2.3 Wiki rules discussion

[DarylFawcett]

Discussion first before voting is very important, therefore, I say to the whosoever will, speak now while you still can.

 

[DarylFawcett]

By the way, we are only into the second day, therefore, if we are going with four days before voting, then there are two more discussion days remaining.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Those rules haven't been approved yet.

I'm not going to argue about this anymore. We're just going to have to vote on it.

Vote on what? You cannot vote for a rule one at a time. As this shows one rule may depend upon another rule. That is why I said it would be better to work from the set of rules on the wiki we have now. Going through the ones first which did not have consensus. Now maybe it would be better to go through the ones which were made with consensus in the Wiki but since they were made by several people working in consensus I don't see a big problem there. Even though woob said it was not fair we still have several rules that he did not edit and did not add anything to.So now we could be addressing the ones he did add things to. I don't see how this is not fair.

 

[TrustAndObey]

RC, we have to have a general consensus on all proposed rule suggestions (which we weren't doing before) and then we vote on whether or not we want to keep them.

So really those rules don't stand as of right now. Although I think they probably will get voted for. I haven't had a problem with them, but others might.

This thread is about fighting over what Woob added right?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If you read the wiki discussion comments you can see there was a lot of consensus upon created and we were not just changing rules until there was agreement. What is annoying is that all that work that was done by multiple people in the wiki is simply ignored.

Yes it is based upon the discussion of the things that woob added because he did not go through any discussion process, he just changed things. Now maybe he meant to spark a discussion of his changes but it would have been more in line with what we were doing if he had brought up the changes for discussion. I brought the discussion over here because it did not seem that we were getting as much involvement from the TSDA's in the wiki discussion section.

Tall's rules are basically what we were already doing...at least until woob made the changes. I was going to start a thread for each individual numbered wiki rule starting with woob's most recent additions but then so many started talking about starting over I just left this one.

 

[Sophia7]

By the way, we are only into the second day, therefore, if we are going with four days before voting, then there are two more discussion days remaining.

There is no voting going on here yet, only discussion. If people want to have an official vote, we need to add a poll to this thread and then allow four days for people to actually cast their votes.

 

[woobadooba]

There is no voting going on here yet, only discussion. If people want to have an official vote, we need to add a poll to this thread and then allow four days for people to actually cast their votes.

I think we should get moving on this.

 

[TrustAndObey]

If you read the wiki discussion comments you can see there was a lot of consensus upon created and we were not just changing rules until there was agreement. What is annoying is that all that work that was done by multiple people in the wiki is simply ignored.

Actually, rules were getting completely deleted without any discussion.

I do agree that it was a lot of work, but it wasn't necessarily ignored. We're still going to vote on the rules we have up now and see if the general consensus agrees with them or not.

My guess is that they will, but I have no way of knowing that.

Yes it is based upon the discussion of the things that woob added because he did not go through any discussion process, he just changed things. Now maybe he meant to spark a discussion of his changes but it would have been more in line with what we were doing if he had brought up the changes for discussion. I brought the discussion over here because it did not seem that we were getting as much involvement from the TSDA's in the wiki discussion section.

Woob is NOT the only one that changed things. I added a suggestion for a rule and someone completely deleted it without any discussion on the topic.

Tall's rules are basically what we were already doing...at least until woob made the changes. I was going to start a thread for each individual numbered wiki rule starting with woob's most recent additions but then so many started talking about starting over I just left this one.

I don't really think we're starting completely over though. I think some of the rules we already came up with will get voted on and remain, but I am insisting that we vote. Otherwise whoever gets to the wiki with an addition/deletion LAST before the vote is going to have the final say.

Not only that, but if we end up shooting down all the rules added at the last minute or whatever, we have to start all over anyway.

 

[woobadooba]

Actually, rules were getting completely deleted without any discussion.

I do agree that it was a lot of work, but it wasn't necessarily ignored. We're still going to vote on the rules we have up now and see if the general consensus agrees with them or not.

My guess is that they will, but I have no way of knowing that.



Woob is NOT the only one that changed things. I added a suggestion for a rule and someone completely deleted it without any discussion on the topic.



I don't really think we're starting completely over though. I think some of the rules we already came up with will get voted on and remain, but I am insisting that we vote. Otherwise whoever gets to the wiki with an addition/deletion LAST before the vote is going to have the final say.

Not only that, but if we end up shooting down all the rules added at the last minute or whatever, we have to start all over anyway.

OK, will you please get this thing moving. Perhaps you can start up a thread in here to discuss the first rule that we wish to establish.

It should be noted that we need to identify the nature of each rule as well. In other words, we need to disclose the context within which each rule can be assigned to determine a violation of that rule. It doesn't have to be exhaustive; however, it should at least be definitive.

 

[TrustAndObey]

OK, will you please get this thing moving. Perhaps you can start up a thread in here to discuss the first rule that we wish to establish.

It should be noted that we need to identify the nature of each rule as well. In other words, we need to disclose the context within which each rule can be assigned to determine a violation of that rule. It doesn't have to be exhaustive; however, it should at least be definitive.

I would Woob, but it was decided last night that we should vote on voting. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.

See Tall's thread about "A new attempt at the SDA wiki".

Two days remain on whoever Yays or Nays us voting on each thing that gets added to, edited, or deleted from the wiki. Then we'll vote on the wiki as a whole.

Lots of voting, lots of choices.

In the end, we might end up having more votes against what we've suggested and have to start over (at least on some rules).

All I know is that there IS consensus in Tall's thread that we should decide HOW to do the wiki so no one is just deleting and adding without permission.

Two more days. Then we start going over the rules.

I'm willing to wait in order for this to be done fairly.

 

[TrustAndObey]

And for the record, I'm not going to vote for or against anything just because a Progressive wants it or a Traditional doesn't (or vice versa).

I really do plan on being fair and I hope everyone else does too.

This is for all of us.

Night all.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I think since we are going to rearrange the Progressive forum into a discussion forum I think that we need to adopt the rules of the GT denominational specific theology, that allow for a restriction on who can respond. This is done because there is going to be no place for evangelicals and progress to specifically post.

for example

EGW true or false prophet (progressive and evangelicals only)

 

[sentipente]

I can just imagine what would have happened if this group had been given the responsibility of launching the Plan of Salvation. The human race would still be waiting.

 

[woobadooba]

I can just imagine what would have happened if this group had been given the responsibility of launching the Plan of Salvation. The human race would still be waiting.

And do you think you would have done a better job? Are your insults helping us in any way?

Why not offer something constructive instead of ridiculing us? Which action do you think will produce the best fruit?

 

[sentipente]

And do you think you would have done a better job? Are your insults helping us in any way?

Why not offer something constructive instead of ridiculing us? Which action do you think will produce the best fruit?

I already expressed my opinion on that. The general rules are comprehensive enough. Only insecure dictators try to limit access to the marketplace of ideas.

There is no need to use such emotive language like "insult" when none was intended. It only serves to inflame unnecessarily. I did not come here for that purpose.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Sentipente, what specifically is your purpose here? I think a lot of us are wondering that very thing.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Okay, I'm aware I'm jumping into this topic waaaay late and I don't have the time to read all the threads. However, I agree with what the Wiki said. Which seems to be the general thing too, actually.

I came from a position of believing in evolution (like a lot in my generation, I think..being that it's taught as truth in schools)..and converted it into the idea that God allowed evolution, therefor it wasn't against Him.

These things, I found, were not productive in my faith and I became much closer to God when I accepted Genesis creation.

Thusly, I would like to see it left out from this forum that we can speak of more important things. It's not going to get us anywhere because most of us already have our minds made up on the subject, anyway. This is why it'd best to speak of it in the appropriate forum. Then those who are interested/curious in the subject can check it out openly there. It's not limiting anything, just organizing.

I also think that this subject is far from important to our salvation because it relates mostly to the past, rather than our future walk with God.

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

 

[woobadooba]

I already expressed my opinion on that. The general rules are comprehensive enough. Only insecure dictators try to limit access to the marketplace of ideas.

There is no need to use such emotive language like "insult" when none was intended. It only serves to inflame unnecessarily. I did not come here for that purpose.

Your language sounds quite familiar, Night!

 

[sentipente]

Your language sounds quite familiar, Night!

I have been told that my language sounds like one of my teachers and mentors. That's not strange. There aren't that many degrees of separation between us. But, we also see what we want to see.

 

[NightEternal]

Your language sounds quite familiar, Night!

Woobadooba, you are truly a case of abnormal paranoia.

If I had something to say, I would just come here and say it. I have no reason to do otherwise. That you think I would care enough about any of this to go through the trouble of using a different posting name is quite laughable to me.