Remove Membership List?

[Letalis]

Let's ditch a membership list. If you agree with the SoF, you can debate. If you don't, you can't. No need to continue with this back and forth.

 

[icedtea]

The blue A has spoken

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Let's ditch a membership list. If you agree with the SoF, you can debate. If you don't, you can't. No need to continue with this back and forth.

How do you see it working, dude? Cos without the list, we don't know who agrees with the SoF and who doesn't...

 

[Letalis]

How do you see it working, dude? Cos without the list, we don't know who agrees with the SoF and who doesn't...

We're a well-established forum now. A membership list would have been necessary during the forum's inception, but now that most who post here are "regulars," there's no need to keep track.

If someone is debating in this forum but posts in contradiction of our SoF, then simply tell them to knock it off. No need for all this conflict.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

We're a well-established forum now. A membership list would have been necessary during the forum's inception, but now that most who post here are "regulars," there's no need to keep track.

If someone is debating in this forum but posts in contradiction of our SoF, then simply tell them to knock it off. No need for all this conflict.

Very, very, very true. k, where would that leave the debate sub-forum? That is to say, do you think the main forum should be open to debate from everyone, or just the regulars?

 

[Letalis]

Very, very, very true. k, where would that leave the debate sub-forum? That is to say, do you think the main forum should be open to debate from everyone, or just the regulars?

Debate should be reserved for the regulars/conservatives (those that agree with our SoF) in the main forum. The debate forum can be for debate with non-conservatives.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Debate should be reserved for the regulars/conservatives (those that agree with our SoF) in the main forum. The debate forum can be for debate with non-conservatives.

So nothing changes, except we remove the drama surrounding the signing in/signing out... k.

Will bring it up it in ET SF. Cheers lots

 

[Criada]

Sounds a good idea.
Would this remove the whole 'dual membership' issue too?

 

[synger]

I like the idea of limiting the topics of discussion, rather than the people. Kinda like OBOB has their list: This is what we believe about abortion. You can discuss abortion within this framework. If you disgree, you are off-topic for this forum.

However, I think that this should be brought up as a possible guideline, after the probation is done and we can discuss policy again.

 

[nyj]

Someone can't be kept out, can they?

AFAIK, if you (a general you) post things in contradiction to the CC SoF, you can be denied the priviledges of debating in the main forum and can be warned for continually posting views which support positions which directly contradict the CC SoF (such as support for abortion, etc). And such opposing positions WILL be reported if I come across them.

 

[synger]

Exactly so, NYJ. The guidelines of the forum -- the SoF -- provide a framework for what is acceptable discussion in this forum. The "rule" we use to moderate is the site-wide off-topic rule, but the "guideline" that tells us what is off-topic for this forum, is this forum's specific guidelines.

 

[IamRedeemed]

AFAIK, if you (a general you) post things in contradiction to the CC SoF, you can be denied the priviledges of debating in the main forum and can be warned for continually posting views which support positions which directly contradict the CC SoF (such as support for abortion, etc). And such opposing positions WILL be reported if I come across them.

Exactly so, NYJ. The guidelines of the forum -- the SoF -- provide a framework for what is acceptable discussion in this forum. The "rule" we use to moderate is the site-wide off-topic rule, but the "guideline" that tells us what is off-topic for this forum, is this forum's specific guidelines.

 

[Lisa0315]

Question: Is this exclusive to CCC or is it a rule for ALL Congregations?

Lisa

 

[Criada]

I think it was more a suggestion than a rule...

 

[Nadiine]

Sounds a good idea.
Would this remove the whole 'dual membership' issue too?

imho, it would remove all membership issues altogether - since there is no longer any membership to sign in or out of.
Anyone can post as long as they don't go against the SOF (which is pretty simple since it's pretty vague)

 

[synger]

Question: Is this exclusive to CCC or is it a rule for ALL Congregations?

Lisa

Can you clarify your question, please? Is what specific to CC?

If you mean the "rules" vs. "guidelines" thing, then that's my understanding across the whole site. We moderate to the site-wide rules, within the framework of the forum-specific guidelines (if any). It's not CC-specific.

 

[nyj]

Anyone can post as long as they don't go against the SOF (which is pretty simple since it's prety vague)

It can always be tightened up a bit. What do you have in mind? PM me if you want.

 

[Nadiine]

It can always be tightened up a bit. What do you have in mind? PM me if you want.

They can do whatever they want here nyj - i'm done w/ this section's issues & everyday changes & challenges.

I got out of the loop and it's alot nicer - if some good people who used to belong here want to ask me to vote on something or help out, that's fine, but I have no interest in trying to shape anything here - I already spent 4 weeks too long.

 

[nyj]

I understand, and certainly sympathize.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

So, what is everyone's thoughts on our membership list? Remove it? Keep it?

Please remember we're still on probation, so this thread needs to remain civil, and limited to CC