A new attempt at an Adventist Wiki SDA Forum Rules Discussion

[DarylFawcett]

The purpose of this thread is to direct you to the appropriate topic where this is being discussed:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5709683

This is what was posted by tall73 in the opening post there:

After some discussion there is a growing realization that we did not get off to a good start on our Adventist wiki. For those who are not aware of it, the Adventist wiki will determine the rules for our congregational forum.

For this reason we are looking at starting a new one, with a blank slate.

In particular we want to have a set of guidelines approved so that we don't get off track.

Here are the proposed guidelines that were worked up in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5708...cilitator.html

1. All changes need to have discussion and consensus. To ensure this each proposed addition, or any counter-proposals, will be voted on prior to adding. After an initial discussion period to form the poll options a poll will run 4 days. Polls will be public. The votes of those who are not Seventh-day Adventist contributors will not be counted.

2. The process will begin with the big items first such as forum/sub-forum organization, who can debate, etc. and then move to specific rules.

3. Any changes made without the process outlined in point 1 will be rolled back.

Ideas from the old wiki can still be proposed and voted on, but the desire is to start the process fresh with some guidelines in place.

I am posting this here to get feedback from the Adventist membership.

So far, nobody has posted against this suggested process in the other thread.

 

[TrustAndObey]

So what are we going to do if no one else adds their vote for yay or nay on how Tall has suggested we run the wiki from now on?

How long are we giving this? 4 days?

 

[DarylFawcett]

It wasn't my intent to actually discuss it here, however, that is OK with me.

I would personally like to give it at least one or two more days.

If nobody posts against this process then couldn't we consider that as a go ahead to do it?

 

[TrustAndObey]

We don't have to get into a full-blown discussion here, but we do need to keep adding a little or this thread will get buried.

I agree, if people don't participate, we'll have to go with what we have. We do need to set a time limit though. I think Tall suggested 4 days yesterday, so that leaves today and two more days, right?

 

[DarylFawcett]

I thought the four days were in relation to this:

1. All changes need to have discussion and consensus. To ensure this each proposed addition, or any counter-proposals, will be voted on prior to adding. After an initial discussion period to form the poll options a poll will run 4 days. Polls will be public. The votes of those who are not Seventh-day Adventist contributors will not be counted.

However, I do not have any problem with the 4 days.

 

[TrustAndObey]

You're right.

I'm okay with it too.

 

[DarylFawcett]

I will be keeping a watchful eye over both topics over the next few days.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Daryl, we're all watching.

From some of your comments I'm concerned you're going to vote for or against certain things just because Wooba wants them or doesn't want them.

Is that in the spirit of Christ? Are you considering the outcome for every decision on this forum?

I hope you are. I hope that your prayer last night was sincere.

I'm not looking out for myself, I'm looking out for certain principles that I feel Adventists stand for. I hope I'm not alone on that one.

 

[sentipente]

Daryl, we're all watching.

From some of your comments I'm concerned you're going to vote for or against certain things just because Wooba wants them or doesn't want them.

Is that in the spirit of Christ? Are you considering the outcome for every decision on this forum?

I hope you are. I hope that your prayer last night was sincere.

I'm not looking out for myself, I'm looking out for certain principles that I feel Adventists stand for. I hope I'm not alone on that one.

I am intrigued. What are these rules I keep reading about. I don't want to fall foul unwittingly.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Daryl, we're all watching.

From some of your comments I'm concerned you're going to vote for or against certain things just because Wooba wants them or doesn't want them.

Is that in the spirit of Christ? Are you considering the outcome for every decision on this forum?

I hope you are. I hope that your prayer last night was sincere.

I'm not looking out for myself, I'm looking out for certain principles that I feel Adventists stand for. I hope I'm not alone on that one.

Now you are jumping to conclusions or making a wrong judgement call against me.

Whatever my vote, it won't be for the reason that Woob or anybody else is either for or against it. I will, however, be looking at the reasons for or against, and, if I feel those reasons are not valid, I will vote according to conscience, according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

And yes, my prayer was a sincere prayer. If you doubt that, then feel free to add your own prayer, either here or there.

 

[DarylFawcett]

I am intrigued. What are these rules I keep reading about. I don't want to fall foul unwittingly.

Welcome, sentipente, to the SDA Forums section of CF.

Forum rules for this section are presently going through the process of being formed. We are presently discussing a process for doing this. In the meantime, we are governed by the Main Forum Rules of CF.

 

[sentipente]

Welcome, sentipente, to the SDA Forums section of CF.

Forum rules for this section are presently going through the process of being formed. We are presently discussing a process for doing this. In the meantime, we are governed by the Main Forum Rules of CF.

Thanks for the welcome.
I tend to go for less rules rather than more. Everytime a rule is made someone finds around it. The more trust there is the fewer rules one needs. The only rules Christians should need is mutual respect and decency.

 

[reddogs]

Welcome, sentipente, to the SDA Forums section of CF.

Forum rules for this section are presently going through the process of being formed. We are presently discussing a process for doing this. In the meantime, we are governed by the Main Forum Rules of CF.

Can you post a link to the Main Forum Rules of CF so we have the basic rules to go over....

Thanks
Red

 

[TrustAndObey]

http://www.christianforums.com/rules

 

[sentipente]

For what it's worth, those rules are good enough for me. I have no reason to violate them.

 

[djconklin]

Off-topic!

It's DarylFawcett's 59 BIRTHDAY TODAY!

Happy B-day, ya old dog!

Man, even in dog years you are old!

The bad news is that I'm only a year and a half behind him! And my bod's already shot, kaput, pooped. I realize it ever day as I try to tie my shoes. Now wonder the old geezers go for slip-ons! As Daryl looks down at his ...

 

[DarylFawcett]

TY. I think.

Only my slippers are really true and blue slip ons.

 

[djconklin]

You know you're getting old when you have to sit on the floor so you can tie your shoes! And when you do it you make sure that you are some place that you can grab onto to pull yourself up!

 

[DarylFawcett]

That hasn't happened to me yet, although I am sitting on a chair more than I used to.

 

[DarylFawcett]

The purpose of this thread is to direct you to the appropriate topic where this is being discussed:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5709683

This is what was posted by tall73 in the opening post there:

So far, nobody has posted against this suggested process in the other thread.

Just reminding people of the link to a very important topic on the process to bring new forum rules into the SDA section that will replace the old rules that were here, and may now be temporarily here once again.