[open]WWMC posters...Give us some input

[Crazy Liz]

Working as a mod here I can tell you people do.

The primary problem is that if a Fundamentalist comes here and debates, he or she is reported as a non-member debating. However to enforce non-member debate we have to be able to define who is and who is not a member. Do you see the problem? And indeed it is almost always reported.

Yeah. Does what I just posted begin to help find another way of answering the question?

 

[Crazy Liz]

personally, i would rather do away with it. why? it's not fair to anyone in the forum. and it's more than abiguity.

to give us reports for us mods to deal with, and still stand on some kind of idea that we can't define this forum, is nothing but double standardness in a negative connotation, very negative. it is unfair to those who are getting reported on, because it's an invisible rule that they don't know about and then what's next?

it's beyond ambiguity at this point.

So the staff is having trouble figuring out how to deal with reports. That's a fair concern to ask us about. Some of us seldom or never report. Some of us report posts just to bring issues to the attention of staff before they turn into something ugly, or even when we're unsure of how the rules apply. Having been on staff, myself, I'm actually finding it hard to break the habit of using the Report button to raise an issue I think the staff should look at. I don't always think a post should be removed or someone should be punished. In fact, I'm still more likely to report a post just bring staff's attention to something. I tend to ask questions in my reports. I'm learning this isn't appreciated from a non-staff member & am trying to break the habit.

I think perhaps we as a Congregation are not all in agreement about reporting posts any more than we are all in agreement about anything else. I'd be willing to guess there are only a few members who regularly make reports related to the debating rule. I sure wish we could talk about our attitudes toward reporting and what we expect from staff when we make a report.

Can we find some way to do that without running afoul of Rule 3.8?

i'm not up for redefining the rules why? this forum is privately owned and ran, and i, as well as you, and everyone else agreed to the terms, conditions and rules. thus they need to be in affect and all fairness must be administered in the congregational forums, instead of letting things slip by. we are allowed to post here, have a membership here for FREE, so to demand reformation or whatever is unfair in my opinion.

sure when things are blatantly bad, they need to be fixed. but it isn't bad for this forum to have it setup this way. just because it is privately owned, and we accepted a contract.

It's not a contract when one party can unilaterally change its terms after the agreement is made. And since CF staff does not consult the membership as part of the rulemaking process, I think the contract analogy fails.

I also think the question of whether CF is a community or a proprietorship is a basic question CF's published policies leave ambiguous. You have resolved that ambiguity on the side of a proprietorship, but the proprietor's own description of the forum indicates an intent for it to be a community. So I think it is perfectly legitimate to call upon TPTB to either allow the forum to develop as a community or revoke the claim that's what it's intended to be.

i'm not concerned with the whole of CF anyways...just WWMC. and i'd rather see it conform to the system to some degree, so us mods can more fairly, justly do our jobs, and so you guys can have more freedom to express yourself, without people coming in and debating all the time, and saying how wrong we all are.

Aren't you contradicting yourself just a little bit here?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I would like to say I appreciate all of the opinions stated here. As I see it there are two directions to go.

Either some definition is agreed upon, (obviously after discussion and compromise) or Conservatives have just as much opportunity to post and debate here as everyone else.

Even though I am as conservative a person as I know (both politically and Theologically) I very much want to see this forum protected for those who find a home here. I have built some bridges and some relationships with some of the semi-regular posters here and I have learned a lot simply by observing and helping out with the modding.
I will also state that with getting to know a couple of the individuals here and listening to them I have become a more knowledgeable and hopefully compassionate Christian. WWMC is a vital part of the Congregational Fora and I would hate to see it lose its efficacy. Is there some middle ground, some compromise?

You raise very good points. Points I have recently been given to understand are contrary to the way the Ecumenical team is run. Can we in any way help you persuade your own team of these values?

 

[No Swansong]

You raise very good points. Points I have recently been given to understand are contrary to the way the Ecumenical team is run. Can we in any way help you persuade your own team of these values?

Liz what points have you been led to believe are contrary to the way the Ecumenical team is run?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Liz what points have you been led to believe are contrary to the way the Ecumenical team is run?

According to a post I read here this morning by a former Admin of the Ecumenical team, the kind of learning of mutual respect by moderating forums with which one does not agree is verboten (or at least discouraged) on the ET. If this is not true or no longer true, I would very much like to do what I can to correct the misconception or misinformation.

 

[No Swansong]

According to a post I read here this morning by a former Admin of the Ecumenical team, the kind of learning of mutual respect by moderating forums with which one does not agree is verboten (or at least discouraged) on the ET. If this is not true or no longer true, I would very much like to do what I can to correct the misconception or misinformation.

I have to join first.

 

[RedneckAnglican]

See I can only think in negatives.

If you think the Bible is to be taken literally AND don't allow that others are Christians if they don't- then you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think that gay people can't be christians- you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think you belong to the 'true' denomination- you probably shouldn't debate here.

If you think Bishop Spong et al are minions of Satan- you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think the only real Bible is a KJV, you probably shouldn't debate here.

But I only say probably, because some liberals may hold one or other of these views.

WHEW...good thing I don't debate here...of course only about 2 of those really apply to me...

after re-reading the list...it's actually one and a half...

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

See I can only think in negatives.

If you think the Bible is to be taken literally AND don't allow that others are Christians if they don't- then you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think that gay people can't be christians- you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think you belong to the 'true' denomination- you probably shouldn't debate here.

If you think Bishop Spong et al are minions of Satan- you probably shouldn't debate here

If you think the only real Bible is a KJV, you probably shouldn't debate here.

But I only say probably, because some liberals may hold one or other of these views.

That's why I break it down this way: If you think your way of seeing things is either God's way itself or the only "right, true, Christian" way to see things, then don't debate here.

Period.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

http://www.christianforums.com/t3847521-[open]-wwmc-posters-imput-needed.htmlFolks could sign up to a "membership list" of either being liberal/progressive/postmodern/emergent or agreeing to treat abovementioned groups with respect. Those folks would be allowed to debate in WWMC as long as those who disagreed kept their promise to be respectful.

That's fine so long as signing the roster doesn't become a license to bombard people with toxic brainwashing and spiritual abuse. I could just see someone signing they agree to treat the aforementioned with 'respect' and their idea of 'respect' is conveniently defined as anything BUT -- all in the name of God, of course.

Sorry, but at my age I've had my fill of a certain ilk, and if I wanted their company, I'd seek it. I don't begrudge them the right to exist or think as they wish to think, but I am now and forevermore simply NOT INTERESTED. PERIOD. If that changes, I know where to find them. Unless or until it does, I'd prefer someplace to be where "that" is not. And I'm sorry if this comes across as snotty or exclusivist or anything else like that. That's not how I feel about it. I just feel the same way a non-smoker feels about not wanting to have to room with smokers. I'd like to breathe clean air. Nothing against the people smoking -- I just don't want the smoke.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I know you all are probably sick of me sticking my hand up in the air on this thread by now, but I visited the former thread linked by Joykins and found the first post there actually worth considering. The member "eRev" wrote:

Liberal Christianity, within a modern Christian context, is a movement within Christianity that is sometimes known as progressive or modernist, and is often characterized by the following features:

• internal diversity of opinion that may or may not include those of Conservative Christianity.
• an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible with a corresponding willingness to question supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)
• the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible
• broader views on salvation than those held by conservative Christians
• an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community, often applied in recent years to racial minorities, the disabled, women, and LGBT people.
• a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)
• a willingness to re-evaluate and modify orthodox theology in the light of modern scientific theories

I think that's actually a pretty good working definition, IF a "congregational definition" MUST be formulated. The only thing I would do is add the words "may include" to the final two items, and tweak the final one a bit, so that they read, instead:

* may include a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)
* may include an interest in evaluating and openness to amending one's understanding of orthodox theology in the light of modern scientific theories

I would also propose amending the item
* the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible

to read instead:
* the rejection of biblical literalism and verbatim inspiration or verbal "inerrancy" of the Bible in favor of a more dynamic, interactive model reflecting the blending of divine and human elements in the "word" which embraces, rather than seeks to eliminate, the human element from the equation.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

But rather defining opinions that won't be tolerated, let's restrict ourselves to defining behaviour that won't be tolerated:

1. Don't be an ass. If you have to ask, then you've probably crossed the line.

2. Don't be proud. Despite the courage of your convictions, you really just might be completely and utterly wrong. Walk humbly before the Lord.

3. Don't expect to be understood if you're not willing to first understand. This forum is about connection; koinonia through Christ is prime. Either accept those who post here as brothers and sisters in Christ, or simply don't post about topics that evoke a strong response.

This sounds good to me too ...

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Yeah, I've been thinking about this on the ride down to Baltimore and back today.

Neat ... I see we hail from nearby territory, geographically ...

 

[chaoschristian]

Neat ... I see we hail from nearby territory, geographically ...

Born in Baltimore, currently residing in The Snack Food Capital of the World.

 

[Abiel]

Quote:
Liberal Christianity, within a modern Christian context, is a movement within Christianity that is sometimes known as progressive or modernist, and is often characterized by the following features:

* internal diversity of opinion that may or may not include those of Conservative Christianity.
* an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible with a corresponding willingness to question supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)
* the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible
* broader views on salvation than those held by conservative Christians
* an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community, often applied in recent years to racial minorities, the disabled, women, and LGBT people.
* a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)
* a willingness to re-evaluate and modify orthodox theology in the light of modern scientific theories

I think that's actually a pretty good working definition, IF a "congregational definition" MUST be formulated. The only thing I would do is add the words "may include" to the final two items, and tweak the final one a bit, so that they read, instead:
Quote:
* may include a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)
* may include an interest in evaluating and openness to amending one's understanding of orthodox theology in the light of modern scientific theories
I would also propose amending the item
* the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible

to read instead:
* the rejection of biblical literalism and verbatim inspiration or verbal "inerrancy" of the Bible in favor of a more dynamic, interactive model reflecting the blending of divine and human elements in the "word" which embraces, rather than seeks to eliminate, the human element from the equation.

I think this is a good place to start. Though Being Woolley Minded I would use the phrase 'may include' and 'probably' even more frequently

 

[Im_A]

Tattedsaint and all the WWMC mods:

Why must we be like all the other Congregational forums?

If reporting is an issue, then I propose that WWMC members report posts only for tone rather than content.

because we got put in the Congregational Forums number one.

who are the members of WWMC?

 

[No Swansong]

I know you all are probably sick of me sticking my hand up in the air on this thread by now, but I visited the former thread linked by Joykins and found the first post there actually worth considering. The member "eRev" wrote:
I think that's actually a pretty good working definition, IF a "congregational definition" MUST be formulated. The only thing I would do is add the words "may include" to the final two items, and tweak the final one a bit, so that they read, instead:
I would also propose amending the item
* the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible

to read instead:
* the rejection of biblical literalism and verbatim inspiration or verbal "inerrancy" of the Bible in favor of a more dynamic, interactive model reflecting the blending of divine and human elements in the "word" which embraces, rather than seeks to eliminate, the human element from the equation.

How about instead of "a rejection of" you use something like "just as accepted"

From what I have read most of you don't really want to keep those who believe these things (inerrancy etc.) out you just want other options as equally accepted.

Or have I read the incorrectly?

 

[Im_A]

So the staff is having trouble figuring out how to deal with reports. That's a fair concern to ask us about. Some of us seldom or never report. Some of us report posts just to bring issues to the attention of staff before they turn into something ugly, or even when we're unsure of how the rules apply. Having been on staff, myself, I'm actually finding it hard to break the habit of using the Report button to raise an issue I think the staff should look at. I don't always think a post should be removed or someone should be punished. In fact, I'm still more likely to report a post just bring staff's attention to something. I tend to ask questions in my reports. I'm learning this isn't appreciated from a non-staff member & am trying to break the habit.

I think perhaps we as a Congregation are not all in agreement about reporting posts any more than we are all in agreement about anything else. I'd be willing to guess there are only a few members who regularly make reports related to the debating rule. I sure wish we could talk about our attitudes toward reporting and what we expect from staff when we make a report.

Can we find some way to do that without running afoul of Rule 3.8?

it's more than a few.

i don't think there is much to talk about with the attitudes of the reports. posters expect us to do our job...plain and simple. i don't need long expressions telling me that one and with what in this case? we are forced to try to discet posts for some violation that may not be the posters original intent or even be there at all, because this forum is in a section of CF that has limits to who can debate in here.

the only way i would know how to do that without running afoul to Rule 3.8 is private message a concern.

It's not a contract when one party can unilaterally change its terms after the agreement is made. And since CF staff does not consult the membership as part of the rulemaking process, I think the contract analogy fails.

so your saying that since the first party fails at something then the person who agreed to terms is free to break the contract? that doesn't make sense. that's eye for an eye. because someone does this wrong to me, that means i can do wrong back against the terms that i previously agreed to. there are ways to go about wrong things being done. i can't help if they don't get done with specific people/situations, that's not my job, but if it wasn't a community, that would mean the posters input is useless, and we all know THAT IS NOT THE CASE, AT LEAST HERE AT WWMC.

I also think the question of whether CF is a community or a proprietorship is a basic question CF's published policies leave ambiguous. You have resolved that ambiguity on the side of a proprietorship, but the proprietor's own description of the forum indicates an intent for it to be a community. So I think it is perfectly legitimate to call upon TPTB to either allow the forum to develop as a community or revoke the claim that's what it's intended to be.

if it was a true propreitorship, why would us mods even care about what you guys think of this topic?

Aren't you contradicting yourself just a little bit here?

not in my eyes because i can't change CF as a whole, nor do i care to. the problems at CF can be blamed possibly on CF and the posters, and the mods. so i really could careless to change the whole of CF.

what i do care about is the job that CF gave to me, is to be a good mod for WWMC. a mod that helps moderate this one specific community which i hope in turn is good for the whole of CF, but my main goal is not to change the whole of CF.

 

[tryingtobeagain]

because we got put in the Congregational Forums number one.

who are the members of WWMC?

I think we fit into the congragational Forums because we are a congragation. We're just a congragaton of outside-the-box thinkers.

And how do we know if we are members of this board or not... that's a good point. I just started posting here after Flan shared a thread with me... now this is the first board I check daily... am I a member, or is there some kind of oath or application process I missed?

 

[Crazy Liz]

it's more than a few.

i don't think there is much to talk about with the attitudes of the reports. posters expect us to do our job...plain and simple. i don't need long expressions telling me that one and with what in this case? we are forced to try to discet posts for some violation that may not be the posters original intent or even be there at all, because this forum is in a section of CF that has limits to who can debate in here.

Now that just plain sucks. The idea that staff would have to more strictly judge a reported post than one that was not reported that they just happened to read doesn't seem right to me. I don't recall the staff teams I was on operating in that way.

the only way i would know how to do that without running afoul to Rule 3.8 is private message a concern.

Can't we find a way to talk together about reporting posts and our attitudes toward it? I think what is clear is that there is a group of very diverse people here who want to be a Congregation. We have chosen to form a community here. Many, perhaps most, perhaps all of us understand community as something that is formed by its members, whether we are familiar with formal social contract theory, or whether we just realize it intuitively.

As a community, we have been asked to help you, the staff, solve a problem. Your problem is wanting to do your job diligently as staff members, according to a set of standards. You have come to us asking for our help. We are willing to help you. We have pointed out that the solution you are asking us to create causes us some new kinds of problems, so we have asked you to tell us exactly what the problem is you want our help solving.

You have told us the problem. We have said we'd like to help you with that problem. We'd like to explore among our community ways we could help you solve your problem without creating additional unwanted problems for ourselves.

But we have reached an impasse because you can't let us explore other options.

Can't you help us find a way to talk as a community and a Congregation about this?

so your saying that since the first party fails at something then the person who agreed to terms is free to break the contract?

Not exactly.

A contract sets up in advance the expectations of both sides. It can't be changed without MUTUAL agreement.

I'm not talking right now about what the remedies are for breach (breaking) of the contract. That is another subject. I am just saying that once a contract is formed, changing it takes the agreement of both sides.

If what we have at CF is an agreement that can be changed at will by one party without even consulting the other party, then what we have is not a contract, but some other kind of arrangement or relationship.

that doesn't make sense. that's eye for an eye. because someone does this wrong to me, that means i can do wrong back against the terms that i previously agreed to. there are ways to go about wrong things being done. i can't help if they don't get done with specific people/situations, that's not my job, but if it wasn't a community, that would mean the posters input is useless, and we all know THAT IS NOT THE CASE, AT LEAST HERE AT WWMC.

I am not arguing that we can. I am saying you were mistaken when you said the reason we must accept all of CF's rules is that we made a contract. It's not a contract, so your argument from contract principles fails.

if it was a true propreitorship, why would us mods even care about what you guys think of this topic?

Perhaps it isn't a true proprietorship any more than it is a true contract.

not in my eyes because i can't change CF as a whole, nor do i care to. the problems at CF can be blamed possibly on CF and the posters, and the mods. so i really could careless to change the whole of CF.

Fine. But some of us do care. Are the rest of us only allowed to do things you care about?

what i do care about is the job that CF gave to me, is to be a good mod for WWMC. a mod that helps moderate this one specific community which i hope in turn is good for the whole of CF, but my main goal is not to change the whole of CF.

That's not your main goal. Does that mean the rest of us can't even discuss the topic, and can't present you with our ideas?

My main concern is that you are constraining this discussion to only one possible solution, when some of us would like to see if there is a better one. But it appears we are boxed in.

And if there is one thing you have gleaned from this thread, I hope it is that WWMC is largely populated by "outside the box" thinkers. It should not be surprising that a proposal that insists on putting us inside a box has met with some resistance.

I think what is clear is that there is a group of very diverse people here who want to be a Congregation because we've been excluded from other Congregations on CF. We don't all agree 100% with any of the definitions proposed. Baptists can belong to the Baptist forum if they belong to a Baptist church, even though they may question Baptist distinctives like adult baptism by immersion or support for separation of church and state.

I would like to make one proposal, at least. If WWMC is required to have a definition, it should include, in addition to any description of our characteristics, that anyone who has no other Congregation they fit at CF can belong to WWMC. Some of us belong to denominations that have a Congregation forum, and some of us are non-denominational, but several of us belong to churches that are excluded from all other CF Congregations. We do not want to exclude anybody who would otherwise have no Congregation on CF at all.

 

[chaoschristian]

because we got put in the Congregational Forums number one.

That is not sufficient.

What compelling reason(s) exists that prevents WWMC from being anamolous relative to all the other Congregational forums.

I gladly surrender any claim to congregational priviledge if that's the cost of seeing that not one, not one, person is turned away from WWMC.

who are the members of WWMC?

As it stands right now, anyone who comes here and bothers to attemtp to connect to the people around them.

As Jesse Jackson one said, 'Home is where you spent the last 24 hours.'

I understand your consern that Mod-ing this place isn't easy because it doesn't act like or look like the other congregational forums. But placement in a structure does not necessarily define the function of the unit within that structure. There are other forces at play that need to be weighed with prudent and compassionate measure against efficient institutional functioning.

Liz has named some of these - the attitude and character of the folks who post here; the desire to be welcoming and hospitible to all; the presence of those for whom there is no other home, and most likely never will be.

What I hope is that there is not some sort of urgency assigned to this matter and that we don't rush into judgement. Let's keeping talking. That may not seem like anything is getting done, but dialogue is a very important part in determining that what is done is done well and in the right spirit.