Staff/Members discussion [report-free]

[Thekla]

Well I'm sure Protestants have been accused by iconoclasts for being idolaters also for wearing crosses,having pictures of Jesus or pictures/carvings/statues of earthly and heavenly things so the EO and the RCC aren't the only groups that have been accused of that. Now is that prevalent here at CF and in cases GT I don't know but I'm sure it happens outside of the forums so both sides of the coin gets scratched.

Which is why regardless if you disagree with others beliefs we should be respectful and loving towards that person or that group and not spew venomous hatred towards that person or even a whole denom.

Not saying anyone here is doing such a thing but I've seen it happen elsewhere.

I agree - no venomous spewing. Otoh, when it happens it's a matter of perspective, and in my experience "handle it in the thread" is the frequent answer.

Which is why I wonder why "handle it in the thread" was not the response in the thread SeaShale mentioned.

Because, frankly, if we are to handle the (repeated, over the years) charges of an entire confession of Christianity being wantonly - and now pathologically heretical (the latter in the thread title for the world, and the mods, to see), and this is not a violation, I would think that such harsh charges are generally not violations.

 

[Tallguy88]

Not a psychological condition, but that our (in short) theology re: icons is pathological (a psychiatric term).


Having been in GT for years, it's not surprising. We've been described as idolaters before - the response was (advice from staff) that we can "defend the position/rebut in the thread".

Which is fine. But it seems in the thread Seashale is discussing, that her charge was one that couldn't be rebutted by the other poster ? Or that solution was not recommended to the reporting poster by staff ...

"Your beliefs are wrong" can be refuted in the thread. "Your beliefs are a false gospel" is a violation if directed toward a believer in a Nicene Creed-believing church (in GT).

I will look at that thread to see if it is a violation or contains violations. It may or may not, but it will take some time to get consensus either way.

Seashale's warning was not from GT, so I won't comment upon it. Edial has explained it better than I can.

 

[Thekla]

"Your beliefs are wrong" can be refuted in the thread. "Your beliefs are a false gospel" is a violation if directed toward a believer in a Nicene Creed-believing church (in GT).

I will look at that thread to see if it is a violation or contains violations. It may or may not, but it will take some time to get consensus either way.

Seashale's warning was not from GT, so I won't comment upon it. Edial has explained it better than I can.

Unless the rules of CF vary from forum to forum (with the exception of congregation/faith group), wouldn't "your beliefs are wrong" apply to SeaShale's thread ?

And I am not reporting the thread in question - it's an example.

(for the record, I've had a mod call icons idolatry in GT years ago )

 

[Tallguy88]

Unless the rules of CF vary from forum to forum (with the exception of congregation/faith group), wouldn't "your beliefs are wrong" apply to SeaShale's thread ?

Each area has its own Statement of Purpose/Faith thread stickied at the top of the forum. It will give the rules specific to that forum. The site-wide rules still apply to all forums, but there is some variation of other rules.

For example, some forums are for Christians only. Some forums do not allow debate at all. Some forums have specific topics that are not allowed to be discussed. These can all be found the the stickied threads in each forum.

 

[Thekla]

Each area has its own Statement of Purpose/Faith thread stickied at the top of the forum. It will give the rules specific to that forum. The site-wide rules still apply to all forums, but there is some variation of other rules.

For example, some forums are for Christians only. Some forums do not allow debate at all. Some forums have specific topics that are not allowed to be discussed. These can all be found the the stickied threads in each forum.

so the definition of flaming varies ?

hadn't noticed that ...

 

[Tallguy88]

so the definition of flaming varies ?

hadn't noticed that ...

It gets more specific in certain forums.

 

[pdudgeon]

so the definition of flaming varies ?

hadn't noticed that ...

nope. a flame, is a flame, is a flame. (or unless it's followed by 'because, etc, etc, etc.')

(but rules are subject to change, so what might be a flame one day might not be a flame the next day.)

 

[topcare]

My sincere apologies, top. You are correct indeed. I meant Nameless Hero. Again, I'm quite sorry. I was reading your post and multi-tasking. My mistake.

No problem

 

[Edial]

Interesting ...

do mods go to GT ?

Characterizing Orthodox theology on the Incarnation and iconography as a psychiatrically defined clinical symptom seems just a little flamey to me, or provocation.

But it does seem that there is a policy of no report = no problem.

Perhaps the mods want a flood of reports instead

What is the limit of reports per member before one is unofficially tagged as a troublemaker ?

Good question, and NamelessHero is correct, mods do not necessarily go through forums looking for violations.
However, TallGuy is also correct, we do scroll through some threads.

Let me go back in history a bit.

For the last, oh like 8 years, our moderating system was dependent upon reports. You report we look into it.

In 2014 we decided to start turning this ship around and gradually involve our Supervisors (select Supervisors) in proactive moderation.
We call them Category Supervisors.
TallGuy has GT he is responsible for.

It takes time to turn a ship around.

We have some more tools already in place (and we are going through some training) where the Cat Supers would proactively keep eyes and ears on every forum.

I expect by the middle of 2015 we would become a fully proactive moderating team.

Once our Supervisors and their help (we are working on a team of eyes and ears) see a problem, they would not necessarily just report.
They would mentor right in threads and take full control of such threads and do what needs to be done.

The short answer is ... we are working on it.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

I'm not a mod so I could be wrong, but it really does seem like they don't monitor anything. It's taken days for me to get a warning about stuff. I've been flamed on here and the only way I could get it to stop was asking a mod to close the thread. He didn't even take action against the people flaming me.

You are correct and we are working on it.
The moderating presence should be felt more in 2015.

In 2014 we have reduced the backlog of reports dramatically and continue working at it.

We expect a much faster turn-around time in 2015.

 

[Edial]

As a Trainee I'm active in GT so I'm always on the lookout for violations. Tall isn't the only eyes in GT.

God willing, in the next couple of months our Supervisors would have a whole team of eyes and ears actively monitoring the areas.

 

[RobNJ]

You are correct and we are working on it.
The moderating presence should be felt more in 2015.

In 2014 we have reduced the backlog of reports dramatically and continue working at it.

We expect a much faster turn-around time in 2015.

LOL I remember the backlog I had to deal with.. And I didn't cover GH!

 

[Edial]

LOL I remember the backlog I had to deal with.. And I didn't cover GH!

So, you coming back on staff?

 

[CaDan]

LOL I remember the backlog I had to deal with.. And I didn't cover GH!

I was wondering when someone with some institutional memory would mention GH.

I moderated GT back in the day and have a particular memory of a report storm over a couple universalism threads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-L6rEm0rnY

 

[Chesterton]

Before my time I guess - what was GH?

General Heresy? General Hysteria? ?

 

[CaDan]

Before my time I guess - what was GH?

General Heresy? General Hysteria? ?

Calling General Theology General Heresy used to be the thing in TAW.

 

[RobNJ]

Before my time I guess - what was GH?

General Heresy? General Hysteria? ?

The standard TAW term for General Theology= General Heresies

 

[RobNJ]

I was wondering when someone with some institutional memory would mention GH.

I moderated GT back in the day and have a particular memory of a report storm over a couple universalism threads.

I remember when CF was offline for a LOOONG time, and finally only the staff could get in. I commented in the staff forum "What if the rapture was actually true & all the staff had been 'left behind'"

 

[Edial]

I remember when CF was offline for a LOOONG time, and finally only the staff could get in. I commented in the staff forum "What if the rapture was actually true & all the staff had been 'left behind'"

Now this is really funny.

 

[Chesterton]

I remember when CF was offline for a LOOONG time, and finally only the staff could get in. I commented in the staff forum "What if the rapture was actually true & all the staff had been 'left behind'"

Oohh, ouch!