At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread - Please Vote in Poll Thread

[PaladinValer]

A quick repeat of something I said in the other thread, since I got positive feedback by both conservative Christians and non-Christians on it:

A lot of people are rather inbetween Choices 1 and 2. Even though I voted 2, I really, as my previous post indicates, like many of the reforms.

Here's what I really think:

Good Things

1. Increased access for non-Christians.
   • Especially to congregational forums
   • The ability for them to staff non-theological forums and subforums
2. Congregational forums' ability to establish rules within their individual space.
   • The ability to say who is considered a member, full or partial, and who is considered a guest
   • The ability to vote upon their own rules
   • The ability to vote upon their own moderators
   • The ability to determine the rights and privileges of non-Christians therewithin, including perhaps the right or privilege to moderate there
3. Open reports and applications to staff
4. Term-base appointments/election of staff
5. Allowing people to decide themselves if they are married, etc (with one exception; see below)

What should be Brought Back

1. A strong, universal set of rules that are not up to any debate.
2. The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.
3. A system of warnings and infractions.
4. A "Christian area" but where non-Christians have the privilege to post in instead of being automatically prohibited from posting in.
5. Only allowing Christians to staff theological forums.
6. Appointment and non-election by members of non-congregational staff with a twist: members would still be able to make comments (see above) and be able to appeal an appointment if the vote were either narrow or if there was genuine concern about the ability of the individual to function as staff
7. Appeals (was that actually removed?)

I really think a "1.5" choice is most realistic that keeps most of the major reforms while returning to tried-and-true methods, particularly in moderating but allowing congregational forums to keep their right to "semi-autonomy" in terms of staffing.

 

[kimber1]

you know, i find it sad that those of you who sya that only Christian mods can give any kind of advice or care or help seem to forget that just bc someone isn't a Christian, it doesn't mean they don't have compassion.

a non Christian has morals too ya know. just bc they aren't Christian doesn't mean they cna't give good advice. why does their advice HAVE to be from the Bible? why can't they just sit and listen to someone who needs comfort adn be a shoulder for them to lean on?

oh yea, that's right THEY CAN!

 

[Freodin]

I am not there to judge their Christianity I am there to practice Christianity with them and at times help them through whatever they may need.... I am sorry but those coming to a Christian site should somehow know that Christian advice is what they are going to get even by it's members ..... I think you sometimes forget that... Or you want us to

If you had read my post before the quoted one, you would have seen that I quite agree with you there.

Of course on a Christian site one can except to get Christains advice... from the members. But from the electrician who checks that hardware, the programmer who writes the software... or the moderator who supervises that forum rules?

 

[ScottBot]

A quick repeat of something I said in the other thread, since I got positive feedback by both conservative Christians and non-Christians on it:

A lot of people are rather inbetween Choices 1 and 2. Even though I voted 2, I really, as my previous post indicates, like many of the reforms.

Here's what I really think:

Good Things

1. Increased access for non-Christians.
   • Especially to congregational forums
   • The ability for them to staff non-theological forums and subforums
2. Congregational forums' ability to establish rules within their individual space.
   • The ability to say who is considered a member, full or partial, and who is considered a guest
   • The ability to vote upon their own rules
   • The ability to vote upon their own moderators
   • The ability to determine the rights and privileges of non-Christians therewithin, including perhaps the right or privilege to moderate there
3. Open reports and applications to staff
4. Term-base appointments/election of staff
5. Allowing people to decide themselves if they are married, etc (with one exception; see below)

What should be Brought Back

1. A strong, universal set of rules that are not up to any debate.
2. The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.
3. A system of warnings and infractions.
4. A "Christian area" but where non-Christians have the privilege to post in instead of being automatically prohibited from posting in.
5. Only allowing Christians to staff theological forums.
6. Appointment and non-election by members of non-congregational staff with a twist: members would still be able to make comments (see above) and be able to appeal an appointment if the vote were either narrow or if there was genuine concern about the ability of the individual to function as staff
7. Appeals (was that actually removed?)

I really think a "1.5" choice is most realistic that keeps most of the major reforms while returning to tried-and-true methods, particularly in moderating but allowing congregational forums to keep their right to "semi-autonomy" in terms of staffing.

Best Post in Thread​

 

[Debi1967]

If you had read my post before the quoted one, you would have seen that I quite agree with you there.

Of course on a Christian site one can except to get Christains advice... from the members. But from the electrician who checks that hardware, the programmer who writes the software... or the moderator who supervises that forum rules?

believe it or not they are still members too

 

[sunlover1]

I voted for the first choice:
[QUOTE]
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;
[/quote]
It seems refreshing with the changes, more Christlike.
If the name changes or stays the same is not important
imo,
except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain
who build it...

 

[Brimshack]

There will be just as much abuse under this system as there was in the previous manifestation of CF, only now the membership will have a far more open opportunity to abuse their freedom. There needs to be a balance between the two, but the whole "identity games" that you're talking about are issues of doctrinal and congregational definition, and those will by no means go away just because of the new format. They're easier to minimize and work with if staff has some control over it, though, provided that staff is dedicated to ministry and not just politicking.

Lots of sweeping conclusions with no evidence to back them. Evidence of the previous harms is easy enough; some of us have been around long enough to see them, long enough to read the posts and exchange the emails with people distraut because CF staff took it upon itself to make decisions about their personal character. The fact of the matter is you don't know whether or not the new system can or will improve these things. You made it clear from the beginning that you will not give it a chance. What makes the old system better just because staff can control it? Near as I can tell the chief advantage is that it enabled the faithful to decide who gets hurt and who doesn't.

Of course definitional issues will not just go away because of this, but the point is that you will have to deal with them as definitional issues and not as matters of social control. Such things can be discussed in their own terms. The need to draw conclusions about other people does not follow from effort to keep your doctrines clear and accurate.

 

[MartinM]

believe it or not they are still members too

...as are the non-Christians.

 

[Lisa0315]

An air conditioning repair person is not a part of the leadership team. The air conditioning repairman will go about his business and only talk with those he has to, unless of course people come up to him and talk. However here at CF, staff are in close quarters with members and have to have some sort of relationship with them... if they have to send them a PM or whatever it may be. Very different.

I guess I just see the mod positions differently from you. I do not see them having the kind of authority or relationship that you seem to. If they did, then, I would agree that this site should only have Christian mods. However, I see mods as administrators who simply review a report along with at least two others, make a decision to see if it breaks a rule, then, send a very generic PM to the person. I am pretty sure that it is a form PM. There is nothing personal about it. When they are not moderating, and are participating as regular members, their mod position does not influence me one way or the other based solely on whether or not they are mods.

One last point, some of the "Christian" mods have been less charitable than one would expect if they are to meet the definition of Christian minister. I saw no move to remove them from office because they were being held to a higher standard and failed. Just a thought...

Lisa

 

[Debi1967]

The moderation team here and the Administration team are sinners too and they are prone to making mistakes just like everyone else.....

 

[Beastt]

Not all members of a church leadership team are there to minister either... they are there to keep the church running. You are not going to have non-Christians in a church leadership team, just as you would not have a Christian in a non-Christian religious (or non-religious) leadership team. It seems to me Erwin's vision for this site is to be similar to a church... leaders of it should be Christian.

CF isn't a church. It claims to be a community. Let it live up to the name.

I rather expect that you already have a church. I don't go to your church. I do go here and I'm as much a member of this site/community as you are.

It's very revealing how frightened many Christians are of having nonChristians in roles where they'd have no concern having another Christian. That's bigotry. If you promote the idea, wear the label. We're not here to damage CF or you. In many cases, some of the nonChristians here can probably do a better job than some of the Christians filling these roles. You've not even given it a chance to work.

 

[Freodin]

An air conditioning repair person is not a part of the leadership team. The air conditioning repairman will go about his business and only talk with those he has to, unless of course people come up to him and talk. However here at CF, staff are in close quarters with members and have to have some sort of relationship with them... if they have to send them a PM or whatever it may be. Very different.

Very different, indeed! I have been on this forum for over five years, and I might say that I have build some sort of relationship with a number of poster here. Some of them even talk to me, imagine that!

Oops, I would like to advise you: don´t read this post - it was written by an Atheist!

 

[Lisa0315]

Maybe, just maybe, it would be helpful if we saw atheists as Jesus sees them...

Atheists are potential brothers and sisters...

Just a random thought...

Lisa

 

[JimfromOhio]

CF isn't a church. It claims to be a community. Let it live up to the name.

I rather expect that you already have a church. I don't go to your church. I do go here and I'm as much a member of this site/community as you are.

It's very revealing how frightened many Christians are of having nonChristians in roles where they'd have no concern having another Christian. That's bigotry. If you promote the idea, wear the label. We're not here to damage CF or you. In many cases, some of the nonChristians here can probably do a better job than some of the Christians filling these roles. You've not even given it a chance to work.

In terms of running, administering and moderating Christian forums, the administration should be by Christians with the except that non-Christians can be moderators in the open sections. At Christian schools, I have seen teachers who are "non-Christians" while the administraiton is run by Christians.

I believe this should be that way. I will post again. Biblically, administration is a spiritual gift which talks about various gifts in Spiritual Gifts are listed in Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:8-10; 1 Cor. 12:28-30; Rom. 12:6-8; and 1 Pet. 4:11. This involves any kind of ministries within the Christian community or Church. Some versions call this gift "governments," but it really refers to administrative rule or leadership within a Christian organization. These are elders, deacons and other similar titles who are stewarding Christian Organization's activities. The main job for the administrator/moderators is the "stewardship" of the Christian organization. Everything belongs to God, the administrators are to have a faithful stewardship of all that God has entrusted to them. Christian administrators are our spiritual stewardship who are looking for members spiritual needs and to look at their lives spiritually in from God's perspective.

 

[ScottBot]

The moderation team here and the Administration team are sinners too and they are prone to making mistakes just like everyone else.....

Ya! Down with the mod staff......*picks up his torch and his pitchfork*

 

[Debi1967]

Maybe, just maybe, it would be helpful if we saw atheists as Jesus sees them...

Atheists are potential brothers and sisters...

Just a random thought...

Lisa

No one is trying to say they aren't Lisa

 

[Freodin]

believe it or not they are still members too

Yes, they are.

But there is such a little thing as the so-called "mod-hat" that they should wear in order to distinguish between their roles as members and mods.

 

[Beastt]

I am not there to judge their Christianity I am there to practice Christianity with them and at times help them through whatever they may need.... I am sorry but those coming to a Christian site should somehow know that Christian advice is what they are going to get even by it's members ..... I think you sometimes forget that... Or you want us to

No one is suggesting that you can't or shouldn't give Christian advice. But your claim that you are here to practice Christianity is betrayed by your devout opposition to equality and tolerance. <mod edit>

 

[Brimshack]

There is one other thing to be considered here. Those who advocate a strong ministerial role for moderators have an odd relationship with the standards at issue. On the one hand, it certainly mean non-believers should not apply. We certainly aren't qualified to act as ministers, and it's certainly safe to say we aren't going to lead people to Christ (barring the whole 'works in mysterious ways prospect). So, granting that assumption, there certainly is good reason to exclude non-believers from the prospect of moderator/ministerial positions.

On the other hand, that is placing an awful lot of faith in the abilities of people who have done very little to qualify for the position. Can you honestly say that the staff here is really qualified to act in a ministerial capacity? Is your vetting process really sufficient to ensure good quality ministers for the site. It certainly hasn't in the past, and I doubt it will do so in the future.

 

[Lisa0315]

No one is trying to say they aren't Lisa

No one has "said" it, but it has been implied that they are somehow less than the rest of us. They are less capable of being mods. They are lesser members of this site. They should not be telling Christians how to be Christians. Yeah, it has been implied.

Lisa