We also openly discuss solutions that have helped people in the community reconcile themselves, and find a new, personal path of active faith within our rich LDS tradition.
and then
Quote:No topic is off limits, as long as it is approached and discussed in a civil, non-threatening, understanding way. It is fine to express disappointment, frustration, despair, grief and any other manifestation of internal struggle; it is not acceptable to dwell on bitterness, anger and strident accusations. It is fine to voice institutional concerns; it is not acceptable to disparage or criticize individual leaders – or to condemn “The Church” itself.
Obviously there is a lot of wiggle room in what is “civil,” and “understanding.” But this is a tough road to walk, and we have to make judgment calls daily. I fully understand that. I suppose that I sympathize greatly with people who vent and are frustrated because it is still fresh in my mind where I was a year ago. I’m positive that some of my posts have sounded similar to his, and yet you guys helped me see new things.Rather than pulling the post and sending private messages, I would have preferred to answer him directly and validated his good points, and showed why his other points were lacking. Such a response says “hey, we don’t agree entirely, and here’s why.” It gives us a chance to demonstrate our unique position with regard to the issues at hand. Pulling the post and sending emails sends the message of censorship, “tending the flock” (as he erroneously claimed at NOM), and otherwise leads to a stigma that we are unwilling to address hard topics.
Having said all this, I know that I wasn’t here actively participating when the post came up and was pulled. I also understand the fear of this place turning into NOM2. However, I also have a fear of this place turning into a place for apologetics (which is also against our mission statement). We walk a tough line, and keeping the balance is very hard. I think we have a good dynamic amongst the admins to walk such a line.
I apologize if this comes across critical. That’s not my intent. I just wanted to post another point of view as we discuss and iron out what is and is not acceptable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.