• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Moderator Malfeasance

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
After reading some other material on the forum it seems I can still post here so I will because there seems to be some on the discussion forum who have trouble with the English Language.
Since my ban starts today I thought I would point out that some of our moderators are using ideological means to make determinations. Which in this case lead to my ban. It is interesting in that two mods thought it no violation until swayed by the false reasoning of Daryl. This is a clear instance of an ideology interfering with real moderation duties.

The following is my response to the Report about my post:
I see I am already banned but you should know that you have been led astray on a number of lines in the report http://foru.ms/t6149505
First as far as a rule violation

Daryl wrote:
If the words "these sinless perfection people" and "perverse" were not there, then I would agree to a no rule violation, however, seeing that it is there, I say it is a rule violation.

Rule Violation.

His next post said the violation was of this rule:2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

No mention was made of the SDA church and in fact in the thread I believe I mentioned other denominations which have people in them who hold to perfectionism.

Someone then quotes from the SDA fundamental belief which is not even talking about the type of sinless perfection under discussion.

Interestingly the person has used the latest addition to the fundamental belief as his explanation. The previous 27 beliefs have explanatory chapters in the book (Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines ). contrary to the intent of the fundamental belief this one which did not use either the word sinless or perfection is attributed to mean by the poster that it is talking about sinless perfection.(See Adventist Review quote at end of this post) After that post and the post by Daryl the other moderators changed their vote.

The Adventist view is expressed from our SDA church sponsored Adventist Research Institute in an article by How Perfect Is "Perfect" Or Is Christian Perfection Possible?
Edward Heppenstall ( a pretty Famous SDA)
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch...%20Perfect.htm
Quote:
Sinful Nature: Controlled But Not Eradicated The greatest men in the Bible never claimed sinless perfection. They were all painfully aware of the fact that they were sinners and remained so throughout their lives. So long as a man is in a state of sin with a sinful nature still present in him, he will confess himself to be a sinner. The Christian always recognizes himself to be a sinner in need of divine grace.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)
We find here the most solemn warning against the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life. The incontrovertible meaning of this passage is that the man is a self-deceiver who claims for himself what the apostle John dared not claim. The truth is not in him. The doctrine of sinless perfection leads to the conclusion that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are unnecessary once this state of eradication of the sinful nature is reached. Wherever the professed Christian claims to have the sinful nature eradicated in his life, there is a corresponding loss of true dependence upon Christ. There is a break in the only saving relationship that man needs for victory. This allows people to sin and call evil good. It discourages those who strive to be like Christ, but fall short of this false idea of perfection.
It is God's will that, having surrendered to Christ at conversion as best he knows, the believer will maintain that attitude that as fast as anything further is revealed to him contrary to the will of God, he will promptly give that up also. God will see to it that throughout the Christian life here on earth, there will be deeper insights into the sinfulness and selfishness of our own natures. There will be increased dependence, increased repentance, and prayer for forgiveness. The believer will never come to the place where he will not pray the Lord's prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." By this increased insight, we shall continually need an increased "looking unto Jesus the author and the finisher of our faith." There are no limits to God's power. He is always willing and able to give us the victory. But man limits God by virtue of his lack of insight and lack of surrender. In proportion to the maturity and completeness of his knowledge will be the completeness of his surrender and victory.
This is a gross miscarriage of the moderators process as well as logic. It is based upon assumptions not present to claim a rule violation and supports the claim with biased and inaccurate information.

As supplemental information about the Fundamental belief now numbered 11"Growing in Christ" here is the information from the Official SDA publication the Adventist Review. You will notice it has nothing to do with the idea of sinless perfection. Even in the debates at the council the idea of sinless perfection was not viewed as a part of this fundamental belief statement.

Quote:
Delegates to the Annual Council today voted to recommend the addition of a new statement to the 27 doctrinal affirmations currently identified in the church's Fundamental Beliefs. The proposed statement, "Growing in Christ," will be placed on the agenda of the church's worldwide General Conference in July 2005 inSt. Louis, Missouri. It is the first addition to be recommended by an Annual Council since the original document was approved at the church's 1980 session in Dallas, Texas. The new statement addresses several areas of Christian belief and practice that many church leaders and theologians felt did not receive adequate attention in the present articulation of core beliefs. The power of Christ in confronting and vanquishing demonic powers is highlighted, and the freedom of believers from past deeds and influences is affirmed. Specific spiritual practices, including personal Bible study, prayer, worship, and witness, are described as supporting the believer's new life in Christ.

"As a church, we've set a priority on reaching those who live in the 10/40 window-nearly 70 percent of the world's population," says Mike Ryan, vice president for strategic planning and director of the church's Global Mission initiative. "Most of these people go to bed each night fearing evil spirits. Their first question to us invariably is 'What will your Jesus do about the evil spirits?'

"If we're going to be a people of hope, we also have to be able to show people where to find it-and that's why these spiritual resources and practices that point to Jesus have been identified in the new statement."
The complete text of the "Growing in Christ" Fundamental Belief, along with supporting Bible references, can be viewed here.

http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1541/update3.html

And one final thing on the meaning of perverse since it has more meaning then being a pervert as in a sexual pervert. Moderators should be aware of language and its usage rather then merely making assumptions.
Quote:
per·verse
clip_image002.gif
/pərˈvɜrs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[per-vurs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective
1.
willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.

2.
characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.

3.
wayward or cantankerous.

4.
persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.

5.
turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.
The only way that the word perverse could be a rule violation is if one restricted it's meaning to #5 above. I would expect some corrective action upon this moderator's error.
 

StormyOne

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
5,424
47
65
Alabama
✟5,866.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
well when people voted for Daryl they got what they got.... if they were not sure they should have looked at how he runs his site... I am getting to the point where I think folks will believe what they believe and some will even attempt to make you believe as they do.... I might have been there at one time, but that time has passed..... Daryl and the other new mods will make mistakes, they aren't going to get it right all the time, that's fine with me...
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jim Larmore then posted this on the Discussion forum:

None of us is perfect but I think the new moderators are facing a tough task in trying to get this forum back to a semblance of civility. Maybe they are over reacting in some cases but we have been pleading for them to start enforcing the rules here for a long time. Now when they do we get upset with that. I've debated RC many times and he can get flamy from time to time. He's a smart guy so he can learn to re-phrase his dialog to not flame. When some is accused of being perverse that is flaming in my opinion.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Who was being accused of being perverse Jim? Is it not possible to have a perverse view of something is that an attack upon a person? This is what I said:
Originally Posted by RC_NewProtestants
I just don't get this line of argument. We have thousands of years of people dying, good Christian people but they did not have perfect sinless characters. Did you ever read what David said to Joab on his deathbed? If their sinful characters are not changed then heaven isn't going to be nearly as nice as we expect or extremely sparsely populated.

It is why these sinless perfection people have nothing to stand upon they have no logic, no scripture and ultimately nothing but a perverse view of what they may someday be like.

Now what does perverse mean, is it a attack word that cannot be used should it be stricken from the English language because it is too inflammatory. I certainly did not use it in the inflammatory way that EGW does over 200 times in her writings by writing about someone's "perverse nature".

So now the moderators have become word police and if a word has one possible definition that can be viewed as flaming it shall be viewed that way. Contrary to the actual definitions of the word or stated another way; they have used a perverse view of the definition of the word to assume an injury. That is why I posted the definition of the word but apparently some still can't seem to understand it's usage.

1.willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary. 2.characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.Apparently if I had only a limited 8th grade vocabulary I would have been ok by saying these people have a contrary view of what they may someday become. But that is difficult to understand so we have more words in English to fit contexts. Here the context is that they have a view that is predicated upon the idea that someday they will not be as they are now and that that someday is to occur before the promised change at the Second Coming. So now all have sinned and the Bible says that if anyone says they do not sin they have no truth in them. But contrary to that Biblical statement there are people who claim that such a statement is not true and that they may someday prior to the second coming prove the Bible to be in error in it's observation of the sinfulness of Man. Yes it is a perverse view just as the idea that we can someday become God, in fact when you have Biblical authority there are indeed many things that can be said to be perverse views in religion.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wow I just got reported on the post which included the museum picture of a Victorian anti-masturbation device with the following mod comment:
Unapproved post due to image being a sda rule violation and innappropriate and also an overall CF rule violation.

A very definite Rule Violation!
Quote:
FSR 2.8 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated. This means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature.

This is from a thread where the subject was masturbation and EGW and the device prevents such sexual acts. Yet now in the 21st century the mere picture is deemed sexual nature. Ironic the purpose to prevent any type of sexual activity now is considered sexual activity.

What have we become?
 
Upvote 0

NightEternal

Evangelical SDA
Apr 18, 2007
5,639
127
Toronto, Ontario
✟6,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
:doh:

What lunacy. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Considering the context of the discussion, the picture was entirely appropriate!

Puritan sensibilities are still rampant apparently.

We can only hope Daryl comes to his senses sooner than later.
 
Upvote 0

StormyOne

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
5,424
47
65
Alabama
✟5,866.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wow I just got reported on the post which included the museum picture of a Victorian anti-masturbation device with the following mod comment:


This is from a thread where the subject was masturbation and EGW and the device prevents such sexual acts. Yet now in the 21st century the mere picture is deemed sexual nature. Ironic the purpose to prevent any type of sexual activity now is considered sexual activity.

What have we become?
Tall has extended the offer to be an advocate... you may want to contact him....
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I got the official word just now

Staff has received a (report) from one of your post. A decision has been made by staff to have this post deleted. Your post is found to be in violation of rule :

[2.10 Members will not post threatening, obscene, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit (including the use of slang sexual euphemisms), graphically violent or illegal posts or links.]
Apparently that history museum whose article I posted is trafficking in threatening (certainly if they said they were going to place one of those things on me it would be threating), obscene or vulgar material. Well maybe racist if the urban myths are true though I suppose, though I am not sure which race is being promoted or detracted by that picture. However the picture is not sexually explicit by any stretch nor did it use a euphemism. It did not depict the device installed which might have implied some graphic violence. And lastly I can't imagine the museum is publishing their illegal material.

I assume we must also make sure we don't repeat Bart Simpson's saying "eat my shorts" or the old saying "don't get your panties in a bunch" or“don’t get your knickers in a knot”. I wonder if "it fits like a glove is ok"?

Well just be careful out there.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was curious about what the staff apology was about for honor mentioned in the discussion forum and I found this interesting comparison.

this was ruled no violation:

Message:
Quote:
Originally Posted by honorthesabbath
MVA-why would we expect these posters to believe what we believe--after all we are Adventists. Have you seen any of these people ever once agree with the Advent message? I haven't.

We say it's black--they will insist that it's white.

http://foru.ms/showthread.php?postid...1#post39409341
http://foru.ms/showthread.php?postid=39409341#post39409341

What is interesting is that "these posters" is specific to the people who have posted on that thread, they are members of the forum and for the most part all are still members of the SDA church. So in this case the "these people" are pretty specifically forum "posters". Followed by the statement that the "posters" do not agree with the Advent message and are contrary.


Now compare it to my post which is not specific to any specific group or poster instead using the phrase "these sinless perfection people", no mention of Adventists, no mention of any specific post or posters yet mine is a violation. What is also interesting is that my statement of a view that is perverse also has the meaning of contrary as in we say black they say white.

Quote:
It is why these sinless perfection people have nothing to stand upon they have no logic, no scripture and ultimately nothing but a perverse view of what they may someday be like.
The last sentence in the above part of that post bothers me for the following reason:
Quote:
1.8 Flaming of members or groups of members is not allowed. Flaming is defined as the posting of inflammatory or unsubstantiated accusations or the use of rude, hurtful, insulting, or belittling language. Criticism should be directed at posts, not people.
If the words "these sinless perfection people" and "perverse" were not there, then I would agree to a no rule violation, however, seeing that it is there, I say it is a rule violation.

Rule Violation.
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39508963&postcount=5
It seems that there are way too many of these poor moderator decisions the more I read the reports. I have no idea why the views are so different I think that it must reflect upon the thinking ability of the moderators.
 
Upvote 0

DarylFawcett

Ticket Support Manager
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2005
46,721
4,216
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟1,101,033.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
All I can and will say here is that it takes three mods saying the same thing to reach a concensus, which is a protection of one mod making a binding decision all by himself/herself.
 
Upvote 0

sentipente

Senior Contributor
Jul 17, 2007
11,651
4,492
Silver Sprint, MD
✟54,142.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Politics
US-Others
All I can and will say here is that it takes three mods saying the same thing to reach a concensus, which is a protection of one mod making a binding decision all by himself/herself.
Daryl, you know that is enough. The problem is not that you have made mistakes that were driven by your personal ideology and a misunderstanding of the human language. The problem is that pride prevents you from admitting to your errors. That I find to be very sad. I know one person that type of attitude does not represents.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
All I can and will say here is that it takes three mods saying the same thing to reach a concensus, which is a protection of one mod making a binding decision all by himself/herself.
Yes the consensus acts as a way to improve the chances of making a good call but clearly it does not insure a good call. Right now three poorly reasoned views make a poorly reasoned consensus.

Then the consensus is held up as evidence of a justifiable decision. We have had consensus on some pretty poor rules because those making the rules would not think about what they were doing.

Yesterday I was called upon to remove the words Prognosticator Extraordinaire from a post. Just those two words that made up the entire sentence. The person that caused this to be a consensus did so by saying the words which mean in common language "maker of extraordinary predictions" that the person who reported the post felt belittled by the term. Thus it was a violation. Now compare that again to Honor's post mentioned above. The entire point of which was to belittle the other forum posters.

Now I am not even saying that honor should not be able to say what she did only that the application of moderator's to the rules is extremely uneven. I think people should be allowed to say what they think and let their own personalities come through (flames should be derogatory name calling without going into the subjective "how did that make you feel, oh you felt belittled... then it's a violation"). But of course we have created such poor rules and they apparently have had a type of infection effect on moderators. I don't recall our moderators being this poor in the past so I do blame a lot of this on rules and probably a less vigorous approach to choosing moderators.

However when the moderators hide behind "well this is a consensus" and the appeals process is a procedure which is ignored when used we have the makings for a serious problem.
 
Upvote 0

Sophia7

Tall73's Wife
Site Supporter
Sep 24, 2005
12,364
456
✟84,145.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes the consensus acts as a way to improve the chances of making a good call but clearly it does not insure a good call. Right now three poorly reasoned views make a poorly reasoned consensus.

Then the consensus is held up as evidence of a justifiable decision. We have had consensus on some pretty poor rules because those making the rules would not think about what they were doing.

Yesterday I was called upon to remove the words Prognosticator Extraordinaire from a post. Just those two words that made up the entire sentence. The person that caused this to be a consensus did so by saying the words which mean in common language "maker of extraordinary predictions" that the person who reported the post felt belittled by the term. Thus it was a violation. Now compare that again to Honor's post mentioned above. The entire point of which was to belittle the other forum posters.

Now I am not even saying that honor should not be able to say what she did only that the application of moderator's to the rules is extremely uneven. I think people should be allowed to say what they think and let their own personalities come through (flames should be derogatory name calling without going into the subjective "how did that make you feel, oh you felt belittled... then it's a violation"). But of course we have created such poor rules and they apparently have had a type of infection effect on moderators. I don't recall our moderators being this poor in the past so I do blame a lot of this on rules and probably a less vigorous approach to choosing moderators.

However when the moderators hide behind "well this is a consensus" and the appeals process is a procedure which is ignored when used we have the makings for a serious problem.

And they want to make it even worse with the proposal to grant the mods discretion in giving warnings for some violations but not others. (See the most recent pre-poll discussion, stickied in the Debate sub-forum.) They are trying to treat the symptoms rather than getting rid of the systemic problems with the rules themselves.
 
Upvote 0