Prepoll Dialogue #5

[Saucy]

Prepoll Dialogue #5, "The Safety Net" Our FSRs......Our Absolutes!!!

Quote:
We need to begin to dialogue about how we will handle the changes that will happen shortly…
We need to begin to think about FSRs (Forum Specific Rules) that will help us with our absolutes, things we will absolutely not budge on ...These will be based on the things we are most worried about happening because of these new changes, things that will compromise us or make us feel hopeless (like our forum will fall apart if we don’t have them).... these rules are our "safety net"... Don’t solidify them as law yet, but just have them in mind so as a group they will be ready to present to Erwin or whoever he has in charge.

This will definitely be a Poll…

One -Two weeks from now make it so, with all the rule suggestions being a separate poll to vote 'yes or 'no on OK?

PM me if you need help making polls OK?

 

[smooze]

people making rules hmmmm whats next? free bath soap.

 

[stone]

this is where you guys make your rules.

Like if for example there is a prophetess in particular that SDA's are in favor of and someone comes in here and post links to sites that degrade said prophet, this is where you can step up and say that any links to sites that are anti-SDA are not allowed.

 

[djconklin]

there is a prophetess in particular that SDA's are in favor of

ARRGGH! {rant on:}She didn't call herself a prophet and for good reason!{rant off}

 

[Sophia7]

The forum-specific rules are being formulated in the SDA Wiki. I wonder if all of these separate Prepoll Dialogue threads are necessary since several of these topics are being addressed in the wiki.

 

[TrustAndObey]

this is where you guys make your rules.

Like if for example there is a prophetess in particular that SDA's are in favor of and someone comes in here and post links to sites that degrade said prophet, this is where you can step up and say that any links to sites that are anti-SDA are not allowed.

Stone, wouldn't that fall under the general rule of not bashing an important figure for a specific denomination? Or do we need to make a new rule?

 

[Sophia7]

Stone, wouldn't that fall under the general rule of not bashing an important figure for a specific denomination? Or do we need to make a new rule?

I don't think that rule exists anymore. I don't see anything like it in the general rules. Maybe we could discuss it in the wiki.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I don't think that rule exists anymore. I don't see anything like it in the general rules. Maybe we could discuss it in the wiki.

I'll have to discuss it when I get back from my trip unfortunately.

I definitely think it's a good idea to restrict all hate sites aimed at Ellen White.

If someone forms their opinion on their own, so be it, but those sites are always full of errors. At least the ones I've seen.

Okay guys, have a great weekend! I'll see everybody on Monday God willing!

 

[Sophia7]

Have a great weekend, T&O.

 

[Sophia7]

Oh, the general CF rules are still being discussed in a wiki, too, so we probably don't have a finalized verson of them yet. They could still change.

 

[stone]

One thing i've noticed that all the other forums i've looked at that you guys don't have yet is concerning the voteing of your forum rules. You may want to make a rule that only SDA's can vote on your rules.

I've suggested in the Messianic forum a voter registration log before voteing begins. I'm not sure how this works if we have to vote for it before it is in place, but it would help in the long run regardless. This would be for the purpose of elimanateing socks from voteing and ensureing that only SDA's are voteing.

Not allowing socks to vote could also be another rule.

I was thinking that as each votes, they post "i voted" in a reply so that we can count the replies up with the votes and ensure that the voteing is fair. There are still holes in that idea, but its better than nothing.

With the voter registration in place we can have a registration period and the mods and can check the ip addresses for socks. A sock would allow one person to vote twice, which is not fair.

 

[Sophia7]

One thing i've noticed that all the other forums i've looked at that you guys don't have yet is concerning the voteing of your forum rules. You may want to make a rule that only SDA's can vote on your rules.

I've suggested in the Messianic forum a voter registration log before voteing begins. I'm not sure how this works if we have to vote for it before it is in place, but it would help in the long run regardless. This would be for the purpose of elimanateing socks from voteing and ensureing that only SDA's are voteing.

Not allowing socks to vote could also be another rule.

I was thinking that as each votes, they post "i voted" in a reply so that we can count the replies up with the votes and ensure that the voteing is fair. There are still holes in that idea, but its better than nothing.

With the voter registration in place we can have a registration period and the mods and can check the ip addresses for socks. A sock would allow one person to vote twice, which is not fair.

Good points. I think I'll add a brief statement to the wiki. We can discuss the details there.

 

[stone]

sda forum,

This is where i suggest you guys list what rules you want in here.

example:

No speaking demeaning comments of chocolate icecream cones.

It's ok to speak about the issue's of consumeing icecream, but you can't say that ice cream sucks, or anything like that.

 

[stone]

Good points. I think I'll add a brief statement to the wiki. We can discuss the details there.

lol

through my own personal test the best way to do polls is to make it so that everyone that votes is not voteing anonymous so we can see who is voteing for a yes or a no.

The anonymous polls allow for cheating.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Here's where our breakdown started I think. We went straight to the wiki when we wanted to discuss something and we should've stayed HERE, right?

Okay, here are a list of suggestions I'd like to add (the right way this time). In no particular order:

1. No discussion of evolution from atheists or non-Adventists in the Adventists forum (even the debate subforums). Creation is a very important subject for Adventists and there is already a forum set up for the discussion of evolution vs creation. We feel no need to discuss this subject, and if we did, we'd go to that forum. **That might not be worded exactly right because it sounds a little rude. Sophia is good with the wording so maybe she'll help me out**

2. We welcome tactful & respectful discussion of Ellen White's works. However, she is deceased and cannot defend herself, therefore we will not allow any defamation of her character or any negative comments about her as a person.

3. Private messages cannot be posted within the open forum without the express permission of the person who wrote it/them. The subject matter of PMs, even without stating who sent them, cannot be discussed in the open forum either.

4. When discussing a public figure within the Adventist church, information should be provided for readers to be able to verify any information someone claims to have inside knowledge of. Keep in mind that the CF rules do not allow the posting of personal contact information, so if you can't prove it within those rules, don't post it.

5. In the wiki we have discussed doing away with the "Progressive" subfora and changing it to a debate section. I am totally okay with this idea.

6. The main SDA forum will be for fellowship and discussion only. Absolutely no debating between Adventists or non-Adventists. If a poster/visitor asks a controversial question, it will be moved to the debate section.

7. When we have a visitor asking a question about our denomination, they will receive the answer that best reflects our Fundamental Beliefs. Anyone in the Adventist faith that disagrees with the fundamental belief on that subject may post a thread in the debate section to state why they disagree with it. Our visitors are not to witness any dispute among us within the Main Forum.

8. Non-Adventists may not debate in the Adventists subforum. **I know in the wiki this wasn't a popular opinion but I do think we should vote on it. It's how it was before and it worked. Plus we can't venture out of here without a debate, so there are plenty of opportunities for them to ask us in CF, etc.**

9. Links to anti-Adventist sites will be deleted and are not tolerated within our forum.

10. Threads should remain on topic to the original post as much as possible. If asked to get back on-topic, please do so. Feel free to start another thread if your questions weren't addressed.

I know there's more I want to add, but I have to go get my clothes out of the dryer.

 

[djconklin]

I like the suggestions!

#8 allows for non-SDA's to come here and for SDA's to got to traditional or progressive (whatver suits their fancy) for fellowship.

 

[DarylFawcett]

So what we have here is another list of suggested rules?

I am not in favour of having different lists of suggested rules in various topics. I would prefer that the Wiki be the place for the rules that are agreed upon either by consensus or by vote.

 

[tall73]

This format you all are suggesting is unwieldy. You put about 5-6 of these things and then ask for suggestions.

Do you really plan to take a vote on EVERY suggestion anyone makes? That could be hundreds.

And the results might contradict.

For instance, one could suggest that posts must stay within the Nicene Creed.

Another might say that discussion of whether the Trinity is true could be allowed.

The way polls work, both could be approved.

Or you could have three people give three variants on the same rule. Then we have to vote on all of them.


We are far better off doing what we did in the main rules for CF. They are discussing and building consensus within the wiki. That way you can look at the whole system, not just suggestions from individuals that might not fit together at all.

That is the whole point of a wiki. A wiki is not just something you post once it is done. If that were the case it could just be a sticky. A wiki is where you hash things out and go from polar positions to consensus.

Unless you have some congregational rules we are not aware of we should be using the overall wiki scheme.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Nobody is in charge here Tall. We, as a forum, get to decide the rules and how we make the rules in a reasonable manner.

And honestly, really all I've seen thrown around are about 10 forum-specific rules.

I guess if people really WANT this to get ugly they could poll down to the finest detail, but I don't think that's what anyone wants.

I'm sure topics and discussions are going to pop up that we're gonna WISH we had voted on in advance, but you yourself said we could go back and edit what we decide on even after the rules are set, if it becomes a problem for our forum at some point.

The mods set up the polling feature and I think we should at least give it a shot.

 

[tall73]

Nobody is in charge here Tall. We, as a forum, get to decide the rules and how we make the rules in a reasonable manner.

and this is in response to what?

The wiki process was setup by Erwin.

And honestly, really all I've seen thrown around are about 10 forum-specific rules.

I guess if people really WANT this to get ugly they could poll down to the finest detail, but I don't think that's what anyone wants.

How would you know? We haven't even had people posting their ideas here yet. And there has been a lot of different concepts, phraseology etc. discussed in the wiki, where it is better suited to be done.

I'm sure topics and discussions are going to pop up that we're gonna WISH we had voted on in advance, but you yourself said we could go back and edit what we decide on even after the rules are set, if it becomes a problem for our forum at some point.

The mods set up the polling feature and I think we should at least give it a shot.

The mods said it was up to us and were using this to get us started. Erwin said the congregations form their own rules. He gave us a wiki to do that but did not insist that we do it in the way proscribed, unless again someone can post the link to it.

Moreover, you just said no one is in charge. So why are you now asking us to bend to the mods when seconds ago you said we need to decide?

What they have suggested is several different threads for input where we may get totally contradictory suggestions and have to vote on each one.

But that is not the usual wiki process, nor is it how they are doing the site main rules.

If you want to use polls then we will first have to have a poll apparently to see if that is what folks want .

But then don't complain if everyone posts a bunch of suggested rules.