Rule Vote: Update a Fellowship Definition

[JAS4Yeshua]

With the heated debate about the very topic of debate, there came a realization that an existing rule could cause confusion in light of the new debate discussions.

Fellowship posts are not debate.
If you don't identify yourself as Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic, as defined above, then you may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

Since the purpose of the definition of fellowship posts was to define how those who aren't members of our forum are allowed to participate in fellowship posts, but the debate rules might contridict. In order to protect what the members have voted, I am recommending that we change one word in this. Instead of the word "debate" we use "agreeing nor disagreeing in threads."

The updated rule would read:

Fellowship posts are not agreeing nor disagreeing in threads.
If you don't identify yourself as Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic, as defined above, then you may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

By updating the verbiage of this rule, it will prevent any debate rules that are passed, either now, or in the future, from contridicting the fellowship rules.

This is a simple Yes/No Poll. "Yes" means that the rule will be updated as suggeted. "No" means that the rule will not be updated.

 

[J4Jesus]

Could you post a link so they can see the context?

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

Link to the rules? The rules are a sticky in this forum:
http://foru.ms/t6005089-sticky-spirit-filled-pentecostal-charismatic-forum-rules.html

Or a link to something else?

 

[Always in His Presence]

I don't remember seeing a thread or wiki discussion of this?? Did I miss it?

 

[Heartland]

With the heated debate about the very topic of debate, there came a realization that an existing rule could cause confusion in light of the new debate discussions.



Since the purpose of the definition of fellowship posts was to define how those who aren't members of our forum are allowed to participate in fellowship posts, but the debate rules might contridict. In order to protect what the members have voted, I am recommending that we change one word in this. Instead of the word "debate" we use "agreeing nor disagreeing in threads."

The updated rule would read:


By updating the verbiage of this rule, it will prevent any debate rules that are passed, either now, or in the future, from contridicting the fellowship rules.

This is a simple Yes/No Poll. "Yes" means that the rule will be updated as suggeted. "No" means that the rule will not be updated.

Man, I'm about sick of playing "where's Waldo" here. I see absolutely no difference between the two versions you have presented. Is there any chance of getting you to be a bit more open about what you are asking?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Fellowship posts are not agreeing nor disagreeing in threads.
If you don't identify yourself as Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic, as defined above, then you may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

If you ask me this is just wrong. What the forum is saying here is that stateing an agreement about something or agreeing with someone will not be considered fellowship. Well then what the heck is fellowship if you can't agree with someone? My Lord people!

Do we need to get the dictionary out again?

Webster's:
Fellowship; 1 Companionship; friendly association 2 a mutual sharing, as of experience, activity, interest 3 a group of people with the same interests; company; brotherhood

Now, my question is this; how can you have people come here and have fellowship with us if you are going to forbid them from agreeing with us on anything?

 

[Heartland]

For god's sake! Has the last thing not taught you all anything? Don't start a stupid Poll until you've ascertained the will of the people!!! Get the discussion first!!!! Then the poll!!!!

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

This rule has always been there. Nothing new here. The wording caused a contridiction with the debate rules. In order to allow fellowship to stand separate from debate, the poll questions whether the word debate should have been changed from "debate" to "agree or disagree" which is what is being stated beneath the title. Read both the original and the proposed, and you'll notice that there really is no change in what the rule effects, other than protecting it from changes as to what "debate" is.

 

[J4Jesus]

Balance
Its h2 on the sticky you posted

[h2]Fellowship posts are not debate.[/h2]
If you don't identify yourself as Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal and/or Charismatic, as defined above, then you may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

He wanted to change it and take the word debate out so that it would not interfer with option A on the debate definition.

I don't remember seeing a thread or wiki discussion of this?? Did I miss it?

 

[J4Jesus]

If you ask me this is just wrong. What the forum is saying here is that stateing an agreement about something or agreeing with someone will not be considered fellowship. Well then what the heck is fellowship if you can't agree with someone? My Lord people!

Do we need to get the dictionary out again?

Webster's:
Fellowship; 1 Companionship; friendly association 2 a mutual sharing, as of experience, activity, interest 3 a group of people with the same interests; company; brotherhood

Now, my question is this; how can you have people come here and have fellowship with us if you are going to forbid them from agreeing with us on anything?

I Know it sound that way to me too.

But in order for the option A debate definition to be used, which says at the end of the statement, they can say they disagree and give the reason why. But if that is the definition of debate that would affect the rules which they are not allowed to come here and state why they dont beleive in our rules. So he changed the heading only. And took out the word debate . Understand now?

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

Bump

 

[J4Jesus]

This 2nd one really doesn't make sense. I think this is worded incorrectly and gives a wrong impression.
It would be better to just leave the heading off and insert that clarification under another heading.

 

[Father Rick]

I vote "no" because of the overly broad possible interpretation..

For instance, people can be talking about icecream... One person says "I like chocolate"... someone else says, "I hate chocolate icecream... vanilla is my favorite".

According to the suggested change, the poster would have violated the rules... even though the whole conversation is just about icecream, nothing to do with theology, etc.

Same would go to discussions of politics, vacations preferences, or any other "fellowship" type topic.

 

[Tamara224]

I vote "no" because of the overly broad possible interpretation..

For instance, people can be talking about icecream... One person says "I like chocolate"... someone else says, "I hate chocolate icecream... vanilla is my favorite".

According to the suggested change, the poster would have violated the rules... even though the whole conversation is just about icecream, nothing to do with theology, etc.

Same would go to discussions of politics, vacations preferences, or any other "fellowship" type topic.

As I understand it, this only applies to theological/doctrinal/SF-P/C specific threads. It does not apply to icecream threads which are fellowship by nature.

Perhaps we should clarify that.

 

[Father Rick]

As I understand it, this only applies to theological/doctrinal/SF-P/C specific threads. It does not apply to icecream threads which are fellowship by nature.

Perhaps we should clarify that.

In the past, the rule has been interpretted by mods of SF-P/C to apply to all posts, not just theological ones.

 

[nephilimiyr]

This 2nd one really doesn't make sense. I think this is worded incorrectly and gives a wrong impression.
It would be better to just leave the heading off and insert that clarification under another heading.

That might be a good idea J4Jesus because the heading is what I disagree with. The heading conveys the thought that those who are not SF/P/C can not state their agreements with us on anything. It's like what Father Rick just said, it has an overly broad possible interpretation.

Any non-SF/P/C could read that and say, so what's the point in posting anything in this forum?

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

Bump

 

[J4Jesus]

In the past, the rule has been interpretted by mods of SF-P/C to apply to all posts, not just theological ones.

Right

That might be a good idea J4Jesus because the heading is what I disagree with. The heading conveys the thought that those who are not SF/P/C can not state their agreements with us on anything. It's like what Father Rick just said, it has an overly broad possible interpretation.

Any non-SF/P/C could read that and say, so what's the point in posting anything in this forum?

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

With debate being added to the rules, debate and fellowship are two separate ideas. Debate rules will be used to determine if something is debate, while fellowship rules will be used to determine what is fellowship. Before, the fellowship rules doubled as the debate rules, which is where some confusion came from.

 

[~RENEE~]

this is just wrong. Not agreeing. Excuse me. I would consider agreeing fellowship