At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread - Please Vote in Poll Thread

[Lisa0315]

Usually with certain Mod backing or the fact they were the Mod sockpuppets.

Right drstevej?

Ouch!

 

[Beastt]

I agree with you BIG time. A NON believer wants Nothing to do with the belief of God.

So why should the non believers have the mod/leader position?! Why are Christians getting kicked into the corner and being persecuted?

An non-believer DOES NOT believe in God. I don't know how someone can serve on a Christian board if they are not Christian?! It's like throwing an atheist in a Church to preach as a Pastor to church people....it's not going to work!!

And you can't serve the tenets of a Christian board if you think practicing Christian values is the nemesis of Christianity.

Christians aren't being kicked into the corner or persecuted. Those who might think they are probably have such a perception because that's what they were doing to anyone they chose, anytime they chose; and now they think they're being persecuted because they can't do that anymore.

If one can't handle equality, it doesn't say much for the values they claim to hold.

 

[Victory of the Cross]

I think if it weren't for the fact that the old CF was modeled on the same kind of values which lead to the Inquisition and the Crusades -- a distinctly extremist and out-dated system, it wouldn't appear that the new system is such an extreme change. Anytime you attempt to move from systems based on those found in the Dark Ages to something more akin to modern democracy, the two will seem to represent the extremes of the spectrum. That's likely because one focuses on equality and control in the hands of the people and the other focuses on dictatorial systems with the control firmly in the hands of a select few who are allowed to hide their activities and violate the very rules they're supposed to be enforcing. The only reason anyone ever has the need to hide what they're doing is when they know it's wrong and would be received very poorly by the masses.

Glad to see you got over that Paranoid stage

 

[+RubiesFire+]

I'm not twisting your words

I'm simply stating the facts, and the fact is, Christians persecuted non-Christians on this forum

Our points of view are very different on this, and that's alright. Not every person is going to agree.

I stand by my words, and I know you stand by your own.


I am going to say Erwin's Vision has ruffled the feathers with the members.

 

[TheDerek]

You mean option 2?

Uh, yes, that is what I meant!

 

[kicker10bog]

I'm fine w/ it either way, so I'm probably not gonna vote. lol.

 

[KerrMetric]

and now they think they're being persecuted because they can't do that anymore.

Absolutely 100% true.

 

[Debi1967]

What is this turning into?

Let's see who can be more obnoxious to whom thread?

Can we stay on topic please for everyone's sake?

That means me too and I am sorry Beastt for misunderstanding you

 

[Rochir]

nm

 

[Grizzly]

Ok, can we keep this in perspective? People are being tortured for their faith in many countries. No-one on this board has been persecuted, Christian or otherwise.

yes, a voice of reason! No one here is being persecuted, this is not akin to a witch hunt, and the next person who likens what is happening here to to the holocust is going to get a pox wished upon their house.

Its difficult enough having these discussions without the flammable rhetoric. Let's try and post in a civil manner.

 

[Rochir]

Obviously I'm coming late to this party, but I'd still like to throw in my non-Christian vote, although I have a feeling that it will be swallowed by the crushing mass of people reading and commenting on this thread.

I vote for neither option. This is Christian Forums, and it is and should remain a Christian website. I've never suggested anything different and so many people that are both Christians and non-Christians have never wanted anything for this site than for it to demonstrate the best qualities of Christianity.

However, from an outside perspective, uniting mainstream Christians in a Christians-only framework is not the same thing as uniting all Christians, which I think is a much more noble goal. The Christians that I've known for years have often times told me that you shouldn't compromise on your morals, and that's what this vote seems to be doing to me.

Christian Forums should be a safe and social community site based on Christianity, and not just based on mainstream Christianity. Every Christian and Christian denomination has both positive and negative qualities that they bring to the table. I can go around the table and point out the best qualities in everyone that I meet here, and they should all be allowed to bring their contributions to the table.

For obvious reasons I wouldn't like to see the non-Christian moderators thrown out on their ears. They may not be Christians, but they're people too, and they would like nothing better to contribute to a place where then have had enjoyment and found friends. That's part of Christianity too, and if you don't believe me, then you'll have to take the word of my favorite Bible passage instead of me: Mark 9:38-41

Here's the vision that I think would best serve CF: Focus on the ministry of members rather than on the ministry of staff. There are some amazing people that would like nothing better than to evangelize and witness here at CF but are not interested in the role of staff members. That's perfectly understandable. I've been involved in moderation for two years and I have to say that most people find it tedious and boring at best and painful and agonizing at worst. It isn't a job that lends itself to ministry (in any sense of the word).

The role of the moderator is to moderate; to enforce the rules. With a simple rule set that is basically static, that's easy and it can be accomplished quickly and easily.

Of course, even though I believe America is the best country, the people that founded it were much smarter than I am. They realized that every system has it's faults. It needs review by people that are disassociated from the process of writing the rules and enforcing the rules. Someone that is going to always be in a tough position because their job is going to entail a large gray area. Even less than the normal members, these people won't be able to preach or post without hurting someone at some time. I don't envy anyone in such a position.

Here's the practical application then: Most moderators should have limited powers. They should run their forums, but not have responsibilities in all forums because that seriously curtails their ability to be friendly and part of the community. A few people, perhaps ten or so very trusted moderators should have wide ranging powers to deal with emergencies.

The people that appoint those mods and super mods though, they should be removed from the process. They should be the judges, and they shouldn't be afraid to deal with problems among moderators like the normal moderators deal with problems among their forums. They should never moderate directly, but only should change things through talking and if necessary changing the makeup of the moderation team.

Where should this happen? Mostly out of sight. I hate to say it, but even small parades have staging areas. I know that CF has had some problems in the past, so here's my suggestion for dealing with the problem of hidden staff areas: How about elected teams of observers that can view the process but not interfere. If they say that everything is going well, great, but if they say something is going wrong the Administrators can take steps to fix the problem (and not by removing the observers, either). Otherwise, the behind the scenes area for moderation should be simple and geared toward enforcing the rules, and only enforcing the rules.

Now, I'm going to say something that I don't think that I've said in a long time (if ever before): I agree with drstevej that wiki rules aren't a solution to the problem of writing rules. Any process in which the least common denominator wields as much authority as Jesus is going to have problems. Does that mean that a specific set of rules should be adopted and never changed? No. It means that a group of people need to be found that aren't afraid to change thi
ngs that aren't working (or that aren't fair) and try to make things better for all users. Different groups need different things, but everyone should be treated fairly. That doesn't mean just everyone getting their say at once but some reasoned debate about it, which we haven't really seen yet.

Still, the general gist of the rules seems pretty clear to me. The first rule should be "Love God." Simple enough. That was Jesus's first rule, so it seems good enough for CF. How should it be enforced? Well, Jesus seemed to indicate that it should be handled person by person, which seems good enough for CF as well.

The second, accordingly, should be "Love and respect others." That means that people should be polite. Anyone who deliberately hurts someone else should be in violation of this rule, but it should allow for jokes and apologies. In all honesty, this should be a rule that any moderator that sees broken can enforce right away.

Three, four and five are "don't violate copyright, don't talk about the google ads publicly, and don't spam." Again, those are fairly simple.

Six should be "No Obscene, Vulgar, Racist, Sexually Explicit or Illegal Posts and Links." What makes something obscene? Well, that depends on what forum it's in. A discussion of racism in Ethics and Morality should not be treated the same as a support thread.

Seven should be "Places within CF are different. Please understand that this is a large site, and please be understanding of the area that you are posting in or restrictions that may be enforced in some areas."

And just to be contrary to numerology, eight should be "This is a discussion board. Don't come back if your banned, don't talk about moderation in-thread, and remember that there are people behind the screens."

The simpler than those rules are, the easier it is to enforce the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

Anyway, those are my suggestions in response to the vote. Have a good day.

ST

Good post!

 

[Rochir]

Erwin - take the middle road!

 

[Grizzly]

It's like throwing an atheist in a Church to preach as a Pastor to church people....it's not going to work!!

I don't see it quite like that. Nonchristians moderating in the debate forums is sorta like having referees from different conferences come to officiate a sporting event. The rules of a discussion board can be enforced by anyone who has the time and temperment.

 

[Beastt]

I feel that there is a happy medium, although given the two options, I think that option two has it hands down.

The proposed changes ARE the happy medium. Have you ever spent any time in the General Apologetics section? If you have, I suggest you pay it another visit. Things in there are running more smoothly now than at any other time I've seen. One extreme would be total control by Christians. That's what we had, though the practices were anything but consistent with Christian values. The other extreme would be total control by non-Christians and no one has ever suggested that. What was suggested was placing the control over the site in the hands of the membership -- it's called "democracy".

This is a Christian site. If a Christian goes onto a Muslim site he know's he's going to be the minority. Same thing here.

There is more to being a Christian site than putting people who identify themselves as Christians in charge. Many people think they believe in Christian values until they're asked to practice them. Many people think they agree with American ideals until asked to practice them. It's true that CF has been under the dictatorial rule of those who identify themselves as Christians but there can be no valid claim to the idea that they utilized or practiced Christian values in the decisions they made or the way non-Christians have been treated.

If you don't want to be a member of this CHRISTIAN site, then leave. Go join IIDB and complain, for all I care.

The same advice could be sent your direction. If you don't understand the difference between a site that claims to be Christian and one which is attempting to instill and practice Christian values, then you're time would likely be better spent ~elsewhere~.

It's time for the Christians to take back Christian Forums.

They never had it. Christians are people who practice Christian values such as tolerance, patience, equality and a true recognition of the value in everyone, regardless of their beliefs. CF has never operated under such principles and when it is said that it's going to start, the only people we see objecting are the very ones claiming to be Christians.

You can't have a Christian site if you think the key is to abandon Christian values -- no matter who runs it.

 

[MariaRegina]

I suggest when they count the final totals they do an IP search and make it one vote per IP address.

THe problem with IPs is that they are not static (well, most of them) and some services such as AOL use a bank of dynamic IP addresses. That is why it is nearly impossible to IP ban some accounts, because one IP address may be used by many accounts in a rotating pool of dynamic IP addresses.

This is true. There is no way to guarantee a correct vote tally here at CF.

AOL, and some universities, apartment buildings, and businesses use a bank of dynamic IP addresses. It is therefore impossible to ban an AOL IP and for that reason some forums even forbid AOL members to participate.

In addition, Internet cafes offer their pay per use services, so that people who really want to pay for an extra fraudulent vote can go to different Internet Cafes just to set up accounts to get around the system. Others use the Internet Cafe because they cannot afford a home computer, so they would be victimized if an entire Internet Cafe site were to close based on the unethical behavior of one person.

People can always find ways to be dishonest. Only Christ our God knows what is in our hearts and He will be the final and just Judge.

Glory to Jesus Christ,
Glory to Him forever.

 

[Freodin]

You're taking my words and twisting them. It's a CHRISTIAN site....where Christian should teach those who are lost. Not a non-believer teaching a Christian.

Teaching what?

No one is proposing to install non-Christians as "teachers" are arbitors of Christian truth.

But if you are driving, does the policeman have to be a Christian to be allowed to give you a ticket? Is he persecuting you if he is a non-Christian and holds you up for speeding?

 

[ScottBot]

I look at the site name and motto and I get a visceral opinion of what this site is

ChristianForums, uniting all Christians as one body.

I don't read, OpenForums, uniting all people as one body.

The predisposing perception is a) this site is intended as a meeting and discussion place for people who identify themselves as Christian. b) is it a place for them to create unity amongst each other.

So, here are a few dilemmas I see.

1. How do you define Christian. I was a big fan of the Nicene Standard. It has been the standard of orthodoxy for 1700 years, why create a new one? Shouldn't we call an new Ecumencial Council for that?

2. What to do with people who don't fit into that definition? I am fine with having open areas for everyone and anyone to initiate and sustain conversation, but the preponderance of the site should be dedicated to the site's mission......uniting all Christians as one body. Not sure how an atheist, muslim, wiccan, or a follower of some non-Nicene pseudo-religion can help with that. My gut instinct tells me, they can't.

3. Regarding "perscution" which I keep hearing over and over. Unless someone officially affliliated with this site has come to your house, abducted you, chained you to a wooden table in a dank, musky root cellar while water drips on your forhead, and shoved bamboo slivers under your fingernails, you haven't been persecuted. Give up the pity party. Treated in a manner you consider unfair? Probably. But persecuted? Give it a rest. If you want to understand persecution, talk to the Christians in Darfur, Sudan.

 

[intricatic]

They never had it. Christians are people who practice Christian values such as tolerance, patience, equality and a true recognition of the value in everyone, regardless of their beliefs. CF has never operated under such principles and when it is said that it's going to start, the only people we see objecting are the very ones claiming to be Christians.

You can't have a Christian site if you think the key is to abandon Christian values -- no matter who runs it.

What gives you the right to define what Christianity is?

 

[kimber1]

I know. We must pray for each other. Only God can deliver us from the wolves in this place.

Lisa

and exactky who would be the wolves?

 

[ScottBot]

and exactky who would be the wolves?

The mean people.