FreeinChrist, could we have some clarification on something?

[tall73]

No, they are not bringing up a SUBJECT of something they want to discuss, RC. They are pulling our threads out of our area and addressing the PERSON that made the comments.

If Tall wanted to discuss the issue of former Adventists trying to get people out of the church in the debate area, fine and dandy. That isn't what he did though. He acted like I started a thread to bash CARM and that wasn't the case at all. I stated very plainly that there are several sites where people try to bully Adventists out of the church.

Rules are being made that address specific problems the mods see in this forum...I'm just making them aware of another one.

A. So you were discussing people and their "bullying."

B. I corrected you on an aspect you were misinformed about.

C. You also seem to have an issue with discussing ISSUES as RC pointed out, as you label it bullying.

 

[tall73]

If I recall correctly, in the legal filed, no law is retroactive. Even the bible tells us 'where there is no law, there is no transgression.

So how is it that ppl are being penalized in the absence of any such rule?

A good point.

This is not in the FSG's and was rejected at the time they were made.

 

[tall73]

Moderators operate in a realm where their decisions can't be governed by how someone "feels". If we were all Christians and didn't need babysitters, we wouldn't need moderators at all in light of 1 Timothy 1:9.

But it isn't a perfect world, we all have sin we need to be delivered from (Romans 7:24-25), and so we need to have consistent rules to overcome the variety of feelings represented on any forum.

You wrote something earlier I thought I should dismiss, but I think it prudent to bring it back on the stove for your consideration:

We heard about some of the comments being made here on CARM. That's why I came for a visit.
Perhaps you're not happy because of the impression that someone was speaking behind your back and saying bad things that weren't true.

You would want full exposure of those rumours, wouldn't you?

Likewise, some of us would like to see exposure of the comments calling our labours unredeemable garbage and similar things that aren't very nice.

Justice isn't necessarily fair, but fairness does have some merit. If you really wanted to be fair, you would have told me I'm unredeemable trash on CARM, where I have made most of my posts.

FYI, both Tall73 and FreeIndeed are regulars on CARM, and I don't think I have ever seen an infraction against either of them. Even I am not that clean, having received one warning in 5000 posts I have written.

Victor

Nor have I received one here, though a couple times in the staff area or the Orthodox area I likely deserved one.

This isn't about me breaking rules. This is about them not liking what I say.

 

[NightEternal]

I see no problems whatsoever with addressing, clarifying and responding to any comments anywhere on this forum as long as it is done in the proper places-D&D or our respective areas.

In my case, that is exactly what I was doing with Trust's post about people she had on ignore. So, even though she may think I was deliberately trying to 'bait' her and has obviously convinced herself that was my intention (I think as the author of the thread I would know better than anyone else what my intention was BTW) such was not the case at all. I could have cared less whether she responded in her own area or not. It was a CLARIFICATION thread. And then, of course, Honor has to get right in there to agitate the situation and falsely portray my post as 'attacking' Trust and something she must 'defend' herself over. And I, of course, get infracted for it and it is deleted based on the complaint of ONE TRAD even in spite of the fact that 1.) There is presently no rule against addressing comments in the Prog area and 2.) Trust herself agreed it was NOT an attack post and there wasn't anything there she felt she had to 'defend' herself over.

Never mind the fact that certain Trads also take our comments and posts and use them as fodder in thier area with impunity! Not that I care, I will just post a counter-rebuttal in my area. But no, some people like to report me instead and whine about it when I do just that.

I don't see the sense at all in people constantly running and crying to mommy and daddy mod when we could work out many things amongst ourselves through post by post responses. Are we going to start weaning ourselves off the mod breast and have exchanges without the spite-reporting, or will we continue to beg them to interfere in our discussions, limit topics, censor and delete posts that a LOT of work went into and give them more and more control over our threads? That is exactly what these new rules do and some are just gladly opening the door to allow it to happen!

Now, with all that being said, even though I do NOT have a problem with taking posts from other areas and addressing them in the appropriate places, I have already been nailed and punished for it many times. So, if there is going to be an official rule formulated against doing it now, every single other person who does it better get the same slap on the hand for doing it as well.

It is only fair.

 

[tall73]

Now, with all that being said, even though I do NOT have a problem with taking posts from other areas and addressing them in the appropriate places, I have already been nailed and punished for it many times. So, if there is going to be an official rule formulated against doing it now, every single other person who does it better get the same slap on the hand for doing it as well.

It is only fair.

Lol, this reminds me of some of the old-timers in an area I previously was at who thought the academy should be as strict for their kids as it was for them--even though they thought it was too strict.

 

[TrustAndObey]

A. Demonstrate that I posted in that thread long before you knew. I posted in it when I linked to it in a public forum right here in the Adventist section.

B. They appreciated my input

C. You are protected from debate IN your area, not out. But the things you say are public and ideas can be debated in the appropriate areas.

IDEAS can be debated. That's not what you did Tall. You pulled my POST and my exact words and addressed me about what I had said.

I'm sure "they" did appreciate your input.

How did you know about that thread and the discussions before we did? How did you have the address of the thread before you posted it and asked Progressives to join the discussions?

The only reason I knew about it at all is because you told Progressives to go there and a Trad saw it. You forgot to mention the thread and discussions to a whole group of people on here Tall. Was that an accident?

You have overstepped the boundaries because you know about stuff only moderators appear to know about. Are you going to sit there and tell us you didn't have ANY clue about the discussions before you posted that link? Should that make any sense to me if you did say it? Because it doesn't.

By the time *I* found out about it, yes, you had posted in there. Not just posted, started typing up rules even.

Do you have that right?

I have friends on the mod staff that didn't say a WORD about the discussions going on. Not one word. I only found out about them because of your post. And you found out about them, how?

It's just like this thread. I'm addressing a problem that is very REAL and here you come. Trying to shut me down before I even get to talk to moderation about it.

I won't be bullied. I saw someone leaking info to just their friends and I used my brain to figure out where they got the info in the first place. It's not rocket science here.

You have an agenda way beyond just being able to POST here and you know it. You still want to make the rules, try to quiet the people you don't want bringing attention to problems, and you use the resources you have to do it.

Sorry bobthetomato, that won't work anymore. Too many people are aware of it now.

 

[VictorC]

Nor have I received one here, though a couple times in the staff area or the Orthodox area I likely deserved one.

This isn't about me breaking rules. This is about them not liking what I say.

I had that impression already. If you can't overcome the message, attack the messenger.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I see no problems whatsoever with addressing, clarifying and responding to any comments anywhere on this forum as long as it is done in the proper places-D&D or our respective areas.

In my case, that is exactly what I was doing with Trust's post about people she had on ignore. So, even though she may think I was deliberately trying to 'bait' her and has obviously convinced herself that was my intention (I think as the author of the thread I would know better than anyone else what my intention was BTW) such was not the case at all. I could have cared less whether she responded in her own area or not. It was a CLARIFICATION thread. And then, of course, Honor has to get right in there to agitate the situation and falsely portray my post as 'attacking' Trust and something she must 'defend' herself over. And I, of course, get infracted for it and it is deleted based on the complaint of ONE TRAD even in spite of the fact that 1.) There is presently no rule against addressing comments in the Prog area and 2.) Trust herself agreed it was NOT an attack post and there wasn't anything there she felt she had to 'defend' herself over.

Now, with all that being said, even though I do NOT have a problem with taking posts from other areas and addressing them in the appropriate places, I have already been nailed and punished for it many times. So, if there is going to be an official rule formulated against doing it now, every single other person who does it better get the same slap on the hand for doing it as well.

It is only fair.

Night, I wasn't talking about your post. I did not feel like you were attacking me (rather just a decision I had made) and you didn't report me when I responded. This goes way beyond that.

You could've reported me though, technically, because I did debate. I would've reported you for baiting if you had though, right? I didn't think you'd sink to that and you didn't.

I do not think it is right to pull a post about a problem only Traditional Adventists have into a debate area. The idea wasn't what was pulled over, my entire post was.

I wasn't talking about Progressives in my post. I wasn't talking about them AT ALL. I was talking about former Adventists that try to bully people out of the church....why that struck a nerve with Tall, since he swears he doesn't do that, I dunno.

I agree with you Night. If you get in trouble for a retroactive rule, then so should everybody else. There's a whole lot of reports from old threads that could come out of this rule....

But if we're forced to accept these new rules, then we need to just take it from the time it was posted at the very least, and that was LAST NIGHT.

I also started this thread to point out another problem, and I will be heard. I am not just speaking on behalf of myself. Pulling people's posts out of a non-debate area is wrong. I agree that there shouldn't be anything in there (or in the Progressive area) about a PERSON. Otherwise it's baiting.

But I was talking about something else entirely and not a specific person.

 

[tall73]

IDEAS can be debated. That's not what you did Tall. You pulled my POST and my exact words and addressed me about what I had said.

Yes, public statements can also be debated.

Are you suggesting your words had no ideas in them?

I'm sure "they" did appreciate your input.

Why thank you

How did you know about that thread and the discussions before we did? How did you have the address of the thread before you posted it and asked Progressives to join the discussions?

I will let you in on a secret---it was in a public area.

The only reason I knew about it at all is because you told Progressives to go there and a Trad saw it.

Because the prog forum is a public area also.

You forgot to mention the thread and discussions to a whole group of people on here Tall. Was that an accident?

No accident at all. I told those who were getting their rules changed without input.

Now the better question might be why your three trad mods never told you.

You have overstepped the boundaries because you know about stuff only moderators appear to know about. Are you going to sit there and tell us you didn't have ANY clue about the discussions before you posted that link? Should that make any sense to me if you did say it? Because it doesn't.

Let's review...that thread was in a public area.

And I didn't say I didn't know about it before. I said I never posted in it until after my announcement of it.

By the time *I* found out about it, yes, you had posted in there. Not just posted, started typing up rules even.

OHHHHH There is the issue. No one should know about anything in a public area until you do?

Do you have that right?

Apparently so.

I have friends on the mod staff that didn't say a WORD about the discussions going on. Not one word. I only found out about them because of your post. And you found out about them, how?

Hm, ever ask them why that is? It is a public discussion you know.

It's just like this thread. I'm addressing a problem that is very REAL and here you come. Trying to shut me down before I even get to talk to moderation about it.

a. your post is the first they will see. So I didn't shut down anything. Presenting counter-arguments is not shutting down. Unless you agree that in light of new evidence your idea is a poor one--then that would be you shutting it down.

b. You posted in a public debate area.

I won't be bullied. I saw someone leaking info to just their friends and I used my brain to figure out where they got the info in the first place. It's not rocket science here.

So Trust, tell me how I leaked PUBLIC info about a public thread?

You ought to be glad I posted it or you would have NEVER known about it.

You have an agenda way beyond just being able to POST here and you know it. You still want to make the rules, try to quiet the people you don't want bringing attention to problems, and you use the resources you have to do it.

You mean public resources?

And no, I very much want you to be able to give your view too. I want open discussion on theological issues.

But you keep talking of this agenda. Did I ever say I did not want to persuade people? I am more than willing to persuade people. I just happen to have personal reasons too in coming to discuss.

Just as when I before discussed, I intended to persuade people That is why I went to GT. But I also learned personally from it.

Sorry bobthetomato, that won't work anymore. Too many people are aware of it now.

People were already aware of who bobthetomato was. Is the problem that you didn't know again?

Now the next question is do you know what I advocated there? I consistently advocated in favor of OPEN discussion. IE. no secrets, no oppressive rules, no political correctness to limit theological points of view, no censoring positions, Adventist or otherwise.

You seem to want the opposite.

 

[tall73]

Night, I wasn't talking about your post. I did not feel like you were attacking me (rather just a decision I had made) and you didn't report me when I responded. This goes way beyond that.

You could've reported me though, technically, because I did debate. I would've reported you for baiting if you had though, right? I didn't think you'd sink to that and you didn't.

I do not think it is right to pull a post about a problem only Traditional Adventists have into a debate area. The idea wasn't what was pulled over, my entire post was.

I wasn't talking about Progressives in my post. I wasn't talking about them AT ALL. I was talking about former Adventists that try to bully people out of the church....why that struck a nerve with Tall, since he swears he doesn't do that, I dunno.

So if I understand you correctly Night should be fine with it since you were not talking about HIM. And I should only be worried if it is about me?

Are you saying no one should care when statements are made about others?

 

[NightEternal]

No accident at all. I told those who were getting their rules changed without input.

Now the better question might be why your three trad mods never told you.

Exactly. The Progs had NO REPRESENTATION in that discussion besides Sophia, who is not even a Prog!

So yeah, three Trad mods getting thier input in on deciding on the rules with out any balance from the other side? Why SHOULDN'T we be notified of such a situation?

But anyhow, the mods have already apologized for dropping the ball on that one and not properly notifying BOTH sides that the thread existed. Because they certainly did drop the ball!

 

[TrustAndObey]

Isn't there a rule against moderators from this site going to another site to discuss posters on this site and the actions against posters from this site?

I don't care if it was a public area Tall, you were trying to make rules for Adventists. You are not an Adventist. You're not even a mod on CF anymore.

I don't know why the mods didn't tell us about the discussions. I can only assume it was because mods were the only ones that were allowed to discuss there? I don't know!

All I know is that someone that obviously despises Adventist doctrine was making rules for the Adventist forum. Tell me how that is right?

You deliberately excluded the majority of people here when you only asked your friends to come join in on the discussions.

You are fighting dirty in a fight you shouldn't even BE in.

 

[tall73]

Isn't there a rule against moderators from this site going to another site to discuss posters on this site and the actions against posters from this site?

There is only a rule against divulging CONFIDENTIAL actions. There is no rule against things that are public. Anything public, whether policies, actions, comments, etc. are all free game.

I don't care if it was a public area Tall, you were trying to make rules for Adventists. You are not an Adventist.

I don't know why the mods didn't tell us about the discussions. I can only assume it was because mods were the only ones that were allowed to discuss there? I don't know!

But they were not the only ones allowed.

All I know is that someone that obviously despises Adventist doctrine was making rules for the Adventist forum. Tell me how that is right?

Because it is a board open to input publicly.

How is it right for moderators who despise progs and say they are not Adventist to make rules for them? But they were. I evened the field.

You deliberately excluded the majority of people here when you only asked your friends to come join in on the discussions.

You are fighting dirty in a fight you shouldn't even BE in.

I posted it publicly because they had NO representation.

 

[TrustAndObey]

There is only a rule against divulging CONFIDENTIAL actions. There is no rule against things that are public. Anything public, whether policies, actions, comments, etc. are all free game.

So if someone from our current forum moderation team went on that site at any time (even if they changed their name) and talked about specific actions against a specific poster, what would happen?

But they were not the only ones allowed.

Because it is a board open to input publicly.

We weren't told about it, but you knew about it. I just don't think it's right that because your wife is on staff here that you use the information she gets to further your agenda. I'm sorry, I just don't.

How is it right for moderators who despise progs and say they are not Adventist to make rules for them? But they were. I evened the field.

I posted it publicly because they had NO representation.

You are not a moderator. If they wanted the Progressive input they should've asked for it. They should've told all of us about it.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

But do you see where "concern" can step over the line into bullying? You said it, we saw it, but we don't agree with you. That is our right, and we think you are wrong. That's why we come here. It's a forum for a church we willfully joined.

When do we get to say "okay, ENOUGH", we get it already?!

You are requesting a level of consideration and tolerance that your own denomination does not extend to people who have differing views. According to SDAism, the denomination's current beliefs are the end time message that will characterize "the remnant." Those who hold different views regarding the sabbath are in danger of the mark of the beast. Does it seem reasonable that individual SDAs have the right to label former SDAs as being apostate (and this is happening in several threads RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW), and yet non-SDAs have no right to raise their hand and point out the elephant in the room?

Ongoing disagreement, when handled with consideration, is not bullying. There are areas of this forum where you will not have to face any discussion or debate. If that's your preference, I take no issue with that. Partake in peace.

BFA

 

[tall73]

So if someone from our current forum moderation team went on that site at any time (even if they changed their name) and talked about specific actions against a specific poster, what would happen?

That would depend on what was public info at the time.

I discussed public info there.

Of course what you may not realize is they post a LIST of who everyone is there and their name at CF. They also have MANY staff members posting there. Erwin himself was a member, though didn't post much by the time I got there.

Constance was a member. Many from the committee were there or former members of the executive committee.

I had a number of discussions with these people.

Leaks did happen at times. Usually it was through a committee member who got mad and posted it in public on CF.

We weren't told about it, but you knew about it. I just don't think it's right that because your wife is on staff here that you use the information she gets to further your agenda. I'm sorry, I just don't.

Let's try this again....it was a PUBLIC discussion.

You are not a moderator. If they wanted the Progressive input they should've asked for it. They should've told all of us about it.

Agreed! I am not a moderator. Nor did I have access to any moderator only discussions since I left being a moderator.

And if they should have told you then I think you are mad at the wrong person.

 

[TrustAndObey]

You are requesting a level of consideration and tolerance that your own denomination does not extend to people who have differing views. According to SDAism, the denomination's current beliefs are the end time message that will characterize "the remnant." Those who hold different views regarding the sabbath are in danger of the mark of the beast. SDAism has the right to label all others as being apostate, and yet non-SDAs have no right to raise their hand and point out the elephant in the room?

Ongoing disagreement, when handled with consideration, is not bullying. There are areas of this forum where you will not have to face any discussion or debate. If that's your preference, I take no issue with that. Partake in peace.

BFA

BFA, your argument would hold a lot more water if you weren't HERE, in our forum. Nobody is forcing the SDA view on you. You already know our view and didn't agree, so you left. We're not chasing you.

 

[TrustAndObey]

And if they should have told you then I think you are mad at the wrong person.

No, I'm not mad at the wrong person. You never should've gone in there and started suggesting rules. You told the Progs about it, did you not think they were capable of giving input for themselves?

You are not an Adventist. You have no right to try to help with the rules of our forum.

You didn't answer my question....did you go into the CATHOLIC FSG discussions and give input about what THEIR rules should be Tall?

 

[TrustAndObey]

FSG=Forum SPECIFIC guidelines.

Are you really going to tell us that you got involved so that our rules wouldn't affect the whole site? Come on. It was a forum SPECIFIC discussion!

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, your argument would hold a lot more water if you weren't HERE, in our forum.

Christian Forums is not a subsidiary of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. Further, SDAs have separate forums in which non-SDAs are not welcome to engage in dialogue. I have come to the forum where I am welcome and I have engaged in dialogue that is reasonable. You may wish that I had not come here, but that doesn't represent bullying on my part.

Nobody is forcing the SDA view on you.

Well, I will agree that no one here is doing so. Beyond that, I cannot agree with your statement.

You already know our view and didn't agree, so you left. We're not chasing you.

I am not chasing you. I have entered a public forum in which I am quite welcome (at least by the forum administrators). Perhaps you can explain where bullying plays into all of this?

BFA