A new attempt at an Adventist Wiki

[DarylFawcett]

nope

Nope in that you don't agree with the proposed process?

 

[TrustAndObey]

LOL, Jonathan posts and runs. We may never know what he said nope to.

 

[honorthesabbath]

OH NO!!! Not another drive by 'nopping'!!!!!

 

[TrustAndObey]

Honor, did you vote on whether or not you like the idea that we VOTE on the rules?

If not, please vote either way because we're only leaving this open two more days.

Jonathan is a drive-by noper! WHAT he said "nope" TO, I don't know.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Honor, did you vote on whether or not you like the idea that we VOTE on the rules?

If not, please vote either way because we're only leaving this open two more days.

Jonathan is a drive-by noper! WHAT he said "nope" TO, I don't know.

No I didn't--lol--but i will now!!

I agree that we should vote on the proposals. But so far, I haven't received an answer from a MOD my question about those who, #1. will participate in the process even though over the past few months have announced their possible intension of leaving the SDA demonination, and/or.#2-refuse to display the SDA logo.

So I am VERY concerned about the integrity of the vote of those who find so much wrong in this church and yet want to have a say in this forum.

 

[djconklin]

So I am VERY concerned about the integrity of the vote of those who find so much wrong in this church and yet want to have a say in this forum.

Same here.

 

[tall73]

Well if it is your intention to limit this process so that some cannot vote who have been considered Adventist then I vote no on this process because it would be a joke.


Either we start to build consensus or we don't. I am for building consensus, but not with just one side being allowed any say, which is really no consensus at all.

 

[woobadooba]

Well if it is your intention to limit this process so that some cannot vote who have been considered Adventist then I vote no on this process because it would be a joke.


Either we start to build consensus or we don't. I am for building consensus, but not with just one side being allowed any say, which is really no consensus at all.

There is no need to limit the vote. However, I feel that there is a need to allow the Bible to guide us in our decision making, since it is best to do this God's way.

I'm still waiting for your response to my question regarding this...

 

[TrustAndObey]

Woob, what's your vote?

Do you agree we should vote on what gets added, edited, or deleted from the wiki?

 

[woobadooba]

Woob, what's your vote?

Do you agree we should vote on what gets added, edited, or deleted from the wiki?

For now, I think we should vote on what gets added to the wiki. Hence my reason for introducing the idea of discussing each rule before implementing it.

We should have a consensus, and then a final vote on each rule. The outcome of that vote will determine whether or not something is added to the wiki. Once it is added to it, we will know that the majority has voted on it. Thus it will remain constant, and can not be edited or deleted by anyone without a majority vote. If anyone edits or deletes any portion of the wiki without such a ruling, this will constitute a breach of confidence. As a result of this, that person will no longer be permitted to participate in the voting process.

So I agree with Tall that we should just start over.

 

[Sophia7]

Just a thought: currently we do not have any forum-specific rules in effect. The old rules are obsolete, and we haven't approved new ones yet. This means that the mods can't act on any reports from here unless a post is determined to be flaming or something else that's covered under the general CF rules. Perhaps we need some interim rules while we work out the new wiki process. The way we are doing this, it will take a long time, and until we decide something, anyone will be able to debate here or in the sub-forums without violating any rules.

 

[reddogs]

Just a thought: currently we do not have any forum-specific rules in effect. The old rules are obsolete, and we haven't approved new ones yet. This means that the mods can't act on any reports from here unless a post is determined to be flaming or something else that's covered under the general CF rules. Perhaps we need some interim rules while we work out the new wiki process. The way we are doing this, it will take a long time, and until we decide something, anyone will be able to debate here or in the sub-forums without violating any rules.

A good observation, all should be done in a proper order not quite in the line of Robert's Rules of Order, but still with good outline and form....

1) I propose that the old forum-specific rules apply to our SDA section as interim rules while we work out the new wiki process.

2) I also propose the senior members write the voting criteria in a timely fashion, (who can vote, when the vote, and what we are voting on) with input from all.

3) Also I propose, a senior member write a complete explanation of what a "WIKI" entails as I personally have never heard of the term till I came here and had to guess at its meaning.

(*Senior members being agreed to as those with substantial consistancy of posts or time on CF, no vote needed)

 

[DarylFawcett]

A good observation, all should be done in a proper order not quite in the line of Robert's Rules of Order, but still with good outline and form....

1) I propose that the old forum-specific rules apply to our SDA section as interim rules while we work out the new wiki process.

2) I also propose the senior members write the voting criteria in a timely fashion, (who can vote, when the vote, and what we are voting on) with input from all.

3) Also I propose, a senior member write a complete explanation of what a "WIKI" entails as I personally have never heard of the term till I came here and had to guess at its meaning.

(*Senior members being agreed to as those with substantial consistancy of posts or time on CF, no vote needed)

I go with proposal #1, but what is #2 and #3 all about? If it is about limiting people based on their time here and number of posts, then I am against that.

 

[reddogs]

I go with proposal #1, but what is #2 and #3 all about? If it is about limiting people based on their time here and number of posts, then I am against that.

No, it is about doing things in a orderly way....

As those who have posted or been here most everyone is a "Senior Member", someone that just showed up or started posting would be the exception.

As to who may vote, we could say "everyone" and someone may set up 20 loggins so they can vote 20 times, so we need to know who is voting (they been here or posted for a while) and that the votes are legit. Remember Florida in the Presidential Elections, were I stuffed the vote (just kidding..... ).

As for what is a WIKI, I had never heard of such a thing till I came here and thought it was a religious club or something so a explanation would be nice...

Any way we choose to do it is fine, but we must layout what is to be done and how......

 

[TrustAndObey]

I go with proposal #1, but what is #2 and #3 all about? If it is about limiting people based on their time here and number of posts, then I am against that.

Daryl, that's already limited. Stone and LongHair both have said that people that vote must have already identified themselves as Adventist and have at least 100 posts.

We also have to display our votes in a post so there is no chance of cheating or someone joining at the last minute to vote.

 

[reddogs]

Daryl, that's already limited. Stone and LongHair both have said that people that vote must have already identified themselves as Adventist and have at least 100 posts.

We also have to display our votes in a post so there is no chance of cheating or someone joining at the last minute to vote.

Excellent, so at least that part is settled...

 

[TrustAndObey]

Just a thought: currently we do not have any forum-specific rules in effect. The old rules are obsolete, and we haven't approved new ones yet. This means that the mods can't act on any reports from here unless a post is determined to be flaming or something else that's covered under the general CF rules. Perhaps we need some interim rules while we work out the new wiki process. The way we are doing this, it will take a long time, and until we decide something, anyone will be able to debate here or in the sub-forums without violating any rules.

I thought the old rules were in effect until we came up with new ones?

If not, we should just keep the old ones. Fat chance we're going to come up with interim rules for however long this process takes us, right?

Can we stick with what we had before?

 

[DarylFawcett]

If that has already been settled regarding 100 or more posts, then I can live with that.

 

[TrustAndObey]

If that has already been settled regarding 100 or more posts, then I can live with that.

Okay then.

(Thanks for the prayer the other night by the way).

 

[DarylFawcett]

Yes, the old rules should remain in effect here until the new ones are accomplished.