Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

DL, the standards have clearly gone up and down over the years. I think that the threat of "BYU approved" is more efficient in theory than in practice.

Marduk wrote:DL, the standards have clearly gone up and down over the years. I think that the threat of "BYU approved" is more efficient in theory than in practice.

Marduk, you aren't aware of how often or in what ways those standards have been put into play behind the scenes. Without that knowledge, I think that it's easy to underestimate the impact that institutional support has had on the tone of the site.

mic0 wrote:I think part of the reason the Board has had a hard time ever having more publicity is the simple fact that we are always moving from one place to the next. If we had a more permanent place it would probably be easier to actually make the effort to expand/get the word out there.

Oh heavens no. You moved once every couple of years or so, and stayed with BYU the whole time. I'm talking about how there's no official, staffed Facebook group, no official forum (we're about as unofficial as we can get without being publicly denounced on the Board), no attempts to get press, nothing. Not that that was necessary or even wanted. But seriously, if a couple of you work on it (or you hire a volunteer marketer) you'll see an increase in traffic that would probably be astonishing. Pair that with a good donation/merch selling strategy, and you've got your server. And your parties. And possibly enough to pay one or more of the high-tech or upper-management positions (ie head editor, proofreader, webmaster).

Katya wrote: Marduk, you aren't aware of how often or in what ways those standards have been put into play behind the scenes. Without that knowledge, I think that it's easy to underestimate the impact that institutional support has had on the tone of the site.

Fair enough. At the same time, I think that we can't speculate as to how exactly changing that institutional support will affect tone several years down the road. There's simply too many factors.

And are you telling me that "BYU club" has that much more influence than "club about BYU things?"

Marduk wrote:

Katya wrote: Marduk, you aren't aware of how often or in what ways those standards have been put into play behind the scenes. Without that knowledge, I think that it's easy to underestimate the impact that institutional support has had on the tone of the site.

Fair enough. At the same time, I think that we can't speculate as to how exactly changing that institutional support will affect tone several years down the road. There's simply too many factors.

Right. I would love for you to be right about going independent not being a problem, but I have concerns, so I'm going to give them a voice.

Marduk wrote:And are you telling me that "BYU club" has that much more influence than "club about BYU things?"

Yes, if the people in charge of "BYU club" need to moderate the other people for style, tone, subject matter, etc., because the main justification (explicit or implicit) for needing to keep the tone a certain way is that we are a BYU-sponsored institution.

And I will confess that I'm not always happy about the way that certain subjects are handled on the Board, but I'd rather the Board keep the tone it has than veer off on some tangent.

Not gonna lie, I probably wouldn't read The Board if it went independent. I like the BYU standards.

Have you guys tried the History Department yet? I know that they've taken on Administration for other things before.

I know I'm just a no-name nobody, but I want to chime in...

Katya wrote:I'd rather the Board keep the tone it has than veer off on some tangent.

Agreed. Much of the Board's charm has to do with the fact that it is run by (and generally for) BYU students--that's an amazing niche it fills. While there can definitely be successful independent groups that relate to BYU--the recently resurfaced Student Review comes to mind, which although new has some good potential--for me, if the Board leaves the auspices of BYU, some of the magic will be lost. I also like the security of knowing that the Board is operating under some sort of BYU standards, even if those standards change a bit from time to time.

As soon as I heard that the Board is looking for a new home, I started to look around BYU's list of Colleges and Departments. But this is tricky--the possible "homes" that seem most obvious are those that have already disassociated themselves from the Board.

Marduk, I could spit off, easily, at least a half a dozen times, if not more in the last few years, that answers have had to modified because they didn't coincide with BYU standards. There has been writer/editor drama over it. There have been emails from our sponsors saying, "Hey, we're not comfortable with X answer." It's not a theoretical thing. It is very, very real. And the only way editors got some writers to tone it down was by very real threat of being shut down. If that threat isn't there, there will always be writers that push the standards. And eventually, I am convinced, that type of writer will over run the Board. Because in general, the writers that have more conservative standards are also a lot more quiet and don't stand up for them for fear of being seen as a prude/Molly Mormon/Peter Priesthood. I've seen it happen on the Board. There is no doubt in my mind that it will happen again. And I'm scared for the future of the Board if we don't have BYU backing.

bob, the lack of marketing is actually intentional. Ever notice how much people complain about questions going over hours? Well, every time there was a marketing ploy (like the Board booth. Or t-shirts. Or leaving cards everywhere) readers went up, the number of questions skyrocketed, and the number of applicants to become writers stayed about the same. Or if they increased at all, it wasn't usually an increase in quality. So we'd end up hiring sub-par writers simply because we needed more help. Very rarely has marketing actually increased the quality of the Board. There have been multiple conversations and conscious decisions not to market the Board more.

Now, if we go independent, we might have to market more. And perhaps at that point it might be good for the Board. But until it's absolutely necessary for us to go independent, I don't foresee any effort being put out to increase our marketing.

And finding volunteers is harder than you'd think. Both web masters have been graduated for years. They've been looking for student web masters for years. Since they started seriously talking about making 5.0 anyway.

Oh, I was pretty sure that the lack of marketing was intentional. I'm only bringing it up because if the Board does go independent, they will probably want to start soliciting donations or selling merchandise to support themselves, and that's not something that they can successfully do with the kind of base they have right now. (I remember when they tried the Valentine's shirts, and I heard that only two of them sold.) Even if you don't want to grow your base, you would need to put some effort into marketing in order to get people to actually donate/purchase.

I realize that there are very real problems with leaving BYU, and thank you for illustrating that more clearly, DL. I can especially see what what wryness points out - that without the direct connection to BYU, the Board loses some of its niche and even some of its purpose. On one hand, if you go independent, you could start hiring more writers because you don't have to be confined to only those who go to BYU. On the other hand, if you do start hiring writers from UVU or U of U or of no university at all, you have a bunch of writers who know little to nothing about BYU (and you often have questions directly relating to campus) as well as a higher possibility that the tone of the Board will skew away from the conservative voices BYU is full of.

I do see that the Board can still be controlled without direct threat of BYU shutting them down. You can keep it, at the very least, as a Mormon-based group, and as such can impose standards necessary to be a face of the church. And if you have a bigger pool of writers to draw from, then let the threat of being fired serve to keep rebels down or out.

As to your last comment, I thinking that I would more than happy to fill the role I was outlining. : ) Alas, I remembered that due to... a change in employment, I no longer get half tuition at BYU and will be switching to UVU. Then again, you would only need a marketer if you go independent, and if you go independent, you may make exceptions to the BYU rule.

If you went independent, wouldn't it be possible to make writers sign a contract of sorts outlining the standards you want to maintain, and making it clear that breaching the contract could result in immediate dismissal? Even though the threat of the whole site being shut down would be gone, if a person truly cared about being a writer, they would want to follow the contract. And if they didn't care, then they should be let go anyway.

I just think there are ways to maintain the standard we've all come to know and love even if you leave BYU. I know if I ever became a writer, I'd want to stay on and so would follow rules deemed necessary.

Though I will say, it could open up being able to discuss some difficult topics more candidly, which could be really great for the readership and the writers. You can be candid without being tacky. When Black Sheep was a writer, she was very adept at talking about tough issues, but I never thought she was inappropriate, and she was very brave to share her struggles online, even anonymously. (btw, hey girl! we should chat soon!) I think all the writers are great at that, but I feel like that was a much more open time than now, and many of her answers still stand out to me. I think there can be a middle ground found for you guys, without us losing the whole enterprise.

I guess I also wouldn't mind seeing the Board go independent because I didn't mind delving into "taboo" subjects (I'm actually a little sad my question about female orgasm was rejected). I know people like a safe space to discuss things, and I think we can do so maturely. This forum, for example, isn't associated with BYU directly, but I get the same feeling of comradeship and scholarly banter/interest. There you have it, my unsolicited opinion.

!!!

The end of an era?

It's not seriously discussing taboo subjects that I mind. It's writers that are crass and crude,often largely for shock value.

Aw, Imogen, you're super sweet and I miss you like whoa.

Okay, so. Let's speak plainly here. I probably got to say more stuff that was not, strictly speaking, in line with BYU standards than any writer ever as the Black Sheep and Friendly Neighborhood Agnostic. During my whole writership, I was only told one time to change an answer because it wouldn't go over well with our sponsors, and that answer was about pot, not about Mormonism or mental health or LGBT issues or anything. I know that some sentiments I expressed were later attributed to other writers and got them into trouble with the editors after the sponsors expressed displeasure with them. If editors had told me to tone those sentiments down, I would have done so, but I would have done so out of respect for the editors and because that is what people do when their higher-ups ask them to do things, not because of some fear that the Board might have been taken down. Honestly, I laughed whenever someone said that, not because it wasn't a plausible scenario (plainly), but because it reeked of fear mongering. Also, I like to believe that I never shouted anyone down and I know I always did my best to provide alternate points of view without offending anyone. And, what's more, I was not asked to leave the Board in any way, shape, or form. I recognized that I didn't really fit in anymore and that I had done what I wanted to do, and I retired the day my last probie got promoted, and editors told me they were sad to see me go. Assuming I am not some freak anomaly, less-BYU-standards-embracing people would be able to contribute in a positive way to the Board. I say this more academically than anything, as I don't really care if the Board goes independent or not. I just like to think that I made positive contributions despite what are apparently my shortcomings.

In the interest of full disclosure (though I'm pretty sure that anyone that pays any attention or goes to any reader parties knows this): I don't have a writer profile anymore because a few months after I retired I recklessly did something disrespectful in order to... support a friend? Blow off some steam? Prove the same point I tried to prove in the paragraph above? But that was months after I retired after a successful writership.

Also, you cannot control what is going to happen in five years with anything, let alone the Board, whether it stays on BYU servers or not. Trying to make decisions for that far down the road is not ever going to be effective.

Look, I contributed heavily to the Board for a year and a half, and not just in time. Before writing for the Board nobody knew about my mental health status, for example. I sacrificed secrets for the Board, and that was painful, and the Board was worth it. I would be willing to contribute monetarily to the Board should it need to find space elsewhere. But some of the sentiments that have been expressed on this thread so far are straight up lame.

I've spoken to two of the editors at length about my opinions about the Board having to self-censor as much as it does, so I won't go into it here. However, it's worth noting that the writers who've gotten into a little trouble here and there, the ones who were fired, and the ones like me who didn't get into trouble, we were BYU students writing for BYU students. Those experiences were as valid as yours, and I think it would be great if the Board could better address those experiences. The whole campus is full of vanilla BYU standards which leads to secrecy which is why the Board gets so many awkward, sad, lonely questions. If the Board cannot address those questions the way that every single writer would like to because of their sponsors, so be it. That is understandable. But some of the attitudes on this thread make me sad.

Whistler wrote:I guess I also wouldn't mind seeing the Board go independent because I didn't mind delving into "taboo" subjects (I'm actually a little sad my question about female orgasm was rejected). I know people like a safe space to discuss things, and I think we can do so maturely. This forum, for example, isn't associated with BYU directly, but I get the same feeling of comradeship and scholarly banter/interest. There you have it, my unsolicited opinion.

Also, I agree with this.

DL, I think that I wasn't sufficiently clear. What I mean is, the WAY in which the influence of the association with BYU is used is often capricious and vague. It is a spectre that no one can really know who is going to get offended by what or when. The censorship isn't specific and it isn't standardized. Thus, removing the spectre of newsnet or (insert random muckety muck) and simply saying, "we wish to follow BYU standards with this group" really won't change how things are censored and when they are censored. Instead of saying that some higher up was offended and a question had to be changed/pulled, now the editor can simply say to the writer "that language/cavalier attitude/heretical opinion isn't really the tone we're looking for here." I fail to see how random offenses to higher ups is a better form of tone-setting than an internal one. That's what I was saying.

Marduk wrote:I fail to see how random offenses to higher ups is a better form of tone-setting than an internal one. That's what I was saying.

Because, due to the high rate of turnover, an entirely internal standard is going to be inconsistent and depend largely on the personalities of the editors and on how comfortable they are with confrontation.

TheBlackSheep wrote:

Whistler wrote:I guess I also wouldn't mind seeing the Board go independent because I didn't mind delving into "taboo" subjects (I'm actually a little sad my question about female orgasm was rejected). I know people like a safe space to discuss things, and I think we can do so maturely. This forum, for example, isn't associated with BYU directly, but I get the same feeling of comradeship and scholarly banter/interest. There you have it, my unsolicited opinion.

Also, I agree with this.

OK. Show me another independent forum (blog, message board, etc.) that does this. Show me a forum that tackles the really hard subjects to the degree you want them to while still maintaining active LDS standards. Give me a model to work with.

Katya wrote:...still maintaining active LDS standards...

Could we take a minute to define active LDS standards so that we know that we're all talking about the same thing? To me maintaining LDS standards would mean not swearing, not taking the Lord's name in vain, and not saying bad things about church leaders (by which I mean things like "President X was a liar and a charlatan", not things like "I'm not sure I agree with what President X said about subject Y before he was even the prophet"), and I think those things would be reasonably easy to enforce in any forum. But I suspect that other people's definitions might include other things.

NerdGirl wrote:

Katya wrote:...still maintaining active LDS standards...

Could we take a minute to define active LDS standards so that we know that we're all talking about the same thing? . . . I suspect that other people's definitions might include other things.

I think that even trying to define active LDS standards (or whatever standards the forum is aiming for) is a big part of the problem at hand.