How can I help?

[Jim47]

I wsied I had more time to post here, but I don't, Staff stuff keeps me pretty busy, but I am concerned for the heath of this forum. It seems we go a few days or so with hardly a report and then it all breaks out into an uproar

What is the cause?

How can I or any staff help?


All this fighting isn't good for anyone. Is it possible that we are so legalistic in our rules that we are making ourselves miserable in trying to protect our turf?

 

[JimfromOhio]

Is it possible that we are so legalistic in our rules that we are making ourselves miserable in trying to protect our turf?

That is one possibility. We have had several threads on this topic. No one really knows what, specifically, is our main problem.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Jim from Ohio, may I just say that I love your signature, and I point to it as something we should remember in this forum.

I'm currently not a member here, having signed out last week, but I had been considering a return back, until all hades broke loose again.

There is such a split here - and everyone thinks they are right. All of use scripture to back our positions, yet none of us agree with the other.

None of us are perfect. Jesus in his infinite wisdom always knew when to rebuke, and always knew when to love. If only we could all strive to follow that.

I look forward to that day in heaven where we will all be truly united. Until then, I suppose we are stuck with our own machinations and our own prejudices towards those with opposing viewpoints. And that's okay, but let's try to profess them with love rather than spite.

 

[Jim47]

I would like to suggest some discussion on possible rule adjustments.

From my perspective rules haven't done what everyone wants in this forum, instead they have become a source of contention.

I think maybe we should try to be more open and less restrictive.

I am proposing discussion to change the following


General Rules:

1. Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

Definitions:

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.
.


It is: My question is how are we doing the following when we will not even allow anyone to post an opposing view?

Isn't having a flaming rule enough protection?


Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.


I'm not saying all these listed need to be changed, but maybe discussed and decide what we really want??????

 

[ReformedChapin]

I agree with restricting non-members a little more but not the opposite. They have a been a real source of tension in this forum . That also brings to mind discussing whether or not current mods should lose their position if they resign cc membership.

 

[Nadiine]

Jim from Ohio, may I just say that I love your signature, and I point to it as something we should remember in this forum.

I'm currently not a member here, having signed out last week, but I had been considering a return back, until all hades broke loose again.

There is such a split here - and everyone thinks they are right. All of use scripture to back our positions, yet none of us agree with the other.

None of us are perfect. Jesus in his infinite wisdom always knew when to rebuke, and always knew when to love. If only we could all strive to follow that.

I look forward to that day in heaven where we will all be truly united. Until then, I suppose we are stuck with our own machinations and our own prejudices towards those with opposing viewpoints. And that's okay, but let's try to profess them with love rather than spite.

The problem with scripture is, it's all to be used, not just pieces of it. I don't use the "peace" verses to trump "rebuke" verses... or where I'm told to witness the gospel, it doesn't trump (overrule) the verse where we're to use discernment in who we stop casting pearls to.
They all work together in tandem - nothing cancels out the other - that's what's happening here. You can quote me all the peace and love verses you want, but you have to also take into account verses of rebuke, discipline, division and stopping witness to certain people & groups.
It isn't one OR the other - They claim love & peace, yet go & rip into another Christian that divides with someone that the bible tells us to beware of. We don't devour one to show "love" to another.

I think common fairness would just be a good start here - just 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' mite help a little bit. ?

 

[Nadiine]

I would like to suggest some discussion on possible rule adjustments.

From my perspective rules haven't done what everyone wants in this forum, instead they have become a source of contention.

I think maybe we should try to be more open and less restrictive.

I am proposing discussion to change the following


General Rules:

1. Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

Definitions:

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.
.


It is: My question is how are we doing the following when we will not even allow anyone to post an opposing view?

Isn't having a flaming rule enough protection?


Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.


I'm not saying all these listed need to be changed, but maybe discussed and decide what we really want??????

Ok,... change them to what tho? Did you have suggestions about what you think should be loosened specifically?

 

[IamRedeemed]

I wonder if we can add in the no baiting section, something along the lines of

"Initiating OP's with the intent of causing division and uproar of the entire forum"?

I don't think anything has to be changed as far as non-members are allowed to debate
in the debate area and offer their differing views as much as they want.
If they were able to do that in the general area, what would make this congregation
a conservative congregation and any different that the general area of Foru.ms?
I don't think the rules themselves are the problem.

 

[Nadiine]

I wsied I had more time to post here, but I don't, Staff stuff keeps me pretty busy, but I am concerned for the heath of this forum. It seems we go a few days or so with hardly a report and then it all breaks out into an uproar

What is the cause?

How can I or any staff help?


All this fighting isn't good for anyone. Is it possible that we are so legalistic in our rules that we are making ourselves miserable in trying to protect our turf?

I'm not quite sure making it wide open is going to help anything?? From what I see, it's pretty liberal right now w/ who's posting here and what they're saying in posts & threads.
& what's allowed... I'd like to know what specifically is so restrictive that it's legalistic???

 

[IamRedeemed]

That is a good question. You know, just like there never used to be a term heterosexual, there also was never a need for a term "conservative Christian". These words were created because of groups of people who chose to defer from what is either natural or the standard... Depending on which you are talking about. So, conservative is not the opposite of liberal for instance. Liberal is the deferring from what the Bible has set as a standard, and trading off in pieces the standard to what is relative to what is right to one or another, with no set standard of absolute truth. In other words 2 + 2 is up to you. Conservative is an adhesion to the standard.
If we choose to make this forum a forum of relativism, then is there any need for its existence at all?

I'm not quite sure making it wide open is going to help anything?? From what I see, it's pretty liberal right now w/ who's posting here and what they're saying in posts & threads.
& what's allowed... I'd like to know what specifically is so restrictive that it's legalistic???

 

[Jim47]

Participation in reports has become an issue in the last few days, well, actually longer then that, so I am posting the site wide rules for this and if you readi it you will see that we are not allowed to prohibit anyone from posting in reports.

Found in the rules link:

Participation in Reports
Staff will not edit any post they make in a report.

• Participation in the public Report Forums and respective threads is open to all members of Foru.ms and is governed by the general Foru.ms Rules.

• FSRs of respective subforums apply to the evaluation of the reported post only, and do not define participation in, or apply to any subsequent posts made in any Report Forum's report threads. Only Foru.ms Rules and the rules of this wiki apply.

• Report threads are for the discussion of the reported post only, and are not for personal discussions unrelated to the reported post and enforcement of applicable rules.

• Report threads are not the place to debate what rules a subforum needs to have. It is up to the subforum to decide its rules in keeping with the general rules of Foru.ms.

• Naming an anonymous poster who has not openly identified themselves in their post is to be deemed a rules violation.

Member commentary in reports: Members are free to read the public reports threads. They may comment in report threads if they have some clarification to add to the discussion about whether the posted report is a violation or not. However, further attacks, personal discussions, or continuation of the argument from the reported thread are NOT acceptable and are subject to deletion.

All members will refrain from making intimidating posts in reports whether they are the mods hearing the report, or the accused, or just interested parties.

Suggested process for handling rule violations in report threads:

Since there is no way currently available for members to report violations of Foru.ms rules by participants in report threads using usual channels, a system for handling such violations would be beneficial to help prevent discussion of the new violation from derailing the original report thread itself.

1. Violations may be brought to the attention of staff in the report thread itself through the following process.
   1. The member so doing may request, in the thread itself, that a formal report be initiated for them
   2. Staff will then
      1. initiate the formal report
      2. open a new report thread for that report
      3. post, in the originating report thread, a link to the new report thread so generated
   3. at this point, discussion of the new violation will occur in the new report thread only.

 

[Jim47]

To start with what I would chenge or discuss for change are:


General Rules: The following rule is all too restrictive. I am Lutheran and in the Lutheran forum we encourage visitors and to debate them. All we ask is their debates be derived from scripture. Yes we get trolls and those who seek only to be contensious but we deal with them under other rules. Here is the link to our rules which explains better then I how it works. http://foru.ms/t5674902-master-rule-list-subject-to-change.html

1. Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

Definitions:

Fellowship:

It is not debate. Why are we afraid of debate? Friendly debate is what keeps discussion boards intresting, without it and the opportunity to witness to someone's false beliefs what is our purpose? Aren't we supposed to share the "Good news" with all?
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions. You honestly think the following rule isn't legalistic? Where is the desire for fellowship? I don't see it.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.
.






No baiting: Baiting rule needs to be relaxed, I seldon see grace in a report, instead we use this rule to justify deleting anything we don't like. The danger of this aside from ousting all visitors and prospective members is I see it used against established members as well. Its like "put up your dukes" kind of thing. Christians should have a certain amount of forbearance, at least in my opinion.

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I agree that the rules are almost too restrictive. I realize that conservative Christians want a haven - and that's great. My TCL home is lovely, and I love that I even get a subforum for being WELS. We take great care in keeping it a loving environment. We've had some very good debates with people who did not agree as we did. And trust me, we have our share of people that don't like us, that don't agree us and who would probably LOVE to see our forum go to pieces.

Another thing I might add is that we all need to think twice, even three times, before hitting that 'report' button. First of all, we need to ask ourselves if we have followed the biblical teaching for correction, meaning, have we gone to that person first and talked to them? I try to make sure I PM someone and give them the opportunity to explain themselves or edit themselves before I report them. Truth, it doesn't always work that way, but it's helped clear up some misunderstandings and it's actually fostered friendships where I thought there was hostility. Then we need to ask ourselves if the post is really report-worthy. Sometimes I think we hit that report button in anger, rather than in an honest desire for the poster to be corrected. Thirdly, within the reports, we need to make sure that rules are being followed, and that we're not continuing any debate from the thread. I've seen so many reports lately that have just denigrated to yet another debate between members.

Someone said that they blame the outsiders for the way this forum is going. I disagree. Judging from what I have seen the last two weeks, the members themselves need to take a step back and look. It is has been members' own posts that are being reported, by other members. I've seen members throw accusations around like it's candy at a parade. Yes, I've seen non-members not behaving, as well, but in my opinion it is up to the members of this forum to keep decorum and not stoop the lower levels that they claim to hate so much.

I continue to pray for this forum. But with the rules as they stand now, there will be no witnessing in this forum, because the rules are basically saying "we're the only right ones, everyone else needs to shut up and go home".

 

[Nadiine]

I agree that the rules are almost too restrictive. I realize that conservative Christians want a haven - and that's great. My TCL home is lovely, and I love that I even get a subforum for being WELS. We take great care in keeping it a loving environment. We've had some very good debates with people who did not agree as we did. And trust me, we have our share of people that don't like us, that don't agree us and who would probably LOVE to see our forum go to pieces.

Another thing I might add is that we all need to think twice, even three times, before hitting that 'report' button. First of all, we need to ask ourselves if we have followed the biblical teaching for correction, meaning, have we gone to that person first and talked to them? I try to make sure I PM someone and give them the opportunity to explain themselves or edit themselves before I report them. Truth, it doesn't always work that way, but it's helped clear up some misunderstandings and it's actually fostered friendships where I thought there was hostility. Then we need to ask ourselves if the post is really report-worthy. Sometimes I think we hit that report button in anger, rather than in an honest desire for the poster to be corrected. Thirdly, within the reports, we need to make sure that rules are being followed, and that we're not continuing any debate from the thread. I've seen so many reports lately that have just denigrated to yet another debate between members.

Someone said that they blame the outsiders for the way this forum is going. I disagree. Judging from what I have seen the last two weeks, the members themselves need to take a step back and look. It is has been members' own posts that are being reported, by other members. I've seen members throw accusations around like it's candy at a parade. Yes, I've seen non-members not behaving, as well, but in my opinion it is up to the members of this forum to keep decorum and not stoop the lower levels that they claim to hate so much.

I continue to pray for this forum. But with the rules as they stand now, there will be no witnessing in this forum, because the rules are basically saying "we're the only right ones, everyone else needs to shut up and go home".

I disagree, EVERYONE IS FREE TO POST HERE NOW - they can fellowship here now.
How do the rules restrict this right now? They don't. How much more can the rules be opened up when all liberals ARE already allowed to post in fellowship here??

This is restriction & legalism??? Color me kooky, but I cant' fathom how anyone can view it as such.

The issue is an influx of liberals coming over - and or if they aren't liberal, they claim they're conservative but just "hang out" with the liberals in WWMC... of which we have another that just stopped in at the sign in board to come here.

Do I judge him? NO.. but the fact is, he's signed in as a WWMC member and wants to post here (which he could anyways) -- the point being, WHAT IS A CONSERVATIVE?
As a conservative, I can't see being a member of WWMC and getting along with people of diametrically opposed views of God without having disagreements theologically or even STANDING for what I know to be true in my bible...
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm making general points that go to the problem that we're seeing here at CC and why some or even many members may be on edge at what we're seeing happen.

I have nothing against anyone personally, and I do not plan on being rude, hostile or mean or judgmental on new people that I don't know who fellowship here - just that the concern of what is starting to happen is what I believe is either the main source or one of the main sources of contension here.
And the 2 sides who either welcome it or dont welcome it are butting heads.

That's what I see. What I don't see is how our current rules are RESTRICTING, hindering or blocking anyone of any denom. or the unsaved from fellowshipping in this forum.


Lastly and most importantly, IF YOU WANT TO OPEN THE FLOODGATES AND REMOVE MOST ALL RESTRICTION THAT DOES EXIST HERE, THEN PLEASE REMOVE THE FORUM NAME OF "CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN", becuz you've just negated it's very meaning or purpose.
You may as well rename it "whosoever will may come"

 

[IamRedeemed]

Hi PW,

Restrictive for what? I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from. What is it that you believe people who oppose the Biblical standard for living should be allowed to do here, that they are not already allowed to do, that wouldn't change the entire definition and structure of the forum? I don't understand what it is that you don't feel we are able to extend, that we haven't already without impacting or again changing the definition and core purpose for this forum?

I agree that the rules are almost too restrictive. I realize that conservative Christians want a haven - and that's great. My TCL home is lovely, and I love that I even get a subforum for being WELS. We take great care in keeping it a loving environment. We've had some very good debates with people who did not agree as we did. And trust me, we have our share of people that don't like us, that don't agree us and who would probably LOVE to see our forum go to pieces.

Another thing I might add is that we all need to think twice, even three times, before hitting that 'report' button. First of all, we need to ask ourselves if we have followed the biblical teaching for correction, meaning, have we gone to that person first and talked to them? I try to make sure I PM someone and give them the opportunity to explain themselves or edit themselves before I report them. Truth, it doesn't always work that way, but it's helped clear up some misunderstandings and it's actually fostered friendships where I thought there was hostility. Then we need to ask ourselves if the post is really report-worthy. Sometimes I think we hit that report button in anger, rather than in an honest desire for the poster to be corrected. Thirdly, within the reports, we need to make sure that rules are being followed, and that we're not continuing any debate from the thread. I've seen so many reports lately that have just denigrated to yet another debate between members.

Someone said that they blame the outsiders for the way this forum is going. I disagree. Judging from what I have seen the last two weeks, the members themselves need to take a step back and look. It is has been members' own posts that are being reported, by other members. I've seen members throw accusations around like it's candy at a parade. Yes, I've seen non-members not behaving, as well, but in my opinion it is up to the members of this forum to keep decorum and not stoop the lower levels that they claim to hate so much.

I continue to pray for this forum. But with the rules as they stand now, there will be no witnessing in this forum, because the rules are basically saying "we're the only right ones, everyone else needs to shut up and go home".

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Nadiine, what I've seen here isn't an influx of liberals, it's an influx of people who have differing opinions on things and are being attacked for it.

You personally accused two people of being liberal, when one had been a member here longer than you and the other was conservative. You only called them liberal because they disagreed with you.

There is so much hatred for the liberal side of things here...it's palpable. THAT is why I rescinded my membership. The hate needs to go, NOW. Your post alone makes several negative references to WWMC - why the need for that? I understand that everyone must agree with the stickies to be a member, but not everyone must agree with stickies to post.

As Jim pointed out, the way the rules are now, no non-member is allowed to post a dissenting opinion in the threads. As he also pointed out, in our forum, people are allowed to do this respectfully - we've allowed good spirited debate and let me tell you, our forum certainly isn't imploding the way this one is.

I guess the truth of the matter is that if there is a group of conservatives here who ONLY wish to converse with other conservatives and not allow anyone else to join, then perhaps they need to start their own website and restrict their membership and not even allow non-conservatives to join.

Not all bad things in this world come from liberalism. And liberals aren't to blame for this forum's implosion.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

AH, I see...it's just going to be the same-old same-old. I am correct - the attitude of this forum is "we are right, everyone else is wrong, screw them". You guys get all bent out of shape over people that have ties to WWMC and you get all bent out of shape thinking that the liberals are here to take over. (Trust me guys, the liberals don't want this forum)

I refuse to be a part of that. As I stated not too long ago, I'm sure that many of my liberal Christian friends will be standing with me at the pearly gates. I can't possess the hate for them that you guys seem to.

Unsubscribing now. This forum doesn't want help.

 

[IamRedeemed]

But that isn't the point Jim. The purpose for this forum's creation was a place where conservatives could go and discuss things without the constant apologia. Isn't that right? Isn't that why all of the different congregation forums were formed? So that those with like minds could have a place on this site to go to, where they weren't having to constantly debate on every thread?

That's all I believe anyone here is trying to avoid this turning into. We already have CE, GA, CA, GT etc etc etc for those purposes. If people want confusion they can go to those forums, but if they want to hear what conservatives believe, they should be able to come here to find that, or shouldn't they?


Edit to add: We have provided a debate area for those who would like to oppose what we
believe. Isn't that enough?

Participation in reports has become an issue in the last few days, well, actually longer then that, so I am posting the site wide rules for this and if you readi it you will see that we are not allowed to prohibit anyone from posting in reports.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Aren't we right? Is God a God of relativism?

Yes, we want to help, we just don't want our sheep devoured with relativism in our midst.
The rest of the site can offer them that. We want people to be able to find the truth
and not a counterfeit truth when they come here. As ambassadors of Christ, is that a crime?

We do not hate them and I really do not like your unrighteous charge of such.

We hate what they are teaching and promoting which is relativism.

Relativism in itself ousts God's authority in a Christian's life.

AH, I see...it's just going to be the same-old same-old. I am correct - the attitude of this forum is "we are right, everyone else is wrong, screw them". You guys get all bent out of shape over people that have ties to WWMC and you get all bent out of shape thinking that the liberals are here to take over. (Trust me guys, the liberals don't want this forum)

I refuse to be a part of that. As I stated not too long ago, I'm sure that many of my liberal Christian friends will be standing with me at the pearly gates. I can't possess the hate for them that you guys seem to.

Unsubscribing now. This forum doesn't want help.

 

[drstevej]

kumbayah