"New" CF

[GreenMunchkin]

What are your thoughts on it all?

 

[chadders]

I personally havn't noticed much change at this point.

 

[Allister]

neither have I.

 

[flaglady]

Take a look here. The rest of the forum is almost on fire!

http://www.christianforums.com/t5657050

 

[EvAng]

What a day to join eh?

 

[Allister]

I was worried this Ermin character would tighten his belt and enforce strict rules. I am glad he has done the opposite, transparency is a good thing.

I like the prospect of open forums for all. and staff elections, where non-Christians can "run for office".

Good stuff.

 

[fuzzymel]

Welcome to the boards EvAng!

With regards to the changes - everyone is up in arms about it but nothing has changed yet. Why not give things a chance first.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

What a day to join eh?

Welcome to CF, EvAng

 

[he4rty]

"New" CF

What are your thoughts on it all?

I wished I'd taken that speed reading class at school now.

 

[Pogue]

I'm fairly optimistic. I can see why some people are upset about some of the changes (I read up to page 38 of the announcement thread, before I was overwhelmed with the feeling that I was wasting my life and should go outside and play with the butterflies) but it's maybe not a good idea to assume that the changes will automatically be negative. I've seen quite a bit of bandwagon-jumping among some of those who are leaving. While I respect their decision to leave, it might be more sensible just to wait and see how things turn out. I personally think that more democracy is a great thing, and it's really encouraged me to become more involved with CF.

 

[Allister]

what is it that some people are so hacked off about?

 

[bunced]

Do people need a reason to moan? Sadly, some people just like moaning

 

[Pogue]

what is it that some people are so hacked off about?

From what I've seen, the main thing has been allowing non-Christians to post in all areas of the site. Some people are worried that this will mean that some areas which weren't debate areas before will become debate areas. There's also a bit of discontent about allowing non-Christians on staff, too.

 

[Lludmila]

I think it is fine. I hate it when I get warnings because I become animated (not necessarily the same as argumentative) on a thread.

"No debating," they say.

 

[Athene]

From what I've seen, the main thing has been allowing non-Christians to post in all areas of the site. Some people are worried that this will mean that some areas which weren't debate areas before will become debate areas. There's also a bit of discontent about allowing non-Christians on staff, too.

I think that Erwins plan is too have CF governance decentralised,

The idea would be that individual forums have membership that can form their own rules through a wiki/collaborative process. If the current congregational forum wants to ban debate, and if the members of that congregational forum vote to agree, then it is so. Why should a person from another section care? They can request and form their own forums for their own group. Moderation will be decentralised according to each forum/category - members that the forum members respect get voted to be their mods. Mods usually only have power to moderate their own forums. Reports go into forums that are subforums of these forums/categories. It's a massive restructure that I need to embark on.

The aim is to make this a true community where people have the power to ultimately moderate themselves.

So basically what this would mean is that if we in the UK forum didn't want people coming in to debate then we can set our own rules and make this so.

And only places which want a non-christian mod will get one.

 

[sebastian]

So basically what this would mean is that if we in the UK forum didn't want people coming in to debate then we can set our own rules and make this so.

so like when we are talking abot UK law, we can set a rule that says that we can't have non UK members debating about our laws for example? and if there is a theological discussion does that mean we can set a rule that says that non-christians can not, well, start debating with us when it isn;t really wanted? or is everything open? I'm kinda confused at how all this works?

 

[Pogue]

So basically what this would mean is that if we in the UK forum didn't want people coming in to debate then we can set our own rules and make this so.

And only places which want a non-christian mod will get one.

Thanks for explaining!

One question (hope this doesn't sound pushy or anything )- how do you determine who 'we in the UK forum' are? Is that just all CF members who are from the UK, whether they've posted on the UK forum or not? Is it everyone who's ever posted on the UK forum? Would it include UK ex-pats? Or would it just be anyone who wants to join? And does this differ from the criteria for belonging to a particular congregational forum? Can you belong to two or more congregational forums at once?

Sorry, that seems to have turned out to be more than one question! None of the questions are intended as criticism, just to make me less confused

 

[TankGirl]

Thanks for explaining!

One question (hope this doesn't sound pushy or anything )- how do you determine who 'we in the UK forum' are? Is that just all CF members who are from the UK, whether they've posted on the UK forum or not? Is it everyone who's ever posted on the UK forum? Would it include UK ex-pats? Or would it just be anyone who wants to join? And does this differ from the criteria for belonging to a particular congregational forum? Can you belong to two or more congregational forums at once?

Sorry, that seems to have turned out to be more than one question! None of the questions are intended as criticism, just to make me less confused

I'm not sure it would work like that...that would be even more legalistic than before My thinking is this...say I want to post a thread about the Monster Raving Loony Party...I could state in the OP that I want ONLY those who are eligible to vote in UK elections to participate. Some Outer Mongolian then jumps in & starts stirring things up, and won't quit when I ask him to butt out. I can then PM a mod to say this guy has broken the rules I set for my thread & won't leave when asked, can you whack him for me! So I set the rules for my thread, and I can run it how I like, with support from the mods as required, but not having to work through pages of rules as to what's permissible & what's not. Common sense prevails!

I hope...

 

[Pogue]

I'm not sure it would work like that...that would be even more legalistic than before My thinking is this...say I want to post a thread about the Monster Raving Loony Party...I could state in the OP that I want ONLY those who are eligible to vote in UK elections to participate. Some Outer Mongolian then jumps in & starts stirring things up, and won't quit when I ask him to butt out. I can then PM a mod to say this guy has broken the rules I set for my thread & won't leave when asked, can you whack him for me! So I set the rules for my thread, and I can run it how I like, with support from the mods as required, but not having to work through pages of rules as to what's permissible & what's not. Common sense prevails!

I hope...

Aah, that would make sense. Hopefully something like that will happen!

 

[EvAng]

Welcome to CF, EvAng