Of all the wonderful things that can happen in the Bloggernacle, few are as full of schadenfreude as a good banning.
The path to banning is familiar to regular readers: a mild disagreement spirals into personal attack, followed by a warning, followed by more argument, followed by a good-bye. Sometimes these stages occur within a few comments, sometimes less, sometimes more. Occasionally people ask to get banned (Jami, you fool). I thought that penning a few words about who gets banned and why would be illustrative for BCC readers. Permit me to address a few misconceptions — but please, don’t interpret my opinions and conclusions as a policy statement.
1. BCC is notorious for banning faithful Mormons. Statistically, this isn’t so. First, it’s important to distinguish between getting banned and getting modded. Often, people who are making personal attacks in the context of a heated debate will be given the chance to cool their heels and return to a state of calm via comment moderation, which means that comments aren’t nuked, they are instead sent to the administrators for review and approval. Many internet sites moderate all comments by default. Sometimes, getting consistently modded is enough for some people to get the point and either simmer down or quit commenting. Returning to the issue of banning conservative or iron-rod Mormons, when I look at the list of people who banned or moderated, I don’t see the majority of them as being the strident conservative type. Such commenters are often extremely vocal and their departures are notoriously public, but they represent the minority.
2. BCC is notorious for stifling conversation with fringe membership. The flip side of No.1, a common complaint about BCC (if you frequent FLAK, anyways) is that anyone who doesn’t toe the party line is instantly banned from BCC — we hate free thought and can’t stand it when people question the Brethren. We are quick to ban and delete blatantly anti-mormon spam, but such is relatively rare. Generally, this notion is also overexaggerated — again, looking at the lists of banned and moderated commenters, the DAMU and FLAK participants are not a majority. It is once more the vocal nature of their comments that raises their appearance in the public eye. Rarely do people get banned for their opinions, conservative or liberal. Frequently do people get banned for acting like offensive jerks.
3. BCC bans a lot of people. Not that many, but yes, the list of banned commenters grows each day. Whether it’s because of spammers or otherwise, we have roughly 40 people in moderation and 50-60 in the banned list. Some of the names would surprise you, while others would not (Prudence McPrude). I believe that for a blog this size with a network of commenters this active, BCC is fairly hands-off. Those of you familiar with administrated blogs elsewhere on the Internet can attest to this.
4. Steve Evans bans whomever he wants. ‘Twere it were so! But alas, I do not solely hold the keys to banning. Like any nuclear device, our banning system requires more than one person to turn the key. It’s true that I am probably the one to have issued the warning or told a commenter to shut up, etc., but that’s simply a factor of my more regular participation in the comments. I don’t hold any particular sway, I don’t think — in fact, those who administer the blog with me are well aware of my mercurial attitudes and are quick to chasten me. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean you’ll get banned from BCC, believe it or not. You also have to piss off at least one other perma with admin*.
5. Steve Evans is the admin. There was a time that this was more or less the case, but for some time now BCC has been administered by a group of people, each with administrative duties and powers. I am no longer the sole omnipotent authority of BCC, a fact that produces reassurance amongst all. When you email the admins (see our info page), it goes to the entire administrative group.
Questions?
—————-
*Not an easy task. They are a notoriously cool-headed group. I should note however that patently offensive/profane comments or spam are deleted summarily by any admin.
January 23, 2008 at 3:41 pm
BAN HIM! BAN HIM!
January 23, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Well, there goes my support for the Evans-God Theory…
January 23, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I miss BoH style public bannination debates.
January 23, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Do people actually think that BCC bans “faithful Mormons,” of which I count myself? Now, I am happy to promote the idea that we ban DAMUites.
January 23, 2008 at 3:49 pm
For reasons of copyright, I would like to know if I may, when/if banned, stamp a large “BANNED BY BCC” across my forehead?
January 23, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I should correct myself: right now there are 52 names on the banned list — of them, there are probably only 35 unique individuals.
January 23, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I loooooove me a good banning.
January 23, 2008 at 3:51 pm
sigh stapers!
So long as people don’t act like jerks they’re fine with me. Hellmut for example frequents BCC, because he can be intelligent and thoughtful. Faithful mormons can still be weirdo trolls (such as, say, your abishes and toshes). So I hate to draw conclusions based purely on ideology ab initio.
January 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm
meh.
January 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Ban DKL!
January 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm
You mean people use more than one name?
How shocking!
January 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm
What, pray tell, is a FLAKer?
January 23, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Kaimi, that’s old hat!
Both you and DKL have been banned here at various times. It’s in some respects a badge of honor. Mostly, though, it’s just a sign you’re a dork.
January 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm
J. Stapley, if by DAMUites you mean people who are both disaffected and prone to misbehavior, you’re right. But we also ban people who aren’t disaffected but are prone to misbehavior. Several of our frequent, well-behaved commenters are disaffected to some degree or another — and, as long as they behave themselves, nobody seems to mind. Indeed, you yourself often engage them in normal comment-thread conversation.
January 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Tracy,
FLAC =Further Light and Knowledge.
January 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Er, that’s with a “k” I suppose. Not sure what the “C” is suppsoed to stand for…
January 23, 2008 at 3:57 pm
FLAK is “Further Light and Knowledge,” a message board in which people who are somewhat to substantially less happy with the church than your average BCC permablogger congregate to discuss religion and their lives. Sort of a support group crossed with a public forum.
January 23, 2008 at 4:01 pm
So who is in moderation that would suprise anybody?
C’mon spill the beans
January 23, 2008 at 4:05 pm
lemme see…. there’s William Coolidge, amongst other famous pseudonyms. I didn’t want him spreading his x-ray pseudoscience around here.
January 23, 2008 at 4:05 pm
bbell, you are.
Ha! Just kidding!!!
January 23, 2008 at 4:06 pm
You really banned Prudence?!? That sucks.
January 23, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Prudence had it coming, that foul-mouthed bastress!
January 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Randy, about 6 mos. ago we decided to rein in the use of fake names and fake characters. Prudence lives on I’m sure, just not around here.
January 23, 2008 at 4:09 pm
That’s what is really funny, Randy. BCC is so egalitarian that permabloggers ban one another and delete each other comments. Just ask Ronan.
January 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Hey, I hear you. We ban people too, over at T&S. Mostly the same categories, too. Some conservatives, who want to tell us we’re going to hell. Some antagonistic exmos (DAMU or otherwise), who want to tell us we’re all morons. And a lot of spammers.
Plus, the genuine weirdos. The polygamy restorationists. The race/political weirdos. (I sent Steve an e-mail a few days ago with a novel-length deleted comment about the huge conspiracy of Jews and Blacks and black helicopters and the CIA.) The woman who wanted to keep posting about her discussions with the aliens. The bizarre millenialists.
And the truly unintelligible. Languatron, for instance, or Aaron Brown.
January 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm
To say nothing of the other stuff that some of the permas have to keep Ronan from doing…
January 23, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Let’s see if I get this right:
Okay, this is just the most ridiculous, arbitrary bunch of crap by you so-called literati and effete intellectuals (thank you, Spiro Agnew!) that I have ever seen. No wonder you all haven’t been dragged into a chruch court for the venom you spew! YOU’RE ALL GOING TO HELL! And don’t threaten me! You’re just close-minded control freaks and deviants, masquerading as real people! And if you don’t agree with me on points 1, 2, and 3 in my previous comments, well that just shows how stupid you are! GOODBYE! I can always go read Meridian Magazine’s website!
Did I cover all the bases?
January 23, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Is there a procedure in place to ban those who ban? Surely even the permabloggers are prone to losing their tempors and engaging in a personal attack now and again.
January 23, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Lame-o.
January 23, 2008 at 4:15 pm
ahhh Languatron. My 2nd favorite robot.
January 23, 2008 at 4:16 pm
kevinf, nope. You forgot to quote something you seminary teacher or mission president said which has made such a difference in your life that you’d like to share it with everybody.
January 23, 2008 at 4:18 pm
You know we’re all dying to read the “novel-length deleted comment about the huge conspiracy of Jews and Blacks and black helicopters and the CIA” now. No fair not sharing.
Unless, of course, legal standards of libel, slander, or copyright are involved.
January 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Mark, # 31, foiled again!
January 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Languatron and Linguo take a back seat to my favorite.
January 23, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Not bad, Kevin, but it needs work.
For instance, you should always start with the immortal line, “DO YOU POEPLE REALY CALL YOURSEVLES MORMONS??!?” (Or some variation thereof.) That’s de riguer. It doesn’t have to be in capitals and with typos, but that really helps.
January 23, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Actually, Languatron’s comments can seem concise and cogent, when compared to other comments that sometimes appear.
January 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm
jimbob, that’s a good question. Who watches the watchmen?
First, as I mentioned nobody gets unilaterally banned. But in terms of policing one of the other permabloggers, it’s a rarity but disagreements can occur. I can safely say that I am the one the gets corrected the most. As we’re all friends, we communicate via email and IM, and try to reason with each other first. Occasionally comments are temporarily suspended. But such conflicts almost never occur at BCC (one of the hallmarks of our perma crew of which I am most proud, actually). Most typically, the person who wrote the offending comment (me) is easily persuaded by the testimony of his friends that he was acting jerkishly, and the comment is edited or removed. See here as a typical example.
January 23, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Haven’t some BCC authors/moderators/permabloggers been guilty of “making personal attacks in the context of a heated debate”?
Do we commenters have any democratic means of “banning” together and, “by common consent,” voting to ban permabloggers who have violated the site’s own policy? At least temporarily?
Is blogging by nature a democracy, or a police state?
January 23, 2008 at 4:27 pm
For some reason, this thread is making me really happy.
January 23, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Sorry, looks like jimbob beat me to the punch…
January 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Matt,
If you send an email to the admins and there is a viable complaint, anything’s possible (many of us have been looking for a pretext for banning Kevin for years).
January 23, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Matt, # 38,
Chaos and anarchy, more likely.
January 23, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ana,
Glad that works for you and you are happy. Sorry about the typo. It’s ironic that I can be critical of others and then realize that I am far from perfect and should mind my own business.
January 23, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Matt, BCC isn’t a democracy — no website is, really. I’m surprised that the only alternatives are democracy and a police state. Have you never had to ban anyone at Sunstone?
There is no process for commenters to demand that a perma get banned, any more than there is for someone say at Sunstone to demand (with any authority) that Dan W. or yourself quit. I’d like to think that this is an unusual occurrence. Generally, though, both permas and commenters alike are quick to point out (both publicly and privately) when a comment is out of line.
To be fair, BCC is not meant to be all things to all people. Our content, style and tone will not appeal to all, and we’re not trying to make it a panacea. That’s partially why sometimes banning is a blessing — people will sometimes be happier if participating at BCC is not an option for them. I love my friends here, I love BCC pretty much the way it is, and if others can’t stand it — well, then this is not the place for them to engage in conversation, simply put.
January 23, 2008 at 4:36 pm
BAN HIM! BAN HIM!
January 23, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Steve #44, fair enough.
I guess my “police state” remark was rhetorical hyperbole.
January 23, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Kaimi was banned?
Was Languatron the guy who kept posting about Battlestar Galactica?
January 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Clark, yes to both! Although Kaimi’s bannination was temporary — mostly to remind him that we can crush him ‘neath our mighty bootheels.
January 23, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I hadn’t noticed the lack of “fake names” … but as I browse through the commenters here, I see all “real” names (some with modifiers) What will become of me? (Already too many John/Jons – hence the night of 6 Johns.)
Also, I love mentally pronouncing the acronym DAMU. =)
January 23, 2008 at 4:51 pm
FHL, by “fake names” I mean fake identities and characters. Pseudonyms are OK — constructed identities (like, say, Jennifer Mailer) are for obvious reasons an abhorrence.
January 23, 2008 at 5:00 pm
We’ve never banned anyone at SunstoneBlog, but we’ve deleted a handful of comments that crossed the line into personal attacks. There are also a few individuals – maybe 3 or 4? I’d have to look – that are in the automatic moderation queue. They usually land there for a personal attack as well.
I think our numbers are small, though, due to the lower activity rate at Sunstoneblog versus BCC. (And to head off any snarky comments about “activity rates”, I’m talking posts and comments, thankyouverymuch.)
Oh, and I did receive the novel-length conspiracy-theory rambling, too. I almost approved it, but we have enough problems without dealing with CIA and FBI oversight.
January 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I’m not ashamed to admit it: I’ve been in heavy moderation for four years now. Otherwise, I have little doubt that I would have been banned years ago for personal attacks.
January 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“Generally, though, both permas and commenters alike are quick to point out (both publicly and privately) when a comment is out of line.”
*hangs his head in shame, while trying to do better*
January 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Kaimi’s been banned and I haven’t?! What craziness is this? Then again, maybe I was banned and I didn’t notice…
January 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Actually, to my knowledge, in 30+ years, Sunstone has never “banned” anyone from participating in any kind of online, print, or symposium fora. It’s an impressive record, I know.
As for shunning, blacklisting, blackballing, and/or flat out ignoring… well, that’s another matter.
It may be my own semantic preference, but I suggest BCC toy with a new phrase for banning offenders… instead of saying something like, “You’re banned!” How about “No Soup for You!”
January 23, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Justin, you make moderation sound like therapy. Or addiction recovery.
I am also wondering if “moderation in all things” is always a good idea?
January 23, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Matt, I prefer _excommunicate_.
January 23, 2008 at 5:16 pm
How about ’shunning’?
Justin, personal attacks against the dead don’t count. Slander James Strang all you like.
Frank, if more people paid attention to your comments you doubtlessly would have been banned by now.
January 23, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Full disclosure – I’m a FLAK denizen, with little interaction with the Bloggernacle. I will resist my predisposition to attack anyone here personally, as well as my penchant to burn Home Evening manuals and eat babies. It’ll be hard, but, what the heck, I’m up for the challenge.
I hold two principles dear – the notion that the best remedy for bad speech is more speech (not banning the bad speech…John Stuart Mill is my boy) and rights of free association, including all rights to define in-group and out-group behavior, including the aforementioned (and, IMNSHO opinion the typically-wrongheaded) banning of whomever, just as capriciously as the group/group leaders would desire. No one has a right to do just whatever they want within the strictures of a given group. This, of course, cuts both ways, as they do have the right to vote with their feet (OK, fingers and eyeballs in this particular case) and find a more congenial joint.
This potential tension is important. Groups should be free to acquire exactly the reputation that they earn with in-groupers and out-groupers. There are so many options in the Bloggernacle, DAMU, etc. that I believe anyone can find a comfy group for his/her particular kinks.
I would likely disagree with many/most of you on a lot, and I completely dig the fact that you work your mojo in your way. I truly do hope it works well for you.
January 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Re #27 You also forgot to ask, “why, if the church bothers you this much, don’t you just go to some other church? I’m not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, but am genuinely curious”
January 23, 2008 at 5:28 pm
It is therapy, kevinf.
Moderation of some of my rants by BCC admin probably saved my church calling. For that I thank Steve.
January 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm
lol, hank, thanks for the comment — and I hope things work out for you too.
Justin, were it not for BCC you’d be WML by now. So yes, thank us.
January 23, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Thank you, Steve. This is an amazingly helpful post which will (I’m sure) be of great help to me and others in the future. I’ll refer to it often.
(Oh, and that’s ‘idiot’ for future reference.)
January 23, 2008 at 5:59 pm
OK, got FLAK but, what means DAMU?
I’m waiting for a wave of complaints similar to what appeared when Nixon’s “enemies list” became public: many folks demanded to know why they were *not* on it — they didn’t want to be known as not enough of a Nixon enemy to be excluded.
January 23, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Yes, the powers-that-be over here are prone to ban BCC permabloggers in their pseudonymous forms. A bubbling cauldron of insightful commentary from which BCC readers are not allowed to imbibe. It really is a shame, I say.
Aaron B
January 23, 2008 at 6:00 pm
DAMU = DisAffected Mormon Underground.
January 23, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Some of Prudence’s best jokes were deleted by Admin McAdmin back in the day. What can I say … Kaimi has no sense of humor.
Aaron B
January 23, 2008 at 6:04 pm
What is DAMU and FLAK? I see there was a bit of an explanation of FLAK… can someone share a bit more?
Also, being a newbie to the church, I’ve noticed quite a bit of alphabet soup in discussions on the internet and sometimes in conversation at Relief Society and other functions. What’s the deal with that?
January 23, 2008 at 6:07 pm
68: “Also, being a newbie to the church, I’ve noticed quite a bit of alphabet soup in discussions on the internet and sometimes in conversation at Relief Society and other functions. What’s the deal with that?”
It’s like text messaging in the military. You’ll pick things up as you go.
January 23, 2008 at 6:12 pm
69: (heh… 69 cool..[hope that doesn't get me banned]… yeah… 69)
Anywho, my husband who’s been a Later-Day Saint for ever, finds himself a bit lost with it too.
Though, just now, I almost wrote LDS, BIC, in the sentence above. It’s like some secret language!
January 23, 2008 at 6:12 pm
The alphabet soup thing is unfortunate. It’s an unconscious way of maintaining insider/outsider boundaries. We ought to get over it and just say what we mean, I guess…
January 23, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Thanks, Kaimi, Mark, and Starfoxy for the pointers. Maybe I should go practice ranting and getting banned at some other corner of the ‘nacle till I get good enough to get banned here. Any suggestions?
January 23, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Any possibility that these two comments are incompatible?
January 23, 2008 at 6:21 pm
jimbob, I don’t think they’re incompatible. We have tons of faithful Mormons who seem happy with our style and tone, believe it or not. That’s the majority of our audience.
January 23, 2008 at 6:21 pm
jimbob, people who like to express themselves in extreme terms, be they liberal or conservative, are unlikely to feel comfortable at BCC. I appreciate what you are getting at in your ever-subtle comment but I do not believe the two comments are incompatible. The fact that so many faithful mormons read BCC and write for BCC is proof of the compatibility.
January 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I dunno, JNS. Would it really be more clear if we replaced every instance of FLAK with “The message board at Further Light and Knowledge”? That still doesn’t say anything significant to an outsider.
That particular boundary (what is FLAK?) exists not so much from the acronym per se, but from the level of inside connunity knowledge needed to understand just what that description means.
January 23, 2008 at 6:27 pm
71: Exactly. While I was a visitor to the meeting house months before I decided to join, I had to keep correcting people to not refer to me based on my member status, or lack thereof. Or worse, to not label me as an Investigator, because A) That was a bit out of left field for me to be suddenly labeled right off the bat, and B) I wasn’t like part of the FBI.
At one point, I corrected a Stake President that I was a Visitor. He asked from where, I promptly said the city I lived in. He then asked what ward, at which point, I said this one.
He was thoroughly confused.
I didn’t know what a Stake President was. (He was dressed like everyone else.)
Anywho, when he finally figured out what I meant by visitor, he tried to correct me with a new label. I promptly corrected him, not really understanding why he looked so flustered.
I get it now. I still don’t like the labels or the alphabet soup. At the time though, it really felt like I was either “in” or it was made clear that I was “not-in”.
January 23, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Kaimi,
That’s like three comments on a single BCC thread. You get banned at T&S or something?
January 23, 2008 at 6:33 pm
BCC is notorious for banning faithful Mormons.
jimbob, I regret that Steve made that comment as it isn’t true, I don’t think. He was just trying to say that we don’t ban people for their ideology. Well, I think we do on some occasions (e.g., we ban anti-mormons).
I’m obviously more strident in my perceptions. I’d be happy to ban Rearden with all his DAMU friends.
January 23, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I miss some of the banned. For example, that Pretty Pauline was a real firecracker.
January 23, 2008 at 6:34 pm
jimbob,
FWIW, I’m not aware of any BCC permas that are not “faithful” LDS. That’s not to say that they all are. I just don’t know. In all our correspondence, email, IM, etc., no one’s ever said anything that led me to believe they were less than “faithful” by any meaningful measure. Off the top of my head, the most notoriously “liberal” among us (me, Ronan, Kevin, Steve, Kristine, JNS, Taryn) are all active members in good standing.
January 23, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Some, of course, I don’t miss. Ban Kaimi all you want.
January 23, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Brad,
I’m just having a hard time containing my joy now that Steve finally unbanned me. (Make one unkind remark about Frank Miller’s Batman, and it’s a fraking life sentence.)
Damn, that’s comment number four, innit? Okay, fine, I’ll go argue some more with Adam about abortion.
January 23, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Careful there, Brad 81. Don’t write any checks you can’t cash.
January 23, 2008 at 6:42 pm
MCQ,
I hope you don’t plan on commenting at T&S any time soon, buddy. And I’m gonna pull strings and try to get you banned at Tales, too. Giulilani has nothin on me, buddy.
Steve,
So are you saying that BCC is kinda like a chess club? But there are these folks who keep trying to get you to play checkers, instead . . .
January 23, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Kaimi,
I already took care of that one for you.
January 23, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Brad, are those names in increasing or decreasing order of liberal-ness? And what liberal-ness do you have in mind, anyway? Political? Religious (which I think is underdefined)? Fashion-sense?
January 23, 2008 at 6:56 pm
JNS,
I used “liberal” in quotes in part to point up it’s utility as a catch-all for “un” faithfulness. I guess it could mean anything from believing in evolution to watching rated R movies to voting pro-choice to wanting to extend full fellowship to gays to wanting to ordain women to rejecting the virgin birth to wearing window-paned shirts while blessing the sacrament. My point was that, regardless of how you define it, it’s not a gage of “faithfulness”.
January 23, 2008 at 6:57 pm
“Okay, fine, I’ll go argue some more with Adam about abortion.”
and then you get the occasional comments that are absolutely hilarious but indecipherable to those without the proper decoder ring. (OK, since Adam-abortion is an official doctrine, that might not be a good example.)
January 23, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Hey, that was worthy of being on a humor site.
Thanks for making me smile.
January 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Brad, good point. I will now go back to watching my R-rated, homosexually-themed film about the evolution of the idea that the virgin birth didn’t happen. While reading my scriptures.
January 23, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Am I banned?
If this appears, guess not.
Just checking.
January 23, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Kaimi, nice use of classic Fogelberg. That brought back memories.
January 23, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Don’t ban me, bro!
January 23, 2008 at 8:20 pm
spectator wins. Excellent comment.
January 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Since when am I one of the more liberal permas?!?! Brad, bone up a little, newb.
January 23, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Steve,
Everyone knows Canucks are just a bunch of dirty, welfare-state dependent, socialized-medicine-worshiping, anti-torture, tree-hugging, foreign-policy wimps, who would have long ago been colonized by the Soviets were it not for American courage. In a word: liberal. Plus, you swear like a sailor, smoke unfiltered cigarettes, are a self-admitted pornographer, see R rated movies, and run BCC — all of which makes you liberal from a number of Mormon angles.
January 23, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Steve, perhaps since you declared the National Review “Satan’s News” and the ACLU “the Army of Helaman”?
January 23, 2008 at 8:48 pm
ahhh, good times, Eric. I miss the blogroll of yore!
January 23, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Brad, you’re taking “bone up” a little too literally.
January 23, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Too literally? I don’t even know what it means!
January 23, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I haven’t been banned, but Stapley would like to. Somehow that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
January 23, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I can suggest a way to “rein in the use of fake names and fake characters.” You could use “wordprinting”, the same way Larsen-Rencher-Layton proved Joseph Smith didn’t write the Book of Mormon.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_wordprint_studies
That way you can figure out all 12 of my identities and ban them all.
January 23, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Why does the DAMU exist in the form of message boards, while the Nacle retains the blog format?
Imagine BCC with avatars.
Steve Evans would probably have a Darth Vader avatar.
January 23, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Larry, so long as it could be the “noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo” Vader. Or Chad Vader!
If you think the only difference is the avatars, man, you’re mistaken.
January 23, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever been banned, though a few comments have been deleted.
I seem to recall one T&S comment being deleted for using the words “Steve” and “butt-pirate” in the same sentence.
January 23, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Re 81:
Brad,
I was assuming that when Steve used the word “faithful” to describe the people that aren’t banned in large numbers in the original post, he wasn’t referring to those in good standing, but instead to the more conservative member. Then again, nuance has never been a talent of mine, so I’m happy to be wrong here.
January 23, 2008 at 10:24 pm
jimbob, the conflation of “conservative” with “faithful” is an unfortunate component of much of Mormon culture for which I by no means hold you personally responsible. My frustration with the conflation in general was reflected in the snarkiness of my comment.
January 23, 2008 at 10:31 pm
jimbob, you are indeed mistaken. “Faithful” and “the more conservative member” are definitely not synonyms. But neither are banned in large numbers at BCC.
January 23, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Ann, don’t worry. Stapley bans you over my dead body. I imagine there are plenty of folks from the DAMU who contribute respectful, interesting comments, and they’re always welcome.
January 23, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Kristine, I was not being even a bit sarcastic. It DOES make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And I’m really not worried about being banned. I know not to pee in the pool.
January 23, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Your Bloggernacle name is like a brand, and needs to be treated as such. MikeInWeHo, like Honda, strives to provide a consistent, high-quality product at a reasonable price. In their case, cars. In mine…..
Am I one of the well-behaved but disaffected?? (#14) Yikes.
January 23, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Mikey, you’re sui generis, baby.
January 23, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I’d consider Mike as unbannable, on limerick-writing skills alone.
January 24, 2008 at 12:40 am
It is a party organ’s duty to publicize the party’s policies and viewpoints because they are closely related to people’s life. Propaganda published through the organ is the means by which the people are brought to a better understanding of the party’s goals. In addition such publications can correct misimpressions that may have sprung up among the people while demonstrating the all within the party are equal. The organ does not promote a cult of personality but recognizes the heroic achievements of those taking the people into the bright future.
January 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
#91:
I will now go back to watching my R-rated, homosexually-themed film about the evolution of the idea that the virgin birth didn’t happen. While reading my scriptures.
Hmmm…may I suggest the story of David and Jonathan, JNS?
January 24, 2008 at 1:07 am
It would be ironically hilarious for someone to get banned for their comments on this thread.
January 24, 2008 at 1:57 am
#117 – That just might be the most correct of any comment ever written and the keystone of all banning examples.
January 24, 2008 at 3:09 am
As far as I see it, there are only two questions to ask.
First, what would God have us do? Is it really Christian to ban others? Will this kind of thing really be going on in the eternities?
And second, if this activity of banning will indeed be happening through the eternities, then what exactly will we call the person who gets to pull the trigger on any banning?
Would we call that person, perhaps . . .
.
.
.
. . . the Banner of Heaven?
January 24, 2008 at 3:43 am
Brad (#34),
As the sole heir and living representative of the Butlertron, let me say there is a reason why he doesn’t exist anymore. Too much work trying to systematize an unsystematizable theology from the standpoint that the scriptural canon is a coherent body of work. Unsupportable intellectual extremism, views far out of the mainstream. No agreement on the merits of anything – waste of time more or less. Humbled on all counts.
January 24, 2008 at 6:06 am
No, that would just be proof that my bishop was right when he said in a recommend interview that BCC is a self-absorbed clique policed by “goderators” who glory in unrighteous dominion.
What’s really ironic is that you “goderators” be damned in the next life by the same judgment you mete out against others–hewn down and cast into the fire–and that the only reason you are allowed to continue your unmended ways is so that the testimony of the banned cand stand as a witness against you.
January 24, 2008 at 6:07 am
January 24, 2008 at 7:58 am
On the recent Helmuth Hubener post, I left a comment mentioning Diana Mosley and Marlene Dietrich which didn’t appear for some number of hours. Does anyone remember why it was held up?
January 24, 2008 at 8:04 am
danithew #106 — that comment at T&S was damn funny.
It does seem that T&S is more trigger happy when it comes to banning. I’ve not been banned there either, but Mr. Greenwood has put me in time-out. I suppose I have a lot of company in that respect though.
January 24, 2008 at 8:09 am
Ann and MikeInWeHo, I’ll let the two of you decide just how disaffected you are. For my part, I love you both — BCC wouldn’t be right without you. The day either of you is banned is the day I randomly ban 100 other commenters!
January 24, 2008 at 8:47 am
Do you ban people for asking stupid questions?
January 24, 2008 at 9:18 am
kevinf (#74),
Its actually very easy to get yourself banned at the big sites, you just need to know what buttons to push. At T&S, just point out that the blog is old and busted and relies on canibalizing the Nacle for fresh meat to be an endless round of posts from the archive. At FMH, point out their quality isnt up to par with the other “Big” blogs because of pandering. At M* point out one of the permas has lost their mind or one of their patron saints of apologetics isnt. At BCC, directly contradict the original premise of the post-maker and then defend yourself when attacked by lunatics and then tell Steve off for not moderating fairly. How is any of this not intuitively obvious? Contradict whatever it is these people take pride in, and you are toast.
January 24, 2008 at 9:20 am
ooops, the “to be an endless round” should say “to avoid being an endless round”
pls fix, Steve, thx.
January 24, 2008 at 9:28 am
For the record, I’m not conflating them, nor have I ever. I did assume Steve was using code when he said “faithful,” based on prior interactions he and I have had. I’m glad to hear I was incorrect in my assumptions.
That said, if it makes anyone feel better, I’m willing to be held personally responsible for any aspect of Mormon culture you’re unhappy with. That would include funeral potatoes, the pronunciation of American Fark, and multi-level marketing schemes.
January 24, 2008 at 9:33 am
I have been on this site for some months now, after discovering this site in my search for the meaning of “petting.” You guys have been very accepting of me. I have had no issues with my treatment here and have enjoyed this site.
January 24, 2008 at 9:36 am
We don’t ban people at Mormon Mentality. People ban us.
January 24, 2008 at 9:45 am
StillConfused, heavy or regular?
January 24, 2008 at 9:46 am
…and is that what you’re Still Confused about??
January 24, 2008 at 9:49 am
meems #126, that is hilarious.
annegb #131, that Helen person should have been banned. She even annoyed to the point of sarcasm the ever-patient Margaret Young.
January 24, 2008 at 10:12 am
We certainly did try to get along with her. The most outrageous thing I’ve done on this line is delete some comments on a thread that digressed into a discussion on homosexuality and then I closed comments on my recent post because I didn’t want the conversation to get ugly.
January 24, 2008 at 10:20 am
Re: ED,
BAN HIM! BAN HIM!
January 24, 2008 at 10:49 am
Um, John C., I already am. Hence the pseudonym.
January 24, 2008 at 10:55 am
ED, # 127,
I’m working on a way to embed some packet filtering process in our firewall here at work that will, depending on the IP address of the blog I’m visiting, automatically rewrite any comment so that it matches the criteria for getting banned, regardless of what I write. We’ll then make the code available to the BCC admins to randomly upload unwittingly to peoples computers, thereby making it possible to randomly ban anyone and everyone, and have appropriate evidence to back up the decision.
I’d still love to read the black helicopters novel length post. That’s got to be a classic.
January 24, 2008 at 11:04 am
Just out of curiosity, what happened to the blog called “snitches …” something, which was posted a few hours ago. It had like 3 comments and was suddenly nowhere to be seen.
?
January 24, 2008 at 11:07 am
jimbob 129–Whew! I’ve been wondering who would finally take responsibility. I’m not sure where you’re pulling your authority from, but since you’ve offered I’ll be happy to hold you personally accountable for a few things have really been getting on my nerves.
The “mother’s room” in our building is a way too small for the number of mothers who use it. Would you mind getting us a bigger room? Btw, the upholstery in there really needs a good cleaning.
And could you please take care of the tootsie rolls in the lighting fixtures in the foyer and chapel. (The deacons who put them there are on missions now!)
Thanks for getting right on that. What a relief!
January 24, 2008 at 11:14 am
I think Norbert’s post got banned.
January 24, 2008 at 11:15 am
Jami,
Just because I’m responsible doesn’t mean I’m going to do anything about it. I’m a lawyer, for heaven’s sake. I never actually do anything–I just blame other people.
January 24, 2008 at 11:16 am
No one is allowed to point out the irony of my irrational banning screeds!
BAN HIM! BAN HIM!
January 24, 2008 at 11:31 am
Extreme Doritos, #127 you said: “At BCC, directly contradict the original premise of the post-maker and then defend yourself when attacked by lunatics,,, How is any of this not intuitively obvious? Contradict whatever it is these people take pride in, and you are toast.”
Amen, that comment is so true.
January 24, 2008 at 11:34 am
Good point, CW. Look how banned you currently are, for example.
January 24, 2008 at 11:35 am
Who would Jesus Ban?
January 24, 2008 at 11:36 am
Could we discuss “shunning?” I think I’m being shunned by a blog whose name can’t be mentioned. Shunning is more hurtful than banning. I’d rather be slapped than shunned. And now they know that I’ve noticed that I’m not being spoken to.
(Wouldn’t it be funny if several are shunning me and they all think I’m talking about them?)
January 24, 2008 at 11:37 am
NCK,
Easy — Jesus would ban CW.
January 24, 2008 at 11:48 am
SHUN HIM! SHUN HIM!
January 24, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Shun! Shun the non-believer! Shun! Sssshhhuuuunnn!!!
Come to candy mountain instead.
January 24, 2008 at 12:18 pm
#139, 141:
My ‘Snitches’ post was self-censored. I had posted because I was pissed off about something, and then decided it wasn’t very nice and I should actually deal with the person who pissed me off instead of blaming the mormons.
Or Steve and Ronan ganged up on me. Take your pick.
January 24, 2008 at 12:34 pm
ncw,
I like your thinking! We could use more of you around here.
January 24, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Norbert,
Don’t look at me. At least 50% of my posts are removed by powers without. I have been faithfully posting Monday polls every week only to have them disappear wearing concrete boots in Puget sound. Which is odd, because Puget sleeps when I post them. Is it you?
January 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I wondered where the Polls went…
January 24, 2008 at 1:13 pm
You know what? I’ve been thoroughly depressed because there haven’t been Monday Morning Polls the last couple of weeks. I thought maybe Ronan was bored of them.
January 24, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I think we should have a poll where we can vote on how long the marriage between ED and CW will last.
January 24, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#132… Yep. That is what I am StillConfused about. Never did get a full clear concise answer. But I still love you guys anyway.
January 24, 2008 at 1:27 pm
146 & 153 combine so nicely when reversed. Ask not ‘who would Jesus ban,’ but ‘who would ban Jesus.’ Yea, verily ask not ‘is it you’ but rather ask ‘is it I.’
January 24, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Mark, I think Erectile Dysfuction and Country and Western have always gone together, and will always go together.
January 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Ha! Good one, Ann. But then how do we account for all the cheating songs?
Are we still on for next Friday?
January 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm
157. Still confused. I’ll get deleted, but I’ll give a shot at a concise answer regarding petting, as I understand the terms:
A kiss: Mmm plus smacking smooch sound. One.
Kissing: Mmmm…mmm. (no smacking smooch sound)
Necking: Lots of kissing, shoulders and above, (knees and below, while more rare would still be categorized in necking.)
Petting: Necking plus touching (female) waist and above.
Heavy Petting:Petting plus touching between waist and knees.
Making out: Implies necking to heavy petting.
Regarding the repentance process, in most instances, a kiss to necking doesn’t need to be confessed to the Bishop and petting and beyond does.
Not advocating any pre-marital activities, mind you. Still confused?
January 24, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Jami, I wasn’t confused, but now am. You did fine with the first two items, but the rest I think you’re off.
January 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Steve, you want more accurate terminology? I was trying to keep it clean.
January 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm
#156 & #159 – I’m speechless, and that’s really saying something.
Frankly, I hope this hits 500 comments; it’s the funniest thing I’ve read since Adventures in Arizona on MMW.
January 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Yes! Will your wife be in for the weekend? A couple of other friends are coming over, too. When can you get here? 6:30? 7:00?
January 24, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Tosh, we hardly knew thee.
January 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Testing. . . testing. . . 1..2..3.. Just seeing if I’m still banned here.