Appeals Option Forum

k · Aug 17, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
Additionally, it's not actually being proposed that non-Christians should have a say in the moderation on a Christian forum, is it?

Crazy Liz resonded so well to the rest that I have nothing to add except to say that I was not aware a non-Christian made the suggestion in the OP. More importantly, I am not trying to "have a say" because I have no authority as a guest/member of CF. In my experience, suggestions seeking unity can always be beneficial, even if the suggestions are not used.

PACKY · Aug 17, 2005

I favor the Idea of a enhanced Due process when it comes to the appeals system.
I favor the idea of being able to confront my accuser..I think that many appeals and actions are not needed if the lines of communication remained opened and uncluttered by false perceptions and bias. on both sides of the "fence"
I think that if the appeals system was given the option of being public many members would opt to use this...it would also serve a duel purpose of exposing the inner workings procedural wise when it comes to the way a appeal is processed.
It would also act to dis-spell any accusations or mis-perceived wrong doings as it would be in plain view of the membership...This of course is merely my two cents..

Crazy Liz · Aug 17, 2005

INFALLIBLE said:
I favor the Idea of a enhanced Due process when it comes to the appeals system.
I favor the idea of being able to confront my accuser..I think that many appeals and actions are not needed if the lines of communication remained opened and uncluttered by false perceptions and bias. on both sides of the "fence"
I think that if the appeals system was given the option of being public many members would opt to use this...it would also serve a duel purpose of exposing the inner workings procedural wise when it comes to the way a appeal is processed.
It would also act to dis-spell any accusations or mis-perceived wrong doings as it would be in plain view of the membership...This of course is merely my two cents..

I understand staff can put posts in an appeal thread that are only visible to staff, but not to the member who is appealing. I don't know for sure whether this is true or not.

If this is true, and it continues, the inner workings won't be exposed. But again, that's something that can be discussed later, after some of the bigger issues have been addressed.

k · Aug 17, 2005

INFALLIBLE said:
I favor the Idea of a enhanced Due process when it comes to the appeals system.
I favor the idea of being able to confront my accuser..I think that many appeals and actions are not needed if the lines of communication remained opened and uncluttered by false perceptions and bias. on both sides of the "fence"
I think that if the appeals system was given the option of being public many members would opt to use this...it would also serve a duel purpose of exposing the inner workings procedural wise when it comes to the way a appeal is processed.
It would also act to dis-spell any accusations or mis-perceived wrong doings as it would be in plain view of the membership...This of course is merely my two cents..

Thanks for your feedback and it reminds me to re-state the benefit of people being able to see actual posts that violate the rules. Many of us come from several different backgrounds, and each comes with its own understanding of communcation. I think misunderstandings make up for about half of "heated" moments between members.

Hopefully a Staff member or two will be able to provide us with some of their insights as well?

Shannonkish · Aug 17, 2005

So I understand... does that mean you are only interested in seeing the posts dealing strickly with your own apeals? I was under the impression that this was 'open to public' in the generalized sense that was being discussed.

I don't think you understand what I am saying....

Currently, when you make an appeal... you post a message in the Appeal Forum... that thread is then accessible by all staff and you. Posts are made by staff that can only be seen by staff (ie, the secret posts) discussing the appeal, etc... basically to gain the other's opinion. I am all for gaining both sides of the story... however, with the current way that it is, the person making the appeal cannot see the other side of the story because they are posted so only staff can see them.

What I was proposing is the first step... make those secret posts not secret.... so that the person appealing can see both sides..

if we accomplish this, first, then we mght be able to talk Erwin into making the optional public appeal (as suggested)

Does that make a little more sense?

seebs · Aug 17, 2005

Jenda said:
I don't know of a lot of people who are willing to air their dirty laundry in public. You talk about viewing other people's appeals, but your's would also be open for viewing. Is that OK with you?

(It's not with me.)

You misunderstand.

I want the option of making my own appeals visible. In some cases, I do not feel that it is "dirty laundry".

That said... Even if it is, as a Christian, I am compelled to favor openness and honesty over pride.

ChristianCenturion · Aug 17, 2005

seebs said:
You misunderstand.

I want the option of making my own appeals visible. In some cases, I do not feel that it is "dirty laundry".

That said... Even if it is, as a Christian, I am compelled to favor openness and honesty over pride.

You may probably be a better judge of whether you have issues concerning pride, but someone else not wanting their business open for ridicule could just as easily be an issue of shame or uncertainty. Just in case there were misconceptions regarding that, your statment compels me to express 'my' or possibly another's representation so as not be mistakenly grouped in with yours.

ChristianCenturion · Aug 17, 2005

Neverstop said:
Crazy Liz resonded so well to the rest that I have nothing to add except to say that I was not aware a non-Christian made the suggestion in the OP. More importantly, I am not trying to "have a say" because I have no authority as a guest/member of CF. In my experience, suggestions seeking unity can always be beneficial, even if the suggestions are not used.

I didn't even notice that you didn't show a profession icon or not. The non-Christian statement was directed at the premise that these posts would be public (IOW - open to a response from the public) to anyone and thereby being open for non-Christian participation or ridicule. Sorry that wasn't explained better - the non-Christian statement wasn't directed at the author of the thread.

KristianJ · Aug 18, 2005

It has been previously stated by Erwin, and I shall reiterate it for the benefit of those who are unaware of it, that the option of making an appeal public will be considered in the reforms to come. As per his thread at http://www.christianforums.com/t1977560, appeals system changes are planned as teh final step in the process. Therefore I would encourage all members to keep an eye on the Annoucements area of CF for further developments and not to ask for updates in threads in other areas of CF, because Erwin and AngelAmidala are very unlikely to get the chance to regularly look in other areas of CF Support.

So in response to the OP, I can tell you that it is being considered.

Shannonkish · Aug 18, 2005

KJ, thanks for that update. I didn't realize that this was going to be considered in the reforms!

PadmeAmidalafan · Aug 18, 2005

1. Rules
2. Staff Team Structure
3. Staff Protocol
4. Moderating Guidelines
5. Reporting/ Warning/ Appeals System

Yep its there just found it

KristianJ · Aug 18, 2005

Shannonkish said:
KJ, thanks for that update. I didn't realize that this was going to be considered in the reforms!

Not a problem, Shannon I don't know if Erwin ever made a specific mention of it, but from past threads on the topic, I am led to believe that it will be considered. However I am open to correction from any of the senior staff members if I am wrong.

seebs · Aug 18, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
However, my foundational reasoning would be that it is contradictory to Christian teaching in authority, correction, and resolving issues. Citing scripture has not proven effective in focusing the minds of those that want that feature, so I will leave that simply referenced.

Maybe you should quote it. When I looked, I found that we were encouraged to make things public if they were not adequately resolved in private.

Since this has been a topic or has had a small "following" in repeated requesting, I'm curious as to what the advocates for this proposed addition think will actually be brought about in way of benefits.

A very concrete one: The ability to learn more about how moderators understand the rules. In many cases, moderators do not all agree on a rule, or the way moderators understand a rule may not be the way some users understand it. I have had a few clashes with staff where the pedantic literal meaning of a rule was not the same as the staff's understanding of the rule.

If I could read appeals, I could then learn how the staff understand the rule.

I cannot speak for everyone else, but for my own part, I find that seeing examples helps me a lot in understanding the intent of a rule. I have an easier time following rules when I can see how they are applied.

So even if the moderation was placed into the extreme of it was clearly correct application or clearly mishandled/in error, what benefit would it be for random (very much assumed) viewing merely for the sake of 'seeing'.

Have you heard of, or looked at, the legal system of the United States? It is not flawless, but it makes heavy use of publication of opinions and public review of documents to provide fairer and more even treatment of all cases.

Additionally, it's not actually being proposed that non-Christians should have a say in the moderation on a Christian forum, is it?

No more than we'd propose that blacks get the vote in a country ruled by whites, I hope. In the end, if we are to have effective outreach, we should certainly take into account the witness we bear to our guests.

seebs · Aug 18, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
You may probably be a better judge of whether you have issues concerning pride, but someone else not wanting their business open for ridicule could just as easily be an issue of shame or uncertainty. Just in case there were misconceptions regarding that, your statment compels me to express 'my' or possibly another's representation so as not be mistakenly grouped in with yours.

This is why it should be an option.

BTW, shame is a kind of pride.

the_cheat · Aug 18, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
The only cause I can see that would warrant this addition would be popular opinion pressure and second-guessing moderator actions.

IMO popular opinion pressure and second-guessing is what keeps those in charge of any community from overstepping their bounds. When the populus loses their ability to question authorities' actions, you get tyrannical behavior on the part of leaders, whether that's on a micro scale, such as in a office environment, family - and dare I say it, online message board - or on a macro scale, as can be seen in the histories of various nations.

TheBear · Aug 18, 2005

Neverstop said:
Please forgive me if this suggestion is a bit late...but after some prayer and thought, here is the idea.

Make Appeals optional for public viewing. Obviously no one but the Member filing the Appeal and Mods handling the Appeal in the Chain of Command would be allowed to respond. This would eliminate the question of secrecy and allow no room for doubt in the application of rule enforcement.

Furthermore, this would be a great learning tool for all CF members who are unsure about how some rules are violated.

Overall the Mods have a tremendous responsibility and it cannot be an easy job by anyones' standards. Thank you to all who so freely dedicate your time and effort to CF!

Although I have not found myself in any CF appeals process, this suggestion does sound reasonable, for all the reasons listed, plus a few more.

- Direct accountability of staff members.
- Consistent and across the board fair treatment.
- It is scriptural.

ChristianCenturion · Aug 18, 2005

seebs said:
This is why it should be an option.

BTW, shame is a kind of pride.

Does that mean it should be an 'option' for the moderators too? They are after all members and entitled to their right to privacy too.

BTW - you may be interested that pride is not inherently negative. The scripture cites pride in righteous context several places i.e. pride in God's works, pride in another's victory, etc. Shame is an antonym for pride.

Crazy Liz · Aug 18, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
Does that mean it should be an 'option' for the moderators too? They are after all members and entitled to their right to privacy too.

If we followed the scripture you didn't want to quote, then moderators would have even greater privacy than they have now at the earlier stages of the system. Right now, as I understand it, all staff are able to see all appeals. I proposed that we follow Matthew 18:15-20 more closely, and give the moderator an option to reverse the action voluntarily while the matter is still private, or to reverse the action at the second stage, where only the moderator's immediate superiors know about it, not the entire staff.

I realize this is different from making public appeals an option. What I proposed is that all appeals become public after two opportunities to resolve the issue privately and semi-privately.

TheBear · Aug 18, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
Does that mean it should be an 'option' for the moderators too? They are after all members and entitled to their right to privacy too.

Hogwash!

The enforcing of rules and board policies, should be standard operating procedure, handled by every staff member the same. What in the world would make it a privacy issue on the part of the staff member?

ChristianCenturion · Aug 18, 2005

Crazy Liz said:
If we followed the scripture you didn't want to quote, then moderators would have even greater privacy than they have now at the earlier stages of the system. Right now, as I understand it, all staff are able to see all appeals. I proposed that we follow Matthew 18:15-20 more closely, and give the moderator an option to reverse the action voluntarily while the matter is still private, or to reverse the action at the second stage, where only the moderator's immediate superiors know about it, not the entire staff.

Your only one referenced scripture has potential conflict in several areas which until now, I didn't see a need to point out. The verse mentions brothers, that is among fellow believers and moderation involves non-believers. That would be the first conflict.
The second is the third attempt to resolve (a sin against another brother) in that scripture, they are to take it to the church. That reference would most likely be concerning the elders (i.e. moderators), not as the entire church as a democracy which would include new converts and the spiritually young (much less non-believers).

We could also reference Romans 13 dealing with God appointed authorities while we are at it and I am specifically refraining from referencing how non-believers that are seen as quarrelsome or erroneous without repentance are cast out in hopes that they learn from their mistakes.

I realize this is different from making public appeals an option. What I proposed is that all appeals become public after two opportunities to resolve the issue privately and semi-privately.

IMO - I am fully against public appeals whether optional or not, whether last option or not.

Appeals Option Forum

reset

Contributor

Well-Known Member

reset

Proud member of the Loud Few

God Made Me A Skeptic

Veteran / Tuebor

Veteran / Tuebor

What's in a name? Letters...

Proud member of the Loud Few

Treasurer ,Senator, and Scribe of the RPG Republic

What's in a name? Letters...

God Made Me A Skeptic

God Made Me A Skeptic

the_cheat

Guest

NON-WOKED

Veteran / Tuebor

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Veteran / Tuebor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency