Rules for the new progressive section

[tall73]

In our recent poll a progressive sub-forum was voted. Progressive Adventists please use this thread to form your sub-forum rules through whatever process you agree to. They may then be added to the wiki. Thank you.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

1. for fellowship and discussion of Like minded people
2. non progressives can ask only ask questions.
3. no comments by non progressive unless, in response to a question asked.
4. Any personal attack, by non-progressive will result in a 30 day ban from posting in the progressive sub. subforum

 

[abrokendream]

ok question for now, what is a progressive person, i think that will clear up the issue a lot.

 

[StormyOne]

i would prefer that anyone can ask a question, and that there be no ban UNLESS someone flames someone else. Otherwise, the less rules the better....

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

i would prefer that anyone can ask a question, and that there be no ban UNLESS someone flames someone else. Otherwise, the less rules the better....

I agree. As progressive-minded people we can take a more liberal approach to allowing other people to post, just no flaming.

abrokendream, I would suggest reading some of the many threads around here on the subject, each one more confusing than the next. lol

 

[StormyOne]

I agree. As progressive-minded people we can take a more liberal approach to allowing other people to post, just no flaming.

abrokendream, I would suggest reading some of the many threads around here on the subject, each one more confusing than the next. lol

I am officially making the motion that we have ONE rule here, No flaming. Which means we can discuss any and everything. I would also like to see maybe a procedure under that one rule saying in effect that before a person pushes the button to report a comment, that they at least attempt to talk to the person they think is flaming privately first. Perhaps its a misunderstanding that can be cleared up without a mod getting involved. Then if resolution is not possible privately, report the person.... can't we do that?

 

[Sophia7]

I am officially making the motion that we have ONE rule here, No flaming. Which means we can discuss any and everything. I would also like to see maybe a procedure under that one rule saying in effect that before a person pushes the button to report a comment, that they at least attempt to talk to the person they think is flaming privately first. Perhaps its a misunderstanding that can be cleared up without a mod getting involved. Then if resolution is not possible privately, report the person.... can't we do that?

I agree with keeping the rules simple. Just to clarify, when you say that we can discuss anything, do you mean that we should allow debate? This has traditionally been a fellowship-only sub-forum, but I wouldn't be opposed to letting anyone post anything here, including debate and including non-Progressives and non-Adventists, as long as they don't violate the general CF rules. I guess that would kind of defeat the purpose of the Debate sub-forum, though. I was originally in favor of turning this into the Debate sub-forum anyway, but I voted for all of the proposed sub-forums just because so many people wanted all of them, and I didn't see it as that big a deal either way. I was just thinking that since some people want to prohibit certain topics in the Debate sub-forum, if they get their way in the voting when those issues come up, we could still allow all topics to be discussed/debated here.

 

[StormyOne]

I agree with keeping the rules simple. Just to clarify, when you say that we can discuss anything, do you mean that we should allow debate? This has traditionally been a fellowship-only sub-forum, but I wouldn't be opposed to letting anyone post anything here, including debate and including non-Progressives and non-Adventists, as long as they don't violate the general CF rules. I guess that would kind of defeat the purpose of the Debate sub-forum, though. I was originally in favor of turning this into the Debate sub-forum anyway, but I voted for all of the proposed sub-forums just because so many people wanted all of them, and I didn't see it as that big a deal either way. I was just thinking that since some people want to prohibit certain topics in the Debate sub-forum, if they get their way in the voting when those issues come up, we could still allow any topics to be discussed here.

so can it be both? debate and progressive? If it can, then why not let it be discussion/fellowship/debate as well as progressive? I wouldn't mind that at all...

 

[Sophia7]

I don't see why not. It could still be called Progressive and allow much more freedom than the main SDA forum or the TSDA sub-forum.

 

[StormyOne]

I don't see why not. It could still be called Progressive and allow much more freedom than the main SDA forum or the TSDA sub-forum.

then that is what I would vote for, like to see, or work towards that goal... what needs to be done?

 

[Sophia7]

If we can reach a consensus on our rules quickly, maybe we can even take a vote and sticky them so that we can start implementing them as soon as possible. It will still take some time before the Debate sub-forum can be created, and I think that's where most of the controversy will be in making rules. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of reports coming in on people for debating in the main SDA forum. I think it would help to alleviate some of the tensions and reduce the mods' workload if we gave everyone a place for open discussion and debate.

 

[StormyOne]

okay. So I guess we need to wait for other people to weigh in or do you create a poll to vote on the options?

 

[Sophia7]

then that is what I would vote for, like to see, or work towards that goal... what needs to be done?

I would suggest that we make a poll here in the sub-forum and take a vote. We would have to leave the poll open for at least four days, maybe even a week since this sub-forum is not a high-traffic area. We could also post a link to the poll in the main forum to encourage all of the Progressives to vote. I think we should limit voting to those who self-identify as non-Traditional, Evangelical, or Progressive Adventists.

Here is what I propose for a rule statement:

Welcome to the Progressive Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum. This sub-forum is open to everyone–all Seventh-day Adventists, other Christians, and non-Christians. We invite fellowship, questions, discussion, and respectful debate from anyone on any topic, as long as posters comply with Christian Forums Rules.​

CF rules will always prohibit flaming, I'm sure, even if they change in the wiki process, but we could add something specific about flaming if you want.

Please feel free to make suggestions for wording this, and if we can reach an agreement, I'll make a poll.

 

[StormyOne]

I would suggest that we make a poll here in the sub-forum and take a vote. We would have to leave the poll open for at least four days, maybe even a week since this sub-forum is not a high-traffic area. We could also post a link to the poll in the main forum to encourage all of the Progressives to vote. I think we should limit voting to those who self-identify as non-Traditional, Evangelical, or Progressive Adventists.

Here is what I propose for a rule statement:

Welcome to the Progressive Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum. This sub-forum is open to everyone–all Seventh-day Adventists, other Christians, and non-Christians. We invite fellowship, questions, discussion, and respectful debate from anyone on any topic, as long as posters comply with Christian Forums Rules.​

CF rules will always prohibit flaming, I'm sure, even if they change in the wiki process, but we could add something specific about flaming if you want.

Please feel free to make suggestions for wording this, and if we can reach an agreement, I'll make a poll.

sounds good as it is.... create a poll and let's get this ball rolling....

 

[abrokendream]

The reason i put the question farward, what is progressive in one persons mind might or might not be progressive in another persons opinion, and as progressive people, i believe that we should have the openmindedness to accept and understand the human nature of diversity. This is further affected by my personal limitations in understanding, which i am convinced we all have. I, as a newbie therefor suggest that the forum be open, as suggested above, to all comment excluding flaming.
My humble opinion.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

The reason i put the question farward, what is progressive in one persons mind might or might not be progressive in another persons opinion, and as progressive people, i believe that we should have the openmindedness to accept and understand the human nature of diversity. This is further affected by my personal limitations in understanding, which i am convinced we all have. I, as a newbie therefor suggest that the forum be open, as suggested above, to all comment excluding flaming.
My humble opinion.

That's a good point. I was just being silly before. Everyone that has identified as a progressive, or in this sub-forum, has a different reason and also has a different opinion of what progressive means to them.

The basic definitions that we have is that traditional is agreeing with all 28 fundamentals, and progressive is disagreeing with one or many of the 28. However these are pretty limiting definitions. They don't take into account views on women in ministry, homosexuality, abortion, worship styles, health, animal rights, environmental issues, ideas of church structure and hierarchy etc ...

For instance, I have noticed that a number of traditional Adventists on this forum hold conservative views like perfection. To my knowledge this is not an issue dealt with in the 28 fundamentals.

Being a progressive or traditional is not soley about doctrinal preferences. For me a major factor is that I don't subscribe to the conservative viewpoint on most political and social issues. This puts me at odds with a number of Adventists I know.

Not everyone who is progressive here is so because of their political views. Some, like icedragon, prefer to identify as evangelical rather than progressive. (I think that the Adventist church is an evangelical church anyway - the mainline church that is)

I would hope that someone who believes in the 28 fundamentals, but has different political or social views could be welcomed to the progressive sub-forum to discuss.

 

[StormyOne]

just waiting for the poll.....

 

[sentipente]

Here is what I propose for a rule statement:

Welcome to the Progressive Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum. This sub-forum is open to everyone–all Seventh-day Adventists, other Christians, and non-Christians. We invite fellowship, questions, discussion, and respectful debate from anyone on any topic, as long as posters comply with Christian Forums Rules.​

CF rules will always prohibit flaming, I'm sure, even if they change in the wiki process, but we could add something specific about flaming if you want.

Please feel free to make suggestions for wording this, and if we can reach an agreement, I'll make a poll.

The wording is fine and that is the only rule we need here. Law-abiding people always require the fewest rules. Let's set up the poll and vote it into operation.

 

[Sophia7]

OK, I'll set up the poll. Sorry it took me a while. I couldn't get on all afternoon yesterday, and then CF was down until today.

 

[Sophia7]

The basic definitions that we have is that traditional is agreeing with all 28 fundamentals, and progressive is disagreeing with one or many of the 28. However these are pretty limiting definitions. They don't take into account views on women in ministry, homosexuality, abortion, worship styles, health, animal rights, environmental issues, ideas of church structure and hierarchy etc ...

Yes, those definitions are quite limiting. They were imposed on us when the sub-forums were created, just as a way of simplifying the process of determining who should post where. I think getting rid of such restrictive definitions by opening up this sub-forum to everyone is a good idea.