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

[MartinM]

could a non christian mod be fair modding between 2 christians?

Could a Christian mod be fair moderating a dispute between two non-Christians? Why not?

What would they have as input?

The rules?

 

[CaDan]

We're at yet another crossroads?

Mama mia!

Robert Johnson, ora pro nobis!

 

[HadessahRose]

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

ok, I concede....I think if it is done fairly...then it could work. You have a point.

 

[Brennin]

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.

Actually, a non-Christian might be impartial in such a dispute, whereas a Christian might not.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I came here to fellowship with Christians, specifically Christians who do believe the same as I do. To that end, I would've voted for #2, but it is worded so poorly and other better wording suggestions have been made, so I am joining the ranks of those who are abstaining.

Erwin's site is full of good intentions, but so is the road to hell.

 

[HadessahRose]

I came here to fellowship with Christians, specifically Christians who do believe the same as I do. To that end, I would've voted for #2, but it is worded so poorly and other better wording suggestions have been made, so I am joining the ranks of those who are abstaining.

Erwin's site is full of good intentions, but so is the road to hell.

Yep!

 

[Brimshack]

Wow, aren't you a nice person? I'm not going to make any comment on the quality of the people who have left/returned, because I think it's rather tactless to post that Poster X is somehow a better person than Poster Y (especially when I have had less experience with Poster Y).

I also love how you keep emphasising and bragging that you have put time into this forum. Just because you were once a moderator doesn't mean your opinion has any more worth than that of "inferior" types such as myself who have felt marginalised and been made to feel unwelcome in the past.

Why don't we just give the new system time to prove itself? It seems to be working. Everywhere I post/lurk, I haven't seen any significant problems.

Saleucami was a damned fine moderator. His reputation is well deserved, and for me at least his opinion does carry more weight than usual. I say this, being completely and utterly opposed to his stance on this particular subject. But yes, I do think his views on the forum are entitled to a little more than the average modicum of respect.

 

[gratefulgrace]

I came here to fellowship with Christians, specifically Christians who do believe the same as I do. To that end, I would've voted for #2, but it is worded so poorly and other better wording suggestions have been made, so I am joining the ranks of those who are abstaining.

Erwin's site is full of good intentions, but so is the road to hell.

amen

 

[CaDan]

Phooey.

It's a beautiful day. I'm gonna go ride my bike.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well the wiki car-crash has showed us some rules are absolutely necessary, for sure. But some of them also completely alleviated the need for accountability, which led to some abuse.

Non-Christians felt unwelcome before; conservative Christians feel unwelcome now. Both are as bad as the other.

There are benefits to both systems, and if we could have the best of both and leave behind the worst of both, CF could be wonderful. Neither of the options given allow room for that, though. It's not good enough to have to choose the lesser evil when a little thought and effort could make it better.

I think the wikis were intended to give us time to put in that sort of thought and effort, rather than immediately framing every issue into some sort of either-or, pollable question before other options could be considered.

I agree with you that this poll is bad because it presents a false dichotomy.

The wikis were proposed as a method to allow for time and thought. But they do take time. What I've learned most from them is how many people have little or no tolerance for the temporary ambiguity and conflict that are inherent in any consensus process. They prefer voting. A bad decision is better than a delayed decision.

Sometimes a quick decision is necessary, and sometimes an issue isn't important enough to employ a collaborative or consensus process. I personally still have a lot of hope for the wikis. I see progress being made there. I wish I could persuade some members to participate in the process, rather than complain about it. But in a consensus process there are always many who sit on the sidelines, following to a greater or lesser degree, but not speaking up. Sometimes people don't speak up because other people are articulating their thoughts and feelings. Other times people don't speak up because a particular issue isn't important to them, and they are willing to accept the action of those who have a greater stake in the outcome.

I found your post very interesting in that, while rejecting the wiki process, you are asking to take more time and develop better alternatives than the two presented.

 

[Freodin]

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.

I have to agree, I do not see why the name - or anything about the intended purpose - should be changed.

This IS a Christian forum. It´s declared purpose is the "unify all Christians". How the Christians try to do that is their job... though I would say that did not do it correctly in the past.

But that is only one part of the huge community that CF has become in the last years. It is also a place where opinions about religion in general are traded... and much more. It is a community of people, and when talking about the lastest soccer results, I would not bother to ask "Hey, are you an Atheist, too?"

So there a lot of involved people here, contributors to this site, that are not Christians. They should not need to bother with the intra-christian debates. They should be polite enough not to interrupt conversations where they are not involved. This has NOTHING to do with being a Christian or non-Christian... that is common courtesy.

But in the same way these people should not be forced out when they want to contribute to the one thing that both sides want here: a smooth and undisturbed day-to-day operation of these forums.

If people can be shown to be able to do that, why should it matter what faith they adhere to?

 

[heymikey80]

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

Not all Christians are to be exposed to everything all at once.

Christian life isn't a state of being (at least not that alone). It's a growth process.

 

[Brennin]

I would also like to say that I appreciate the current, far less Draconian rules. I was once given a warning point for having the unmitigated temerity to post excerpts of Arius' Thalia (as quoted by Athanasius) without comment. In another instance, I was given a warning (without a point) for linking to a pro-Mormon site in the context of a post critical of Mormonism! (Certainly, Mormons should be able to link to their apologia, even though it is pure flatulence.)

 

[Carey]

Hi members

This poll, started by drstevej, was PMed to me recently. I think that it does make a good point and I wanted it moved out of the Conservative Christians forum to the Announcement forum to gather input from other members as well.

The issue here is whether CF's name should be changed and its vision modified to reflect its current framework.

This site at the moment is at a cross-roads, and can go either way. It can either become:

1. A safe social community site with a heavy and strong Christian influence (with the vision being to offer a safe online community, and a secondary vision being to allow Christians to outreach to non-Christians) - which will allow for a name change;

OR

2. Return to a more restricted Christians-only site with a heavy emphasis on uniting mainstream Christians only with a less emphasis on outreach, in which case we keep the name.

Bear in mind that options 1 and 2 are both valid - there is a place for either forums.

I think that at this moment members are frustrated because CF is halfway between options 1 and 2, so members are confused as we have a vision that belongs to option 2 but a setup that is more like option 1.

Therefore, I think we need to make a decision.

I'm going to leave this up to the community. I've extended the above poll to 3rd of August.

I will listen to the members here, and will defer to the final decision.

Please feel free to discuss this issue in this thread.

I think bringing nonchristians to christ is the obligation of all Christians

 

[JimfromOhio]

Phooey.

It's a beautiful day. I'm gonna go ride my bike.

I am taking my family to a ball game later today.

 

[Freodin]

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.

I have to ask again: what do you think a mod should do, and why do you think a non-Christian could not do it?

You asked whether a non-Christians could be "fair" in his dealing with two Christians. Well, why should he not be? Is fairness dependent on faith, or on a correct usage of the set rules? Do you think that non-Christians would be spiteful and unfair to BOTH sides in an inter-Christian debate? Why should they?

 

[Angeldove97]

Link to announcement: http://www.christianforums.com/announcement.php?a=81

In case it doesn't work.

 

[Crazy Liz]

My thoughts are that neither option is palatable, although I favour option 1 over option 2 in their present forms. However, I am not voting in this poll.

Erwin wrote this in his opening post:

I'm going to leave this up to the community. I've extended the above poll to 3rd of August.

I will listen to the members here, and will defer to the final decision.

If he will, indeed, leave this up to the community, that leaves the way open for the community to hold fast to their dissatisfaction with the either/or aspect of this poll, as I've read here in many posts, and to insist that no change be made until further options and opportunities for discussion on those have been provided.

 

[Aprill]

Can't we have both options but without the Wiki?

I don't want to have to go edit, reedit, discuss and go all crazy about the rules. I liked them the way they were, but enjoy having new people to ask questions and provoke my learning more about Christianity as a whole.

 

[k]

The old framework contradicted much of Jesus' social philosophy. The new set up is far more in line with how Jesus appraoched the issue of community and witnessing. It worked for him so why cant it work for us?