FreeinChrist, could we have some clarification on something?

[TrustAndObey]

A reminder from your SDA moderation staff


A reminder from your SDA moderation staff

Dear members,

We would like to thank all of you who have been patient and level-headed over the recent weeks. The moderators who have been working the SDA area have seen a great increase in the number of reports, and we are working to help you and your fellow members get along with each other, and to put out some of the fires.

To help keep things in order, we will be moderating rather more strictly for a time. We ask that all of you please understand that our goal is to restore and maintain the peace in the SDA forums.

Reminders:

1) Threads and posts about Progressives in the Traditional forum, and threads about Traditionals in the Progressive forum can very easily cross the line into flaming, and thus can be seen as "baiting." Staff will action such threads and posts accordingly.

2) Posts complaining about being reported, threatening reporting another, or commenting on all the reports made in a given thread (by seeing the symbol) will be deleted and actioned by staff.

3) When there is a flood of reports, staff are more likely to staff edit or fully delete a post when we find a violation, rather than ask you to edit your own posts.

4) Staff give warnings FOR MINOR violations of the rules, and infractions for MORE SERIOUS violations. Warnings do not carry any points and therefore do not count toward bannings. However warnings allow the staff to better track recurring violations and ongoing harassment and/or spite reporting.

The CF rules can be found here:
http://christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0

Please take a moment to read these rules, and to reflect on them.


SDA moderation team.

Hi, I would've just PM'd you with this question, but I am sure that a lot of people here are probably wondering the same thing I am, so I thought it'd be better if we got some clarification in the open forum. I'll PM you this link so you're aware of the thread and you can hopefully help us out.

I agree that comments/threads about the Progressives in the Traditional area (and vice versa) could be considered baiting, so I think we're all glad that is going to be stopped.

But what about people taking comments that are very generic out of a non-debate area to address the OP in the Debate section? Is that baiting and/or flaming as well?

For instance, I started a thread about some former Adventists (not Progressives) that harass us, and I started it in the Traditional non-debate section. Someone pulled my posts out of there and started a whole thread directed at me personally in the Debate section. I feel that it was baiting/flaming.

I realize there isn't a direct rule about this, but there wasn't a direct rule about comments in the non-debate areas either, and obviously now there is. I see both of these scenarios as a problem and I'm hoping we can get some relief from it.

Can you help us out?

 

[tall73]

If the thread is the one I started it was directed at the statements, not at you. You had posted statements critical of another forum and I wished to clarify the differences between that forum and this one.

Some want an area that they can say anything they want about others but never have it challenged, even in another area. That is not what we should grant. If something is on a public board it is public and can be responded to.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Some want an area that they can say anything they want about people.

Freudian slip? Oh I'm well aware that there are some here that'd like to say whatever they WANT about people, but there's rules against some of those things.

If the thread is the one I started it was directed at the statements, not at you. Statements posted publicly can be addressed publicly.

Not just you Tall, it happens a lot. But you did ask me direct questions in that thread you started, did you not? You were asking me to explain what I had said and wanted to debate about what I had said. I posted in a non-debate area for a reason. That is why I'd like FreeinChrist to clarify this for us.

I wasn't the only one offended by it.

 

[tall73]

Freudian slip? Oh I'm well aware that there are some here that'd like to say whatever they WANT about people, but there's rules against some of those things.

Nope, not at all.

I meant it just the way I said it.

And there is no rule against discussing publicly available information.

The new rule is to prevent debate in non-debate areas, from all appearances.

Not just you Tall, it happens a lot. But you did ask me direct questions in that thread you started, did you not?

It was directed to you and anyone who wanted to post on the ideas expressed.

Public ideas are out there for discussion. I assumed from what you said before that in your thread that you did NOT intend to discuss it in D&D, but it was open to anyone who wanted to comment, including you.

You were asking me to explain what I had said and wanted to debate about what I had said. I posted in a non-debate area for a reason. That is why I'd like FreeinChrist to clarify this for us.

I wasn't the only one offended by it.

Notice the key words....."wanted to debate about what I had said"....of course!

That is what a debate area is about-debating ideas. If you don't want your ideas discussed then don't put them in public. Now had I attacked you instead of your words, then that would be a flame. But it was not, and no one reported it as such.

Now as to who was offended, rules are not made just based on who is offended as people become offended at things often. I am sure some were offended that you made comments about people on other messageboards, taking the things you saw and commenting about them. But they were public comments.

 

[tall73]

In a recent discussion on sharing of public information Synger posted the following, which is dead on:

If something is posted in a public thread, though, there is no specific prohibition that I know of. Something public is public, and can be quoted or linked to like any other public information.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, I'm asking FreeinChrist to help us out. There are several here that are bothered by this practice of pulling non-debate threads into a debate area, not just me, obviously.

The rules here are set up to help the Adventists, not the ex-Adventists that come here. Period.

 

[TrustAndObey]

If our mods are making up impromptu rules about posting things in the non-debate areas, then they can certainly make up a rule about this problem too.

I'm not the only one that has a problem with this, and it's a problem here that I'd like to discuss with one or all of our moderators.

 

[tall73]

Tall, I'm asking FreeinChrist to help us out. There are several here that are bothered by this practice of pulling non-debate threads into a debate area, not just me, obviously.

The rules here are set up to help the Adventists, not the ex-Adventists that come here. Period.

Some are offended at giving people an area to say whatever they want about people and not be able to be responded to. There are several that are bothered by that practice. Though just being bothered by something is not reason to make a rule.

If you don't want someone commenting on something then don't put it in public. Send it by pm if necessary. I didn't come into your non-debate area. You are perfectly fine to stay there and not debate. But public statements are open to public comment. And the rules are for the whole of CF, not just Adventists.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The rules for this forum are to make Adventists more comfortable. I don't see anything about the rules that should make it more comfortable for EX-Adventists.

You do not have a say about what happens in our forum, Tall. All differences aside, it is just wrong that you keep thinking you're going to help us decide what happens here.

OF COURSE you want to be able to do this, because obviously you like doing it. Some of the Adventists here do NOT like it. Our voices need to be heard, so please quit interferring.

 

[tall73]

If our mods are making up impromptu rules about posting things in the non-debate areas, then they can certainly make up a rule about this problem too.

I'm not the only one that has a problem with this, and it's a problem here that I'd like to discuss with one or all of our moderators.

Sure, go ahead and discuss it with them. But you are posting in a public place and your comments are open for public discussion.

Now I am not so sure about making up any rule they like. But let's assume they can. What happens if someone posts your comments in GT? Or on CARM or in a newspaper, or someone's blog?

They are public. If you don't want them public then don't say them on a public forum.

 

[tall73]

The rules for this forum are to make Adventists more comfortable. I don't see anything about the rules that should make it more comfortable for EX-Adventists.

You do not have a say about what happens in our forum, Tall. All differences aside, it is just wrong that you keep thinking you're going to help us decide what happens here.

OF COURSE you want to be able to do this, because obviously you like doing it. Some of the Adventists here do NOT like it. Our voices need to be heard, so please quit interferring.

No interfering. Just commenting on publicly posted thoughts. Your thoughts will still be available for the mods to read. Therefore I have not interfered with you at all.

But as a regular poster here I am giving my view. The mods are well aware I am not Adventist and can take that into account. And you put this in the public debate section open even to EX Adventists.

Now perhaps you could change that if you want and get rid of the debate section.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The rules here are set up to help the Adventists, not the ex-Adventists that come here.

Is it possible that an adminstrator might be able to comment on the validity of the statement set out above? BTW, I prefer the term "former SDA."

BFA

 

[Jimlarmore]

It seems to me that if something is put in a non-debate area that shouldn't be allowed to be cut and pasted into a debate area without the OP's author's permission. If that person wanted it to be free for debate they would more than likely have put it there to start with.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[TrustAndObey]

If you have a problem with the things that are said in the Traditional area, why do you continue to read the posts in there Tall?

I was talking about a very specific problem we have with ex-Adventists trying to "educate" us about why we need to leave too. It wasn't about you, it wasn't about Free, it was about the problem ITSELF.

The ex-Adventists rarely ever have a problem with Progressive Adventists, so this is a trad-specific problem and that is where I posted my thread.

 

[TrustAndObey]

It seems to me that if something is put in a non-debate area that shouldn't be allowed to be cut and pasted into a debate area without the OP's author's permission. If that person wanted it to free for debate they would more than likely have put it there to start with.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I absolutely agree with you and so do a lot of other Adventists here. This is why I'm asking a moderator. I know Tall doesn't like it, but the Adventists here are tired of this game.

 

[tall73]

If you have a problem with the things that are said in the Traditional area, why do you continue to read the posts in there Tall?

I was talking about a very specific problem with have with ex-Adventists trying to "educate" us about why we need to leave too. It wasn't about you, it wasn't about Free, it was about the problem ITSELF.

The ex-Adventists rarely ever have a problem with Progressive Adventists, so this is a trad-specific problem and that is where I posted my thread.

Why did you feel the need to read at CARM if you have a problem with what folks say there TrustandObey?

You were talking about them just as much as you say I was about you.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Why did you feel the need to read at CARM if you have a problem with what folks say there TrustandObey?

I won't read what the people on CARM say anymore Tall. It was just ugly. A bunch of people trying to tell Adventists they're stupid for staying in a church and giving a whole day to God?

You were talking about them just as much as you say I was about you.

CARM is an apologetics board (seems like you felt the need to point that out to me, so I'll do the same for you). It isn't non-debate like the Trad forum.

You know the types of things that are going to be said in the Trad forum, you know what we believe, you just don't agree. WE KNOW THAT ALREADY!

You really shouldn't go there if you're just going to bait us into debating.

 

[honorthesabbath]

I just noticed that these 'new' rules were just stickied YESTERDAY! May I ask when they were initiated the FIRST time since we are being REMINDED of them?

I honestly do not recall ever seeing these rules before. Link please?

 

[tall73]

I won't read what the people on CARM say anymore Tall. It was just ugly. A bunch of people trying to tell Adventists they're stupid for staying in a church and giving a whole day to God?



CARM is an apologetics board (seems like you felt the need to point that out to me, so I'll do the same for you). It isn't non-debate like the Trad forum.

You know the types of things that are going to be said in the Trad forum, you know what we believe, you just don't agree. WE KNOW THAT ALREADY!

You really shouldn't go there if you're just going to bait us into debating.

And you shouldn't publicly post things about people if you don't want to be responded to. One is for debate and one is not. But both forums are public forums. And once an idea is public it can be debated publicly.

 

[tall73]

Double, see next.