At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision - Poll Vote only here

[nyj]

We're at yet another crossroads?

Mama mia!

 

[Mystman]

I'd say that the two options are a bit extreme.

I'd go for:

-The old "Christian"/"non-christian" sections, but with everyone who considers themselve Christian being allowed into the Christan section. We atheists don't really have any business in some of the Christian subforums, and I can understand if people just want a "hard" barrier so that argumentative atheists don't come wandering into a discussion on the exact meaning of Revelation 4:8

-Voting for moderators, being able to see reports, are both good.

-No warnings - just generous use of short temporary bannings if someone is misbehaving (just saying "don't do that!" doesn't really work, imho)

-No wikified rules! As someone said somewhere: the wiki format does a nice job at creating factual articles. It does a terrible job with opinions. The entire reason why wikipedia works is because it stresses neutrality, and respected outside sources. Neither are the case when making up rules. Maybe allow subforum users to change one rule at a time (via stickied polls or something).

 

[HadessahRose]

It's really difficult when you present no reasoning for your position.

what is to reason? is this a "Christian" site or not? If it is, it should be overseen by Christians. If not then fine...open mods.

As far as the creed...couldn't we ixnay the one that was in place, find one more suitable and go with that? This is NOT rocket science people.

SO far, I have had some good interaction with atheists. I have no problem at all with that. BUT if one should be on staff..overseeing issues between Christians...I have a problem with that. Let them mod their own sections...

 

[cygnusx1]

One last bit of advice. Whatever you guys decide, please don't restart the Nicene Witch Hunts. If someone says they affirm the Nicene Creed, please simply assume that they do, unless it become obvious they don't. I don't think you guys understand the damage you cause when you actively search to strip people of their Christian Icons.

I wasn't even aware this went on grizzly , i guess it is because of crazy stuff like that that we are in this "place" today , the scriptural principle is to do what you have suggested , to think well of others unless they show and prove otherwise.

 

[HadessahRose]

I'd say that the two options are a bit extreme.

I'd go for:

-The old "Christian"/"non-christian" sections, but with everyone who considers themselve Christian being allowed into the Christan section. We atheists don't really have any business in some of the Christian subforums, and I can understand if people just want a "hard" barrier so that argumentative atheists don't come wandering into a discussion on the exact meaning of Revelation 4:8

-Voting for moderators, being able to see reports, are both good.

-No warnings - just generous use of short temporary bannings if someone is misbehaving (just saying "don't do that!" doesn't really work, imho)

-No wikified rules! As someone said somewhere: the wiki format does a nice job at creating factual articles. It does a terrible job with opinions. The entire reason why wikipedia works is because it stresses neutrality, and respected outside sources. Neither are the case when making up rules. Maybe allow subforum users to change one rule at a time (via stickied polls or something).

NOW, there is a good idea! I honestly, can agree with that.

 

[Brennin]

I am inclined to think non-Christian mods/admin are incongruous with CF's mission statement. However, I think they should have some sort of advocate if they have been treated unfairly. (A non-Christian embassy, perhaps? )

 

[CaDan]

I don't see anyone suggesting that at all. Just about every person who voted for #2 has added a caveat of some sort, mostly that the forums remain open to all, and some that suggested going with open staffing. What are you reading that most of us are not?

Because I don't trust most of the people who have held power at this site in the past. Because I know the code words that get used. Because I've met the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[HadessahRose]

well, I know witch hunts went on. Not about Nicene creed or not, cause I was on the receiving end of them under a different name..that has since been deleted. AND to be honest, I KNOW there is one mod that is watching everything I do NOW! She may not have an 'agenda' but she is in there like white on rice! THAT I have a problem with.

 

[Freodin]

what is to reason? is this a "Christian" site or not? If it is, it should be overseen by Christians. If not then fine...open mods.

As far as the creed...couldn't we ixnay the one that was in place, find one more suitable and go with that? This is NOT rocket science people.

SO far, I have had some good interaction with atheists. I have no problem at all with that. BUT if one should be on staff..overseeing issues between Christians...I have a problem with that. Let them mod their own sections...

What kind of problems would you have with non-Christians "overseeing" Christians?

What do you think mods should do, and why do you think non-Christians would be unable to do that?

 

[Goldenrod]

I voted option 1, but why must we have a name change? Can't we just keep the name we have now? If Christian Forums is changed to "everyone forums", CF, imo, will no longer be a Christian forum, but just another forum on the internet.

I don't like the name change option, and I hope it won't happen if option 1 is the winner. If option 2 wins, we're automatically labelled as stuck-up and I don't want to be called that.

So, I vote option 1! No discrimination! Everyone is equal! But please Erwin, don't change CF's name. It's fine the way it is.

 

[Alice the Sister]

I voted for #2, because I always try to vote for the most absurd option available.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I'd say that the two options are a bit extreme.

I'd go for:

-The old "Christian"/"non-christian" sections, but with everyone who considers themselve Christian being allowed into the Christan section. We atheists don't really have any business in some of the Christian subforums, and I can understand if people just want a "hard" barrier so that argumentative atheists don't come wandering into a discussion on the exact meaning of Revelation 4:8

-Voting for moderators, being able to see reports, are both good.

-No warnings - just generous use of short temporary bannings if someone is misbehaving (just saying "don't do that!" doesn't really work, imho)

-No wikified rules! As someone said somewhere: the wiki format does a nice job at creating factual articles. It does a terrible job with opinions. The entire reason why wikipedia works is because it stresses neutrality, and respected outside sources. Neither are the case when making up rules. Maybe allow subforum users to change one rule at a time (via stickied polls or something).

I can work with that.

 

[HadessahRose]

What kind of problems would you have with non-Christians "overseeing" Christians?

What do you think mods should do, and why do you think non-Christians would be unable to do that?

could a non christian mod be fair modding between 2 christians? What would they have as input? The believe systems are totally different. I could see POTENTIAL problems.

 

[chrislife]

Why should we have to choose between serving the needs of Christians and outreach to non-Christians?

I resent the wording of this poll, implying that any Christian who either has needs or feels called to help other Christians who have needs is refusing to heed Christ's call to witness.

Why must we choose between two untenable extremes?

Erwin, if you are going through doubts or confusion, you should ask for prayers instead of tearing down this valuable ministry.

 

[Brimshack]

Brim you know me, you know what i want, I want Members treated fairly, all members, including staff.

The current system is driving members away from cf by the droves, the wiki is full of lobbyists whom bully others to get what they want

Myself want control of CF? not interested at all, i despise CF, a complete and utter waste of a year of my life moderating this place

Yet due to some maybe misplaced loyalty some little part of Cf, i want a fair system installed

Steffi can tell you of my "Ideal" Forum management system,sadly it never got to be tested anywhere

yet it called for equal rights to all religion (or lack of) members (staff,policy,etc) , without removing Christian Safe havens

Just to be clear Saleucami, I am not questioning your moderation. I have no cause to do that. Nor am I questioning your own vision; that's not on the table at present and I have no way of knowing it's strengths and weaknesses. My objection is to the specific approach you have taken in the posts here in this thread. (at least up through page 32). In those posts you do ask for control. In fact you demand it.

Yes, the current system is broken. What could and could not be accomplished in this paradigm has yet to be determined, not the least of reasons being that we are still debating whether or not that system will be used at all.

You say people are being driven from the board. Perhaps. But frankly, I see a lot of people leaving of their own accord. The concerns they cite when doing so are an odd mixture of reasonable and accurate on the one hand and completely hyperbolic to outright lies on the other. Talk of the current "masters" at CF would certainly count as hyperbolic in my book.

 

[sparklecat]

could a non christian mod be fair modding between 2 christians? What would they have as input? The believe systems are totally different. I could see POTENTIAL problems.

Remember that no moderator is going to be acting unilaterally; we have our Team for a reason.

 

[JimfromOhio]

What kind of problems would you have with non-Christians "overseeing" Christians?

What do you think mods should do, and why do you think non-Christians would be unable to do that?

There are many reason, but the main problem that non-Christians are familiar with Christian faith and beliefs. The Bible also states that Christians are to accountable to other Christians. Christians and Non-Christians should not be meddling with each other.

 

[CaDan]

When I was on staff, the only times I ever saw this type of thing happen was when someone obviously didn't affirm the Nicene Creed.

StarJewel, anyone?

Look: I ran a poll and discovered 37% of one Congregational forum were Nestorians. But they were all "good Christians" so no action was taken. Don't tell me Staff was ever enforcing the Creed, because it never was. Staff allowed a "Christians only" forum devoted in large part to Chiliasm. Staff had to footnote the Creed to change the doctrine of baptism.

 

[Angeldove97]

Okay, hi everybody. I wanted to wait to hear back from Erwin on the announcement but I did send it to other staff members to review for me and nobody had any issues about it. Since this thread has been very popular, it's time to get those who don't know about it involved and get some new voices in here.

The announcement is now posted up for all the forums to see. Now I have to go back to page 22 and start reading up.

God bless!

 

[A New Dawn]

Because I don't trust most of the people who have held power at this site in the past. Because I know the code words that get used. Because I've met the new boss, same as the old boss.

Erwin?