What would option 3 look like

[suzybeezy]

OH GOODY go back to the old system...what a wonderful suggestion.

You realize that is partially what lead to the changes on 7/7/07 don't you? Why would anyone sensible want to go back to that horrible mess?

Unless they liked the old way of doing things of making people feel unwelcome and trying to push out Non-Christians and those Christians who don't fit neatlly into little boxes for you to put them in.

And I would not say staff where that much focused on outreach and ministry back in the good ol' days but rather their own agendas and vendettas. Which most staff ennforced with a vice like grip.

I won't vote for the other two options and the ideas for an 'option 3' are just as ridiculous so I would not vote for them either.

I still say what would it hurt people to give this new system a chance. It wouldn't hurt anything. Except maybe some egos.

I understand where your frustration and where your hurt stems from, so i take no offense to your harsh words. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. I did not suggest returning to the old ways - cause I too disagreed with that hideous version of rules we were stuck with having to enforce. While you are not aware, i spoke out often trying to effect some change. I strongly disagreed with forced icon changes. I also think appeals should be reviewed by committee, not by the admin of the team. But I strongly - STRONGLY - disagree with non-christians being moderators on a "Christian" forum (Erwin promised and reassured frequently that he would NEVER let that happen) - if its not a Christian forum, then the name needs changed. Erwin needs to figure out the focus of this site and the name should reflect it accurately. The current reforms are not Biblically sound and while some are good changes, others need to go, in my humble opinion.

 

[SunMessenger]

I cannot remember if this was already suggested but what about we have a wiki until each forum gets its rules straight and then make them stick and be solid rules? (I would look back through all 3 threads but I just don't have time)

That is not what wiki is...

It is the constant changing of rules over time with no final concrete outcome. It can be a never ending process and impossible to enforce quite often. Especially without some type of penalty for violation.

Wiki is indeed a living form of revision which is not suppose to stop and is always fluid and not well defined. It is not good to establish continuity.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Well I know my suggestion was not exactly what a wiki is but I just thought I'd suggest....sorry.

 

[Lisa0315]

Well I know my suggestion was not exactly what a wiki is but I just thought I'd suggest....sorry.

I think it is a good idea! When a wiki has reached a consensus, it should be locked. Any changes to the rules contained within that wiki, should be in the form of a new wiki and a new consensus. It should not be at the discretion of a random poster, possibly even a newbie who has no idea of how the consensus was reached, etc. Worse, a wiki can be subtly changed and a new snapshot taken without anyone being the wiser unless some savvy person spots the change. Think about the implications of that!

Lisa

 

[SunMessenger]

I think it is a good idea! When a wiki has reached a consensus, it should be locked. Any changes to the rules contained within that wiki, should be in the form of a new wiki and a new consensus. It should not be at the discretion of a random poster, possibly even a newbie who has no idea of how the consensus was reached, etc. Worse, a wiki can be subtly changed and a new snapshot taken without anyone being the wiser unless some savvy person spots the change. Think about the implications of that!

Lisa

I could agree to some form of that suggestion to get the rules down to start with. That makes sense as long as they are indeed locked at the final point and backed by some authority...

Sun

 

[Davidnic]

I just think the wiki process itself is unrealistic for a site this size. And I think that it skews to the views of the most vocal and those who can be online a lot.

With wiki there are many voices we do not get. And if part of the vision (agree with it or not) is to get those voices there need to be a different way.

 

[SunMessenger]

I just think the wiki process itself is unrealistic for a site this size. And I think that it skews to the views of the most vocal and those who can be online a lot.

With wiki there are many voices we do not get. And if part of the vision (agree with it or not) is to get those voices there need to be a different way.

Very true.

 

[Lisa0315]

I just think the wiki process itself is unrealistic for a site this size. And I think that it skews to the views of the most vocal and those who can be online a lot.

With wiki there are many voices we do not get. And if part of the vision (agree with it or not) is to get those voices there need to be a different way.

I do agree with you. However, I think of the great work that has been done on the General Rules wiki. That was a great example of how it COULD work.

I would like to see a better way to put the rules together, and I do have an idea. I actually think a wiki to generate ideas and then representatives from each area should determine the final rule.

For example, the larger the community, the more representatives that would be needed. For the General Rules wiki, you would want a staff member and a regular member from each major forum and sub forum. For smaller communities, a staff member and one other representative. Something like that...You get the idea. It would be something like Congress in which you would have one Senator (Staff member) and a number of House Reps dependent upon the population of the State represented (Regular members from each forum)

These reps would serve for a very limited time such as 3 to 6 months giving everyone who is interested a chance to participate.

Lisa

 

[Davidnic]

I do agree with you. However, I think of the great work that has been done on the General Rules wiki. That was a great example of how it COULD work.

I would like to see a better way to put the rules together, and I do have an idea. I actually think a wiki to generate ideas and then representatives from each area should determine the final rule.

For example, the larger the community, the more representatives that would be needed. For the General Rules wiki, you would want a staff member and a regular member from each major forum and sub forum. For smaller communities, a staff member and one other representative. Something like that...You get the idea. It would be something like Congress in which you would have one Senator (Staff member) and a number of House Reps dependent upon the population of the State represented (Regular members from each forum)

These reps would serve for a very limited time such as 3 to 6 months giving everyone who is interested a chance to participate.

Lisa

I think (I'm not making a joke) I saw a poll that has a suggestion like that. Basically appoint reps to do the rules.

 

[J4Jesus]

I just think the wiki process itself is unrealistic for a site this size. And I think that it skews to the views of the most vocal and those who can be online a lot.

-----------

Very true.

I agree. And the only way to do it right is say what God says about each point, complete with references, quoting Him, not our words

 

[Lisa0315]

I think (I'm not making a joke) I saw a poll that has a suggestion like that. Basically appoint reps to do the rules.

Well, you KNOW it wasn't MY poll! Polls are nasty. (gollum, gollum)

Lisa

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I don't trust reps. I don't trust committees.

 

[Mayflower1]

I just think the wiki process itself is unrealistic for a site this size. And I think that it skews to the views of the most vocal and those who can be online a lot.

With wiki there are many voices we do not get. And if part of the vision (agree with it or not) is to get those voices there need to be a different way.

The only thing I can say about a wiki is now I know it just means a large set of rules that change a lot!

 

[Robinsegg]

1. The wiki thing seems to only work in certain areas. I'd like to think there could be a team appointed or elected to make up the rules . . . however, I'm not sure the best way to do this is to have Erwin appoint, nor to have the congregations elect.

Perhaps we could have the current Staff appoint a mixed group (Christians and non, Staff members and non) to create rules that were then voted upon, one by one, and ratified by the populace.

2. The Congregational forums should definitely be safe havens for CO. However, the rest can be open season, though we have had a few problems, as wikis are made and changed.

3. I'm concerned about the privacy of members, when sensitive issues come up. There should really be a way for us to let other mods know what's going on, w/o letting the entire CF world know.

Otherwise, having them open is working for me!

Respectfully,
Rachel

 

[dignitized]

I don't trust reps. I don't trust committees.

me neither.

 

[SallyNow]

I think that CF should remain open. The new CF is much more Christian in spirit. It allows for more fellowship, more outreach, more open discussion.

However, I do think that the WIKI rules should be discussed, decided upon by a certain date (say, Sept 1) and then only changed by vote.

I think that denominational forums should be safe havens for that denomination. However, they should not be a place to severly denegrate other groups.

I also think that the CF reports should remain open. But, following Robbin

1. The wiki thing seems to only work in certain areas. I'd like to think there could be a team appointed or elected to make up the rules . . . however, I'm not sure the best way to do this is to have Erwin appoint, nor to have the congregations elect.

Perhaps we could have the current Staff appoint a mixed group (Christians and non, Staff members and non) to create rules that were then voted upon, one by one, and ratified by the populace.

2. The Congregational forums should definitely be safe havens for CO. However, the rest can be open season, though we have had a few problems, as wikis are made and changed.

3. I'm concerned about the privacy of members, when sensitive issues come up. There should really be a way for us to let other mods know what's going on, w/o letting the entire CF world know.

Otherwise, having them open is working for me!

Respectfully,
Rachel

I agree on many points! I think that the "reports" sections that are currently open should remain open. However, I think that there should be one closed subforum for staff to discuss very serious, sensitive issues.

 

[GenemZ]

It seems awful weird to me that people who are not Christians are here at a place called Christian Forums, and the subtitle is uniting all Christians. What do they have to add to this cause? Anyway it seems to me that if the Erwin wants to appease both then he should do what he set out to do and either make two forums, one for everyone, and two one for just Christians to unite themselves, or scrap the whole idea and reinvent this site to a new vision.

I do not believe that was his motivation. Its not to give unbelievers equal standing in the forum.

The problem that pained Erwin was that Christians were being denied access to the Christian section because certain moderators who deemed themselves infallible in having the Truth, were opposing Christians who did not share their tradition and dogma.

This resulted in Christians (not unbelievers) being denied Christian icons, preventing them from posting in the Christian section.

That was the problem. Erwin said it pained him to go online to see PM's telling how Christians were being segregated out.

I was pushed out by some who wished to set up the standards of their own Church dogma as being the code for all Christians here. I eventually PM'd Erwin after finding my appeal to be in vain, to say that some in authority wish to turn this into a forum for their church's teachings. Not all Christianity. Erwin's letter revealed that I was not alone. He indicated that he had received a good number of such PM's revealing the same abuse.

That is why I believe he dropped the old stipulations. Not to give Atheists equal status throughout the forum. But to eliminate the abuses that were taking place towards Christians.

Those who abused their positions of authority were all stripped their power to abuse their authority in one fell swoop when the change was implemented.

Now is the time to formulate new regulations as to safeguard against such abuses from returning. I believe all authority (both good and bad) had to be removed because the system had become too corrupted to institute self regulation amongst themselves. It had become a way of life because they had gotten away with it for too long.

If the old ways were not dropped I would not be able to make known now with Christians as to what was going on behind the scenes. That is why I believe Erwin made his move. Now he is (I believe) is waiting for the house cleaning as those who used to abuse power are resigning, knowing that the game is up.

We need to begin with a clean sheet.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[MarcusHill]

I still don't see why a non-Christian who is respected on a particular subforum and who is able to evenhandedly and fairly apply the rules shouldn't be a moderator for that area, especially in light of the actions I'm seeing attributed to some Christian mods here. The moderators don't set the rules, they enforce them, so surely ability to do the job well should be a more important qualification than faith?

 

[JoeNah]

Erwin:
Thank you for all you do! I appreciate it!
However, I'm getting to where I am afraid to post anything. The reason for that is all the arguing that is going on in the forums where people are asked to vote on the changes that have been made, and possible new changes. I am very much in favor of a site where I, as a Christian, can come and interact with fellow believers. How long would I, as a Christian, be tolerated on an atheist site if I came at atheism the way some atheists have, against Christianity? Sure, there probably are people who have a Christian icon, who are, in reality, atheists, who have done that so they can gain access to the Christians-only section. But that's why there are moderators. Those who repeatedly violate the rules and policies need to be warned once, and then removed. We should indeed obey Matthew 28:18-20, but we need a place where we can come together, away from the world, and get renewed and refreshed and encouraged. Even our Lord, when he walked the earth as a human male, got alone, for prayer and rest.

 

[SallyNow]

Erwin:
Thank you for all you do! I appreciate it!
However, I'm getting to where I am afraid to post anything. The reason for that is all the arguing that is going on in the forums where people are asked to vote on the changes that have been made, and possible new changes. I am very much in favor of a site where I, as a Christian, can come and interact with fellow believers. How long would I, as a Christian, be tolerated on an atheist site if I came at atheism the way some atheists have, against Christianity? Sure, there probably are people who have a Christian icon, who are, in reality, atheists, who have done that so they can gain access to the Christians-only section. But that's why there are moderators. Those who repeatedly violate the rules and policies need to be warned once, and then removed. We should indeed obey Matthew 28:18-20, but we need a place where we can come together, away from the world, and get renewed and refreshed and encouraged. Even our Lord, when he walked the earth as a human male, got alone, for prayer and rest.

CF would not turn into an "athiest site".

CF is a Christian site. And Christians are to fellowship and outreach and discuss with all, not just other Christians. There are millions of places to keep in one's kind. CF encourages outreach and interactions with other Christians, and even non-believers. The new CF is now Christian both in spirit and in name.

I stand firm in my opinion that CF should remain open to all wanting to have civil discussion, debate, and fellowship, but that:
1. The rules should be wiki'ed for a month and then set, only being able to be changed with a vote.
2. There should be denominational safe-havens where only kind questions and fellowship by those of different beliefs should be allowed (unless the members of that safe-haven decide to have the denominational safe-haven open to all, or to have [OPEN] threads)
3. The reports and staff sections should remain open, but there should be one private subforum where staff members can discuss very serious and sensitive matters.