New CF Progress Check

[drstevej]

Here is Erwin's 7-7-7 statement of the New CF Vision.

Let's give him some feed back.... Are these things beginning to happen as he envisioned?

Let's discuss the "new" CF. One thing to make clear is that these are things that I want happen, and that will happen, and whether staff or members agree with them or not, they are what I believe to be the right things to do. Some, maybe a lot, may disagree, but I believe it's time for a MAJOR paradigm shift at CF.

Unlike what people might have mistakenly expected, the "new" CF is NOT going to happen overnight.

It's going to happen in stages. However, there are mainly going to be 2 stages:

1. The first stage is the CULTURE change stage. This is going to start happening from TODAY but will be an ongoing process. This will involve:

a. Changing the site rules - simpler, less legalistic, and more open
b. Changing the way rules are developed or changed - wikify it! The rules process should be a member-initiated community-propelled, and consensus driven, not something that a minority can decide on.
c. Changing the way moderators are appointed - the members decide! There will be forum moderators, category moderators, and then super moderators. Members nominated, members vote, members appointed. Appointments are for a 12 months - at the end, can be renominated, or not. The power is with the people. And yes, if you are not a Christian, you can be on staff, if people vote for you to do so. The whole process will be open, transparent, and clear. What about current staff? They will all have to be renominated and voted in at some stage.
d. No more warnings. If God can forgive, so can we. Of course, consistent rule-breakers and trolls will still be banned, but hey, that's not going to be avoidable for any site. But not legitimate users.
e. No more restriction of forums for non-Christians - if a non-Christian can walk into a church, a non-Christian can walk and post in any forum here. Some forums may still have gender or age restrictions, but the whole side, as should be any Christian site, will now be totally [OPEN].
f. No more restriction of faith icons - who are we to tell you who you are or what you believe in? In fact, no other restrictions - if you want to call yourself married, go ahead. It is between you and God, not you and CF.
g. Related to the above, if you believe you are a Christian, you are. No more reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian. In the end, who are we to judge.
h. Transparent appeals of moderator actions in a much more simpler format - with member input allowed - in fact, the community has a say in all appeals. The way it should be. As the community has written the rules up in the end.
i. No more hidden moderator forums - in fact, no hidden forums at all (except trash forums). If we can read it, you can read it. What is there to hide? If it has to be private, it can be in a PM. This will mean more transparency from all people.

The above outlines the setup of the new rules. A lot of the above cannot happen overnight, and will require some work. But the aim is for culture change at CF.

Many people, including current staff, will not be happy with the above, and some will quit, leave or resign. I bear you no ill-will - you do what you think is right, I do what I think is right. Yes, some of the above changes are controversial, and in fact, radical. But it's time for a total new way of looking at CF. We want to unite all Christians. Not just some.


2. The second stage is the TECHNOLOGY change stage. This is going to start happening over the next MONTH as this will involve extensive recoding and even software replacement. New features will be added. Members would have noticed that we have hit a hiatus in terms of new features being added and CF has not had a new feature for a long time. Well, I am looking at changing this. In the past, I've been the only server administrator, webmaster and coder. I've outsourced the server administration part of things, but there is room to outsource other things. The software behind CF requires a lot of improvements, and this WILL occur. I won't say too much about them because the second stage will be the part that will be most visible and trust me, when it happens, it will be obvious.


In other words, stage one, the culture change, is the change of CF's heart and soul, while stage two, the technology change, is the change of CF's look and body. In my mind, stage one is by far the most important. Both stages are hard to do.

 

[Voegelin]

Seeing the mod reports I think is a positive. Difficult to say what you wish to say operating in the dark. Mods could see the logic in what they were doing. Others could not. Moderation will always be, to some extent, arbitrary but after reading the reports, it appears a lot less arbitrary now than before.

Problem I see now is dwelling on the change and the rules. How many posts do we need about liberals posting in conservative sub-forums and conservatives posting in liberal sub-forums, about where people should be allowed to moderate, about what icons are used, about who posts on an atheist site which attacks CF and what they say...etc...etc...

This could go on.....forever. CF could become an image of that atheist site which does little but kvetch about various aspects of Christian forums. Billions and billions and billions of posts and replies on...nothing....

No way to know how the changes work until more is posted which doesn't center on the changes. So why not get on with it? Use the forum as a forum to express views on something other than the forum itself.

 

[drstevej]

quote #1

100,000 blessings to the first person that can tell me when we've reached a "consensus."

quote #2

My suggestion:

Throw all wiki's out, every last one of them. If forums want there own rules they have 10 days to get them in order and have them posted in the forum for which they are intended, without discussion.

If those forums want changes later they can discuss them within that forum and once a consensus has been made a moderator can edit the rules to reflect the changes.

Also requiring 3 staffers to be in agreement before we can request an edit is rediculous and unworkable. The members are writing the rules so why is it we need 3 staffers to make the same decision to do something in a report?

Unless we can restore some semblence of reason to CF we will continue to lose staff and before long there will be no staff left with the skills to keep this place going. Something needs to be done and quickly

quote #3

GO right ahead. This new "consequenceless" CF has opened a pandoras box of bad behavior.

quote #4

I remain to be convinced that the wikis will work.

quote #5

Simpler?

ON 7-7-07, Erwin wrote:



a. Changing the site rules - simpler, less legalistic, and more open


So I am looking at all the wikis - all the rules for procedures and looking subforum rules and am thinking, this is simpler?

It is more legalistic and complicated now than ever!!! Am I the only one totally lost?

quote #6

FreeinChrist: I'm just twisted enough to be amused at the irony of it

It is getting frustrating having to spend 20 minutes catching up on the latest rules of CF/FSR's etc before you can even answer a PM though...

(or am I the only one?)

quote #7

This is getting to be a real good reason to step down. But my team just lost two members so I'm not leaving yet.

But the wiki's are out of control, and too many to do my job. I spend more time trying to get the hang of things than I do in reports. I can't even tell you when the last time I had a chance to really hang out in forums and be with the members.

This is causing me to lose more sleep than ever before. If it doesn't cease soon, I'm quitting before my health knocks me out again. (It happened in March just after I became mod)

 

[NewMan99]

So let's break it down - bearing in mind that this is just a snapshot on how things have progressed so far:

a. Changing the site rules - simpler, less legalistic, and more open

Okay - it has been more open (although why that is supposed to be an objectively good thing in any or all circumstances kind of escapes me), but the rules are FAR MORE COMPLEX and ever-changing - and are quickly becoming more legalistic...and will continue to grow and be less simple every day. Why? Ever hear the expression "too many cooks spoil the broth"?

So far this has been an utter failure.

b. Changing the way rules are developed or changed - wikify it! The rules process should be a member-initiated community-propelled, and consensus driven, not something that a minority can decide on.

Erwin fails to define what he means by "consensus." If he means that a small handful of people who have the time, desire, energy, and excessive amount of activist zeal to "work the system" - if THAT is what he means by "consensus driven" and "member-initiated" and "community-propelled" then he has been successful.

However if the REAL important thing is that the rules are "not something that a minority can decide on" then this, too, is an abject failure because it is only a small minority of people who have the stamina to work the wiki-madness. The thought that "the members" (however that is defined) supposedly "CAN" decide on the rules is a farce and a joke. Why? Because the system puts an UNREASONABLE burden and expectation on the ordinary members. It just does. So therefore the myth that the members are making the rules is an illusion. And for us to believe otherwise would mean we have turned an illusion into a delusion.

c. Changing the way moderators are appointed - the members decide! There will be forum moderators, category moderators, and then super moderators. Members nominated, members vote, members appointed. Appointments are for a 12 months - at the end, can be renominated, or not. The power is with the people. And yes, if you are not a Christian, you can be on staff, if people vote for you to do so. The whole process will be open, transparent, and clear. What about current staff? They will all have to be renominated and voted in at some stage.

It is true that this has significantly changed. How it is being done seems to change every day. As for the wisdom of allowing non-Christians to moderate a supposedly Christian board...well...it is my opinion this is a very slippery slope.

Since the new CF is supposed to be so democratic, why doesn't Erwin put this up for a vote? He won't. Why not? Because the real membership will flat out reject this idea. The real membership dislikes the idea of non-Christians moderating the board.

I also have real qualms about people having to campaign to be elected to serve. I know plenty of VERY GOOD mods who simply will bow out of the process rather than having to become a political candidate (let's face facts - that is exactly what this is all about - CF politics).

So the "progress report" on this is mixed - and time will tell if the naysayers (of which I am one) are right in predicting major problems on this front.

d. No more warnings. If God can forgive, so can we. Of course, consistent rule-breakers and trolls will still be banned, but hey, that's not going to be avoidable for any site. But not legitimate users.

This is another abject failure. Never in my life did I ever envision CF becoming such a cesspool of poor behavior. Flames remain unedited for days on end - and since they are not edited out quickly, they spur retaliatory flames...and strife has broken out ten-fold.

It makes for good reading if you enjoy melodrama and watching train wrecks - but it isn't condusive to CF being a pleasant or peaceful experience.

e. No more restriction of forums for non-Christians - if a non-Christian can walk into a church, a non-Christian can walk and post in any forum here. Some forums may still have gender or age restrictions, but the whole side, as should be any Christian site, will now be totally [OPEN].

Actually, I was long in favor of allowing ways for non-Christians to post in Christian areas. BUT - it never occured to me to throw out the Nicene Creed as the standard of orthodoxy, or to position the site in such a way that a seeker knowing nothing about Christianity would wind up with the impression that Mormonism is just another flavor of Christianity.

There is a difference between welcoming non-Christian seekers, and providing a facade of legitimacy and a platform for the evangelization of false religions masquerading as Christianity.

Erwin has thrown out the baby with the bathwater - and has favored idealism over realism to an unhealthy and imprudent degree.

Failure.

f. No more restriction of faith icons - who are we to tell you who you are or what you believe in? In fact, no other restrictions - if you want to call yourself married, go ahead. It is between you and God, not you and CF.

g. Related to the above, if you believe you are a Christian, you are. No more reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian. In the end, who are we to judge.

And Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"

Who is CF to obey the commands of the Great Commission?

Nuff said.

Failure.

h. Transparent appeals of moderator actions in a much more simpler format - with member input allowed - in fact, the community has a say in all appeals. The way it should be. As the community has written the rules up in the end.

It remains to be seen how well this will work out. It isn't difficult to envision everything under the sun being appealed and the system getting bogged down. Hopefully that will not be the case. In the wiki-world it isn't tough to imagine this getting out of hand.

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that the process will be "simpler" when more people are providing input.

i. No more hidden moderator forums - in fact, no hidden forums at all (except trash forums). If we can read it, you can read it. What is there to hide? If it has to be private, it can be in a PM. This will mean more transparency from all people.

I will submit that this is not realistic at all. Why? Because anytime a truly sensitive matter might come up, the discussions will merely happen via PMs and instant messenger. That's where lots of things will be decided. What we can read in the public staff forums will largely be things that are fairly benign.

And this has a real chance of being exploited if and when staffers decide to pontificate and put on a show when election time rolls around.

What are we going to read in these forums? Whatever they want us to read. What aren't we going to read? What they want to discuss in private.

So - nothing much has really changed. Sure, there is some transparency, and it is good for the members to see how hard the mods really do try to be fair...but it is another illusion becoming a delusion if we think that the new "open" CF is really as transparent as it pretends to be.

 

[AllForJesus]

NewMan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I enjoy reading every single thing you put, find sooo much wisdom in it!
Thank you sooooo much.

 

[drstevej]

What he said ^^

 

[Joykins]

Okay - it has been more open (although why that is supposed to be an objectively good thing in any or all circumstances kind of escapes me), but the rules are FAR MORE COMPLEX and ever-changing - and are quickly becoming more legalistic...and will continue to grow and be less simple every day. Why? Ever hear the expression "too many cooks spoil the broth"?

So far this has been an utter failure.

I think it has been a free-for-all, with predictable consequences. Procedure for changing and maintaining the wikis should have been set up before loosing them on the system. Right now mods are spending too much time just trying to keep up with the changes.

Erwin fails to define what he means by "consensus." If he means that a small handful of people who have the time, desire, energy, and excessive amount of activist zeal to "work the system" - if THAT is what he means by "consensus driven" and "member-initiated" and "community-propelled" then he has been successful.

However if the REAL important thing is that the rules are "not something that a minority can decide on" then this, too, is an abject failure because it is only a small minority of people who have the stamina to work the wiki-madness. The thought that "the members" (however that is defined) supposedly "CAN" decide on the rules is a farce and a joke. Why? Because the system puts an UNREASONABLE burden and expectation on the ordinary members. It just does. So therefore the myth that the members are making the rules is an illusion. And for us to believe otherwise would mean we have turned an illusion into a delusion.

It's interesting to see the differences between forums which were mostly unaffected and those which have erupted into flames. Forums with strong community norms have weathered this pretty well. Places with passionate debates have probably fared the worst.

I haven't even the stamina to work wikis. I have made contributions to maybe 1 or 2 forums I spend a lot of time posting to. But then, I traded in excessive involvement in CF in order to get back my personal life a few months ago.

It makes for good reading if you enjoy melodrama and watching train wrecks - but it isn't condusive to CF being a pleasant or peaceful experience.

Agreed.

Actually, I was long in favor of allowing ways for non-Christians to post in Christian areas. BUT - it never occured to me to throw out the Nicene Creed as the standard of orthodoxy, or to position the site in such a way that a seeker knowing nothing about Christianity would wind up with the impression that Mormonism is just another flavor of Christianity.

There is a difference between welcoming non-Christian seekers, and providing a facade of legitimacy and a platform for the evangelization of false religions masquerading as Christianity.

Erwin has thrown out the baby with the bathwater - and has favored idealism over realism to an unhealthy and imprudent degree.

I am concerned to some extent that bona-fide cults -- groups much scarier than the Mormons/JW--might come here and recruit. I'm not sure that creeds keep those people out though. Groups can be fully Nicene and spirtually abusive.

It remains to be seen how well this will work out. It isn't difficult to envision everything under the sun being appealed and the system getting bogged down. Hopefully that will not be the case. In the wiki-world it isn't tough to imagine this getting out of hand.

Interestingly enough I see this working out. The appeals have moved into the *report threads* where the poster may respond and express his POV. There seems to be less of a desire to overturn mod decisions as long as you can *HAVE YOUR SAY* on the issue, I noticed as Conciliator/Ombudsman, a lot of the time that was all people wanted anyway, yet they were frustrated at every turn trying to do it.

 

[NewMan99]

I'm not sure that creeds keep those people out though. Groups can be fully Nicene and spirtually abusive.

Well sure - but you can do other things to keep that in check. Removing the Creed as the gold standard of othodoxy in our witness to the world...that is truly throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Interestingly enough I see this working out. The appeals have moved into the *report threads* where the poster may respond and express his POV. There seems to be less of a desire to overturn mod decisions as long as you can *HAVE YOUR SAY* on the issue, I noticed as Conciliator/Ombudsman, a lot of the time that was all people wanted anyway, yet they were frustrated at every turn trying to do it.

You may very well be right about that. Time will tell.

 

[drstevej]

Erwin opens staff to non Christians who are elected by the members.

Then he appoints 17 superadmins to handle "technical things" and NONE of these are non-Nicene let alone non Christians.

Is this not a "back of the bus" approach?

 

[SunMessenger]

I am less upset about the changes which will eventually complete the full circle like everything else in life . I am still very upset over the radical nature of introduction. To thrust upon steady members a poor and unorganized plan with no fore thought what so ever is unacceptable. I am quite disappointed in the administrations lack of compassion for the members trashed for the sake of selfish personal need.

That being vented I will say that I do not look upon this place with the same optimism and respect I once had. This place is a direct reflection of it's leadership. Quite disappointing actually. I had a much higher view of the ownership and management of this place before this administrative blunder.

Nice to see you Newman ...

Sun

 

[intricatic]

Basically, the simplest way of expressing what's happening to CF in terms of progress is that it's become another facet of Opensource Theology. The opensource ideology works wonders for operating systems - I'm using Linux, myself. But in terms of theology, it's like a corrosive acid. It's a watershed issue, I think.

 

[drstevej]

Basically, the simplest way of expressing what's happening to CF in terms of progress is that it's become another facet of Opensource Theology. The opensource ideology works wonders for operating systems - I'm using Linux, myself. But in terms of theology, it's like a corrosive acid. It's a watershed issue, I think.

The New CF reminds me of the release of