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

[Uphill Battle]

*sigh*

sorry to cause you to sigh.

 

[[serious]]

no, it doesn't really.

check this out at your leisure, you'll know what I'm talking about.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7382360/#post52271547

Your post has been eaten by a grue.

 

[Tonks]

sorry to cause you to sigh.

i'm merely questioning the logic that occurred while issuing, that is all.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The apology was genuine, regardless your reason for it! I know you don't want to see the infighting.

the logic, however, does not matter. Under the new way of doing things, it will stick.

motives don't matter.

severity doesn't matter.

I'm a hop skip and a petty report button whack away from banishment for it.

guess there has to be a FEW eggs cracked if you're making a new omlette recipie!

thank you, however, for taking a look.

 

[Tonks]

she is back on staff as of this afternoon.

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.

 

[CaDan]

So...those general figures out of the way...when member services review bans they're looking at everything in total. ie: they're not going to lift a ban but leave an infraction...same thing they're not going to remove and infraction but leave a ban. So when an infraction-based ban is appealed...it sort of is a per se review of the infractions which preceded (and led to) the bans. They're looking at the ban in the context of the totality of staff actions which led to the ban...not just the ban itself or the last infraction.

I'll believe it when I see it. Oh, that's right--I won't see it. Staff processes are Sooper Seekrit.

You are a generally trustworthy and honest person. If you were directly running the appeals system, I could have some faith in it. But you are not.

My experience is that RT is too closely tied to the rest of moderation Staff and is unwilling to take action that would upset moderation Staff. You have made some vague statements that RT will be changed to some sort of "member services" organization, but I see that you have posted no specifics about how that will be done. Quite frankly, this indicates to me that you do not have the political power to implement any policy that would change this dynamic.

Prove me wrong. Post the specific changes in the appeals process that will disrupt the dynamic of RT being unwilling to upset moderation Staff.

 

[Tonks]

Prove me wrong. Post the specific changes in the appeals process that will disrupt the dynamic of RT being unwilling to upset moderation Staff.

When they're fleshed out I will, as I stated. For something to chew on in the meantime I'll post the different staff descriptions below.

 

[Tonks]

Positions Description: Admins

• The Admin's role is to administrate their staff and forum areas. You may also work with Advisors on site policies and site issues.

• Admins should no longer be working in the reports (this will be different in Recovery since the team is so small). Admins should rarely be called into reports. If you are being called in on a regular basis, this indicates a problem at the Super/Sr. Mod level. Supers need to be taking on the role Admins currently have with regards to working reports and report related issues. Sometimes only an Admin will be able to make a difficult call, but this should be extremely rare.

• Admins will check the ASA forum on a regular basis to look for new policies, procedures, and announcements. Any new policies or procedures should be taken and discussed with your Supers first, then the rest of staff. Ask questions of the Advisors and fellow Admins to make sure you understand new issues well enough to pass them along to your staff.

• Admins will bring any site issues that surface to the ASA room so you can discuss them with one another and the Advisors.

• Admins will check archived reports regularly to make sure they are worked correctly and without bias. If there are problems you should re-open the report, teach your staff regarding errors, or bring the issues to your Supers.

• Admins are in charge of their staff's discipline. If your Supers notify you there are problems with a Sr. Mod, Mod, or Trainee, you must decide what discipline should occur. Your current choices are: a Letter of Counseling, Letter of Reprimand, or Firing. If you have a problem with a Super they can be also reprimanded, demoted, or fired.

• Admins should mentor all their staff, especially their Supers, so they are able to take over Admin duties when these positions become open.

• Admins should regularly encourage their team through the use of blessings, reps, threads in staff HQ, etc. Be creative in how you bring unity to your team. Hold regular staff meetings on MSN or Yahoo if you can.

• Admins will be in charge of making sure their staff are doing the work they have signed up to do. HR can run mod stats for you at any time. If you have staff that aren't working, PM them to see what's wrong. See if they are having problems or are in need of prayer, etc. If they will not respond, or if there is no problem keeping them from working, they should be dismissed from staff. If they are not voting in reports, or if they never send counseling PMs, warnings, or infractions, they should be dismissed.

• If Supers cannot resolve member or staff complaints, conflicts and issues, they will bring the problem to you for resolution.

• If a Supervisor is on vacation or LOA, Admins will either call in a Super from another team to fill that slot or designate a Sr. Mod to fill the role until the Supervisor returns.
• Work closely with your Supers. Utilize the Admin/Super forum.

• Work to make Supers the go-to people in reports. As said before, if you are constantly being called into reports, this indicates a problem at the Super/Sr. Mod level.

• Keep an eye on your forums to see if there are problems with members or rules that need to be brought up to Advisors

• Admins are no longer just voting members of the team. You are the team leader and team manager. If you have trouble knowing when to discipline staff or how to go about that, or any other questions or problems, Advisors and HR are available to you at all times.

How Admins are evaluated


Advisors will evaluate Admins by looking at several areas:

Leadership

Are Admins willing to take responsibility when their team messes up? Are they willing to be the bad guy/fall guy in front of members if needed? Do they let problems with mods fester and create more problems, or do they take the responsibility of firing/reprimanding them?

When policy changes are made, does the Admin run interference for Jr. Staff, making sure their staff have all the tools they need to enact that policy, keeping the staffers from having to fight for these tools and/or be weighted down by trivial things while they are trying to work reports?

Mentoring

An admin should groom supervisors for possible admin or superadmin functionality should such staff members so desire. An admin whose team members are never prepared to move up is likely not being very effective when it comes to mentoring future leaders.

When an admin notices training deficiencies, do they seek out proactive ways to address such, or just let things slide?

Member Interaction

Admins should be posting out in their forums. They will be evaluated on this, and on the tone and content of their posts to make sure they are following board rules. Admins should set the tone for their team regarding interaction with members. Postings on the forum should be polite and free from flaming. Staff will follow their example. Admins should never flame or be rude to members in PMs or in addressing problems. You can be tough, but should not be insulting. Your staff will follow your tone and the example you set.

Reports

Except in Recovery, Admins should not be participating nor commenting in reports on a regular basis. They should be reviewing archived reports to make sure they were done correctly, but should only very, very rarely post in open reports. If you see a problem with an open report, contact a Super to see if they also see a problem and can steer the staff to the more fair outcome. Archived reports can be used to teach the staff about what went wrong (bad outcome, rude PM to member, letting the member get away with too much in regards to harassing staff, etc). Use archived reports that were a problem as a teaching tool for Supers and all staff. Also used archived reports to point out when the team did a great job, too.

If reports are getting flagged for "Admin Input" too often, this indicates a problem at the hands-on training level and that needs to be addressed. Likely at first with this change, Supers may come to you on a more frequent basis. Teach your Supers well, who will then spread that teaching to your other staff. Ideally only Supers should be marking things "Admin Input",and only if they cannot solve the issue themselves. If staff needs re-training, re-train them. If they need re-training at just the functioning moderator level, send them back to Gazelle. If you need more staff, recruit or have your staff recruit.

 

[Risen Tree]

It probably would have been better if I'd gotten into the weeds a bit more in the beginning on this point. I'm pretty sure that this is "how" it is going to work...but I may be a bit off...I have so many CF related things crammed in my head at the moment that I need a directory or something.

Regarding bans:

1) the 24-48 hour variety haven't been appealable for a while now...generally because we can't marshal people quick enough for review. Plus when we did look at them I'd say that in 99% of the time they were warranted.

2) Same with the 7 day variety based on accumulating 4 active warnings. We looked at these too and in the vast majority of cases the bans were warranted. I'm comfortable with the j-curve when it comes to efficiency vice bureaucratic overhead. I'm, frankly, just being realistic when it comes to addressing the spectrum of possible to perfect.

On to the bigger issue of infraction appeals vs bans (based on infractions) appeals. I would say that an overwhelming number of infractions issued are upheld on appeal. There is an outlier when it comes to successful challenges to infractions which generated a ban. While not substantially increased in number (in the aggregate) I'd venture to guess that the results are, in fact, statistically significant if I bothered to do the math. In this case I'm comfortable with my "back of the envelope" calculations. This, too, drove the decision on where to concentrate our efforts. There are a couple of reasons for the disparity...not the least of which is that the Advisors have overturned bans / infractions when other staff elements have judged them proper.

I just took a list at the total number of users that we have on temporary (ie: not permanent) bans. There are ~30 accounts banned based on infractions...the number of actual users is less as we'll ban any socks that we know of for the same amount of time. There are some other random categories (COPPA compliance, for example...that are set to expire when the user is old enough legally to be on the site w/o parental permission). Of those that are considered appropriate the overwhelming majority are for issues related to harassing another member (ie: not stuff like general flaming etc). I generally review every ban that is appealed (even if I don't comment) and I'm generally comfortable with the outcome...if not we usually overturn if the disagreements are strong enough.

So...those general figures out of the way...when member services review bans they're looking at everything in total. ie: they're not going to lift a ban but leave an infraction...same thing they're not going to remove and infraction but leave a ban. So when an infraction-based ban is appealed...it sort of is a per se review of the infractions which preceded (and led to) the bans. They're looking at the ban in the context of the totality of staff actions which led to the ban...not just the ban itself or the last infraction.

So...it is not as if infractions can never be appealed. It is just that on a singular basis we're disallowing appeals as it really isn't the best use of limited resources...in many cases as the appeal is unsuccessful. Likewise, a full review of everything is appropriate when dealing with a ban. While the success rate is not substantially bigger than a general infraction review...it is significantly bigger.

Which leads to the obvious question: why is there a disaparity? That is where my efforts are concentrated at the moment (as it pertains to infractions / bans).

So...I'm comfortable with the elimination of the individual staff action appeal...essentially because they are still reviewed given the appropriate situation. Frankly, infractions serve as a deterrent from further (what we consider) inappropriate behavior. Based on the evidence they generally work...the likelihood of getting one infraction is actually pretty low (based on the numbers of members that actually have infraction). The likelihood of getting a second prior to the first infraction expiring is even lower...however IF one manages to get a second in quick succession the likeihood of things accelerating to a ban stage is greater...which is why we're concentrating our efforts on that end.

I know that the solution will not make everybody happy. However, given the fact that we're in day 3 of the new normal I'm willing to give the process time in order to build a data set to see if it accomplishing our goals. Likewise, I hope the above disabuses the notion that infractions can never be reviewed...as it is not the case.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all this in such detail. It really helps me see staff's side of this issue. (And it's kinda cool to see all these statistical jargons. )

I can't speak for everyone, but my educated guess is that the biggest worry about losing the ability to appeal infractions won't come from lots of people who would all of a sudden be more likely to be banned. Instead, the perception exists that should a staff member hit one of us with an allegedly unfair warning, we would no longer have the safety net known as the appeals. Even though a ban appeal would now look at everything, which I think is a great idea, we still have the initial infraction issue to worry about.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe you that the actual number of people banned due to infractions is quite low. But that perception, fueled by years of alleged ineffective moderating, are what I think will cause this not to go over well.

 

[Tonks]

Position Description: Supervisors

Supervisor positions are now filled according to the size of each team. Some teams will have more than others. The Supervisor position is taking on more duties.



Supervisors:

• 
  [*]this role is report driven. Supers supervise your team's reports and moderators, help your Admins with whatever tasks they assign, and help Admins with forum related issues

• 
  [*]Supervisors may issue infractions and bans. Supers must also NOT issue these if you feel the team is in error. If you feel an infraction or ban is not warranted, explain to your team why and use the ocassion as a teaching opportunity. Supers may also approve an infraction or ban and a Sr. Mod may carry out the action. Sr. Mods may issue or ok warnings to be issued. In the case of a fourth warning triggering a one-week ban, a Supervisor must approve.

• 
  [*]Supers work with Sr. Mods to make sure reports are being worked correctly and fairly

• 
  [*]Supers mentor Sr. Mods so they become ready to fill Supervisor positions

• 
  [*]Supers should talk often with their Admins in the Super/Admin conference room. We need you to communicate with your Admin regarding problems in reports, problems with staff, issues with members, etc.

• 
  [*]Supers will help guide new mods and should be on the look-out to recruit new staff

• 
  [*]Supervisors will also talk to Sr. Mods, Mods and Trainees about new policies, problems, etc. brought to them by the Admins

• 
  [*]Supers should be a present figure in your forums, encourage Sr. Mods and Mods to do the same and encourage staff participation in CR/staff headquarter threads

• 
  [*]Sr. Mods will bring issues with member conflicts or questions to you. If they can't be solved at the Super level, take the issues to your Admin
  If a Super is on vacation or LOA, Admins will either call in a Super from another team to cover their duties or appoint a Sr. Mod to fulfill the duties until the Super returns.
  
  
  
  All Staff may issue ebans for trolls.
  

 

[Tonks]

Position Description: Senior Mods (Purple Ms)

Senior Mods are designated with a Purple M. Most Purple Ms have been grandfathered in as Sr. Mods. Sr. Mods will have specific duties and we'll have expectations for that role From here on out, Moderators will be assigned to the Sr. Mod role when current Sr. Mods and Supervisors feel you are ready, deserve to be in that spot and will be a great help in that area. Moves to the Sr. Mod category will be approved by your Admins, who will tell HR you need moved to the Sr. Mod category.


Sr. Mods

• 
  [*]are mentors for your mods and trainees. Sr. Mods are mods that have proven they are hard-working and dedicated to their job and team. You should be available to newer mods to answer questions, provide support and help them along

• 
  [*]Sr. Mods are also the go-to mods for Supervisors. Your Supervisors will lean on you to provide guidance in reports, mentor fellow staff and Supers will come to you when they need your help with specific problems or duties

• 
  [*]Sr. Mods will help Supers train new staff when they have passed their mod tests and move on to hands-on training.

• 
  [*]When a Moderator is having a problem with a member, or a member is having an issue, Sr. Mods will be the first in to work on the problem. If it cannot be solved at that level, Sr. Mods will take it to the Supervisors.

• 
  [*]Supervisors will work closely with Sr. Mods so that should Supervisor positions need filled on any team, Sr. Mods can be nominted/moved to those positions
  
• Sr. Mods may issue warnings or sign-off on them for a mod to issue. Supervisors must still review 4th warnings that will trigger the one-week ban.

 

[Tonks]

These will all be added to the FAQ when I have some time to sit down and do it...unlike the rest of the site which is WYSIWYG the FAQ editor is HTML only...and I have a lot of change.

 

[Tonks]

But that perception, fueled by years of alleged ineffective moderating, are what I think will cause this not to go over well.

Likely. That being said I'm content to gather a data set once everything is implemented.

 

[arborvita]

When I click to go into it... it reads me this...

jarrettcpr, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Is work still being done in there or is something wrong or what?

Where and who do I go to get this problem fixed?

- Thanks

Good catch. We have not had the volume since the change and I bet the 50 post minimum is the issue. We have lots of low post members that post questions.

We got it fixed. You should be able to post now.

Thanks Gents.

 

[Risen Tree]

Likely. That being said I'm content to gather a data set once everything is implemented.

Cool. Well, best of luck then. Maybe once the dust settles, all will turn OK in the end.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'll believe it when I see it. Oh, that's right--I won't see it. Staff processes are Sooper Seekrit.

You are a generally trustworthy and honest person. If you were directly running the appeals system, I could have some faith in it. But you are not.

My experience is that RT is too closely tied to the rest of moderation Staff and is unwilling to take action that would upset moderation Staff. You have made some vague statements that RT will be changed to some sort of "member services" organization, but I see that you have posted no specifics about how that will be done. Quite frankly, this indicates to me that you do not have the political power to implement any policy that would change this dynamic.

Prove me wrong. Post the specific changes in the appeals process that will disrupt the dynamic of RT being unwilling to upset moderation Staff.

add to that fact, that infractions are cumulative... therefore, you can never argue if they infract you up TO the point of ban... you can only argue the ban itself, and with it, the infraction that pushes you "over the cliff."

since staff use previous infractions as basis for action, I fail to see how that is remotely equitable.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

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.

1. So, there ARE still FSG - at least for the Congregational forums.

2. This wording is EXCELLENT and historic for CF. It would (and for years did) work well IF it is applied according to the wording. I'm certain the "troubles" I've had in OBOB would have been avoided if this had been the FSG there. Of course, some of the problem for Staff comes in the word "debate." Staff has tended of late to interpret such creatively of late. IMHO, "debate" means to give a counter argument with the purpose of persuasion and/or conversion. Especially difficult has been the FSG disallowing a "teaching" since, of course, merely posting one's name means a rule violation if Staff so desires to rule: It was decided recently, for example, that merely corrrecting a FACTUAL mistatement about Protestants that is NOT held or taught by the CC in OBOB is a rule violation against teaching AND also debating since, while factually correct and not in any sense at varience with the Catholic faith or Catechism or against such, it is, nonetheless, a teaching - even if factually correct and helpful, and debative even though there was obviously no desire to change anyone's faith/doctrine about anything - simply to correct an objective, factual error. Staff needs to drop the "teach" rule and find a better word than "debate" but otherwise, the historic position of CF is a good one.

The FSG of ONE faith community forum should be no different than all the others. BTW, you do know that the Lutheran forums DOES allow - even encourages - debate (as I was once a mod there). It permits disagreement, teaching, correcting. Always has. At least from my limited (and how ancient history) experience, the issue was almost entirely over ONE faith community - the others were all much less "protective." Perhaps that's changed.

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>

This, IMHO, is much more problematic than the current position. First of all, some faith forums DO allow teaching and debating. Secondly, what does it mean to "debate?" This has been interpreted rather creatively of late. Thirdly, "teach AGAINST" is a VAST improvement over the current rule in OBOB against "teaching" period. But, again, if a Catholic posted: "Luther was born in England" in OBOB and a Lutheran posted, "Actually, he was born in what is today Germany" that would be a rule violation (I KNOW) and result in an infraction because it's teaching. But, is the "teaching AGAINST" mean teaching AGAINST the denomination's official doctrines or teaching against a poster who is associated with that denomination? And does "against" mean to disagree or does it have some stronger meaning? What if one says, "this is how I see it...." and what follows is not the exact verbatim wording of the latest edition of the Catholic Catechism, would that be "against" or would it be an expression of faith?

Frankly, I think the orginal wording is much clearer and better. This wording leaves things very fuzzy and open to a wide range of possible interpretations.

​

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.

MY advise is as allows....


1. KISS. Posters should not be expected to read 50 pages of legalize, click on a link in it to another page of such then on a link there for another page of such to find what Staff is using as a basis for a violation. Make it one sentence. Use terms generally understood (for example, "debate" generally means to present an opposing position, a counter arguement, with the purpose of converting the person; it does not mean to disagree or present another view).


2. Drop the "teach" word. We at CF should WELCOME learning - not make it a rule violation. Many of us come here to learn and we WANT people to teach us.


3. Drop all mention of "proselytizing." This implies INTENT. How in the world can Staff possibly know the INTENT of a poster? ALL STAFF KNOWS IS THE WORDS ON THE PAGE. IT IS CALL STAFF CAN KNOW!!! Staff should not presume to know what a poster INTENDS - nor should they be asked to "read" someone's heart rather than the words. Now, certainly, Staff can ASK (something Staff almost never does) but unless it specifically ASKS the poster what he/she MEANT or INTENDED, then Staff should not assume to "know" to the extent of basis an infaction on such (now unappealable - so if Staff is wrong, they'll never know and the injustice will be permentant). Look, a poster may share his heart. I MAY be swayed by that. Does that mean the poster's DESIRE was to take me away from Lutheranism and convert me? Not necessarily..... IMHO, this is just one example of SLOPPY guidelines just begging for misuse and injustice and offense by Staff that is simply trying to do their job IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES (ie, it's the RULES fault, not the Staff). Give the posters and the Staff CLEAR, universal, short and simple rules - and ask Staff to arbitrate on the basis of what was posted, not what Staff is guessing might be "implied" or "intended" (unless Staff specifically asks the poster).


4. IMHO, the "safe haven" and "wall of protection from Protestants" thing has just gotten out of hand and is being taken far too extremely. This is an ecumenical website. The purpose is to bring us together, to honestly and openly discuss our faith and the issues that unite and divide us. IMHO, Lutherans whose desire is to fellowship exclusively with other Lutherans and to not have Lutheranism in any sense disagreed with should go to one of the dozens of Lutheran websites that exist for that purpose. But, the decision was made to have these congregational sites and I am not opposed to them (and I post in mine). But I think a decision needs to be made. IF a "wall of separation" (as the OBOB Catholic staffers referred to it) is needed around one or more of the congregation forums, then it might make sense to simply bar non-Catholics from posting there. You know, I was very active in the Catholic Church for some 5 years, studied all that time under 3 Catholic teachers - and I never experience ANY "violations" by asking questions, sharing my views, etc. But such is obviously and intensively a problem here at CF. So, maybe the best approach is to simply make it a Catholic forum. OR realize that IN AN ECUMENICAL, INTERDENOMINATIONAL Website, one might find Christians that do not absolutely agree with every one of the 2,865 paragraphs of the latest edition of the Catholic Catechism in accord with the current interpretation and application of the Magisterium of our time and that what is needed is not a "wall of separation" or "safe haven" but RESPECT. I don't go to a Baptist church with the goal of converting them to Lutheranism - I AM A GUEST in THEIR church, and I ALWAYS go to the Congregational forums here at CF with that heart (my theology permits such, of course, it's a bit more problematic for some others). I think, since the inception of these Congregational Forums, CF has TRIED to do the later - but new fsg keep getting added primarily for the sake of one of the congregational forums, Staff keeps changing how it "enforces" those fsg, it gets to where in essense it IS closed - then we start all over again. Either just close them OR realize that disagreement is not the same as hate or debate or proselytizing. The Lutheran forum has ALWAYS allowed debate, disagreement, questions, teachings - and yet I think it "works" as a congregational forum (LOL, as a former mod there, the "problems" there have been Lutherans discussing with Lutherans - NOT nonlutherans debating or teaching or disagreeing or proselyting). Several of the forums have this tradition, perhaps it IS workable in all of them. Frankly, I think that a couple of the faith community forums here at CF simply need to step back and cease trying to make CF about protecting their denomination. The "safe haven" thing has been taken too far and is causing too many problems - probably impossible to "solve" to their satifaction without simply making their forum closed to all others.


5. An option I've been suggesting for nearly 4 years is for the congregational forums THAT FEEL THE NEED FOR IT to be allowed to have a "closed" section. Frankly, I'd regard this as SAD and unfortunate and counter to the goals of CF, but if that's what they totally feel they NEED - then perhaps we need to acknowledge that need? The main forum would be open to all - with no flaming allowed and not as a debate forum. An Anglican would be allowed to post, "this is how Anglicans see that...." etc. A Baptist would be allowed to quote a Scripture and ask, "but what about this verse?" But those Catholics who feel the need for a "wall of separation from Protestants" and who desire to not know what the other half of Christianity thinks/feels/believes on a topic, may post in the "closed" section. There would be no "fsg" OF ANY NATURE in the open one, none needed in the closed since it would be understoood that unless one's faith icon is for that group, they are not permitted. Pretty simple.


6. Stop changing things. Please. When I was on staff, I spent an absurd amount of time just trying to keep up with all the constant changes in rules, protocol, etc., etc., etc., etc. If Staff can't keep up with it all, how do you expect posters to? I've never been a part of any website with more rules, more laws, more guidelines - very finely tuned and interpreted in widely diverse ways - constantly changing. I realize that's your job and it is the view of all of us that what we NOW have is broke, but I really hope the goal is to come up with something SIMPLY and SHORT that fits with the goal of bringing together all Christians in followship and discussion. Friend, SOME (a tiny percentage, IMHO) want what CF was never intended to be. And, IMHO, the moves to change CF are part of what is causing it to so quickly faulter and decline. Let us fellowship. Let us talk. AS CHRISTIANS. Respectfully agreeing and disagreeing and HOPEFULLY growing and learning because of each other. Otherwise, there's no reason to be here. Other sites are much better in the alternatives.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

add to that fact, that infractions are cumulative... therefore, you can never argue if they infract you up TO the point of ban... you can only argue the ban itself, and with it, the infraction that pushes you "over the cliff."

since staff use previous infractions as basis for action, I fail to see how that is remotely equitable.

You also have about 20 seconds to say goodbye to others from the moment the ban notice is given

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What I would like to ask is why give a whole site ban to someone instead of a FSB?

Let's say I am posting on the GT board and I unintentionally "flame" a poster and get reported. Why not just issue a ban from that particular board?
Now if a member is constantly doing that on other boards, then I can see a reason to do a site ban. Any thoughts on this? God bless

 

[Uphill Battle]

that seems too labor intensive, LLOJ.

It's far easier just to turf the troublemakers.