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

[PreachersWife2004]

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.

No, it's not the most baseless charge on the internet. It's not logical to assume that the site is built on supremacy, especially based on what I wrote. Go to any non-Christian forum and see how much "front play" Christians get. Go to an LDS forum and see how much exposure non-Mormons receive. It's not like CF is some anomaly in the web world.

I don't care what icon someone is holding - if they post something against the SoF here, it's a violation. The thing about Unorthodox Theology is that it gives those who don't adhere to the SoF a chance to talk about their beliefs without getting actioned for them. It allows for people who may not believe in the Trinity or other "mainstream" Christian ideas that this site uses to define Christianity the opportunity to ask questions. But it's called Unorthodox for a reason - because it runs counter to Orthodox Christianity. And that's just a fact - that's not even something CF made up out of the blue.

And that's pretty much the end of the story because we've been told there will be no changes to that particular area.

So back on topic - I have to say that so far the new mod teams are working pretty good. I miss my admins, but they are doing great jobs where they're at and my new admin is pretty terrific too.

 

[A New Dawn]

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.

<snip>

.

I agree with this. I have always felt that CF needs just a "General Discussions" type of forum. There are many places where one can go to discuss forum specific things, but not a place that one can go to discuss anything. The plus to a General Discussions forum is that once you get to know everybody, you are discussing any and all issues brought up with the same people, whereas now you have to get to know different groups of people for different topics. In many ways, that cuts down on how much a person explores different places on the board.

As far as the point that forums like Unorthodox Theology are hard to find, I'm not sure how you think that can be resolved. The LDS forum is, in actuality, only 3 forums down. Theology (which shows up on the main page) > Unorthodox Theology (which also shows up on the main page) > LDS. (I'd also like to point out that the LDS (as well as the JW and the non-Trinitarians) have a fellowship subforum in UTD, as subforums of the UTD Fellowship Forum.) The only way to make things more easily found would be to jettison a few hundred forums.

 

[A New Dawn]

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).



.

The icon and the flaming rule really speak to two different issues. The icon speaks to one's theology and how it conforms to the SoF. Does it agree with it, or does it contradict it in one or more ways? The flaming rule speaks to, well, flaming. If someone self-identifies as a Christian, despite what their theology states, then it is considered flaming to tell that person that they are not a Christian. One cannot see into the heart of another to know their standing with God, and that is what the flaming rule addresses.

 

[A New Dawn]

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.

This is not true in the least. Just because one person might see a possible implication from another's statement, that does not mean that that was an intended implication. It is a supposition, nothing more, and to state that there might only be one "logical and inescapable conclusion" to someones comments, then you are basically stating you know someone else's motive for making those comments. Unfortunately (or fortunately (depends on your perspective)), you are usually wrong.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

This is not true in the least. Just because one person might see a possible implication from another's statement, that does not mean that that was an intended implication. It is a supposition, nothing more, and to state that there might only be one "logical and inescapable conclusion" to someones comments, then you are basically stating you know someone else's motive for making those comments. Unfortunately (or fortunately (depends on your perspective)), you are usually wrong.

I have no desire to get into this subdiscussion, but, from my perspective, it was/is (?) common for Staff to assume that their interpretation of the post is correct - and to act accordingly, very rarely checking that out by asking the poster what he/she means. The rubric has often been, "how MIGHT this be READ?" rather than "What is posted?" I'm not evaluating the wisdom of that rubric, just noting it's what has often been done (right or wrong), in my experience.

I'm NOT in ANY sense being critical of a staff action or any staff or any fsg, but I recently got into a little bit of trouble because some Staff thought that something I posted was IMPLYING something they believed COULD be seen as offensive. All admitted I did't post such, but some thought I was IMPLYING such. This in spite of the fact that I actually stated the exact opposite and when a poster misunderstood, I noted that that was NOT what I meant, so staff KNEW I didn't mean that, it was so publicly stated in the thread. Nonetheless, I was determined to be in violation because it COULD be viewed (incorrectly, they realized) that I was IMPLYING something by words I didn't post and in conflict to words I did post. My point is this: It IS (or was as of a few months ago) Staff practice to rule on the basis of IMPLICATIONS that Staff sees as possible, even when Staff knows that was NOT the intent of the poster and that such was not stated in the post, only a possible "implication" (albeit, an incorrect one - it realized). And in many cases, it doesn't know if the possible implication was intended or not simply because they never asked. Again, I'm NOT judging that rubric or "complaining" at all, about the polity or Staff action or this particular staff action toward me - I am ONLY noting what IS actually done at CF, as I've experience such both from the 'inside' as a Staff (although a LONG time ago) and from the "outside" as a poster (including recently). I've actually had a few instances of that over some years and various teams (mostly appealed and overturned; I understand such appeals are no longer permitted), so I know it to not be a single case or with a single group of Staffers or under a certain set of guidelines - it seems quite universal. It HAS BEEN the case that rulings were made on the basis of what was NOT stated but what Staff felt could be IMPLIED - even when Staff actually knew such was not implied. I think in many cases, Staff doesn't know what was "implied" because they never inquired, they assumed. Again, I'm NOT evaluating that rubric as good or bad, that's not my role, I'm just noting that it has been the de facto practice for several years. And I know that from personal experience - both as a Staffer and as a poster, from both "inside" and "outside."

As I've stated, I have a HUGE respect for Staff (especially those mods working those Reports) and I KNOW the overwhelming majority are committed to being fair, evangelical and just. And I think overwhelmingly are just that. I do NOT want anything I say to take away from my esteem and appreciation for them! Having been on that side of things, I KNOW it's not easy and some situations are not "clear cut." I know that. I think Staff generally does excellent work for which the Admins should be grateful. But I think they do as they are directed and believe they are suppose to do. And, I suspect, they believe they ARE to rule also on the basis of what they beleive COULD be seen as IMPLIED - even if such would be in conflict with what is stated by the poster and/or if such is without posted basis. Whether such IS implied seems moot (even IF "implied" should be a basis for a ruling). Rulings are NOT always limited to what is posted as MY experience, over some years, strongly indicates. It's up to upper Staff to determine if this is a good or poor rubric - NOT ME. I'm but a lowly poster with no voice and with the responsibility to follow the rules and submit to Staff (and I do - to the best of my ability and without complaint). I'm simply noting what I've experienced to be true. Perhaps I'm in error, in which case, disregard my words here.


My thanks to Tonks and all the Admins for their dedicated, evangelical, HARD work in ministry to CF and to us. I appreciate it greatly.


Pax!


- Josiah

.

 

[DeanM]

Deleted By Staff

 

[drstevej]

Can personal disagreements be taken to PM. The thread is getting derailed, IMO.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The icon and the flaming rule really speak to two different issues. The icon speaks to one's theology and how it conforms to the SoF. Does it agree with it, or does it contradict it in one or more ways? The flaming rule speaks to, well, flaming. If someone self-identifies as a Christian, despite what their theology states, then it is considered flaming to tell that person that they are not a Christian. One cannot see into the heart of another to know their standing with God, and that is what the flaming rule addresses.

Thank you for your helpful and articulate explanation. As I suspected, the two things are simply kept separate.

Thanks again.



.

 

[Hentenza]

To all,

This thread is ONLY for discussing ideas and suggestions based on the OP. Please stop the private discussions and accusations. Thanks.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

No Other Gospel

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel&#8212; 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! 10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.


Galations 1:6-10

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greetings. On the old CF when one was banned, they could still log on and appeal/ talk to Admins/Mods on a board for that purpose.
Can that still be done with the new CF, as I didn't try and do it the 2nd time I got banned.

 

[Hentenza]

Greetings. On the old CF when one was banned, they could still log on and appeal/ talk to Admins/Mods on a board for that purpose.
Can that still be done with the new CF, as I didn't try and do it the 2nd time I got banned.

When someone is banned they have access to the Suggestion/Complaint box forum where they can start a thread to appeal their ban. The membership services team (former RT) is charged with hearing the appeal and they can involve the team admins that issued the ban and/or the advisors.

 

[CaDan]

When someone is banned they have access to the Suggestion/Complaint box forum where they can start a thread to appeal their ban. The membership services team (former RT) is charged with hearing the appeal and they can involve the team admins that issued the ban and/or the advisors.

Yes.

I have seen nothing so far, however, indicating MST will be sufficiently independent of moderation Staff to do any good. Joel, Crow, and Servo could joke around, but they still had to show up for Movie Sign when Dr. Forrester chose.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes.

I have seen nothing so far, however, indicating MST will be sufficiently independent of moderation Staff to do any good. Joel, Crow, and Servo could joke around, but they still had to show up for Movie Sign when Dr. Forrester chose.

MST is fully independent of staff. Their discussions are conducted in a forum that is not visible to staff. They will get staff involved only when necessary and/or by the member's request.

 

[CaDan]

MST is fully independent of staff. Their discussions are conducted in a forum that is not visible to staff. They will get staff involved only when necessary and/or by the member's request.

Your conclusion (stated first) does not follow from your premises (second two sentences).

Back when this site had ombudsmen, Staff complained incessantly about them

 

[CaDan]

So, one of my original concerns has been dodged for a few pages and days here.

Will those banned by the Advisors have access to the new and improved MST or not?

 

[Hentenza]

Steve, I didn't make a premise nor did I stated a conclusion. My answer to you is merely a statement of fact on how the MST operates.

If staff has a complaint (any complaint) they have their own complaint forum in which to post it.

 

[Hentenza]

So, one of my original concerns has been dodged for a few pages and days here.

Will those banned by the Advisors have access to the new and improved MST or not?

Not in the same sense that a regular ban would be. They can start a thread in the s/c box and the MST will let the advisors know. The advisors will then discuss the ban with the member but the decision is ultimately the advisors to make.

 

[drstevej]

Back when this site had ombudsmen, Staff complained incessantly about them

Their mileage varied as I recall.

 

[CaDan]

Steve, I didn't make a premise nor did I stated a conclusion. My answer to you is merely a statement of fact on how the MST operates.

Review Toulmin's The Uses of Argument.