OK, the “Devil’s Advocate” as such is gone now but, yes, in modern-era official canonizations (as opposed to popular devotions) there is a “due process” to get there – it has been discussed in threads of the past and is not the subject for this one so I leave it at that.
I have to side with the rabble on this one. It’s not like we haven’t had rambling posters before. And this one started his very polite ramble in the appropriate forum.
Why not give the benefit of the doubt to the OP and the people who would respond? It can always be closed if it actually trainwrecks.
With apologies to the dissenters, but I’m with @What_Exit on this one. It was certainly not GD material, and though we have lots of silly stuff in MPSIMS, it’s intentionally – and often creatively – silly, and serves a purpose, however trite it might be. This post was just the typical incoherent nonsense we see from this poster.
I could say more, but there is a Pit thread in which more has indeed been said. Reading through it certainly gives context to those who might be unfamiliar with this particular landscape.
I also agree with the moderation. Encouraging his odd posting style doesn’t help the board, or the poster.
This makes it sound like you have a personal dislike for the poster, which is not a good look or a good reason to close a thread.
I also think this is absolutely witnessing, not blogging, and is allowed in that forum. He even asks for other peoples experiences. I think you should open it back up. If it goes nowhere, it will disappear soon enough.
I can’t believe that I actually agree with you on an issue.
To you. To me it merely sounds like WE? has an awareness of both this poster’s modus operandi and the community’s perception of same. You know, good moderation.
Having said that, FWIW, I (sort-of, see next para) disagree with the moderation. There’s no requirement that witnessing be coherent. And that was definitely a witnessing thread.
Now, if the OP is vacillating between Catholic and atheist in every second thread, that does start to smack of some underlying issue akin to trolling, but that one thread is still just a witnessing thread. The underlying problem should be moderated based on that, but the thread shouldn’t be moderated on something that isn’t the case.
Ditto.
I think this poster should be on a very short leash in terms of what he contributes to the board.
This specific thread topic was more nonsense, beyond the scope of witnessing, and I agree with its closure.
Obviously.
But of course, many people are no longer so civil.
Which is the correct forum for speaking in tongues?
Exactly this.
Same.
How was this thread “beyond witnessing”? It was the same statement of belief (in whatever flavour of woo) and invitation for agreement as any other witnessing thread. It even had the bonus factual inaccuracies (no Vatican website? Ha!) of a classic witnessing.
The only thing is, we don’t get any others any more, so you’ve all forgotten what they can be like.
That, and it’s this particular poster. But if that were a new poster, it would be considered just a bog-standard low-effort drive-by witnessing.
Eh, he’s harmless. He’s not running around spewing sexist, racist crap all over the board. Just use ignore if he bothers you so much. Much better solution than closing all his threads because you don’t like them.
Other than this one: Kudos To Elton John
Or this one: Celebrities Who Act Gay But DEFINITELY Aren't?
Actually he was spouting cringy anti-gay stuff despite saying he is gay. He was actually topic banned. He has earned topic bans & thread bans. He also seems to change his backstory quite often. So no, I do watch him more carefully, especially when he posts in GD.
Are you saying you don’t think he’s gay? Or that gay people shouldn’t talk about bad things some gay people do? So what if he’s a little off from the norm.
If he has a thread that violates a rule, I don’t mind if you close it. But witnessing is specifically allowed in that forum. Asking people to talk about living saints is not blogging, it’s witnessing. Maybe you need to be more specific in the rule if you only allow certain kinds of witnessing.
He may not be gay, his backstory shifts often.
I feel his OP violated the no blogging rules. Rambling threads in GD do get closed. That was more a rambling story than witnessing in my opinion. And no, we’re no changing rules over this.
Has he ever said he’s not gay? And many people have a complex relationship with their religion or lack of it.
Can you explain exactly what it was about this OP in particular made it not witnessing? Rambling really isn’t much help. IMHO, all witnessing is rambling.