Mods, can you help us out with the Wiki process?

[TrustAndObey]

Hi all,

There has been some disagreement while we're trying to decide on some rules in the Wiki and I just wanted to clear up a few things (for myself, not necessarily for anyone else).

I was told there wouldn't be a vote on the rule suggestions, but then Stone mentioned that we do get to vote.

I'm totally confused so hopefully we can get this straightened out before we vote.

1. What are we voting on exactly? Should we have more than one choice for a forum rule to decide between or are we only going to be able to say "yay" or "nay" to ONE suggested rule on a particular subject?

2. If we are only able to vote for or against a suggested rule, then who gets to decide which rules get to remain in the wiki for consideration?

For example, people have posted suggestions for a rule, and without discussion their suggestions are being deleted completely (by whom I don't know). Therefore we're not getting to vote, which seems to defeat the entire purpose of the suggestions and input.

Is this how it's supposed to work? Are we allowed to just delete the entire wiki suggestions made if we disagree with them? If not, what can we do here?

This may not be a problem in any of the other wikis, but it is in ours. I'm starting to think we need an independent mod just for our wiki. Sheesh...this is just sad (and embarrassing).

3. We're relying on some of the general CF rules. We're not adding them into our rules since they're already forum-wide, but the general rules are subject to change too, correct?


That's all the questions I can think of for now, but I feel like I'm forgetting something (I'll add more later if I think of some).

 

[djconklin]

For example, people have posted suggestions for a rule, and without discussion their suggestions are being deleted completely (by whom I don't know).

Not only was that sneaky and unhanded and thus unbecoming for a Christian; but, it was also unChristlike.

Good questions; I hope you get an answer soon.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Well, I just really want some qualification if this really is how it's supposed to work, because if it is, it's NOT working for us.

I don't see the point in putting a suggestion on there if someone is just going to delete it without any discussion other than "I disagree".

I guess I also don't see the point in us putting suggestions for rules in the wiki if it comes down to who puts their suggestion up last (before the vote) while deleting someone else's. It shouldn't be a race, it should be about being heard.

 

[thecountrydoc]

It is not supprising that you feel a bit confused Lainie. There has been/ is no practial plan in place for what changes need to be made here in the SDA forum.

Up until now I haven't gotten into this mess but I feel the time has come that I must say a few things. Fot an economy of words I will start with the "Wiki" and then come back with some additional comments.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[longhair75]

Good afternoon friends,

The problems you are having are very frustrating. The editable nature of the wiki leads to the possibility of abuse, and unfortunately it is difficult to control vandalizing the rules by individuals who will continue to delete entries until they are satisfied.

Possibly forming a committee from among the members who will keep tabs on the Wiki, and facilitate discussion and voting on the forum specific topics addressed in the wiki would put a stop to the vandalism.

1. What are we voting on exactly? Should we have more than one choice for a forum rule to decide between or are we only going to be able to say "yay" or "nay" to ONE suggested rule on a particular subject?

The members of the SDA roum absolutely should have a vote on the forum specific rules that are being proposed in the wiki, and a part in discussing those rules until a consensus is reached.

2. If we are only able to vote for or against a suggested rule, then who gets to decide which rules get to remain in the wiki for consideration?

No one should edit or delete a rule without discussion by all members. Rules should be proposed, discussed then re-edited or adopted by consensus of the forum members.

We're relying on some of the general CF rules. We're not adding them into our rules since they're already forum-wide, but the general rules are subject to change too, correct?

Rule 2.3 of the CF rules says:

2.3Congregational Areas Will Have Their Own Rules for Debating

The members of the Congregational fora will be empowered to elect their own moderators and establish their own rules for who may debate in them. In essence, they will remain safe-havens for members of the Congregation.

This does not mean that Congregational fora are allowed to make rules that conflict with the CF rules.

So, you are not allowed to change the CF rules at the forum level. You are allowed to create rules by which you make decisions within your forum such as who may participate in the debates, and how your Moderator elections will operate.

First and formost, you must come up with a procedure by which the decisions will be made and ratified in your Congregational forum.

For Example:

In another forum where I participate there is a group of forum specific rules that are being considered.

1..By consensus, we stopped adding or subtracting from the wiki while this is taking place.

2. There was a motion thread posted where the discussion was to be done. This was limited to four days to allow everyone a chance at the discussion, but to place an end point.

3. Once the discussion period was completed, there was a poll created for the vote on the proposal that was the end result of the discussion. this poll was set for three days.

4. Tomorrow evening, the voting period will be complete, and the rules will either be adopted of not. If not, we will need to start the process again.

This has worked pretty well so far, but it requires everyone to play fair.

I hope that helped. If not, don't hesitate to ask questions in this thread. I will answer them as well as I can, and possibly my fellow Moderators will have wisdom to add.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I keep hearing "well this is how it works" so that implies there is a list of standards for the wiki somewhere.

It's just aggravating because I wouldn't dream of deleting someone's suggestion without a general consensus that it won't work as a rule.

The whole idea of deleting what they've said would give the appearance that I think my way is better and this is OUR forum....for all of us....and we need to make it a happy place for everyone.

We can't agree on the tiniest things and it's just really frustrating.

I'm willing to compromise, I have read every single word that's in that thread, and I value every single person's suggestions (even if I don't agree with it).

It's just not working. The rules are different than they were before I left on my trip this weekend, yet I'm in the thread saying "the rules look good". They did then.

It's just really chaotic right now and people are getting angry.

I'm hoping we get some intervention because people are going to LEAVE instead of getting their opinion out on the table.

 

[TrustAndObey]

LongHair, thank you!

Can I post what you've said in our Wiki thread?

 

[longhair75]

absolutely

 

[TrustAndObey]

Thank you! I think that will help us.

LongHair, the question I was asking about the forum-wide rules was because there WAS a rule about not bashing an important figure to a denomination's belief system. I don't see it now so I guess we should add it to our own rules?

It wouldn't be against CF rules, just an addition.

 

[stone]

Hi all,

There has been some disagreement while we're trying to decide on some rules in the Wiki and I just wanted to clear up a few things (for myself, not necessarily for anyone else).

I was told there wouldn't be a vote on the rule suggestions, but then Stone mentioned that we do get to vote.

I'm totally confused so hopefully we can get this straightened out before we vote.

I'll explain

1. What are we voting on exactly? Should we have more than one choice for a forum rule to decide between or are we only going to be able to say "yay" or "nay" to ONE suggested rule on a particular subject?

At this point your not voteing at all. You will be voteing on all of your rules. Each rule will have its own poll.

2. If we are only able to vote for or against a suggested rule, then who gets to decide which rules get to remain in the wiki for consideration?

After the voteing is complete, then a hard copy of wiki will be created, at this point its a roughdraft and the energy would be better spent in here posting your idea for a rule.

For example, people have posted suggestions for a rule, and without discussion their suggestions are being deleted completely (by whom I don't know). Therefore we're not getting to vote, which seems to defeat the entire purpose of the suggestions and input.

This is not the voteing sessions. I would not put any stock into what wiki reads at this time.

Is this how it's supposed to work?

no, your asked to reply to the threads the forum supervisors made in here, from that information is where the data for the polls will be withdrawn.

Are we allowed to just delete the entire wiki suggestions made if we disagree with them?

Like i said, wiki definitions and rules don't really mean anything at this point.

If not, what can we do here?

This may not be a problem in any of the other wikis, but it is in ours. I'm starting to think we need an independent mod just for our wiki. Sheesh...this is just sad (and embarrassing).

The messianics have one up, but no one is editing it, there is not point in editing it till the votes are in on the polls, and the polls haven't even been put together yet. I think you guys have another week to put your comments into the threads for your forum suggestions.

3. We're relying on some of the general CF rules. We're not adding them into our rules since they're already forum-wide, but the general rules are subject to change too, correct?

Those will stay as they are from what i understand. Some may change a little, no idea what at this time. I'm thinking its just gonna be the nicene creed stuff?

That's all the questions I can think of for now, but I feel like I'm forgetting something (I'll add more later if I think of some).

The best thing at this time is to put your ideas in the threads in this forum that the supervisors put together for you.

Maybe you guys don't understand what the threads were for. I'll try and give you an example; if you said that you don't want anybody to come into your forum and say rude things about chocolate ice cream cones, then that rule will be made into a poll and everyone will vote if they want to be able to speak rudely of chocolate icecream cones.

it doesn't matter if everyone else thinks its ridiculous to even vote on icecream cones, but if one person adds this into the thread for a rule, then its going to be voted on regardless.

To be honest with you guys, i was planning on pulling information out of wiki to make polls when the time comes to it, but now seeing that some are removeing entries completely, i suggest that you all make your recommendations here in this forum in the appropriate threads.

stone

 

[TrustAndObey]

Now see, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about Stone.

What you just said contradicts at least half of what I've been told in the Wiki discussion!

So you and LongHair's comments have helped me tremendously and I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

So can we start over maybe?

I'm not sure I saw the threads started about rule suggestions.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This should not be so confusing to people. As the first paragraph of the Wiki says:

These are the SDA Forum rules pending an approval vote. A poll will be created after we have allowed a reasonable time period for all SDA members who are interested to voice their opinions. Voting will be open only to Seventh-day Adventists. Use of socks in order to vote more than once will not be allowed.

The wiki is the statement of the intended rules put in place by those who have been discussing the rules. It provides the framework for thinking about the form and the layout and what rules have been already considered. They are not rules until approved. while woob started us off, his list was not written in a rules framework and it was mainly a list of what not to discuss. so it was removed and Ben added some well phrased and ordered rules that have been the framework ever since until woob accidently or otherwise made some changes. But the discussion were made on the wiki discussion pages and when there was a consensus Sophia made the changes to the wiki. It worked well for a while then someone decided to simply change the wiki without any discussion and hence the problem.

We need to go back to the way we were doing things and present an idea for a rule and the phrasing of the rule and moving that to a discussion and consensus.

It would probably be just as easy or maybe easier to conduct those discussion on the main sda forum as a rule number and proposed wording and then have the discussions.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5674237

I will start a thread on the ones that are in red for the wiki now since they I think are woobs editions and have not been reached by any means of consensus yet.
see http://www.christianforums.com/t5707785-23-wiki-rules-discussion.html#post36757838

 

[TrustAndObey]

This should not be so confusing to people. As the first paragraph of the Wiki says:


The wiki is the statement of the intended rules put in place by those who have been discussing the rules. It provides the framework for thinking about the form and the layout and what rules have been already considered. They are not rules until approved. while woob started us off, his list was not written in a rules framework and it was mainly a list of what not to discuss. so it was removed and Ben added some well phrased and ordered rules that have been the framework ever since until woob accidently or otherwise made some changes. But the discussion were made on the wiki discussion pages and when there was a consensus Sophia made the changes to the wiki. It worked well for a while then someone decided to simply change the wiki without any discussion and hence the problem.

We need to go back to the way we were doing things and present an idea for a rule and the phrasing of the rule and moving that to a discussion and consensus.

It would probably be just as easy or maybe easier to conduct those discussion on the main sda forum as a rule number and proposed wording and then have the discussions.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5674237

I will start a thread on the ones that are in red for the wiki now since they I think are woobs editions and have not been reached by any means of consensus yet.
see http://www.christianforums.com/t5707785-23-wiki-rules-discussion.html#post36757838

This doesn't have to turn into a "bash woob" argument.

We were ALL doing this wrong. It was to be discussed HERE in this forum and THEN added to the wiki.

We've all been doing it wrong, so pointing fingers isn't helping anyone.

 

[tall73]

Good afternoon friends,

The problems you are having are very frustrating. The editable nature of the wiki leads to the possibility of abuse, and unfortunately it is difficult to control vandalizing the rules by individuals who will continue to delete entries until they are satisfied.

Possibly forming a committee from among the members who will keep tabs on the Wiki, and facilitate discussion and voting on the forum specific topics addressed in the wiki would put a stop to the vandalism.



The members of the SDA roum absolutely should have a vote on the forum specific rules that are being proposed in the wiki, and a part in discussing those rules until a consensus is reached.



No one should edit or delete a rule without discussion by all members. Rules should be proposed, discussed then re-edited or adopted by consensus of the forum members.

The original rules posted were never discussed before they were added, nor was there any consensus on them .We had a consensus for a while on some of the sub-forums but not sure where we are at now as I have not checked back.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The original rules posted were never discussed before they were added, nor was there any consensus on them .We had a consensus for a while on some of the sub-forums but not sure where we are at now as I have not checked back.

I agree, we didn't agree on the first set of suggested rules either. That's why I asked this question of the mods. We've been doing it wrong all along.

Now that we know, why can't we do it right and just forget about any deletions and prior discussions and start over?

We can get the consensus for a rule in this forum and then add it to the wiki for a vote.

 

[TrustAndObey]

It's my understanding that if we reach a general consensus we can add it to the wiki, but once it's added we cannot delete it.

So it's important to participate in the process HERE in this forum.

 

[tall73]

I'll explain

[/color]

At this point your not voteing at all. You will be voteing on all of your rules. Each rule will have its own poll.

[/color]

After the voteing is complete, then a hard copy of wiki will be created, at this point its a roughdraft and the energy would be better spent in here posting your idea for a rule.

Is there a specific set of rules for congregational forums? That is not at all how they are doing it with the main rules etc. They are working out consensus in the wiki itself.

This is not the voteing sessions. I would not put any stock into what wiki reads at this time.




no, your asked to reply to the threads the forum supervisors made in here, from that information is where the data for the polls will be withdrawn.

Nor is that what is happening in other places.

Like i said, wiki definitions and rules don't really mean anything at this point.

Then why did they take the draft rules for the main rules and for theology , etc. from the wiki directly?

The messianics have one up, but no one is editing it, there is not point in editing it till the votes are in on the polls, and the polls haven't even been put together yet. I think you guys have another week to put your comments into the threads for your forum suggestions.

[/color]

Again, is there some kind of congregational rules because there is none of that going on elsewhere.

Consensus is being reached by folks discussing in the wiki then crafting better and better drafts. Some disagreements happen, somethings get edited. Sometimes someone will scrap everything, but if that happens it can all be rolled back.

No votes are taken on any of the wiki content yet, just discussion and consensus.

To be honest with you guys, i was planning on pulling information out of wiki to make polls when the time comes to it, but now seeing that some are removeing entries completely, i suggest that you all make your recommendations here in this forum in the appropriate threads.

stone

Perhaps you need to emphasize that entries need consensus as much as removals.

And it makes no sense to ignore the wiki when that is how the other areas are doing it.

 

[tall73]

It's my understanding that if we reach a general consensus we can add it to the wiki, but once it's added we cannot delete it.

So it's important to participate in the process HERE in this forum.

You are poorly informed.

I suggest everyone go look at the general wiki and the main rules formation process.

Unless congregationals have established some other system you can remove things, especially by group consensus.

 

[tall73]

Now see, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about Stone.

What you just said contradicts at least half of what I've been told in the Wiki discussion!

So you and LongHair's comments have helped me tremendously and I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

So can we start over maybe?

I'm not sure I saw the threads started about rule suggestions.

It also contradicts what is actually happening elsewhere.

 

[DarylFawcett]

I liked the "discussion" aspect with the Wiki as a place to see the proposed or suggested rules all in one place.

I didn't like it when what was agreed to as a group was deleted and changed by one person without first discussing it and getting a consensus on it first. That happened at least a couple of times, the first time by somebody, and the last time by woob.

If we now want to do it in this forum with each rule presently existing on the Wiki as separate threads, then that is OK with me, however, as time is running out, we need to get started on it.