FreeinChrist, could we have some clarification on something?

[TrustAndObey]

JohnT, I started this thread for clarification from a specific Admin that has been assigned to our forum. The other "clarifications" I got weren't from moderators (just regular posters), so no, I didn't like them. I didn't ask THEM, I asked our Admin.

I hope that clears that up.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Good question!

First of all, they are not so much as new rules as stating how we as mods are going to do our job. As one part says: "To help keep things in order, we will be moderating rather more strictly for a time." and "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."

FreeinChrist, thank you so much for coming to this thread. I know that you're busy and have a job, unlike the rest of us. haha

I wanted clarification from you because I know a lot of people were "buzzing" about the things you posted and I thought it would be easier just to ask openly, but as you can see--it turned into quite the debate.

I must say (quickly) that if I had known that multiple reports would get some stricter moderation, I would've reported like a fiend in some of the threads I was referring to--the ones that were yanked out of a non-debate area and brought into D&D.

I don't think it should take multiple reports to call attention to a problem though, and that's another reason I started this thread--because I don't WANT to report people.

Some of the things that happen here are just plain rude and seem to defy human decency, and I know we can't enforce rules to make people behave like adults. Really the only thing we can do is point out when someone isn't acting decently and tailor a rule around the act itself, not the people doing it.

If we're only going to tailor the rules according to bad behaviors that others report, then I think that just opens up the door for a lot more reporting, which I think we'd all like to avoid.

There are quite a few people here that do not think posts from a non-debate area should be taken out of there and placed in D&D. I agree the general idea of what a particular person posts could be brought up in D&D but not their specific posts.

Most of the Adventists that post here now were here when we formulated our specific subforums so they KNOW where the non-debate areas are. Yet some go in them and start threads about what is said in them or pull out specific posts instead of just PMing the person.

Safe haven is a crock if we can't talk about a Traditional Adventist-specific problem without people taking it personally against them and trying to make the posts say something they just do NOT say.

How do we go about discussing a rule to stop this from happening in the future, because I'd really like to pursue it and I know others would too?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I don't know why you take issue with it, it was before your time here.

Even though SDAs are not the only ones that can post in D&D, we are the majority here and anyone that wants to debate our doctrine has to follow the general rules of CF and the Forum-Specific Guidelines that are put in place for here.

IOW, we're the ones that have to feel comfortable here or it wouldn't be an SDA forum at all. It isn't up to non-Adventists to contribute in rules we would like to have here, it's up to Adventists. This is our home subforum, not theirs.

I would love to hear from FreeinChrist on the claims that you've made. If the D&D subforum welcomes all to enter and dialogue, why would it belong only to SDAs?

BFA

 

[TrustAndObey]

I would love to hear from FreeinChrist on the claims that you've made. If the D&D subforum welcomes all to enter and dialogue, why would it belong only to SDAs?

BFA

Because the D&D section is a subforum of the Seventh-day Adventist forum here on CF.

We were asked at one point to devise new rules for this forum. It was announced, if I remember correctly, that only people that belong to the churches each forum listed (i.e. a Catholic in the Catholic forum, a Baptist in the Baptist forum, etc) could participate. We took it a step further and decided that only Adventists that had been here and posted a certain number of posts could participate. That was agreed upon by the majority here.

We voted in the subforums that you see here and whether or not each would allow debate or not, and what the rules for each subforum would be. That was voted in by the majority as well.

The rules that were put in place a couple of days ago weren't voted on by the Adventists here, but they were voted in FOR us.

This is the Seventh-day Adventist forum of CF. Of course Seventh-day Adventists would be the ones that would help make the rules for it.

 

[tall73]

We are no longer under the 777 reforms. The Admins decide what your final FSG's are. They take input, and then they make a decision. In this case they permitted non-Adventist input. If you have an issue with that then take it up with them.

 

[TrustAndObey]

We are no longer under the 777 reforms. The Admins decide what your final FSG's are. They take input, and then they make a decision. In this case they permitted non-Adventist input. If you have an issue with that then take it up with them.

"In this case". Hopefully not in the future. That's definitely something some of the Adventists here would like to discuss before there are any more rule changes.

I don't know why you keep trying to "sick" me on the Admins or mods. They didn't invite non-Adventists into our forum's rule discussions, did they?

Seriously, did they?

 

[TrustAndObey]

I was telling BFA about how it was handled in the past.

We didn't divide subforums this last time, so I thought that was obvious. Apparently not.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Because the D&D section is a subforum of the Seventh-day Adventist forum here on CF.

We were asked at one point to devise new rules for this forum. It was announced, if I remember correctly, that only people that belong to the churches each forum listed (i.e. a Catholic in the Catholic forum, a Baptist in the Baptist forum, etc) could participate. We took it a step further and decided that only Adventists that had been here and posted a certain number of posts could participate. That was agreed upon by the majority here.

We voted in the subforums that you see here and whether or not each would allow debate or not, and what the rules for each subforum would be. That was voted in by the majority as well.

The rules that were put in place a couple of days ago weren't voted on by the Adventists here, but they were voted in FOR us.

This is the Seventh-day Adventist forum of CF. Of course Seventh-day Adventists would be the ones that would help make the rules for it.

That may be obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to me. This isn't an SDA owned site (although there are SDA discussion forums outside of CF that are owned and operated by SDAs). If a subforum is owned by a non-SDA organization and is open to SDAs and non-SDAs alike, such sub-forum could not be considered the property of SDAs. Therefore your use of "our" still alludes me. What is it about the participation of non-SDAs in dicussion and decision making that troubles you?

BFA

 

[tall73]

"In this case". Hopefully not in the future. That's definitely something some of the Adventists here would like to discuss before there are any more rule changes.

I don't know why you keep trying to "sick" me on the Admins or mods. They didn't invite non-Adventists into our forum's rule discussions, did they?

Seriously, did they?

Because your issue is with them since they allowed us input. Here is Tishri's statement:

http://christianforums.com/t6864947&page=14

It is the Admin Staff of CF that approves the final draft, if you wish to offer some suggestions as long as they are constructive to the process we would love to hear them.

So yes, Tishri did welcome my input.

And your issue was also with them when you were not invited. I had no reason or obligation to invite you. I was not charged with overseeing the formation of the FSG's. I simply gave input. And it was welcomed.

Now whether you want to go talk to the mods is up to you. But if you have a problem with my input and your lack of notice then they are the ones to talk to.

 

[JohnT]

Seems as if some want to continue to make a fight here.

I was simply trying to calm some muddy waters.

I really wanted to clear things up.

The proof is in the pudding, er, posting

 

[TrustAndObey]

Seems as if some want to continue to make a fight here.

I was simply trying to calm some muddy waters.

I really wanted to clear things up.

The proof is in the pudding, er, posting

John, the only thing I took offense to was you saying I didn't like the clarification I was getting. I wasn't getting ANY clarification until FreeinChrist came in here. I was specifically asking her about some changes that she posted in here, but others jumped in here before she even got to answer.

Your ideas were actually BRILLIANT, and I did appreciate them. You know why I know they were brilliant? (LOL) Because we had already agreed to do it the way you proposed.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Ok, I have to stop this now and will try to get back and address a few points in the thread. The thread has gone way off topic in some ways, unfortunately.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I must say (quickly) that if I had known that multiple reports would get some stricter moderation, I would've reported like a fiend in some of the threads I was referring to--the ones that were yanked out of a non-debate area and brought into D&D.

It really isn't about multiple reports that gets stricter moderation as much as many of the reports have merit.
And there is the issue of spite reporting which is harrassment.

If we're only going to tailor the rules according to bad behaviors that others report, then I think that just opens up the door for a lot more reporting, which I think we'd all like to avoid.

I had hoped that I made it clear that the rules were not really new, but about how we are moderating.
Most staff feel that that commments about reporting others and being reported are baiting and fall under that site wide rule.

As it is set up now on CF, the guidelines are really set up by the admins (I am a supermod) and while they took input, ultimately it is their decision. I can see your concern about nonSDA giving input, but it is not like the wiki-era times when it was decided by members.

There are quite a few people here that do not think posts from a non-debate area should be taken out of there and placed in D&D. I agree the general idea of what a particular person posts could be brought up in D&D but not their specific posts.

I agree that to post a specific post of a person elsewhere and then responding to it can be dicey. Depending on how a person does it, it could be viewed as baiting. "Call out threads" have never been okay on CF (exception that brief time of madness of 777) so how it is done is important.

It would be wiser if a person took the idea, summarizing a viewpoint and then refuted it.

How do we go about discussing a rule to stop this from happening in the future, because I'd really like to pursue it and I know others would too?

Since the forum guidelines are no longer decided by members, bringing it up with the mod staff or their admins, is the only way. We would then discuss it.