Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Katya wrote:

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.

So, I'm not really sure what you're looking for. I don't read a lot of LDS blogs and such. I think many of the sites I read discuss sensitive topics without resorting to rhetorical fallacies. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -me-its-us discusses female sexual functioning in an academic, approachable way.

I like the Killscreen for video game news and most discussions about the video game issues I care about are on blogs (where sometimes other people use a swear word or two, but is that really something I hate so much that I'm not going to read anything on the Internet not LDS-centered? Here's one such hotbutton issue, although admittedly not much discussion:http://www.your-critic.com/2011/12/golden-days.html). I guess I care most about people treating each other with respect, and if you find the right circles, it's not actually that hard (but if you go to Kotaku looking for a scholarly discussion, or Facebook for that matter, you're going to have some trolls).

NerdGirl wrote:"I'm not sure I agree with what President X said about subject Y before he was even the prophet"

X=Benson?

Katya, that's what a contract type of document would be for, to define those standards. The current staff and chosen alums could draw up what they feel are important qualities in a writer and behaviors they expect, and everyone would agree to abide by those rules if they got hired (just like a real job, but without money).

So it could be as simple as:
1)Answer X amount each week or give notice about why you've slowed down
2) No cursing
3) Humor is great, but please try to be aware of tone
4) No encouraging illegal activities

etc. etc.

Or the Board could also come up with complex bylaws or whatever they want. I'd say our forum is often respectful, and the only person who ever made me feel disrespected is no longer posting here. I think we often discuss controversial issues without people getting too bent out of shape. I just know there has to be a way to make this work.

We're not doomed yet. Don't worry. There are still possibilities. They just reached out to the readers to, hopefully, open even more doors.

Katya, sorry to belabor the point, but I still don't understand how the caprice of a random higher up is better than the caprice of a given editor. There is still no defined standard other than "what might offend someone somewhere."

Imogen and Marduk, I don't think it's a simple matter of establishing standards and sticking to them—I think it may be fundamentally impossible to keep the same standards without BYU support. Let me see if I can explain where I'm coming from.

In physics, we talk about two kinds of equilibrium: Stable equilibrium and unstable equilibrium. Stable equilibrium is like a marble at the bottom of a bowl. If you disturb the marble, it will roll away from its original position, but gravity will eventually bring it back to the bottom of the bowl. Unstable equilibrium is like balancing a pencil on its point. It's theoretically possible (solve for the center of mass and center that over the point), but practically very difficult, because any disturbance will force it away from that position.

I think that the Board operates in a realm of unstable equilibrium between a couple of areas of stability. On one hand, you have the active pro-LDS forums which are going to be faith-affirming and largely avoid controversial issues. (Think of Relief Society discussions or articles published in the Ensign.) On the other hand, you have activist forums which discuss controversial aspects of LDS culture or history, but which also end up being largely critical of the Church. (Think of blogs like FMH and Exponent II, plus I'm sure many ex-Mormon blogs that I'm not familiar with.) Both kinds of groups promote discussion that is self-reinforcing, which is what makes them stable.

Is it possible for a single person to occupy some ideological space between these two groups? Absolutely. A small group? Sure. But the larger and more active a group is, the harder it will be to stay between those points, because the tone of the forum will be inherently pulled in one or the other direction towards an area of stability.

So, it's like the Board is a ball on a hill in between two valleys. The more people interact with the ball, the more difficult it is to keep it perched on that hill and not rolling down into one of the valleys. Having BYU sponsorship is like having a brick wall on the top of the hill. You can roll up to the top of the hill, but you can't roll past it. Now, you could say that's just the same as being in the more conservative valley, but the crucial difference is that adds some stability to the top of the hill because you can lean against the wall for support. So, whenever an editor feels that something is pushing the limit, he or she can lean against the wall for support in keeping the ball from rolling too far down the other side (and Dragon Lady indicated that she can think of many such examples when an editor has done so, behind the scenes), while still trying to stay on top of that hill by tackling difficult questions from a faithful perspective.

Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with the existence of both valleys. On the contrary, I think there's important work to be done on both sides. However, I don't think that an entity with the size and scope of the Board can have it both ways for long without a little support.

I understand where you're coming from. I also categorically disagree with you both in terms of how you represented BYU's censorship standards (as a non-moving brick wall; as I've said, I don't think the standards are that stable) and the possibility of maintaining a level of discussion that thinks critically about issues affecting this population without being indiscriminately critical of these institutions.

Marduk wrote:I understand where you're coming from. I also categorically disagree with you both in terms of how you represented BYU's censorship standards (as a non-moving brick wall; as I've said, I don't think the standards are that stable) and the possibility of maintaining a level of discussion that thinks critically about issues affecting this population without being indiscriminately critical of these institutions.

Well, like I said, show me a (large) forum that does it (and has done it over an extended period of time).

Define large. This forum I think fits quite well; it is BYU related but not sponsored and enjoys waxing and waning membership; we have about a dozen what I'd call active members, another two dozen or so intermittent, and then a not insignificant number of lurkers. I'm sure we're significantly smaller than what you'd call "large," but we probably have about as many contributers as the board has writers.

Go to the Publications and Graphics Building on the north end of campus. It is near the MTC and the laundry building. Ask to speak to Charles Cranney. I have a feeling he can help you out. Seriously.

I know the topic has moved onto other things, but one place I think the Board would fit in really well is with Student Life. Not the mess of BYUSA, but in the counseling/advisement/career conglomerate in the Wilk. I know some of the faculty there take on clubs and other groups. (But, since they are professionals in mental health/legal/medical issues/etc. they probably wouldn't be willing to take on the liability of the Board).

Student Life already passed on us, unfortunately. We thought it was a good fit, too. They thought we were a bunch of dunderheads with snot for brains.

Gimgimno wrote: They thought we were a bunch of dunderheads with snot for brains.

Are they wrong?

Genuine Article wrote:

Gimgimno wrote: They thought we were a bunch of dunderheads with snot for brains.

Are they wrong?

That is utterly beside the point.

I sure hope that their possible solution works out for them!

Fredjikrang wrote:I sure hope that their possible solution works out for them!

You're not alone.

ME TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a question I'd like to submit, but I'm waiting to see if the Board still exists in 100 hours.

Katya wrote:I have a question I'd like to submit, but I'm waiting to see if the Board still exists in 100 hours.

I know!!! I have like three questions I want to ask!

I'd say you'd have a much better chance of having it answered if you ask it. I mean, what if it's around in 100 hours, but not 175?