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?
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
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?
what standard then do you propose, if there is nothing to use to take care of the problems, but the problems still exist? how do you propose to deal with threads that are in the middle road, but are causing problems here at WWMC when there is no way of dealing with it to be fair to the people that are being reported about?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.
working in a team, we discuss every report between us all till we have a common ground. this is why it takes so long sometimes to take care of a thread. i work 3rds, and i need sleep. our supervisor works right with us.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.
well as of right now, it should be blatantly clear that we are exploring other options. because no definition is set up, and we want other's opinons on this. nothing is set. nothing is even in motion with this. the mod team here at WWMC and our supervisor has made our case to higher staff. we wanted their opinons. and now we are going to the posters which include, conciliators and i can gurantee you, the higher staff won't make a move on this until there is an agreement that can be seen with the regular posters.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.
i already have. i started this thread and linked it to the thread in our staff headquarters that staff look at it and can keep up with it. there's nothing more i can personally do.Can't you help us find a way to talk as a community and a Congregation about this?
so have the rules been changed that you know of? i'm not asking examples here, just asking a yes or no question. and isn't it plausible to see it worth changing things as the need arises?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.
what is so hard to accept the rules?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.
the constraint could be seen only because there are only a handful of people responding. i can't help that, but since we are discussing, i'm going to give my side, just as you are doingif it was a true propreitorship, why would us mods even care about what you guys think of this topic?i see it as a contract because we have to abide by them. we all know there are appeals, ways to try to fix bad things happening. i can't explain why the bad things happen here at CF. i'm kind of confused here with this part maybe as your confused why i see it as a contract.Perhaps it isn't a true proprietorship any more than it is a true contract.
first off, IF i was trying to say that you can't present me with your ideas, I WOULDN'T HAVE STARTED THIS THREADFine. But some of us do care. Are the rest of us only allowed to do things you care about?
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?
secondly, i never once hinted that people have to care only about what i care about. so what are your reasons for asking those questions?
[quotet]
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.
outside of the box thinkers are fine. people may see me as one of them too.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.
well i know i have mentioned before that it has to be broad. it's not a hidden fact that not everyone here is liberal. i have no desire to narrow it down to a specific group, such as liberal or whatever. if you want proof, then you would need to see the discussions and proposals i have made to staff about this to get their opinions. i don't know if you can see that thread or not. if you can, let me know, i'll link you via pm.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.
bro i can't respond to it right now. i have to be at the gymn in 22 min. and this response took me long to reply to because i wanted to be sure to address each section the best i could. i apologize. i will respond either when i get back or later on tonight.chaoschristian's response
bro i can't respond to it right now. i have to be at the gymn in 22 min. and this response took me long to reply to because i wanted to be sure to address each section the best i could. i apologize. i will respond either when i get back or later on tonight.
what is so hard to accept the rules?
I mega-ditto that.From my perspective, once I entered into the metadiscussion of 'Who is CF? What does it mean to be CF? and How are we CF together?' and simultaneously wrestle not just with the rules but the application of the rules, answering that question became increasingly complex.
I come from a background of adult and organizational learning and my own bias is to take a very high criticism of rules as I feel that rules are secondary to the expression of the (in this case) community that they serve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?