Global Adventist rules and warning system--Please give input

[tall73]

We have had the following rules polls for the rules wiki:

1. Introductory statement

2. Sub-forum structure

3. Proposed guidelines for the main Adventist section (now in progress).



We are now to the point where we need to make global rules for the Adventist section. These rules will affect both the main forum and all sub-forums.

Please go to the wiki discussion and propose rules:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5739473&page=10&nw_show=comments

If you want to ban discussion of mustard in the forums (just a silly example) then propose it and we can discuss forming a poll on it.

We also may wish to make our own warning and Forum Specific Ban system since CF does not currently have one. (There is some discussion of making one).

 

[NightEternal]

Finally, things are moving right along!

 

[sentipente]

I prefer not to create a list of banned subjects. We know the history of that. Topics that the members of a sub-forum find offensive should be discussed in the main forum. If all members find that topic to be offensive it should be deleted.. I am assuming that the main forum provides an avenue of discussion for those who don't with to be cubbyholed into Prog or Trad. Generally, decency should govern the Main Forum.

 

[djconklin]

If all members find that topic to be offensive it should be deleted.

The flaw here is the word "all"--there's always going to be someone who is interested. Even if you use "majority rule" does that mean if there's 100 members and 51 don't like it that then it gets taken down? On the other hand, if you say 3/4's that may be fine with only 12 people who can vote, but if you have 100 you may never get the 75 you need to knock off the nonsense. Even if we say, "Look if you don't like it then don't go there." that won't work with people doing bumps to keep it up on top, or starting new threads on the same subject with minor variations on the same theme, or bringing it up on different threads.

 

[sentipente]

The flaw here is the word "all"--there's always going to be someone who is interested.

I can think of few subjects that could be out of bounds except questions that challenge human decency. A thread on the mechanics of human bestiality would not generate interest except flames. A thread on the dangers of human bestiality would be legitimate. Let's get into the real world and leave the hyptheticals to take care of themselves.

 

[Endium]

Eh...I don't have enough posts to post in the wiki it seems. Good think I copied what I said...

I agree with honor about creating too many threads.

I think we need rules to keep this forum organized and readable.

1. As honor said, members should only be able to create 2 new threads per week, or something to that effect. I think there are too many threads being created in here. Now the subforums may help keep things more organized, but there are still some people here who create way too many threads.

2. Limit double posting. By double posting I mean making another post in a thread when you are the last person who posted in the thread. Exceptions would be when your post cannot fit into one thread, and when you are replying to two different people on separate subjects. People should just go back and edit their posts. Sure it takes a little more work, but its for the better good of the forum.

3. substantial content. When posting a reply, people should make sure their posts contain substantial content that is contributing to the thread. For example, there shouldn't be any replies with just the text "hmpf" or just a smiley. These types of replies do not really contribute to the conversation and just make the thread harder to read.

I guess most of you guys don't really care about these types of things, so I dunno if people will vote for it. I just think that we should work to have more meaningful threads, and more posts with contributive content.

We have a lot of guests and lurkers who read the forum, and many of them only check here once or twice per week. It is a lost easier when there aren't 30 new threads (half which are unnecessary). That way you don't have to go through all the pages to see interesting topics you have missed since your last visit.

Also it's easier when you don't have go through 15 pages in an interesting thread, only to see that 1/3 of the posts do not contribute to the thread in any way.

I guess this is just a big deal to me because I used to moderate another forum that that we kept real organized.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Good suggestions, it would be wise to formulate them into rule language. I would say on the limiting of threads 2 threads per week per forum or subforum would work.

I would also like to see while we are making the rules threads in the main forum which begin with Wiki or Rules (subject) people could find the discussions easier and they would make the organization much easier as the wiki discussion Thread is just not effective for this

 

[sentipente]

I agree with honor about creating too many threads.

I think we need rules to keep this forum organized and readable.

1. As honor said, members should only be able to create 2 new threads per week, or something to that effect. I think there are too many threads being created in here. Now the subforums may help keep things more organized, but there are still some people here who create way too many threads.

2. Limit double posting. By double posting I mean making another post in a thread when you are the last person who posted in the thread. Exceptions would be when your post cannot fit into one thread, and when you are replying to two different people on separate subjects. People should just go back and edit their posts. Sure it takes a little more work, but its for the better good of the forum.

3. substantial content. When posting a reply, people should make sure their posts contain substantial content that is contributing to the thread. For example, there shouldn't be any replies with just the text "hmpf" or just a smiley. These types of replies do not really contribute to the conversation and just make the thread harder to read.

Those suggestions are as unAmerican as can be. They are an obvious attempt to restrict speech. If an individual has a lot to say that individual has a right to express his views in as many posts or threads as the software allows. If an individual prefers to express his views with a picture or with one word that is the individual's right as long as the software allows it. The argument that the thread is hard to read is specious. Most people read the thread post by post. They don't get the thread in one long digest. The technology cannot be constrained to fit the limitatioons of one or two individuals.

 

[NightEternal]

I would say the limiting of 2 threads per week per forum or subforum would work.

Oh, oh. Reddogs is is heaps of trouble now if this goes through.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Not really as that gives a person 6 new threads a week if they post in the main, prog/or trad and bible study. Besides that a person could ask at any time in another thread if another subject came up if someone would start a new thread on a new subject.

As far as sent. claim that his double-quadruple posting and some others also is un-American to restrict, there is in fact no restriction as the software allows the user to edit and add more material. It just makes life easier for the forum users. And maybe a little more organized thinking by the double posters would do them good also.

This is an organization issue.

 

[sentipente]

As far as sent. claim that his double-quadruple posting and some others also is un-American to restrict, there is in fact no restriction as the software allows the user to edit and add more material. It just makes life easier for the forum users. And maybe a little more organized thinking by the double posters would do them good also.

Why did you have to make it personal? When will we learn?

The reason why editing does not always work is that an edited post does not show up as a new post. This means that once a post is read no one may go back to that post to be able to see any material that has been added to it.

 

[Endium]

Those suggestions are as unAmerican as can be. They are an obvious attempt to restrict speech. If an individual has a lot to say that individual has a right to express his views in as many posts or threads as the software allows. If an individual prefers to express his views with a picture or with one word that is the individual's right as long as the software allows it. The argument that the thread is hard to read is specious. Most people read the thread post by post. They don't get the thread in one long digest. The technology cannot be constrained to fit the limitatioons of one or two individuals.

Hey man I'm not trying to restrict free speech. I am speaking from experience as I used to be a lurker. We should try to be more helpful to others rather then just doing something because the software allows it. It may not be so much of a problem for you if you are on the forums every few hours, because you see things right as they get posted. Try to view this from the standpoint of other people, however. Ever had an email box that had like 400 new messages? And then like 325 of them was spam? And then say you only have 10 minutes to read. Wouldn't it be better if some of that spam was filtered out?

And then going back and editing your posts instead of making new ones does not restrict your speech. You can still say what you have to say, Just now you don't take up half the posts on the page to say it.

I also think the 2 threads thing is better too. Yes, you may have 10 different valid topics you want to discuss. However, do you have to discuss them all at once? It would seem to me that you would have better quality discussions if there were 4 solid topics that everyone participated in, rather than 8 topics that only a few people took part in. You can always save your other topics until the next week.

Why did you have to make it personal? When will we learn?

The reason why editing does not always work is that an edited post does not show up as a new post. This means that once a post is read no one may go back to that post to be able to see any material that has been added to it.

It is one thing to "bump" a topic because you have something new to add after a few days. However most of the time when people post back-to-back their posts are within minutes of each other. Editing their post would cause others to miss what they have to say.

 

[StormyOne]

well I stopped getting notified by email and opted to just pop in and read the various threads I am personally interested in, it works better that way.... I am NOT in favor of restricting how many threads a person starts unless they are trolling or spamming... that would be a different issue....

 

[sentipente]

I understand the objections but it is better not to limit and allow good sense to prevail. Once you put in exceptions to the rule you open the door to controversy. Someone who has not posted for a long time my suddenly have a lot to say for one day. The fewer specific rules you have the better.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I swear it's feast or famine in our wiki thread. I'll go there and post something, go back hours later....nothin'.

Go back the next morning....nothin'.

Then BAM fifteen people post and I miss it for hours.

I quit getting e-mail notifications too for some reason.

Hmpff.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Why did you have to make it personal? When will we learn?

The reason why editing does not always work is that an edited post does not show up as a new post. This means that once a post is read no one may go back to that post to be able to see any material that has been added to it.

The reason I made it personal is because you were the one making the statement and you frequently double post when you could just as easily edit. It is one of the reason your number of posts went up so rapidly. I would hope that such personalization never becomes passé

Don't look at this as restriction but as the rules to operate a good forum. None of these things is meant to hinder speech or content, rather to improve the content. While the edit function does have the liability that someone may miss a post as they have previously remembered reading it the edit function also has a place for the reason for the edit which appears at the end of the post and you could highlight your edited addition with a different color or font to show it has been an addition. Preferably this would not have to happen that often if people would spend a little more time on their post compositions in the first place. which is again a good by-product of this type of rule.

 

[reddogs]

Eh...I don't have enough posts to post in the wiki it seems. Good think I copied what I said...

I agree with honor about creating too many threads.

I think we need rules to keep this forum organized and readable.

1. As honor said, members should only be able to create 2 new threads per week, or something to that effect. I think there are too many threads being created in here. Now the subforums may help keep things more organized, but there are still some people here who create way too many threads.

2. Limit double posting. By double posting I mean making another post in a thread when you are the last person who posted in the thread. Exceptions would be when your post cannot fit into one thread, and when you are replying to two different people on separate subjects. People should just go back and edit their posts. Sure it takes a little more work, but its for the better good of the forum.

3. substantial content. When posting a reply, people should make sure their posts contain substantial content that is contributing to the thread. For example, there shouldn't be any replies with just the text "hmpf" or just a smiley. These types of replies do not really contribute to the conversation and just make the thread harder to read.

I guess most of you guys don't really care about these types of things, so I dunno if people will vote for it. I just think that we should work to have more meaningful threads, and more posts with contributive content.

We have a lot of guests and lurkers who read the forum, and many of them only check here once or twice per week. It is a lost easier when there aren't 30 new threads (half which are unnecessary). That way you don't have to go through all the pages to see interesting topics you have missed since your last visit.

Also it's easier when you don't have go through 15 pages in an interesting thread, only to see that 1/3 of the posts do not contribute to the thread in any way.

I guess this is just a big deal to me because I used to moderate another forum that that we kept real organized.

End,

Why dont we just rename this forum CARM_2.ORG, http://www.carm.org/ , limit of 2 threads a week...your cutting me off at the knees, limit double posting..everyone 'bumps' their thread every now and then, substantial content.......what one person considers 'substantial content' might be 'meager fare' to another. I would be getting 2 infractions per day at this rate.....

Only Hillary Clinton, CPA's and Conference Vice presidents try to put through such strict rules...... and Hillary and the CPA's were busy last time I checked

Red

 

[sentipente]

The reason I made it personal is because you were the one making the statement and you frequently double post when you could just as easily edit. It is one of the reason your number of posts went up so rapidly. I would hope that such personalization never becomes passé

That's the problem with all of you self-appointed police. I build my post count on sub-fora that are created for that purpose. You don't build post count by responding to threads. Do you really think that you informed me of something by pointing your fingers at me?

It may have escaped your notice but most of the other forums are running full blast without these post restrictions.

Highlighting additions to a post have no effect on the displayed age of the post so they are useless in that regard. The reasons for Editing box is most useful for rule violations and ordinary editing. If you have your way the only way I can make a new submission to a thread is if someone else posts first after my last post. This means that it matters not how much time has passed or would you suggest a time barrier?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Is this a good time to mention that I like Hillary AND mustard?

 

[tall73]

If I am responding to two different people I put it in two different posts so that everyone can find it easily. I MUCH prefer this way and don't at all understand why it is a problem.

Nor do I see why starting more than 2 threads is a problem. If I don't like Reddogs threads I just go to the next. I assume others will do the same for me.

During this rules formation process I have made a number of threads--if we didn't nothing would get done.

Just let people post and read what you want.

That is my thought. If it goes to a vote we will see what happens.

Again though, if you want your idea in the polls don't post it here, but post it in the wiki.

This is not the wiki.