Announcement: CO Forums

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

yeah I remember when I found out about Santa Claus...

LOL

You do realize that by invoking the Santa Sequence you have opened this topic up to the next logical extension ...

 

[ladyt28]

I'm surprised with how many people seem to be surprised by this announcement. The only thing about it that surprises me is how long it took to happen. This intention was announced with one of LeeD's rare posts when he said that CF would become a place for Christians to have fellowship with each other and less outreach (paraphrasing).

As far as using the name "Christian" in the web site name, don't those of us who participate in this part of the site embody the fact that there are many different interpretations of what that word entails/means? To say that one view is wrong from another is to do exactly what so many here complain about others doing to them when someone says "you don't believe in the right way".

And yes, this site is a business and not a democracy. LeeD is not Erwin - he has shown that he has no interest in running things according to how the members would like it to be run. He seems more interested in having members that support his vision, period. And since there are always going to be unhappy people when one method of believing (conservative, liberal, moderate) runs things, I don't see how anyone could possibly make everyone happy.

This site is not what we make it to be - it is what we are allowed to be. Do I agree with that? Who cares, I don't own it and have no way to influence that. I know I can't bring myself to be a site supporter anymore. I would not want to be a moderator here. What I DO know is that there are many other sites out there that cause me less grief than CF does anymore which is why I'm not here 1/3 as much as I used to be.

CF will not be the site it used to be. That means that some other site will eventually become the latest-greatest. Maybe we could agree on sites to go to that make us feel as welcomed as we used to feel here. I know I have found one that, while it is no where near as large as this site used to be, brings me tremendous comfort, guidance and fellowship - which is all I have ever wanted. There are going to be other sites that people can go to for debate and intense discussion of theology without a hammer and gag orders coming down. Part of me would like CF to just die a quiet death. Another part of me just can't give up on the people here that I know I won't find on other sites. But when I am here, I have to accept the fact that we are going to have more and more "guidlines" on how I am going to be allowed to communicate with those friends. It's sad but a fact that we aren't going to be allowed to change.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Those that didn't have mine.

... because the wealthy aristocrats who control everything including perception of the masses just bes THE most oppressed minority out there, and NEEDS your support so very desperately.

Yeah right. Support its mama!

 

[tulc]

Firstly, it isn't a rare occurrence that non-Christians violate the rules and posts in CO sections. It happened frequently before, and I doubt it will be much different now.

Secondly, I didn't state that I agreed that they should be changed. I do however agree that the rules should be enforced, which would be removing posts that do not hold up the SoF the site has adopted.

I was asking CaDan, and can also ask you, what part of Letalis' statement you are having trouble with. When he said that icons won't be yanked, why do you assume that is code for they will be yanked? Under the old set-up, it was the rule that you couldn't carry a Christian icon if you didn't uphold the Nicene Creed. That is no longer a rule, so stating that I believe the rules should be enforced does not equal pulling icons.

If I were you, I'd put more concern about God's approval for your beliefs (or lack of them) than someone else's.

Well the difference would be I can trust the Lord. (He knows our heart and loves us) the mods however are susceptible to the weaknesses we all are susceptible to and can make mistakes. See the difference? So until the Lord starts modding on CF we should all be vigilant.
tulc(IMHO)

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Kiddin' right?

Are you suggesting that every Church and business in the world that uses the name "Christian" be examined that it is indeed upholding to some level of orthodoxy?

Ummm ... 'SCUSEY?????? :o

If they presume to do the same to their constituents? You'd better believe it!!!

 

[CaDan]

Are you suggesting that if one knows that they are not a Christian, and voluntarily violates the rules, that staff should just turn their heads?

No.

What about not forcefully changing their icons are you not understanding,

I understand quite well. I am asking Staff to pledge on their honor that they will not do such a thing and that if it is done, they will resign.

or do you also now object to removal of posts if non-Christian stuff is posted by someone using a Christian icon?

That is not part of the pledge.

Anything else?

 

[synger]

Kudos to the (few) staff who have agreed with CaDan's challenge. It's telling there aren't more.

There very well be more, who see no reason to post their agreement publicly. I responded initially because I posted the post CaDan was responding to, so I thought he was asking me directly.

Besides, I doubt very strongly that forced icon changes will happen. We've been assured of that over and over, before this change even happened.

I trust the Advisors' word on this. And the word is, no forced icon changes.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Real seekers don't go into the theology forums and argue with Christians. Real seekers actually seek. That means asking questions to learn the answers of the people they are asking.

But real seekers also have REAL questions and because they SEEK, will not necessarily just bow down and swallow prefabricated answers that do not make sense to them. They will challenge and probe the answers they bes given; they will side by side these answers to them own understanding and/or the Scriptures; they do not even necessarily have to agree with those answers to agree with Christ seen as them answers bes human constructs not 100% pure mind of God.

And the issue arises because any and all of this NORMAL SEEKER BEHAVIOR (by those still "seeking" outside the fold AS WELL AS those seeking His face inside the fold) can at any time, on the basis of pure whim or personal prejudice, be adjudged to constitute trolling and/or false-iconning just because some member feels threatened by it and complains, and/or some moderator, super or admin feels threatened either by what the Seeker said or by the reactions to it of those who feel threatened, etc. And then where bes we?

 

[synger]

Yup. Up to the individual.
Who is CF to make that decision, or you or anybody else?
CF is now treading the path of possibly altering its member's icons. They are determinig who is and who isn't a Christian.

When that happens, the decision is no longer up to the individual, but a business.

That's a problem, and worthy of standing against.



There's no tangle in the web as I see it.

You have said yourself that individuals should make this decision, and I agree.

I do not think that a business should be doing it.

No tangles.

It's cut and dried.

CF is not treading the path of changing people's icons. The announcement very clearly states that forced icon-changes are NOT going to happen. The "business" is not doing making the decision on icons, the individual is. CF is not determining who is and who is not Christian.

That's so pre-777. *Buffy voice*

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

And most of the marketplace got up and left and took it's money with them when the site changed the rules last year. I'm guessing that that has finally made an impression.

Actually they did that when LeeD bought it out. Basically it would run a lot better without all the anal-retentive types who have to control and monitor and stalk and police everyone else's self-expressions. We had nearly a full month the most peaceful ever right after the upgrade when reports bes off and everyone had to regulate themselves. There bes less harassings less flamings and less general acting up & misbehaving during that period than any other. THAT should have made an impression.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

CF is not treading the path of changing people's icons. The announcement very clearly states that forced icon-changes are NOT going to happen. The "business" is not doing making the decision on icons, the individual is. CF is not determining who is and who is not Christian.

That's so pre-777. *Buffy voice*

*nod* understood -- but the issue of judging post content to be "non-Christian" still grates. by what standard? by whose authority? so far going by past history we have seen nothing but personal bias and whim rule the roost on such things. and while this works fine for the obvious trolls who need to be shuffled off, it does not work so good when it becomes socio-political infighting or personal vendettas being exercised in the guise of moderator duties.

 

[CaDan]

I was asking CaDan, and can also ask you, what part of Letalis' statement you are having trouble with. When he said that icons won't be yanked, why do you assume that is code for they will be yanked? Under the old set-up, it was the rule that you couldn't carry a Christian icon if you didn't uphold the Nicene Creed. That is no longer a rule, so stating that I believe the rules should be enforced does not equal pulling icons.

I don't assume it. I infer that it may happen.

Staff has pledged that they will not do such a thing. I am only making sure they are willing to hold to that pledge by promising to resign from Staff if the policy or rules change.

 

[meh]

More probably aren't signing because I told them they didn't have to. This isn't a read/respond/agree item for belonging to staff. It's a challenge from a member. They don't have to sign it if they don't want to. They can even support forced icon changes if that's their personal belief. They just can't do them. You know perfectly well where the buck stops on things like this and we've promised, repeatedly, there will not be forced changes and icon hunts. I speak only for one advisor in this post- me-but I can tell you I think hunting faith icons is evil, I felt physically sick when directed to do it before, I never finished them, and I will absolutely not be party to that ever again and will not work on a board where such is allowed. I have seen the other advisors say much the same thing. They won't be party to it. Now unless I can somehow get this all typed in my own blood, I'm not sure how much more clear I can get I mean what I say. There will be no forced icon changes, and there will be no icon hunting.

 

[MrJim]

Ummm ... 'SCUSEY?????? :o

If they presume to do the same to their constituents? You'd better believe it!!!

It still the same~individuals deciding upon what they believe is orthodox. Constituents or members, whether of a church or business or organization then have to decide if there is agreement and either work for change (as is being attempted here), accept as is or move on. Nature of the Christian faith today~decide what we like, toss what we don't, and want everyone else to at least acknowledge it as My Truth (mea culpa~still don't have it figured out).

 

[BlackJack77]

You should run for president of CF. You'd fit right in.

Um...thank you? Sincerely in Christ, Jack

 

[A New Dawn]

Actually they did that when LeeD bought it out. Basically it would run a lot better without all the anal-retentive types who have to control and monitor and stalk and police everyone else's self-expressions. We had nearly a full month the most peaceful ever right after the upgrade when reports bes off and everyone had to regulate themselves. There bes less harassings less flamings and less general acting up & misbehaving during that period than any other. THAT should have made an impression.

Actually, it happened when Erwin went all 7/7/7 on us. I know of a few hundred who left then and in the few months building up to it when it was obvious that it was going to happen. I don't think a significant number left when the site was bought.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Actually, it happened when Erwin went all 7/7/7 on us. I know of a few hundred who left then and in the few months building up to it when it was obvious that it was going to happen. I don't think a significant number left when the site was bought.

Hmmm, this one perceived it the other way around. Even post-777 bes them still thousands visiting in a night. After the year turned and LeeD had bought CF it began to plummet, and after the software upgrade even moreso, as LeeD's plans began to be made known.

Don't have statistics to call forth but seems fairly obvious that a couple hundred leaving in a couple months versus several thousand dropping like flies over a few months seems a pretty big gap? Anyway, just this one's perceptions.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

It still the same~individuals deciding upon what they believe is orthodox. Constituents or members, whether of a church or business or organization then have to decide if there is agreement and either work for change (as is being attempted here), accept as is or move on. Nature of the Christian faith today~decide what we like, toss what we don't, and want everyone else to at least acknowledge it as My Truth (mea culpa~still don't have it figured out).

Yes but in this case, as Frank Marino put it,
"...the decisions of the few, made in secret, have raped and ravaged those who would lay down willingly."

 

[BlackJack77]

And the Christian mindset does not pander to cookie cutter Christians.

Well, see this is where the Apostles and the Scriptures clash with other ideologies because just as a chocolate chip cookie recipe may vary in that some might have nuts in them, they don't cease to produce chocolate chip cookies. Then there are other recipes that might add other base ingredients that completely change the chocolate chip cookie and it is no longer a chocolate chip cookie but maybe a peanut butter cookie that might include chocolate chips. So, it can no longer be called a chocolate chip cookie. There are unchanging foundations of the faith of Christianity. People may have variations in the non-essentials, and that is fine, but once the foundation begins to be chipped away and the foundation begins to really have little or no resemblence to the faith once delivered unto the saints, it ceases to have the right to be called "Christian beliefs" just as the foundation of the chocolate chip cookie changed to the foundation for a peanut butter cookie and just because there are still included some chocolate chips doesn't mean it is still a chocolate chip cookie. Does that make sense?

 

[DeanM]

Dean, what are you doing? Please stop now.

There will be NO icon yanking
The Congregational fora are NOT CO
This isn't about you; it isn't about Steve, and it's certainly not a valid excuse to jump on new members.

Please, stop feeding the drama llama. It's getting beyond a joke.

I understand your concerns - however, your concerns have been answered repeatedly by every level of staff. You're spreading panic and fostering needless animosity off the back of a faulty premise which, again, has been repeatedly refuted.

So, with all due respect, my question stands: what are you doing?

I'm taking a stand with CaDan that screwing with icons is unnecessary and unwise.

I'm also basing my stance on the track record of previous CF actions.

CF has no current plans to force icon changes. The fact that this issue has even come up for discussion bids my responses.

I have a few options. I could keep my mouth shut and let CF take its course, which has not always been the most inclusive or loving path. Or, I can voice my opinion and speak out against possible trouble before it happens.

Nice to meet you, GreenMunchkin. I do respect that you're goal is to keep peace in CF. It's an admirable goal.

My goal is to keep CF from telling anyone that they're not Christian. It's not CF's place to do so.

So, in response to the second post in this thread (from CaDan), I have taken the opportunity to express my support for his stand against this.

If CF were to enact a protocol allowing staffers to alter member's icons, it would not be the first time that they said they wouldn't do something, but went ahead and did it anyway.

My goal is to be but a peep in the forest to let them know that such a decision would not be as "Christian" as they may hope.

It would be playing God.

Since we have been assured that no such policy will be enacted, my goal is merely to let my voice be heard that it should never be enacted.

If my opinions are unwanted, than this discussion should not be taking place in a public area.