Given the Father's criteria and that JamesR has given me permission to run rampant with his posts for examples of how to or not use the internet, I think this discussion would benefit from some discussion of specific posts. For whatever reason, there has been reticence to that in this thread. Everyone keeps talking in the abstract when we can easily address specific posts.
Since JamesR doesn't care about having his posts examined and I think the rules about questioning moderatorial conduct has been eased in this thread and the better board thread, I choose a recent post of JamesR's.
I am not criticizing JamesR here (I think he is a gem and has knack for the internet) and I am not criticizing the mods either who I think do a fine job here, but how does a post like this get through moderation, especially if the Father's guidelines are what in general guide the posting guidelines here:
Why can't infertile couples just accept their lot in life? There are some people--myself included--who would love to be infertile and/or marry an infertile women. I don't like children nor do I care for taking care of them. The fact that every breathing woman has to have children is perhaps my greatest problem with marriage. I already wasted my childhood taking care of my younger siblings, I don't want to waste another 18 years taking care of more children. I'm sick of science always giving the women more ways to screw over their husbands into having to raise children.
JamesR made this post while on post moderation.
Does this fit the criteria laid out above? If so, I am not sure what those criteria mean, but I am OK with them.
It would seem to me to not fit the academic discourse criterion. I don't see it representing the Church's view. It avoids certain pejoratives, but I would argue it rankles with misogyny (complaints about every breathing woman
) thus attacking persons, and uses rather profane language (screw over
If I were a moderator and following the Father's criteria my dear JamesR would have to return to the drawing board, no matter how much I get a chuckle out of the post.
Other posters while on post moderation have made even more questionable posts, in my opinion, during their time of moderation, so much so I had to do a double take to see if they were indeed moderated.
What say you? This is to show that I think I understand the tone and content I believe is desired around and to show that content contrary to that is allowed to be posted with moderator approval.
An exercise for discussion. If I've overstepped the lines please let me know and I'll gladly comply and not post recent examples to better illustrate what we are trying to do here.
Again, I think the mods do a great job in my book. I love JamesR. And I would moderate JamesR if given the criteria Father offered.