Change to the Appeals process, changes to Staff and a few other things

[Chaplain David]

Edit: I have been informed in PM that my post may be reported as criticising staff.

I don't know or want to know who sent you this pm but I don't believe it was an advisor unless this thread is a joke.

It seems that management may be trying to become more transparent, congenial, fair, and willing to listen and consider feedback.

Still don't understand why perfectly good staff were let go, others reduced in rank, and then other admins replaced by more subordinate ones (except for the top people). But I guess there will always be things that are not understood. God bless everyone.

 

[Tonks]

Edit: I have been informed in PM that my post may be reported as criticising staff.

Your post hasn't been reported...I'm not entirely sure why anyone would send you that sort of PM. At any rate...I've generally asked staff that unless there is some massively flaming post to essentially ignore reports from this thread...while that certainly isn't a free license to violate the rules I really don't lose sleep over people being critical...there have been some good ideas posted here that I've taken into consideration so I think of it more as "constructive criticism."

I've tried to answer most posts...but have fallen off the last day or two as work has been brutal...and I'm sailing on the Chesapeake this weekend and will be blissfully without any cellular or internet connection.

 

[Tonks]

Tonks,

In line with the vision of Pauler, what are the real obligations and mission for the staff at CF?

Some people view staff as work horses who police the forum and action reports. However, after reading the Vision Statement, I think Pauler is thinking along other lines. Could you kindly elaborate?

Thanks.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

As I mentioned a few pages ago...we're crafting a vision statement for staff which will address pretty much all of your questions...and we'll post it publicly. I wish it were done sooner...but the sausage making it taking a bit longer than I anticipated (mainly because CF time conflicts with "job time" in many cases...lol). Pauler has seen the draft and we've spoken to him via the phone to get his feedback etc. So hopefully we'll get something out soonest. I'd hoped for Thurs/Fri this week...but it looks like it will be pushed to the right a bit.

I'm generally on many, many hours during the week...and I generally spend a massive amount of time on the site during the weekends (esp. Sunday when I go to church)...I poke around a bit on the weekends but I think we all need to ensure that we're taking care of the real world, too...(something that I recommend for everyone!).

 

[Bombila]

Tonks, in view of how much time is needed to work on the business intended in this thread, I am delaying action regarding this post early in the thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7381483-2/#post52241606

I'd rather wait a week or so until there is more time available from you and other staff.

And have a pleasant sail.

 

[DeanM]

There are still two things that CF needs:

1) A Christian Forum. A plain old forum for Christians of all denominations as well as other visitors. Sure, WWMC comes close but, it is burried down in the faith groups area. It should be the first thing anyone sees when they come to CF; Big icon, center stage, and arrows pointing at it.

2) Similar to current denominations, we need a forum for all the "other Christians" who have been swept away into the subforums of the Unorthodox section. LDS, JW, etc. If someone holds the belief that Christ is their saviour, CF should provide them some pews and a pulpit.

IMO, these two ideas have been long overlooked because of the resistance of CF's leadership (in general) to accomodate fair venue to the "minorities" of the Christian faith.

The arguments against these Christians have been boiled down to a difference between orthodox and unorthodox beliefs. Failing to paint Easter eggs is a bad thing, but dancing with snakes is just fine, for example.

Anyone who finds themselves devoted to Christ as their saviour is a Christian.

Many of these Christians have seen their forums swept away into the pits of the subforums of the unorthodox section.

Will CF start to allow Christians to have venue again? All of them?

I've referred a lot of people to CF and very few have stayed more than a few minutes. Why? They are not lined up with the brand-names they have seen here. They even find Nondenominational as a cliquish fundimentalist camp.

And with nowhere to go, they have all left.

If CF's population was increasing, I wouldn't bother writing down these thoughts.

For a more detailed version of the plan to fix CF to make it more welcoming to all Christians and seekers, feel free to review my posts from back when I was on staff.

Good luck with the changes. I am praying they do more good than harm, and that CF again chooses the path of ecumenicalism over supremacy.

God bless~

 

[PreachersWife2004]

...

2) Similar to current denominations, we need a forum for all the "other Christians" who have been swept away into the subforums of the Unorthodox section. LDS, JW, etc. If someone holds the belief that Christ is their saviour, CF should provide them some pews and a pulpit.

They have their pews and pulpits, in the Unorthodox Theology section. They're not swept away, that forum is fairly active.

 

[DeanM]

They have their pews and pulpits, in the Unorthodox Theology section. They're not swept away, that forum is fairly active.

A new visitor to this site would point out that, not knowing how this site is laid out, they would take hours to find their areas.

My main point is that some Christians are given front-page easy access, and others are seemingly unwelcome.

The casual surfer will not spend the time to locate the welcome mat if that welcome mat is burried under the barn.

The mere fact that a Christian site plays favorites in this manner, imho, goes against a great deal of what Christ taught us about acceptance. Did He not dine with the outcasts of society? How Christian is a site that makes it difficult for one who accepts Christ but does not fit the mold of the owner's vision of who is more Christian than another?

I have pointed out before (while on staff) that this decision lies with God Himself, and is a poor ideal for anyone who has heard the word of God to offer varying levels of acceptance to His children.

Is there any other reason that there should not be a congregation called "Other?"

Is there any reason that CF should make some Christians less visable?

Is there any reason that some Christians should have to work harder to find their area?

And are any of these reasons in line with what Christ taught?

Here's a link to the LDS area. Note that it is not in the congregational area (do they not have a congregation?) nor is it in the Faith Groups area, but it is Five subforums deep in the Theology area. Five.

You can count them here:
http://www.christianforums.com/f612/

I am only using LDS as an example. This is the tip of the iceberg and should be a warning sign of the overall problems with CF. For too long, Christians here have been split up and granted varying degrees of acceptance based on the owner's whims.

It may be too late to reverse this kind of exclusionist thinking, but I would be remiss if I did not (again) attempt to point out the less-than-Christlike manner in which this site has been run for quite some time.

Again, I am praying for the changes to have a positive impact on this site.

I am just sort of stunned at how obvious the supremacist thinking is here at times, and the reluctance of staff to even address what should be glaring at them like a sore thumb.

Make a place for all Christians and seekers, and put it in bold print right up top of the site. Anyone who seeks their own kind should have an easy path to "safe" areas of their choice. This should include the major denominations as well as the "unorthodox" believers. Let God be the judge, not the CF staff, of who is a Christian.

It seems so simple right?

Yet we are getting further and further from ecumenicalism every time we sweep away another denomination. And we do all this while not having a core forum for everyone.

The argument against having a unified forum has always been that it would spawn too many arguments. This logic fails as soon as one looks at the amount of reports generated in WWMC versus say OBOB. The more open the forum, the less reports.

The facts will support my assertion.

God bless~

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Dean, those who post in the Unorthodox Theology area are there because they do not conform to the site's definition of Christianity, which is the Nicene Creed. Many of them do not accept Jesus as their savior. I'm not going to turn this into an argument as to whether they are Christians or not, but I can tell you that if you give those in Unorthodox Theology equal footing as the regular Christian communities, many Christians will leave this site.

 

[Tonks]

There isn't going to be any change in the status of those forums.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There isn't going to be any change in the status of those forums.

Thanks Tonks.

What about Dean's first suggestion? Do we currently have something at CF that serves for what he's talking about? Is it something that could be implemented?

 

[Tonks]

I still think things need to be streamlined a bit before we open more. Just my opinion, though.

 

[DeanM]

Dean, those who post in the Unorthodox Theology area are there because they do not conform to the site's definition of Christianity, which is the Nicene Creed. Many of them do not accept Jesus as their savior. I'm not going to turn this into an argument as to whether they are Christians or not, but I can tell you that if you give those in Unorthodox Theology equal footing as the regular Christian communities, many Christians will leave this site.

Yes I know. I know that CF's stance is that all believers in Christ will not be given equality.

You summed up this postion very well.

You even told us what the motivations are for this [edit- cant think of another word to mean thinking some Christians are above others in term of their equality here-] thinking, which if I may be so bold as to read between the lines and infer that it boils down to money, as it is well known that advertising revenue is based upon traffic.

I also do not wish to argue.

But in fairness to the folks who seek a site where Christian values include acceptance and compassion and equality for God's children, I have been trying to point out that many of these folks will see the exclusionist format as obviously as I do and find a different forum to call their own.

This really brings up the point of whether this site would prefer to get its traffic from [edit-see above] or from those who accept, love, and value the equality of all Christ's followers.

Financially, I see the catering to elitists as a dead end. There just aren't enough of them to continue the struggles toward prejudice.

The tide of inclusion worldwide, however is picking up steam.

The decision to back the aging bloated horse over the strapping young foal is of course entirely up to the owner/staff of CF.

The discussion of whether exclusionism is better than acceptance is better left to the theologians, I suppose.

I'm thankful to hear you spell out CF's motivations so concisely. Many staffers have stopped short of saying equality for Christ's followers will drive away the members they wish to keep here.

Perhaps there's a new CF slogan in there somewhere . . .

God bless~

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Dean, those who post in the Unorthodox Theology area are there because they do not conform to the site's definition of Christianity, which is the Nicene Creed. Many of them do not accept Jesus as their savior. I'm not going to turn this into an argument as to whether they are Christians or not, but I can tell you that if you give those in Unorthodox Theology equal footing as the regular Christian communities, many Christians will leave this site.

I know, but didn't I just read that Staff has now declared that it is a rule violation to regard one WHO REGARDS HIMSELF as a Christian to be anything otherwise (irrespective of The Nicene Creed)? Thus, while Staff may not be giving the INSTITUTIONS an "equal footing," it seems to ME it's saying that we are to regard as Christians any who regard themselves as Christians giving all individuals equal footing, based on how each views and labels self.

I don't necessarily disagree with that Staff position (if I correctly understand it), but I am curious to see how that gets cranked out by Staff "in real life."



.

 

[Hentenza]

I know, but didn't I just read that Staff has now declared that it is a rule violation to regard one WHO REGARDS HIMSELF as a Christian to be anything otherwise (irrespective of The Nicene Creed)? Thus, while Staff may not be giving the INSTITUTIONS an "equal footing," it seems to ME it's saying that we are to regard as Christians any who regard themselves as Christians giving all individuals equal footing, based on how each views and labels self.

I don't necessarily disagree with that Staff position (if I correctly understand it), but I am curious to see how that gets cranked out by Staff "in real life."



.

IRL, a member chooses their icon from this list. Those that choose a Christian icon can post anywhere while those that choose a non Christian icon can not post in CO forums. Once a person chooses a Christian icon then all posts are moderated by content not by icon.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IRL, a member chooses their icon from

this list. Those that choose a Christian icon can post anywhere while those that choose a non Christian icon can not post in CO forums. Once a person chooses a Christian icon then all posts are moderated by content not by icon.

Thank you!

Just curious how this gets applied by staff.... Let's use LDS as an example here. Mormons regard themselves as Christian, and thus it is necessary that we do since it is now a rule violation to regard one as NOT a Christian if they regard themself as a Christian. But the Mormon icon is in the NON-Christian category. Does that mean that Staff is violating its own rule?

Now, I understand that a Mormon would not be able to post in General Theology (for example) since such as a NON-Christian icon, but we must regard him as Christian, right? If someone posted, "Joseph Smith was not a Christian," that would be flaming and a rule violation now, isn't it? Mormons are not permitted to post in GT because it's for Christians, but we are not permitted to regard them as non-Christians. Is that correct?

I have no "issues" with the policy (I actually see some wisdom in it), I'm just curious how Staff resolves these situations (if it does)? Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the policy (I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed).



.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't appreciate being called a supremacist, Dean. Can you please edit this and remove the insults? You've read in between the lines incorrectly and you've totally twisted what I wrote.

Even the bible says that not all Christians are on equal footing, and the bible also says that many who claim to have known Jesus will be turned away at the door.

So I have not said anything that the bible didn't already say. If you take issue with what I say, take issue with God.

Yes I know. I know that CF's stance is that all believers in Christ will not be given equality.

You summed up this postion very well.

You even told us what the motivations are for this supremacist thinking, which if I may be so bold as to read between the lines and infer that it boils down to money, as it is well known that advertising revenue is based upon traffic.

I also do not wish to argue.

But in fairness to the folks who seek a site where Christian values include acceptance and compassion and equality for God's children, I have been trying to point out that many of these folks will see the exclusionist format as obviously as I do and find a different forum to call their own.

This really brings up the point of whether this site would prefer to get its traffic from supremacists or from those who accept, love, and value the equality of all Christ's followers.

Financially, I see the catering to elitists as a dead end. There just aren't enough of them to continue the struggles toward prejudice.

The tide of inclusion worldwide, however is picking up steam.

The decision to back the aging bloated horse over the strapping young foal is of course entirely up to the owner/staff of CF.

The discussion of whether exclusionism is better than acceptance is better left to the theologians, I suppose.

I'm thankful to hear you spell out CF's motivations so concisely. Many staffers have stopped short of saying equality for Christ's followers will drive away the members they wish to keep here.

Perhaps there's a new CF slogan in there somewhere . . .

God bless~

 

[Criada]

Maybe this isn't the best place for personal arguments

 

[Hentenza]

Thank you!

Just curious how this gets applied by staff.... Let's use LDS as an example here. Mormons regard themselves as Christian, and thus it is necessary that we do since it is now a rule violation to regard one as NOT a Christian if they regard themself as a Christian. But the Mormon icon is in the NON-Christian category. Does that mean that Staff is violating its own rule?


Now, I understand that a Mormon would not be able to post in General Theology (for example) since such as a NON-Christian icon, but we must regard him as Christian, right? If someone posted, "Joseph Smith was not a Christian," that would be flaming and a rule violation now, isn't it? Mormons are not permitted to post in GT because it's for Christians, but we are not permitted to regard them as non-Christians. Is that correct?

I have no "issues" with the policy (I actually see some wisdom in it), I'm just curious how Staff resolves these situations (if it does)? Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the policy (I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed).



.

Self identification is by icon not by voice. In your example, a person carrying a Mormon icon does not have posting permissions in CO forum.

 

[DeanM]

I don't appreciate being called a supremacist, Dean. Can you please edit this and remove the insults? You've read in between the lines incorrectly and you've totally twisted what I wrote.

Even the bible says that not all Christians are on equal footing, and the bible also says that many who claim to have known Jesus will be turned away at the door.

So I have not said anything that the bible didn't already say. If you take issue with what I say, take issue with God.

The offensive word has been edited out of my post, but was never directed at you-

I was refering to a style of thinking used by some of CF's staff, and not the individuals themselves.

Also, I can not think of another word to replace the offending word, as it means exactly how i intended it~

It's based on the word "supreme", which denotes an imbalance of equality, which you yourself brought up in those terms.

It was not intended to offend, but to point out the imbalance of equality.

If you could suggest a more accurate word, i will consider using it.

Also, I do not accept that God places His children on different levels based on their beliefs. His atonement was for all sinners, not just Nicene Christians:

I John 2:2 FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD?
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." "“I John 2:2

The word of our Lord~

 

[CaDan]

I don't appreciate being called a supremacist, Dean. Can you please edit this and remove the insults? You've read in between the lines incorrectly and you've totally twisted what I wrote.

The most baseless charge on the internet, that is.

Any time someone runs the implications of someone else's assumptions out to their logical and inescapable conclusions, the accusation is raised as if it had any weight. Rather than raise a baseless defense, raise a real one.