Ban trads from Prog sub forum

[JonMiller]

First, I haven't read the thread.

Ideologically I am opposed to limitting people from posting in this forum. I think that we are all adults, and can behave as such. However, there has been some goading from some 'trads' against some 'progs' which should be addressed.

I don't think it should be addressed by banning from this forum a group of people. With the 'democracy' (also a bad idea in forums, I tihnk) that we have here in CF, can we not restrict a couple of people so that NE/etc can have peace in this particular forum?

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I also think that the whole idea of reports are stupid and should be done away with. If we had a few decent Mods who enforced rules... this would be fine. Having reporting wars and spite reporting and all this other stuff, which moderators are suppose to respond in certain ways to, is bad, I think.

JM

 

[RND]

Rule proposal;

A. In order to avoid spite reporting and retaliation through the report system, Report shall contain the name of the person reporting the post.

If people stopped reporting because they were being "outted" for doing so wouldn't that lead to an increase in bullying and flaming and other rude behavior?

B. All reports in the progressive subforum shall be discussed in the forum by progressive prior to a decision being rendered.

Moderation by committee?

 

[JonMiller]

Mod should be able to act without responding to a 'report'. Additionally, there aren't so many posts happening in this forum in a day, that it wouldn't be easy for a single moderator to moderate it on a daily basis.

JM

 

[sentipente]

If people stopped reporting because they were being "outted" for doing so wouldn't that lead to an increase in bullying and flaming and other rude behavior?

No one needs a report to see bullying and flaming.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

remember if you are not a progressive you get NO say

 

[Sophia7]

Rule proposal;

A. In order to avoid spite reporting and retaliation through the report system, Report shall contain the name of the person reporting the post.
B. All reports in the progressive subforum shall be discussed in the forum by progressive prior to a decision being rendered.

You can't have a separate report system just for the Progressive area, and the reporters' names are not going to be made public. That's not how things work at CF. If it were even possible, it would be a nightmare for the tech people to try to code different report systems for different areas. Also, members do not work reports. If you want representation on staff, some Progressives are going to have to apply as moderators.

Also, as Tonks has said, you can't ban people from your area, but you can limit or disallow debate by non-members, as the Traditionals have done in their sub-forum.

Tonks also mentioned that staff members are currently discussing how to streamline the FSGs for all of the congregational areas. The 777 wiki era is over. Members no longer make rules or elect moderators. You can, however, discuss what you would like to see in your statement of faith and FSGs--whether you think they should be changed or remain the same--and staff will take your input into consideration. Currently, the Progs do not have a statement of faith, and I wonder if something like RC's statement of essential Christian beliefs would work for your purposes.

There is another thread discussing the possiblity of splitting the SDA forum completely and creating a new Progressive SDA forum. If that happened, it would put an end to the continual discussions that have gone on ever since the Prog sub-forum exercised its autonomy during 777 days about whether the Progs can keep their separate FSGs and not be under the control of the main SDA forum. It's possible that a split would also encourage some Progressives who have left because of all the fighting to be more active here, and maybe some Progs would be more willing to become mods as well. I think that a Progressive SDA presence is sorely lacking on staff.

 

[Sophia7]

Mod should be able to act without responding to a 'report'. Additionally, there aren't so many posts happening in this forum in a day, that it wouldn't be easy for a single moderator to moderate it on a daily basis.

JM

A single moderator cannot handle all of the reports from the Progressive sub-forum. Moderators are not usually allowed to take unilateral action in reports, except for in extreme cases, such as obvious trolling or posting of pornography, when immediate e-banning is warranted.

Also, you can't get rid of the report system. That's how CF is run, and it's not going to change, especially not for just one forum or sub-forum.

 

[RND]

remember if you are not a progressive you get NO say

I think that's why I asked questions. Clarity is a good thing.

 

[RND]

You can't have a separate report system just for the Progressive area, and the reporters' names are not going to be made public. That's not how things work at CF. If it were even possible, it would be a nightmare for the tech people to try to code different report systems for different areas. Also, members do not work reports. If you want representation on staff, some Progressives are going to have to apply as moderators.

Also, as Tonks has said, you can't ban people from your area, but you can limit or disallow debate by non-members, as the Traditionals have done in their sub-forum.

Tonks also mentioned that staff members are currently discussing how to streamline the FSGs for all of the congregational areas. The 777 wiki era is over. Members no longer make rules or elect moderators. You can, however, discuss what you would like to see in your statement of faith and FSGs--whether you think they should be changed or remain the same--and staff will take your input into consideration. Currently, the Progs do not have a statement of faith, and I wonder if something like RC's statement of essential Christian beliefs would work for your purposes.

There is another thread discussing the possiblity of splitting the SDA forum completely and creating a new Progressive SDA forum. If that happened, it would put an end to the continual discussions that have gone on ever since the Prog sub-forum exercised its autonomy during 777 days about whether the Progs can keep their separate FSGs and not be under the control of the main SDA forum. It's possible that a split would also encourage some Progressives who have left because of all the fighting to be more active here, and maybe some Progs would be more willing to become mods as well. I think that a Progressive SDA presence is sorely lacking on staff.

I think a separate forum for "Progressive SDA's" would be a great idea and very much welcomed by the more "Traditional" membership.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I would suggest that reports of posts in the Prog forum should not be anonymous and those reports should be openly discussed in the Prog forum before the mods make their decisions.

That is not open to a vote by membership. The reports were made private and now are only semi-private site wide. The announcement is here. It can't be changed for one forum.

edit to add - ahh, I see Sophia covered it well.

 

[sentipente]

That is not open to a vote by membership. The reports were made private and now are only semi-private site wide. The announcement is here. It can't be changed for one forum.

edit to add - ahh, I see Sophia covered it well.

Then the mods should come down on the obvious cases of spite reporting, especially when one reports a post that is several days old.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Just because it is several days old does not necessarily make it a spite report. Now in another subforum on this site, I saw a report on a post made in July and yeah - that is a problem. But with spite reports, there does need to be a pattern established.