primarycolor

[Anonymous]

I tried really hard to talk with primarycolor, both publicly and privately. I never got a PM, and the last comment in the martyrdom thread . . . yeah.

I locked the post and banned primarycolor. Are there any objections?

[Anonymous]

OK, here’s what I think. I felt like you came out swinging pretty early on. Primarycolor’s last post was being a jerk, no doubt. But I also didn’t feel like you gave much room for him/her/it to work out issues. I don’t know Primarycolor from adam – but if this person is known from other forums as a pot-stirrer, perhaps those actions were warranted.

[Anonymous]

Something about that post from Primarycolor really seemed to irritate you Ray. It is hard to tell as much now because it seems like edits were made, and now it all looks a little more tame to me.

I agree that the approach and topic were borderline. I support you as a fellow moderator Ray. I think you are quicker at the trigger than I am, but I think it is vital to have a range of sensitivity here. If we were much more lenient, the site could quickly devolve into a negative atmosphere (i.e. it would become a NOM clone IMO).

We walk a delicate line in the content of our site. I trust you to do as the Spirit dictates (to use our LDS language).

It is more important that we edit and control the content so that the THOUSANDS of silent participants who visit the site are uplifted and served, even if we risk offending the one.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Valoel, and I too support you. You’ve certainly been more active here than me as well – I hope you don’t feel I was being critical. I know you are careful in considering these things.

[Anonymous]

Ugh, what a nasty thread filled with all kinds of vituperation!!

@Ray

I think you’re great! I really do. I firmly believe you try to do what is best as you see fit. Furthermore, I am grateful to have association with someone who I feel has, in some ways, contrasting views from my own. This is how I learn, not by only associating with people like myself. I would not want you to leave this forum or to change the way you do things. Your voice and actions are important and I sincerely respect you.

As for my opinion on the thread I felt like a few deep breaths and a bit of “ignoring” was in order. I don’t believe silence is consent or approval, and sometimes silence is a good course of action that avoids nasty escalation of a problem, and allows us to maintain independent views without too much argument. If I am a visitor to a website, and a comment is clearly attributed to an individual I do not construe that comment to represent the site, even if no one challenges it. If I were visiting this site I would see this post for what it is – a reflection of a personal struggle to make sense of a culture and tradition with which that poster is becoming disillusioned.

While I appreciate Valoel’s comments, I don’t view this forum as a means to uplift silent participants. I view it as a mechanism to help people work through personal struggles as directly as possible over the internet. Silent participants are secondary considerations, but not a primary focus. Sometimes this will mean discussing unpleasant, controversial, or otherwise sticky topics, and it will mean allowing people to vent and explore. I have been to NOM and do NOT appreciate the negativity there. But I think we are far removed from that and have quite a nice community of respectful understanding and discussion (dang, has anyone seen Bruce in Montana’s intro at NOM, I was appalled and would have kicked Equality in the head 👿 ). Part of maintaining that respect is allowing for individuality and allowing people to see and understand before removing them. I believe what keeps this site great is not the moderating we do, but the spirit in which we commune with the participants (generally speaking, I’m not advocating that there is never a time for moderation).

If we succumb to the temptation to view ourselves as a group, an entity, or organization there will be a temptation for control to preserve a certain image. I prefer to think of us as a group of individual volunteers with a similar purpose, but whose methods are different and varied. As such I draw two conclusions from this:

1. There will be differing levels, tones, and opinions of posts and comments from the moderators, and this is welcome with the understanding that we are not a unified organization, but a small handful of very different individuals.

2. I support Ray’s moderating action in light of this admission even though I would have handled it differently.

This is just the new guy’s opinion, and I know that you guys have been at this much longer than me. So I will readily admit that you ought to take my thoughts with a bucket of salt! 😆

[Anonymous]

(Thanks JMB, know that I’m posting this without having read your reply.)

First let me say I think everyone is doing an outstanding job here. I love reading the comments and ideas of ideas of all of you, I think they show tremendous insight and love for those who come here. It’s an honor to be working with you in this project. I know we all generally feel this, and we don’t say “good job” very often but I think we know it’s intended.

Now, my quick and honest thoughts after re-reading the thread:

PC stretched our comfort zone a bit

Ray and MH sounded emotional in replies – and probably said some things that they wouldn’t have if they were a little more cool and objective.

I don’t understand all the reasons for PC’s personal expression, but I don’t see where much of (his?) original intent was malicious, maybe some. I see it as basically “hey, I never knew this before; is this new to anyone else?” even though he probably expressed himself in an awkward way. Granted, his personal feelings of being “misled” by the church version of events is playing with his emotions.

Personally, I look at some of our replies (trying not to throw rocks in my glass house, because honestly I could have written them) and I simply wonder if we can reach for a higher level of objectiveness and appeasement when we feel aggression towards us. How do we “love our enemies” without compromising the standards and purpose of this forum? (That’s the question, I don’t have an answer — maybe by asking more open ended questions without stating our opinions?)

I know, it’s an exercise. Personally right now I’m dealing with a family situation that is trying my patience (caring for a dog that sheds and slobbers all over the house, and my son is allergic – but we are the only solution for the need at the moment so I’m trying to grow and deal with this more positively [haven’t been too successful at that yet]) so I can empathize with trying to “stay cool” when you’re frustrated. 😳

Again, just trying to say what came to mind.

Love you guys.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, everyone, for your input. I appreciate it. I really do.

I struggled with this one – really struggled.

The breaking point for me was that I tried to talk privately more than once – via PM and e-mail, but I got no response at all. None, whatsoever. I kept getting the feeling that pc didn’t want to discuss issues – that the only purpose was to introduce ways to try to shock people and show us how we just aren’t aware of the details that would (should) keep us from believing. I’ve felt that way for quite a while, and this thread just shoved me over the edge.

I understand I was rough in the thread, but I wanted to see exactly what the purpose was. I thought long and hard about it, but I finally decided I was going to see if pc could take correction – since I wasn’t getting any response privately. There simply wasn’t a legitimate purpose for the way the thread was being approached – and it had wonderful potential as a basic topic. I thought if I expressed my real feelings about the Perry Mason comment, particularly, that we would see the real intent – the “heart”, if you will. Notice, I didn’t lock the thread initially. Instead, I mentioned the logical holes, expressed my concern over the third-party voice and asked once more for an explanation of purpose.

I think that happened (the purpose was revealed) when pc refused to clarify but rather shifted the blame to our being close-minded, but I don’t feel great about it. I didn’t like it throughout the whole thing, frankly.

I know I’m more of a moderator than the rest of you. I try hard to let things flow, but I am deeply concerned about letting this site drift toward where OpenLDS has gone. If that happens, I will leave – since I don’t want to be a part of that type of discussion. I have no real concern about it happening, but that is the main force behind the times when I do step in and put on my moderator hat.

If I ever do so in a way that disturbs any of you, please let me know – in this setting, not just a PM. I’m one of the faces of this site, so let me have it openly among ourselves.

Oh, and I don’t think there was any editing or moderating going on. I certainly wasn’t doing anything like that.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray,

I know you were far more involved with pc than I ever was.

I for one really appreciate all your time and effort here, it makes a difference and I think we’re better off for it. I’m with you in not wanting the level of discussion here to drop into a complaining zone (overall). I think everyone here, for the most part, the people who come to chime in on discussions – really appreciate that it’s a place where we try to look for the positive, and take personal responsibility for our individual circumstances. I think it’s a place that encourages growth and I think it’s pretty amazing.

Thanks again.

[Author]

Posts