Christian Forums Under New Management

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Report-wise I would say close them.

Leave things open if we can eliminate the venom, the attacks and the general disrespect.

But all in all reports are not these big secret things. They function much the same as they used to except now people can anonymously attack others and create ill will in a different way.

I just don't see how open reports work on a site this size in a practical way. Does anyone know of a site this large that does open reports? Honest question there. This is a large site with debate areas and divisive issues being discussed. Is there any other site of that nature this size that uses open reports.

I am not saying what everyone does is right for everyone else. But usually if bunches of disconnected people do things the same way...it is because it works.

So unless the venom can be eliminated....or there are rules to prevent:

1. Abuse in report threads (toward the mod as well as the poster)
2. Filibuster of threads

I vote to close them. Really, it is not that there is anything to hide...just a practical issue of getting the work done. Appoint an oversight team to work with the Reconciliation team if there is a large faction that does not trust people. But it just seems that open reports do not work. Of course with better rules...that may make a difference.

The problem with that is that we are then to simply trust that the mods are making the correct action, and aren't inserting their own personal bias. Open reports were implemented for a reason. It wasn't like, "hey let's try this... maybe it will be fun". There was a problem with mods being biased, and this was the solution for that.

Before we take away the solution, are we sure that the problem has been fixed?

 

[KarrieTex]

Yes, well, it didn't work that way. You weren't here for those times. I"m quite bitter about those times, because there was a lot of using mod powers to silence differing opinions, which is pretty bad, because this is as much my site as it is yours. I know a lot of people think that the point of this site is for glorifying God, but for a great many other people, this is one of the best debate sites on the internet, with a wide-range of beliefs to keep us interested, and I do think that that creates a sort of problem.

Two things....

Mods are still doing it. At least the ones who are going to do it.

This is a Christian site and needs to foremost meet the needs of the Body of Christ.

 

[Davidnic]

The problem with that is that we are then to simply trust that the mods are making the correct action, and aren't inserting their own personal bias. Open reports were implemented for a reason. It wasn't like, "hey let's try this... maybe it will be fun". There was a problem with mods being biased, and this was the solution for that.

Before we take away the solution, are we sure that the problem has been fixed?

There will always be a bias problem, and not just with mods. The thing is, it might have been a problem in some sections and not others. But the open reports are, in my opinion, not helping by creating venom and greater ill will. That needs to be fixed.

Now it could be that the mods had no power to really enforce rule or much in the way of rules since July. That made many open reports either attack mod fests or a continuation of the reasons for the report to begin with.

If reports stay open there will need to be major changes to how that works. Because the current system is more flawed, in my opinion, than what was before.

And I honestly wonder if anyone knows of large boards that deal with divisive issues that have open reports. I know of a few, but those reports are closed.

If anyone knows of a few with open ones, maybe there is something about how they do it that can give insight.

Lee owns a bunch of large boards. I am sure his decision will be informed by that practical experience in this matter as well as both methods are tried here before.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Two things....

Mods are still doing it. At least the ones who are going to do it.

This is a Christian site and needs to foremost meet the needs of the Body of Christ.

Mods are still doing it, but they need a majority to do it (at least in the D&D forum... the rest of the site may act differently, I really don't know), and at least in the D&D forum, there has been no problems that I have seen. The system seems to work great.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

There will always be a bias problem, and not just with mods. The thing is, it might have been a problem in some sections and not others. But the open reports are, in my opinion, not helping by creating venom and greater ill will. That needs to be fixed.

Now it could be that the mods had no power to really enforce rule or much in the way of rules since July. That made many open reports either attack mod fests or a continuation of the reasons for the report to begin with.

If reports stay open there will need to be major changes to how that works. Because the current system is more flawed, in my opinion, than what was before.

And I honestly wonder if anyone knows of large boards that deal with divisive issues that have open reports. I know of a few, but those reports are closed.

If anyone knows of a few with open ones, maybe there is something about how they do it that can give insight.

Lee owns a bunch of large boards. I am sure his decision will be informed by that practical experience in this matter as well as both methods are tried here before.

I'm not really sure about how other boards handle things. To tell you the truth, this has been the only one I have visited for years, and any other one doens't really have the rules that this site has. For a forum, I'd bet this site has some of the most strict rules out of any on the internet. That may cause problems that other sites don't have to deal with.

I think one solution would be to have open reports, but to only allow mods to post in them. Or, the mods and the person who has been reported. And if the person who is reported attacks a mod, the same rules would apply, and they can be warned for it (are the warnings back? I think I read that).

If we have the same rules for the report threads, I don't see why flaming would be a problem in them.

I would also consider private report threads, if you still needed a majority of mods to sign off on an action.

Really, I'm most worried about going back to the system where a single mod makes an action. In that system, it only takes one bad egg to ruin the whole thing.

We also need much more specific rules, especially on flaming. If there needed to be an appeal, that may cut down on some of the "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" stuff.

 

[winsome]

no, it means there will be NO wiki whatsoever. We will have a simple set of rules to go by...no changing them, no snapshots, no wiki...AMEN!

I took a complete break from Christian Forums during July/Aug/Sep. When I came back it seemed it had changed a lot & I'm still trying to figure out what happened. So I am glad it is going back to something like it was.

Also I don't understand Wiki's so goodbye to them.

 

[*Starlight*]

Report-wise I would say close them.

Leave things open if we can eliminate the venom, the attacks and the general disrespect.

But all in all reports are not these big secret things. They function much the same as they used to except now people can anonymously attack others and create ill will in a different way.

I just don't see how open reports work on a site this size in a practical way. Does anyone know of a site this large that does open reports? Honest question there. This is a large site with debate areas and divisive issues being discussed. Is there any other site of that nature this size that uses open reports.

I am not saying what everyone does is right for everyone else. But usually if bunches of disconnected people do things the same way...it is because it works.

So unless the venom can be eliminated....or there are rules to prevent:

1. Abuse in report threads (toward the mod as well as the poster)
2. Filibuster of threads

I vote to close them. Really, it is not that there is anything to hide...just a practical issue of getting the work done. Appoint an oversight team to work with the Reconciliation team if there is a large faction that does not trust people. But it just seems that open reports do not work. Of course with better rules...that may make a difference.

The problem with closed reports is that it makes it possible for the staff to say weird things about members behind their backs, and the actual member can't go there to defend themselves. It happened in the past, so it could as well happen again.

Two things....

Mods are still doing it. At least the ones who are going to do it.

This is a Christian site and needs to foremost meet the needs of the Body of Christ.

The problem is that there are people who define their views as Christian and everything which disagrees with them as non-Christian

 

[Andy Broadley]

Yea, I never got the whole Wiki thing either....no loss to me there

 

[tulc]

The problem is that there are people who define their views as Christian and everything which disagrees with them as non-Christian

tulc(and one more!)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The problem is that there are people who define their views as Christian and everything which disagrees with them as non-Christian

Hi. There are also some that have been accused of "anti-semitism" because of their view of the Scriptures.
So perhaps a clarification on what that particular word means would help.

 

[eldermike]

One of the most malicious and destructive methods used by people with private agendas is to overcomplicate. I pray against this.
Lord lift the crippling fog.

Jesus was not about making this hard to understand:
If Jesus could rewrite the whole law in one sentence (the greatest commandment) one might decide something is not Christian once the rules outweigh the whole 66 books.

Something I think about:
God's people cried out for judges, He gave them what they wanted. It didn't work (no surprise to Him), you can read all about it in the bible.

 

[*Starlight*]

One of the most malicious and destructive methods used by people with private agendas is to overcomplicate. I pray against this.

I think you're right. I think the rules should be as simple as possible... in my opinion, the temporary ones posted by Lee in the OP are good, and the site doesn't really need more rules than that.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Bravado fer sure...
Buying a pig in a poke.
Wiki-go-Boom, YAY!

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I think you're right. I think the rules should be as simple as possible... in my opinion, the temporary ones posted by Lee in the OP are good, and the site doesn't really need more rules than that.

Broad rules really aren't good. We need rules that leave as little up to interpretation as possible.

 

[Sojourner1]

Broad rules really aren't good. We need rules that leave as little up to interpretation as possible.

I agree.

 

[.Sabre.]

I think you're right. I think the rules should be as simple as possible... in my opinion, the temporary ones posted by Lee in the OP are good, and the site doesn't really need more rules than that.

Yes, I agree.

We don't need more rules than that.

Additional rules for congregations or political forums, that is OK. But no "let's get every member on the Support Team/SAs" stuff like I saw happening now with some fora on here.

 

[*Starlight*]

Broad rules really aren't good. We need rules that leave as little up to interpretation as possible.

Well, the existing rules can be clarified so that they are less vague... what I meant is that I think there's no need to add new rules.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi. As long as I have been on this forum, I can't think of one time I have ever hit the "Report" button, but I have been reported numerous times and have been accused of "anti-semitism" as I stated in a previous post. [#552].

Can either Christ-ians and non-Christ-ians help on defining the Biblical definition of "anti-semitism" so when I or others are accused of it, we can show them exactly what that term implies? Thanks.

Edit to add: I am mainly talking about being labeled that by other Christ-ians, not by Jews or Muslims.

 

[stranger]

Nowhere in any of my posts did I talk about access. I know it won't effect access for non-Christians, because a huge chunk of this site is non-Christians.

Mod practices is what I'm talking about, which have already been somewhat changed. I'm right, from the past actions of christian mods on this forum, to be fearful of Christian mods who have sole power and think they are superior to non-Christians, because they feel that this is their site and they have some sort of right to be.

Even with wikified rules, the rules on CF are so broad, that they can be interpreted any way. What happens, for example in the Politics forum (and I'm only talking about the D&D forums, because those are the only places I've ever visited) is that a liberal will make a point. A Conservative mod can not like this point, and find reason to censor the post. You appeal it up the chain, and no one wants to reverse it, because, yeah, well, it could be a violation. Maybe. We really can't tell, because the rules are so broad.

And then it stands.

An open report forum, where you need a majority of mods to sign off on an action, really helps with this situation.

And, really, I'm not sure what the negatives of that system are.

The problem has already been demonstrated, as soon as one insists on any number of mods been needed for a decision, not only does modding get impractically longwinded and thus sketchy, unjust because people do not have the time, but mods jsut group together in 'conspiracies' of like belief, they are forced to do so by the need for agreem,ent to get what they see as 'work' done...

The CAUSE is simply INEQUALITY , one cannot set any sinner to jude another man without getting injustice, unlovingness...

and unlovingnes is counter to the very commandment of Jesus... inequality thus has no place on a truly christian site ... so Verwin was right, this ain't a christian site and does not deserve, does not MERIT that title...

Nor is it becoming christian, it is becoming 'antichristian' , IN PLACE OF Jesus' rule of love we have the rule of sinners ...

Democracy, even if one could implement it [and even USA cannot make that happen in presidental elections, let alone this place], democracy does nOT work because even if a billion and more cjhristians agree [and Jesus says they will -Rev 13:3-8] ,they will agree on the WRONG thing, on worship odf the dragon, as Jesus puts it ...

How many disagree and find the strait narrow way o saints in this life, just the FEW , a hundred thousand or so spread throughout two millenia is just a couple of thousand alive at any one time...

If one could find a saint one would get true moderation by love.... but who can find a saint when one needs a policeman [sic] [LOL?]

The answer then is to stop being unequal, stop making people elite with power over others because it just blows up their egos , turns them into tyrants of their own beliefs that have made them sinners all their lives... one cannot get to love that way, and the site should not be placing these stumblingblocks in vain people's way to tempt them to sit in judgement of others whist having great beams stuck in their own eyes...

The site can only move toward justice amd love the hard way, through starting with Jesus' Law o love as the only RULE above all others and equality between all here.

As for giving 'christians' more rights than others, the scripture tells us who are christians, the one who love, the one's who stop unlovingness, but the site does not use this definition of a christian set in black and white in scripture... so one is letting sinners pretend they are chrsitians , pass false judgements censoring those who want to discuss the unlovingness, and so simply prolonging the sin by tempting people to judge who are not saints at all....

If one refuses to listen to Jesus and base the site on his law, then one reaps the consequences, injustice, flaying of the meek, censorship to the views of sinners, closed shop, conspiracies, ....

One has to ask why not believe Jesus if one wants to be a christian ?

 

[eldermike]

Broad rules really aren't good. We need rules that leave as little up to interpretation as possible.

That's impossible.