Pentecostal Forum Government

[c1ners]

Then tell me again.....what is the point in having a sub-forum if anyone can come in and post whatever they feel like posting? If that's the case, we don't need subforums. The main forum will be a free for all. The sub-forums should be restricted. I don't understand the problem here. And I do believe that I read some where that the sub-forums can decide on their own rules. Including the delagation of icons. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong though.

By way Dave, I just read your last post. Would it be okay if I nominate you for Mod?

 

[DavidPresently]

Here is the current congregational rule Erwin has on the Wiki,..



This can be found here,..

http://www.christianforums.com/t5671474-christian-forums-general-wiki.html

I'm going to go over what I have here so far to ensure it is aligning with this.

Notice, the subfora rules cannot be in conflict with the new CF rules, one of which is that no one can require anyone else to have a specific icon. If someone says they are "Pentecostal," we are to receive them as such. But, we all know that people (who are corrupt and trouble makers) will lie about it.

Dave, this is why my rules suggestions, which keep it simple and cut and dry, include what to do when someone proves to be at enmity with the Pentecostal restoration started over a century ago. We all agree we don't want them in here causing trouble, and the mods can deal with such as it arises, if we have rules stating exactly what to do about it.

But, you cannot have an icon specific rule (for posting rights) and tell someone "you aren't Pentecostal and don't belong here" over their icon. Such is in contradiction with Erwin's new CF guidelines, which has changed to line up more with his vision for CF. He obviously saw that the subfora people were being to closed off, to be good witnesses, and were letting their light be hidden under a bowl, and has thus basically told such to stop, that it is not acceptable. He envisioned an open forum where people of different Christians could discuss things openly, and where non-Christians could find a good witness of the faith. Then, he probably noticed what I did when I came here, a bunch of sects hiding in fear behind closed forum doors, afraid someone will persecute them or disagree to strongly, instead of just dealing with trouble makers as they arise, not fighting shadows that don't yet exist.

You guys should vote in clear and concise rules that can be quickly and easily read and supervised by the mods, to quickly deal with any trouble makers that do come in. Mods should be given the power to delete posts quickly, that are posted by someone coming in to cause trouble, according to the rules of posting in here.

Someone coming in saying they are Pentecostal and making a nice post, whether we agree or disagree, is not causing trouble. But an icon specific rule would treat them like trouble makers. That is unjust.

Is there a specific problem you have with the Pentecostal definition I offered as a suggestions? What do you define a Pentecostal as?

 

[Dave01]

Then tell me again.....what is the point in having a sub-forum if anyone can come in and post whatever they feel like posting? If that's the case, we don't need subforums. The main forum will be a free for all. The sub-forums should be restricted. I don't understand the problem here. And I do believe that I read some where that the sub-forums can decide on their own rules. Including the delagation of icons. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong though.

By way Dave, I just read your last post. Would it be okay if I nominate you for Mod?

Yes you can. I had no ambition initially with it and was only interested in working on the ruleset, but if people desire me to be a moderator for this particular sub-forum area, then I'll accept what they desire.

 

[DavidPresently]

Then tell me again.....what is the point in having a sub-forum if anyone can come in and post whatever they feel like posting? If that's the case, we don't need subforums. The main forum will be a free for all. The sub-forums should be restricted. I don't understand the problem here. And I do believe that I read some where that the sub-forums can decide on their own rules. Including the delagation of icons. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong though.

By way Dave, I just read your last post. Would it be okay if I nominate you for Mod?

No one has suggested that anyone can come in and post whatever they want. The simple definition of Pentecostal and the rule set I suggested makes restriction on who can post in here, without violating the new CF guidelines, which state specifically that no icon specific rule for closing a forum section off to someone can be made. However, I don't believe having a rule where only icon Pentecostals can vote violates such, and suggest you all ratify such a rule quickly, to keep those without an icon from coming in and being able to vote. We can make suggestions and discuss, but I don't think we should vote - as we have our own forum to vote in.

By the way, our ND forum people seem to be a lot more open to other people and wanting to invite others in (being hospitable) than you guys here - just an observation. None of them have complained that I've seen about "their own forum." It seems (I could be wrong) that one of the motives for some here is selfishness which is carnal, not spiritual.

However, that aside, I do agree with this particular sub-forum being for actual Pentecostals (icon or not) to openly discuss (I'm not a fan of debate even among us) matters. This is because we have the SF-P forum which is much more open for us to fellowship and discuss with others more. The ND doesn't have such and they seem to be fine with being so open - and don't seem to be as worried about "problems."

Even the WoF group isn't in a fit over the icon deal, but is working productively to come up with a WoF definition for whosoever agrees with it can discuss in there. The only reason they ever went to icon specific was over some major ordeals (strife) that actually came up - which has never happened here. Now they have accepted they have to find a better way to deal with such going forward as they cannot shut people out over icon anymore.

So, why is the Pentecostal icon such a stumbling block here? I encourage you guys to honestly inspect your hearts and find out what is there causing this.

And since I'm on a roll letting you know where you are wrong go back and read the rules Dave01 posted about how mods are nominated. Only staff can nominate a mod, from what Dave01 posted, and THEN members may vote on them. I'm sure, however, getting a staff member to nominate whoever you want (majority here who can vote) to be a mod. You could even vote ahead of time, then request a staff member to nominate and make the person a mod.

I'll start a thread for the vote on Dave01 and keeping Flaglady right away.

Your servant in Messiah, this is about others, not ourselves,

David

 

[Dave01]

I think that means you can't keep someone out without a pent icon.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, just making an observation. You'll need to check with Erwin to see if you can make that subforum rule.

As I look through the currect rules Erwin has posted, there is no ruleset on icons for any sub-forum. There was a post about limiting debate and beliefs, and I have adhered to that in the ruleset, but no limitation on icons so far.

If I understand Erwin, his original post about restricting icons was in response to those who could not post before on CF such as JW's and Oneness Pentecostals, etc. That's if I'm reading him correct.

 

[Dave01]

I'm going to post my proposed ruleset in a separate thread so that people know it is there and can make comments on improvement.

 

[DavidPresently]

As I look through the currect rules Erwin has posted, there is no ruleset on icons for any sub-forum. There was a post about limiting debate and beliefs, and I have adhered to that in the ruleset, but no limitation on icons so far.

If I understand Erwin, his original post about restricting icons was in response to those who could not post before on CF such as JW's and Oneness Pentecostals, etc. That's if I'm reading him correct.

There is no need to read him one way or the other. He said what he said, and it was clear. No one can say to another that "you aren't" such and such, over icon, when they themselves say they are, regardless of icon. No other forum I've viewed is having this problem as you here over the icon issue.

The history of it with you is this:

I came in and was welcome and accepted, with no icon. You even made a comment about making me an "honorary Pentecostal." No one suggested I not be allowed to discuss.

I was the one who brought up the icon issue, that I'd read the rules and dealt with something with the WoF forum, and was then under the impression that I could not post in forums I didn't have the icon for, except to fellowship and ask questions. I'm the one who told you that.

But, then Flaglady corrected me and told me that such rule only applied to the WoF forum at that time (it no longer does per Erwin's new way, and they've been allowing others to post in their ever since, including yours truly).

You then became confrontational with Flaglady over the issue, and Probinson had to come in and correct you and stand up for Flaglady, that she was not at fault, as you were trying to hold her, and were for lack of a better way of putting it, chewing her out.

Flaglady and Probinson informed you that the icon rule had NEVER been in affect in here, because it had NEVER and still wasn't necessary.

Now, you are still on the icon thing which you suddenly took up out of no where with your confrontation with Flaglady. It seems to me you just aren't willing to accept correction on it and see such as "defeat" and so you keep fighting it, to be right. I could be wrong, and I don't know you well enough to know all of your motives - but I fail to see why you are the only one trying to be a champion of the icon rule since Erwin's stage 1 updates, in the three places I've frequented.

So, what is going on?

David