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

[Tonks]

Will the Congregation-Wide Guideliens stay put, as-is? With the SoF and the CWG still in place, I have no objections. My only concern in the integrity of the "safe haven" rule.

In a manner of speaking. The TAW ones are a model of brevity, frankly.

I think that it is a process of strengthening the overall site rule regarding the congregational areas while paring down some of the absurdly long FSGs.

I guess I just don't hold the opinion that I've got to die on every hill with every post I make. It is that sort of stuff that drives me bonkers.

 

[Protoevangel]

Will the Congregation-Wide Guideliens stay put, as-is? With the SoF and the CWG still in place, I have no objections. My only concern in the integrity of the "safe haven" rule.

In a manner of speaking. The TAW ones are a model of brevity, frankly.

I think that it is a process of strengthening the overall site rule regarding the congregational areas while paring down some of the absurdly long FSGs.

I guess I just don't hold the opinion that I've got to die on every hill with every post I make. It is that sort of stuff that drives me bonkers.

Thanks for the reply, Tonks.

Please forgive me, I am not quite sure what "In a manner of speaking." means in regards to my question , "Will the Congregation-Wide Guideliens stay put, as-is?". Can you help me understand? Thanks!

Maybe I should ask an additional question: How will this affect the safe haven rule?

 

[SharonL]

In all the re-working of the forum - I would only hope that something could be looked at again. The release of one of the mods here did a lot of damage to the forum - to see the way that a Christian spent many years, many hours and had her whole heart into the forum treated in the way that she was treated took a lot of wind out of the sales here - was not done in a Christian way whatsoever.

I am speaking of Flaglady - a true Christian with the heart for everyone she met - she put her whole heart and soul into this forum and her treatment lacked much as to 'do unto others'

 

[Rochir]

This is fine as long as we are all clear what is allowed and what is not.

I have found to my cost that if any denomination other than my own decides to regard even the friendliest of interchanges as 'non fellowship', or as 'debating their denomination', then I end up with warnings. They use these 'rules' as a way of keeping strangers out.

Ditto if someone else decides that what I post is blasphemous. I had a very meaningful, very loving prayer thread in WWMC closed because some troll decided to disrupt it, and accuse me of blasphemy, and it is still closed. This is not acceptable.

This gets so tiresome that the only solution is a) not to ever venture out of one's own home areas, and b) post only about the weather.

Surely that is not what this forum is intended for?

Yuppers!

 

[Tonks]

Thanks for the reply, Tonks.

Please forgive me, I am not quite sure what "In a manner of speaking." means in regards to my question , "Will the Congregation-Wide Guideliens stay put, as-is?". Can you help me understand? Thanks!

Maybe I should ask an additional question: How will this affect the safe haven rule?

Yeah, I suppose I wasn't terribly clear. The "safe haven" rule won't be changed in any negative (ie: making it weaker) way.

There are a few issues at play, I think. One, I find the current site-wide rule a bit weak when it comes to the congregational areas:

Congregation Forums
Forum members who are not a member of that denomination may not debate in that denomination's area. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.

I think that it can be rewritten a bit better...I think that area of the site is one of the more unique areas of CF and I'd sooner delete my own account before those areas went away. I have access to all the rules since the site started to I'm combing through those as a starting point.

Two, developing a standard template is going to be one of the first duties of the new Admin cadre, I think. I simply don't have the bandwidth to do everything and nor do I want to. And, per above, my preference is to get input from the individuals (ie: denominations) that will be affected. Likewise, I'm a big fan of the "we believe" vice "you cannot talk about this." I just like things to look standardized so everyone is a) on the same page and 2) people know where to get information.

I'll caveat the next bit by stating that the examples below are pre-decisional courses of action...the format isn't final...we know what we're going to do...we're just in the sasusage making stage at the moment.

Something like this is under consideration:

All posts within this faith group/faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (link). In addition, if you are not a member of this denomation or faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against this denomination's theology. You may post in fellowship. To learn more about what we believe please see: <link to whatever>

I also like the brevity of the Messianic Judaism forum statement of faith:

Messianic Judaism Statement of Faith*

1. Yeshua is Messiah.
2. Main Stream Messianic Judaism affirms the Trinitarian nature of God.
3. Messianic Believers are Jews and Gentiles who have embraced Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel (Redeemer of the World).
4. Messianic Believers incorporate, affirm, and preserve the Jewish identity, Jewish customs, and Jewish style of worship, as they seek to be a light to the Jew first, then to the Nations .

*This SOF is abbreviated for CF congregational area purposes and is not intended to be read as a full MJ SOF.
See MJAA and UMJC for a full MJ SOF, and for the basic Messianic POV.

Some of the things (staffing changes etc) are occurring tomorrow night. The FSG thing, in particular, was announced to staff a month or two ago but has been overtaken by other issues (see the OP...lol).

I know that the above examples don't cover things such as debate forums (like TAW has)...we're simply not that far along in the thought process. The above is indicative of our thought process on how to translate "We believe X, Y, Z" into information for members vice creating specific, actionable rules for each forum...which causes problems.

If that didn't answer the question let me know...and I'll try to reattack.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*......http://www.christianforums.com/t7381483-2/#post52241388
The same suggestions I have been making here and there since GA was destroyed: there is a strong desire among both Christians and agnostics/atheists for some place where we can discuss theology and apologetics and Christian history on a relatively even footing. Provide one..........

Greetings. I also was saddened to see the GA board get wiped off CF.

I now post more on the General Theology board but it really is not the same as when we had the GA board.

And besides, it was while on the GA board I got put on the "Top Fundy Award" list at FSTDT

http://www.christianforums.com/t7350852/
GT Fundies. Who are they?

 

[CaDan]

I have this incredible feeling of deja vu!



More seriously: How does this differ from the reforms of 2006?

 

[pgp_protector]

I have this incredible feeling of deja vu!



More seriously: How does this differ from the reforms of 2006?

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Tonks]

I have this incredible feeling of deja vu!



More seriously: How does this differ from the reforms of 2006?

They are, admittedly, similar...without the nasty Catholic / Protestant bloodletting. I think (hope) in the implementation they'll be somewhat different as I think the goals are different.

On a more macro level the impetus was dissatisfaction with staff operations. On a secondary level I'm tired of viewing stuff in the "contact us" box which generally states: i like your forum but i really can't stand the one or two people that simply drive people away from forums because of their jerkish attitudes. Lastly, as I mentioned in the OP I think a lot of the previously monkeying around with the board after the "777 reforms" died a slow, painful death...we were pretending that CF was what it once was...and it was / is not. So, we're normalizing to the mean. lol.

As I noted...I'm weary, oh so weary, of the "i'm going to die on this hilltop" type of posting with every single post.

So that is the long and short of it, I think.

 

[MariaRegina]

As I noted...I'm weary, oh so weary, of the "i'm going to die on this hilltop" type of posting with every single post.

So that is the long and short of it, I think.

Tonks, could you please explain the "i'm going to die on this hilltop" type of post?

I do not want to add to your weariness.

 

[drstevej]

I have this incredible feeling of deja vu!



More seriously: How does this differ from the reforms of 2006?

The Appeals process is significantly different.

 

[Protoevangel]

Yeah, I suppose I wasn't terribly clear. The "safe haven" rule won't be changed in any negative (ie: making it weaker) way.

There are a few issues at play, I think. One, I find the current site-wide rule a bit weak when it comes to the congregational areas:



I think that it can be rewritten a bit better...I think that area of the site is one of the more unique areas of CF and I'd sooner delete my own account before those areas went away. I have access to all the rules since the site started to I'm combing through those as a starting point.

Two, developing a standard template is going to be one of the first duties of the new Admin cadre, I think. I simply don't have the bandwidth to do everything and nor do I want to. And, per above, my preference is to get input from the individuals (ie: denominations) that will be affected. Likewise, I'm a big fan of the "we believe" vice "you cannot talk about this." I just like things to look standardized so everyone is a) on the same page and 2) people know where to get information.

I'll caveat the next bit by stating that the examples below are pre-decisional courses of action...the format isn't final...we know what we're going to do...we're just in the sasusage making stage at the moment.

Something like this is under consideration:



I also like the brevity of the Messianic Judaism forum statement of faith:



Some of the things (staffing changes etc) are occurring tomorrow night. The FSG thing, in particular, was announced to staff a month or two ago but has been overtaken by other issues (see the OP...lol).

I know that the above examples don't cover things such as debate forums (like TAW has)...we're simply not that far along in the thought process. The above is indicative of our thought process on how to translate "We believe X, Y, Z" into information for members vice creating specific, actionable rules for each forum...which causes problems.

If that didn't answer the question let me know...and I'll try to reattack.

Thank you Tonks, this answered my question abundantly.

Thanks!

 

[psalms 91]

In all the re-working of the forum - I would only hope that something could be looked at again. The release of one of the mods here did a lot of damage to the forum - to see the way that a Christian spent many years, many hours and had her whole heart into the forum treated in the way that she was treated took a lot of wind out of the sales here - was not done in a Christian way whatsoever.

I am speaking of Flaglady - a true Christian with the heart for everyone she met - she put her whole heart and soul into this forum and her treatment lacked much as to 'do unto others'

Totally agree with this post. Perhaps this could be addressed as well.

 

[BelindaP]

Is there any chance that the GA forums could be unhidden, even if they are no longer open for posting? They are a good reference.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

A lot of good CF folks that I used to correspond with are now agnostic and atheists, and people have to ask why? CF should be drawing people toward Christ and not away from Him.

After a decade or more of participating in various online fora, I think I'd say that this supposed "deconversion" phenomenon occurs anywhere Xians engage in serious discussions and debates.

 

[NorrinRadd]

About the "safe havens" -- We don't have to pick just one, do we? My belief system fits Conservative, Fundamentalist, Moderate, Spirit-Filled, Charismatic, probably Pentecostal, and maybe a few others. I enjoy participating in all those venues (though to imply that anyone really does any active "participating" in the Moderate/Bridge-Builders area may be stretching things ).

Also -- and I think this may have been touched on a bit, but I'm not sure -- will anything be done in the way of "standardizing" debate rules among the various "safe havens"? E.g., in the Conservative area, debate *among Conservatives* is allowed anywhere, but NON-Conservatives can debate only in the Debate subforum; however, in Spirit-Filled, *no one* may debate in the "main" forum, but only in the subforums, and then only according to the specific FSGs of the subforums.

 

[scraparcs]

Here's some historic information on the closure of GA:

The announcement - http://www.christianforums.com/t7301372/

Take note that the vision referenced in the announcement has been superseded and the new vision is here - http://www.christianforums.com/t7378122/

 

[scraparcs]

After a decade or more of participating in various online fora, I think I'd say that this supposed "deconversion" phenomenon occurs anywhere Xians engage in serious discussions and debates.

What has generally been your experience with this?

 

[[serious]]

God grant you many years, Tonks.

I agree with Catherineanne and you. Ethnocentrism and parochial religiosity do not build up the Body of Christ, but only divide it. There is only one Faith, one Baptism, one Lord, Jesus Christ.

A lot of good CF folks that I used to correspond with are now agnostic and atheists, and people have to ask why? CF should be drawing people toward Christ and not away from Him.

I think the issue here is that some are so concerned about a gust of wind blowing out their candle that they have decided all candles must be sheltered by bushels.

Closing GA solved nothing. We now see the debate merely shifted to other forums and marginally different topics. sure, we can chase our tails until atheists can only talk about the weather, but even then there will be challenges to the possibility of a world wide flood. censorship of ideas, whether in closings like GA or individual removal of "dangerous ideas" leads to nothing but a rousing game of whack-a-mole

 

[MariaRegina]

I think the issue here is that some are so concerned about a gust of wind blowing out their candle that they have decided all candles must be sheltered by bushels.

In some faith/congregational forums, the members look at the faith icon of a newcomer and assume the worst before the newcomer has a chance to really post anything meaningful, or judge the person for what they sense is sarcasm when it is not.

Closing GA solved nothing. We now see the debate merely shifted to other forums and marginally different topics. sure, we can chase our tails until atheists can only talk about the weather, but even then there will be challenges to the possibility of a world wide flood. censorship of ideas, whether in closings like GA or individual removal of "dangerous ideas" leads to nothing but a rousing game of whack-a-mole

I was not talking about GA. I had quite forgotten about those forums as they have been out of sight, out of mind for a long time now. However, viewing what goes on in the faith or congregational areas is enough to cause some people to question Christianity. And what really caught my attention is the number of former CF mods who have lost their faith. They are the ones in the crossfire of the congregational debates and get all the venom.