Reports

[Sothron]

You know the sad part of it all is that is what they expected us to do. Instead by keeping an open door policy here this place makes them look like the ones which do not want to attempt unity. Really unbelievable what has been going on here. God will not sleep believe me.

I definitely believe the fallout of these changes will be Christians going to various corners and tossing WIKIs at one another to avoid open and honest dialogue.

 

[SunMessenger]

I definitely believe the fallout of these changes will be Christians going to various corners and tossing WIKIs at one another to avoid open and honest dialogue.

I hope you are wrong but I understand how you have drawn that conclusion.

 

[scraparcs]

So apparently you can hide behind a hidden faith icon to make a barbed attack against conservative Christians and yet an innocent post like the first you linked at required 3 mods to act on it to silence the conservative. Check.

Gonna try to clarify a few points hopefully without debating here.

It's not three mods trying to silence a conservative as making sure all bases are covered. In any report, there should be at least two mods, if not more, to give input on a report before taking any action one way or the other. (Staff - are there any exceptions to the "multiple staff input" guideline now?)

There are times you'll see reports where mods will have varying opinions all the way from "no violation" to "nearly ban-worthy". It's rare, but it happens. That's why there should be multiple mod input on each report.

Debating is prohibited for non-conservative Christians... the problem with the first report is, the guy wasn't debating. He was responding to an accusation, and yet the mods belong to the forum so they're unable/unwilling to judge it fairly.

I honestly disagree about the modding, you know. If a lib breaks a rule here, I personally would want a mixture of people deciding whether it was a violation. In the name of fairness, that's the only way to do it. If it's a rule break, it's a rule break. If it isn't, it isn't. Ya know?

But, yes, if this is how it works, we need to alter our wiki

Disagreement on how the modding works is fair, but having mods in a variety of viewpoints for all ecumenical forums could get ugly. The EO might not want Lutherans modding their forums. The Baptists might not want Catholics modding their forums. The Apostolics might not want Anabaptist mods.

(Mentioning again as an aside that FreeInChrist, by her own statement, isn't liberal.)

At this time, there is a statement in the Conservative Christians wiki which is pretty similar to the "no outside debate" clause in the WWMC wiki. I believe that most ecumenical forums have some type of clause to this effect in their wikis.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5716860-wiki-conservative-christians-forum.html

The preceding points are held to be true by this forum and its members. Debate which denies or calls into question the aforementioned points will not be tolerated. People who disagree with or question these may visit and ask earnest questions but may not debate these points.

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions but not give answers regarding conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

Protinus admitted early on there was no rule supporting action on the post. The sad face said it all. Imagine being sad you can't say someone's post is a violation?! That's speaks to serious bias and emotional involvement.

I've made similar statements before when modding. It can be frustrating when a poster is perceived to be trampling upon the spirit of the rules, but staying within the letter of the rules.

You know the sad part of it all is that is what they expected us to do. Instead by keeping an open door policy here this place makes them look like the ones which do not want to attempt unity. Really unbelievable what has been going on here. God will not sleep believe me.

The stated policies are actually rather similar. Both forums have guidelines which maintain that fellowship and questions are open to all, but debate should be conducted by members of the forum.

And I thought God didn't ever sleep anyway?

 

[SunMessenger]

The stated policies are actually rather similar. Both forums have guidelines which maintain that fellowship and questions are open to all, but debate should be conducted by members of the forum.

And I thought God didn't ever sleep anyway?

I can see the reason to limit debate as the discussions can become heated even when everyone holds the same or similar beliefs.

To the second and most important part of your statement. God does not sleep ! He works in ways we do not completely understand at times but the end result is always for the good. Wait and see because that is the only way to receive this confirmation. God is good, God is all powerful and remember God is much more patient than we could ever imagine ...

Sun

 

[Sothron]

Gonna try to clarify a few points hopefully without debating here.

It's not three mods trying to silence a conservative as making sure all bases are covered. In any report, there should be at least two mods, if not more, to give input on a report before taking any action one way or the other. (Staff - are there any exceptions to the "multiple staff input" guideline now?)

There are times you'll see reports where mods will have varying opinions all the way from "no violation" to "nearly ban-worthy". It's rare, but it happens. That's why there should be multiple mod input on each report.



Disagreement on how the modding works is fair, but having mods in a variety of viewpoints for all ecumenical forums could get ugly. The EO might not want Lutherans modding their forums. The Baptists might not want Catholics modding their forums. The Apostolics might not want Anabaptist mods.

(Mentioning again as an aside that FreeInChrist, by her own statement, isn't liberal.)

At this time, there is a statement in the Conservative Christians wiki which is pretty similar to the "no outside debate" clause in the WWMC wiki. I believe that most ecumenical forums have some type of clause to this effect in their wikis.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5716860-wiki-conservative-christians-forum.html





I've made similar statements before when modding. It can be frustrating when a poster is perceived to be trampling upon the spirit of the rules, but staying within the letter of the rules.



The stated policies are actually rather similar. Both forums have guidelines which maintain that fellowship and questions are open to all, but debate should be conducted by members of the forum.

And I thought God didn't ever sleep anyway?

I would suggest that every congregation forum have a subforum specifically for open debate. I think it is a tad silly to have people sitting in ivory towers and if they venture out told to go back to their own ivory tower. A subforum would allow for debate for those that want it and it would avoid compromising the safe haven comfort many feel on their main forum.

Just a suggestion.

 

[scraparcs]

Oh good, I was thinking I had misunderstood some point of doctrine and God now slept or something. I was getting a bit befuddled!

 

[SunMessenger]

Oh good, I was thinking I had misunderstood some point of doctrine and God now slept or something. I was getting a bit befuddled!

That expression has been handed down by generations of people who have attempted to explain the workings of Our Lord in a simple and uncomplicated manner.

It is an expression which means that God sees all and sits quietly. He often allows certain matters to occur . He seems to some to be sleeping as He appears to allow some serious concerns of ours to go unchecked. The fact is he does see all but patiently allows us our free will to do what is right before He directly intervenes.

The confirmation of this is the end result which whether brought on by man or God is always in line with His will for us.

God Bless...

Sun

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Disagreement on how the modding works is fair, but having mods in a variety of viewpoints for all ecumenical forums could get ugly. The EO might not want Lutherans modding their forums. The Baptists might not want Catholics modding their forums. The Apostolics might not want Anabaptist mods.

The comparison is like a jury being make up of friends and family of the "victim". The accused party doesn't stand a chance.

 

[scraparcs]

The comparison is like a jury being make up of friends and family of the "victim". The accused party doesn't stand a chance.

If you think there need to be a mix of liberal and conservative mods in WWMC, then there need to be mixtures everywhere. Some of the congregational forums will not accept a moderator who is not part of that denomination or outlook.

If, say, OBOB refuses a non-Catholic mod, then you can't make WWMC take a conservative mod (even though IIRC FreeinChrist is a self-described conservative).

 

[GreenMunchkin]

If you think there need to be a mix of liberal and conservative mods in WWMC, then there need to be mixtures everywhere. Some of the congregational forums will not accept a moderator who is not part of that denomination or outlook.

If, say, OBOB refuses a non-Catholic mod, then you can't make WWMC take a conservative mod (even though IIRC FreeinChrist is a self-described conservative).

Ecumenical Reports has a list of mods. Those people, and the members, should be making the decisions.

I said in my first post the stacking the decks for *anyone* is unacceptable. If I broke a rule, I wouldn't want to get off cos conservative mods showed preferential treatment.

Duck, I honestly don't understand why what I'm saying is seen as odd. The jury example is exactly what it's like, and it completely negates the ideas of fairness and integrity in terms of working reports.

Things are pretty antagonistic here at the moment, so staff are needed to keep order. They won't be trusted if they can't distance themselves enough to work reports fairly.

 

[Debi1967]

This report needs to be looked at
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37117048#post37117048

Someone has said that the opening of our forum should be revisited

 

[Jim47]

This report needs to be looked at
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37117048#post37117048

Someone has said that the opening of our forum should be revisited

You misunderstood what that poster said.

 

[Debi1967]

No I didn't and please report back to the thread I have answered you.