A Separation...

tall73 · Jul 29, 2007

Here is a possible wording for the new poll:

The Adventist section has experienced periods of discord between progressive and traditional Adventists.

Should the Adventist section be split, with separate sections entirely (not just sub-forums) for progressive and traditional Adventists?

Yes
No

woobadooba · Jul 29, 2007

tall73 said:
Until you clarify what you mean by rules who can vote for that option?

Perhaps a clearer poll would be simply
Should we have separate progressive and traditional forums on CF?

Yes
No

Let's not put two issues in a poll.

My suggestion would be then to have you lock this poll as the op (a mod could do it fairly quickly) and word it to make the options plain.

The third option is there as a means to try to bring us back together. As you can see, that is where my vote is.

I think most people in here are in intelligent enough to understand what I mean by enforcing stricter rules.

Such rules would be designed to keep people from behaving in a manner that does not properly represent the SDA objective, which is to be Christlike.

NightEternal · Jul 29, 2007

My vote for separate forums stands.

However, I know you have worked hard to get things this far Tall. I cannot simply overlook that.

If separate forums isn't doable or turns out to not be the majority concensus, I will continue working with the process already begun towards the original plan.

Tall's idea for temporary and permanent forum bans against those who engage in personal attacks has merit. It would go a long way to making all of us choose our words much more carefully, me included.

Now, I really am going to bed, because it is almost 1:00 a.m. here.

tall73 · Jul 29, 2007

But that is not how you defined it to start with. It was not behavior but beliefs that you defined it as until I pointed out the problems with that.

The issue is split or not.

If you are unwilling to make a poll with those options I will. The "not split" could include rule changes as we are already in the process of changing the rules.

By including three options you have introduced the possibility of a plurality with no majority.

woobadooba · Jul 29, 2007

NightEternal said:
Tall's idea for temporary and permanent forum bans against those who engage in personal attacks has merit. It would go a long way to making all of us choose our words much more carefully, me included.

I am quite surprised that you are saying this, especially after likening me to a mini-Hitler in the Wiki.

Tall's idea is what I was referring to in the Wiki when I was talking about having a warning/banning system.

tall73 · Jul 29, 2007

well then he would be on his way to an FSB.

So that would be alright.

woobadooba · Jul 29, 2007

tall73 said:
But that is not how you defined it to start with. It was not behavior but beliefs that you defined it as until I pointed out the problems with that.

The issue is split or not.

If you are unwilling to make a poll with those options I will. The "not split" could include rule changes as we are already in the process of changing the rules.

By including three options you have introduced the possibility of a plurality with no majority.

Don't give me a difficult time here!

I could just simply go back to the OP and qualify the third option. I will do that now.

tall73 · Jul 29, 2007

Woob, having three options means you could have a three way split with no majority, on what is a simple yes or no issue.

Let me put it another way: If you enforce stricter rules would that be in new forums or in the current ones? Obviously the current ones. The issue is separate or not. That only requires two options.

Your answer is only as good as your poll.

woobadooba · Jul 29, 2007

tall73 said:
Woob, having three options means you could have a three way split with no majority, on what is a simple yes or no issue.

Let me put it another way: If you enforce stricter rules would that be in new forums or in the current ones? Obviously the current ones. The issue is separate or not. That only requires two options.

Your answer is only as good as your poll.

OK, I see your point. But then the second option should have a qualifier--the warning/FSB system.

NightEternal · Jul 29, 2007

woobadooba said:
I am quite surprised that you are saying this, especially after likening me to a mini-Hitler in the Wiki.

Tall's idea is what I was referring to in the Wiki when I was talking about having a warning/banning system.

For crying out loud, I am never going to get to bed.

Woob, for the last time, I did not call you a Hitler. I said the moderation methods you desire are 'Hitler-style.' I know what I meant and that is all that matters, no matter how much you twist it to say otherwise.

Yes, I would support banning for personal attacks, because it has happened to me so often I have lost count. However, I would never want you or someone who is as intolerant as you to be in charge of meting out those penalties. The person who will have final say in the bans better be very, very impartial and fair.

I do not believe you have that quality, sorry. So anyone who thinks like you being in that position would scare me silly. Already you are dogmatically deciding what should be declared heresy here.

tall73 · Jul 29, 2007

woobadooba said:
OK, I see your point. But then the second option should have a qualifier--the warning/FSB system.

That would work. Something is needed in the rules to put some teeth if we are going to continue together.

Do you want this one closed so you can start the new one?

If so I will have Sophia do it.

tall73 · Jul 29, 2007

Here some possible new wording with your requested qualifier.

The Adventist section has experienced periods of discord between progressive and traditional Adventists.

Should the Adventist section be split, with separate sections entirely (not just sub-forums) for progressive and traditional Adventists?

Yes, split the two into separate areas
No, leave them in one area but have stricter rules to prevent personal attacks.

woobadooba · Jul 29, 2007

tall73 said:
Here some possible new wording with your requested qualifier.

The Adventist section has experienced periods of discord between progressive and traditional Adventists.

Should the Adventist section be split, with separate sections entirely (not just sub-forums) for progressive and traditional Adventists?

Yes, split the two into separate areas
No, leave them in one area but have stricter rules to prevent personal attacks.

Yes, we can go with this. So please ask Sophia to close this thread, and you may start up another poll.

Thanks.

Sophia7 · Jul 29, 2007

Closed at OP's request.

New poll here.

A Separation...

What should we do about this?

have separate forums for Traditional and Progressive SDAs

Leave things as they are

enforce stricter rules to prevent problematic situations

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Evangelical SDA

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Evangelical SDA

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Tall73's Wife

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency