Appeals Option Forum

k · Aug 18, 2005

Shannonkish said:
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?

I had no idea this was the process. That changes things a bit...

k · Aug 18, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
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.

From the OP: "Obviously no one but the Member filing the Appeal and Mods handling the Appeal in the Chain of Command would be allowed to respond."

Hopefully this clears up any misconception.

k · Aug 18, 2005

KristianJ said:
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.

Thank you so much for the response and link!!!

ChristianCenturion · Aug 18, 2005

Neverstop said:
From the OP: "Obviously no one but the Member filing the Appeal and Mods handling the Appeal in the Chain of Command would be allowed to respond."

Hopefully this clears up any misconception.

It does, thanks.
It seems pointless then; No interaction, no reason other than voyeurism (of course, in the non-sexual sense).

ChristianCenturion · Aug 18, 2005

Neverstop said:
Thank you so much for the response and link!!!

Ditto, I didn't see your post either KJ, sorry and thanks.

Crazy Liz · Aug 18, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
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.

I'm having trouble understanding what difference it would make to have non-believers know about it. In fact, seeing Christians handle conflicts successfully might even influence them positively toward Christianity.

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).

Actually, the word ekklesia means the entire assembly. Since Jesus said this before any church organization existed, I think the meaning is the plain meaning. Anabaptists have practiced this for hundreds of years. So what if the assembly includes the young and the immature? They will not predominate. The Holy Spirit may choose to speak through the young and immature, but more likely they will grow by observing the actions of those who are more mature.

We could also reference Romans 13 dealing with God appointed authorities while we are at it

How does this apply to Christian Forums?

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.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by this or how it is relevant. Don't people usually learn by seeing the consequences of others' mistakes?

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

PACKY · Aug 18, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
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.

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

CC taken right from one of your very own posts:

That aside, I know of precedent that would show otherwise, but I would rather the forum speak as to where those boundaries lie, thank you for your input.

k · Aug 27, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
It does, thanks.
It seems pointless then; No interaction, no reason other than voyeurism (of course, in the non-sexual sense).

It may seem pointless to some, but others may disagree on the principle of transparency for rule application. It is not voyeurism because that is stealing looks on people who believe they have privacy and since the member would be aware of the public option there is no belief of privacy, thus voyeurism cannot exist.

I cannot discuss any further specifics as there would be CF violations incurred.

Appeals Option Forum

k

reset

More options

k

reset

More options

k

reset

More options

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor

More options

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor

More options

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member

More options

PACKY

Contributor

More options

k

reset

More options

Similar threads

Appeals Option Forum

reset

reset

reset

Veteran / Tuebor

Veteran / Tuebor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

reset

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency