PLEASE READ Disagreements

[Edial]

Hi there.

There have been some disagreements between some posters.
We see it ALL the time.
Some reconciliatory steps have been taken by some (thank you for that!).

It has been our experience however, that disagreements and reconciliations can go back and forth depending on circumstances.

Unless we have a system in place to make reconciliations stick and going back to disagreements not that easy , this back and forth may cause damage to this place.

This is what we can do while using the existing rules.

- You will not discuss nor refer to another individual in a negative way.
- If you are reported by that individual and we find there indeed was a negative comment concerning that individual - 3 DAYS ban.

2nd offense - 1 WEEK ban.

You may criticize the post, but not the poster.

Each ban may be appealed in MSC.
Ask for me.
But would warn you, if there is a violation as described here, appeal would be declined.

It is up to that individual to report.
You can either ban each other out, turn the other cheek here and there, or stop addressing each other in a negative light.
Oh, it works.

This system is very effective to freeze any attacks or negative comments towards an individual, direct or implied.

How does this sound?

I need to go out for few hours and would handle the questions when I come back.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Frogster]

I would also add, posts that says..."some people here"..should not ba allowed.

Everyone knows just who the poster is personally attacking, when a post has that phrase in it.

 

[Edial]

I would also add, posts that says..."some people here"..should not ba allowed.

Everyone knows just who the poster is personally attacking, when a post has that phrase in it.

Depends on the context.
But if we see that the implication is clear, if it indeed refers to that individual (because that individual reports him) then we follow with the short term bans.

 

[Frogster]

Depends on the context.
But if we see that the implication is clear, if it indeed refers to that individual (because that individual reports him) then we follow with the short term bans.

Understood.

 

[murjahel]

There have been some disagreements between some posters.

Unless we have a system in place to make reconciliations stick and going back to disagreements not that easy , this back and forth may cause damage to this place.


- You will not discuss nor refer to another individual in a negative way.

- If you are reported by that individual and we find there indeed was a negative comment concerning that individual - 3 DAYS ban.
2nd offense - 1 WEEK ban.

You may criticize the post, but not the poster.

if there is a violation as described here, appeal would be declined.

It is up to that individual to report.

This system is very effective to freeze any attacks or negative comments towards an individual, direct or implied.

How does this sound?

That will be great ... am trusting that it will be... and then we can open Peanut gallery threads and see real discussion ...

thank you...

 

[ToBeBlessed]

I'm fine with what everyone wants. However, I do see it scaring away those who are not 'regulars' here since they will probably break the rules. I rarely report and if I do it's not in this sub forum, but another sub forum where people are more fragile and need greater care.

I see less discussion not more. I will take 25 minutes to write a work email response because I get paid to write well in that scenario, but I won't constantly tweak my posts here if it doesn't go easy, it's just too much work and you never know if you will or do make a difference or not. Just being honest.

People may think less of me, but time is time and I will not spend a bunch of time on optional things unless there is a ministering payoff that we know we are helping someone. If you do take the time to write well, that doesn't mean that people really read them fully, people scan and read selectively. I do know that.

The internet seems to have it's own rules and I trust very few here that do not or will not go on reporting rampages.

With that said, I will follow what everyone else wants and see how it works for me. I am a peace maker.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

My question on this is who decides what is deemed inappropriate and what isn't?

Is it just you edial? Or is it a group of mods that come to a consensus?

If it's just you, no offense, but that's almost like your dictating the conversation here.

Case in point, the other day in the peanut gallery thread you agreed with others that the younger believers here are rude somewhat towards elders. While I will say some, including myself can do better. All you said to me in response to that point was just chat with you about it. So you openly sided with one end of the forum against the other. That's not fair.

I mean it is what it is, but if you are the sole determining factor in the decision to ban people for posts, I feel the younger believers are at a disadvantage already.

Also, please clarify what is deemed inappropriate? How do we know we took the point too far? Some people say things here with no disrespect meant at all, that is blatantly obvious to most, and yet the other person may just be having a bad day and report such a post because of that. Will that person be banned because someone is in a foul mood and felt offended?

Need some clear parameters like we got with the teaching thread format. Thanks!

 

[Andrea411]

Depends on the context.
But if we see that the implication is clear, if it indeed refers to that individual (because that individual reports him) then we follow with the short term bans.

I agree and think a week off might be a good thing for us. At times we NEED to re-evaluate how we respond to individuals if we are to be sensitive to unbelievers.
That said, some people just get offended. I use the term stalkers to address behaviors not individuals. The number of people who get offended only confirms to me "If the shoe fits"... ???
........I went to one person who mentioned being called a stalker and asked that person if they thought I was addressing them. After two inquiries and no response, I have to assume they thought it was them. I never had them in mind.
I got a similar response when I mentioned juvenile behavior. Hey I'm not immune from juvenile behavior either but some people (the same people) re-acted personally.

Now I can find another word but it can't solve the problem as long as individuals want to be offended.

LOL.... can we request a week ban ... before things get out of hand? I'm really laughing but I can recall thinking it might be really good to get away and reevaluate my own response. If I have a problem with so many people maybe I'm the problem?? Although, it seems to be one group. So if one person in said group gets offended they seem to all get offended. ... and off we go...

Steps for reconciliation are being made... I welcome everyone who has a problem with me to address me and I will make a special effort to be more patient and curb the sarcasm. I have a little problem with sarcasm, I like it - I think its funny but seriously, I don't think God likes it.

God bless, andrea

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Sarcasm is good, I'm a very sarcastic person at times. I think the issue with sarcasm on CF or any internet site is unless the people you are chatting with really know you as a person. Sarcasm can often come across as very hostile and rude. Even if it wasn't meant that way.

 

[Andrea411]

Sarcasm is good, I'm a very sarcastic person at times. I think the issue with sarcasm on CF or any internet site is unless the people you are chatting with really know you as a person. Sarcasm can often come across as very hostile and rude. Even if it wasn't meant that way.

Yes, I'm from NJ. The N.E. is sarcastic by nature... when we go down South, they get offended by it or don't 'get it' like what?? is that supposed to be funny? So I don't think its a good Christian witness for me. Or I don't put it over well.

God bless, andrea

 

[turned around]

Hi Mod,
I think the innuendoes used are more damaging than just calling someone out. I have used innuendos myself, and usually feel crumy. Innuendoes IMO need to be closely monitored by staff. Suspension for that I believe would stop some of the bigger disputes from happening.

Grace to you.

 

[geetrue]

Rude and sarcasm seem a lot alike to me: Sarcasm Synonyms, Sarcasm Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

More words related to sarcasm

noun. harsh speech, behavior
acrimoniousness
causticity
ill temper
irritability
rancor
rudeness
sarcasm
sarcasticness
vitriolicism

 

[hislegacy]

You may criticize the post, but not the poster.


You can either ban each other out, turn the other cheek here and there, or stop addressing each other in a negative light.
Oh, it works.


Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

wisdom!!

 

[murjahel]

Case in point, the other day in the peanut gallery thread you agreed with others that the younger believers here are rude somewhat towards elders. While I will say some, including myself can do better. All you said to me in response to that point was just chat with you about it. So you openly sided with one end of the forum against the other. That's not fair.

I mean it is what it is, but if you are the sole determining factor in the decision to ban people for posts, I feel the younger believers are at a disadvantage already.

I think if you re-read that you will see he said that the current generation as a whole has been guilty of that... he did not say here... and he asked for private pm's of examples... not taking one's statement as proof, he wanted proof... he was not one-sided at all. and if you said you could 'do better' his response to you was not judgment, but a willingness to discuss it with you...


re-read that part...

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I'm not here to discuss it with you. I'm stating how I perceived his words. You didn't see it the same way. This beautifully illustrates the issue with what's being discussed right now though. If there is a difference of opinion and someone feels offended by a post that was not meant in any way to be offensive are they still going to get banned for a misunderstanding? And who makes that determination? Edial alone or a group of mods? These are valid concerns and need to be addressed.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I think if you re-read that you will see he said that the current generation as a whole has been guilty of that... he did not say here... and he asked for private pm's of examples... not taking one's statement as proof, he wanted proof... he was not one-sided at all. and if you said you could 'do better' his response to you was not judgment, but a willingness to discuss it with you...


re-read that part...

This is exactly how he said the post I'm referring to:

It is a radical suggestion and I completely agree with you that younger generation lost track of what is respect for the elders.

It is post #52 in the Peanut Gallery questions thread...

To me, as a member of the "younger generation" that is taking sides. Perhaps he didn't mean it like that, but you can't say stuff like that in the open forum and not expect someone to take issue with it. Leaders are to be completely fair and impartial and saying something like that ^^^ seems contrary to that.

If he didn't mean it that way, cool. But again what is to stop edial or any mod from reading a comment similar to that one and finding fault with it then banning the offending poster when no such offense was meant.

At very least, there should be a coming together if things get out of hand. If people refuse to join in discussion to resolve issues, then bans should be considered. Not a "well that seems offensive so you're getting the heave-ho" see ya in 3 days or worse!

Understand?

 

[Tishri1]

As a team all the staff have entered Emergency Protocol for this forum, not something we enjoy doing but like Edial said its very effective

What usually happens is folks stop complaining about each other and focus on communicating around the topics again, which clears the air so to speak

All staff are aware that you all are on emergency protocol procedures now

Tackle the topics, not each other ok?

 

[Andrea411]

I'm not here to discuss it with you. I'm stating how I perceived his words. You didn't see it the same way. This beautifully illustrates the issue with what's being discussed right now though. If there is a difference of opinion and someone feels offended by a post that was not meant in any way to be offensive are they still going to get banned for a misunderstanding? And who makes that determination? Edial alone or a group of mods? These are valid concerns and need to be addressed.

I thought the same thing when I read Edial response. He was quite fair and hasn't taken sides. But it seems you can take it to the MSC (members services).
Someone has to moderate, they don't have enough moderators now. As long as we watch our PnQs there shouldn't be a problem.

God bless, andrea

 

[Andrea411]

Hi Mod,
I think the innuendoes used are more damaging than just calling someone out. I have used innuendos myself, and usually feel crumy. Innuendoes IMO need to be closely monitored by staff. Suspension for that I believe would stop some of the bigger disputes from happening.

Grace to you.

They have said if you feel like someone is flaming or goading you. Report it. Shouldn't that be enough? So if you think someone is goading you with an innuendo... try telling them that first and see what the response is. Then if you don't get any satisfaction, report them.
It seems like a lot of work for the mods to read hearts and minds of posters. If there is a long history of it then it becomes obvious.
Don't you think???

God bless, andrea

 

[Andrea411]

As a team all the staff have entered Emergency Protocol for this forum, not something we enjoy doing but like Edial said its very effective

What usually happens is folks stop complaining about each other and focus on communicating around the topics again, which clears the air so to speak

All staff are aware that you all are on emergency protocol procedures now

Tackle the topics, not each other ok?

I must have missed something, I thought we were getting better??