Rules Poll #6 To Be Voted On

[DarylFawcett]

The following are additional rules to be added to the section as quoted below:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him should constitute satanic glorification.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated.

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

At least 51% or higher is required in order for any of the above proposed rules to be implemented and added to the wiki. Other poll rules also apply as stated in the wiki.

A separate POLL will be created for the next section that is also ready to be voted on.

 

[reddogs]

The following are additional rules to be added to the section as quoted below:
[/color][/font][/size][/color]
At least 51% or higher is required in order for any of the above proposed rules to be implemented and added to the wiki. Other poll rules also apply as stated in the wiki.

A separate POLL will be created for the next section that is also ready to be voted on.

Daryl can you explain these a little more in depth, as 2.5 would immeadiately cause a problem on a issues such as the Sabbath. When one thread is locked, is discussion on the Sabbath on a new thread forbidden, also 2.8 can cause problem during a normal discussion if you ask a rhethorical question such as "what if satan repents", or in 2.10 it is so general as to cause a problem when someone gives their opinion on something like wages in the church and say "the SDA church demeans its workers with its low wages and treats its employees like dirt". Would that be a infraction?

 

[DarylFawcett]

Both the proposed rules for this POLL and the other one were first discussed in the wiki at the following link before being created here:

http://foru.ms/t5739473&page=48&nw_show=comments

 

[sentipente]

If you are going to vote on 2.8 why not simply vote to forbid usage of the Bible as a standard? Obviously, what you want is to make Adventist doctrine the doctrine of heaven. It aint gonna happen but that is what you want. Those who seek tolerance are so often the most intolerant.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Daryl can you explain these a little more in depth, as 2.5 would immeadiately cause a problem on a issues such as the Sabbath. When one thread is locked, is discussion on the Sabbath on a new thread forbidden,

The rule was not intended to be for that purpose, and yes I can see how maybe the wording is too vauge now. It's supposed to stop people who's threads were closed for violation reasons from reopening it again.

Maybe that one still needs to be reworded, but regardless, that's the purpose. I agree with it. If you have a suggestion for rewording feel free.

also 2.8 can cause problem during a normal discussion if you ask a rhethorical question such as "what if satan repents",

I think I'd expressed that concern, myself, since I suggested a bible study could be done on it in the subforum. Probably should ask Woob about it, though, since it was his first suggestion and can better explain.

or in 2.10 it is so general as to cause a problem when someone gives their opinion on something like wages in the church and say "the SDA church demeans its workers with its low wages and treats its employees like dirt". Would that be a infraction?

I think it's meant to be more along the lines of negative put downs, obvious flames against the whole church.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

What has happened in the wiki, I guess I have to take back my statement in another thread that you were doing a good job there even though it is only the first step.

These rules are simply foolish and it appears to me it is another attempt for the Traditional side to limit discussion in the Progressive forum who already have created a much freer discussion content and these rules would go against the ones already voted there.

Can we please discuss these before they go to a vote, is that really to difficult. Don't believe the emotional stuff that the forum is so bad that we must rush through rules and then we will change rules later. Likely they will not get changed later. If you are all upset by moriah then put her on ignore and work on the rules that will last and should last.

 

[JonMiller]

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

It's a pretty common theological beleif.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

What if they are true? This one might be OK, but I won't vote for it unless it is definitely fine. I would rather "No flames against the Adventist church" and not have this.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated. There will be 30 days FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and permanent ban for the third.

I Agree they should be forbidden. I don't agree that they should get such a harsh sentence for the initial penalty.

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

Isn't this somewhere else?

JM

 

[JonMiller]

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

This should be covered by the no flaming rules..

JM

 

[sentipente]

I have never seen so much fear in one place. It is clear that many people here do not have much confidence in what they believe and are intent on providing a safe place to allow themselves to go to sleep at night. If the Creator could tolerate Lucifer visiting what are we afraid of?

 

[StormyOne]

I have never seen so much fear in one place. It is clear that many people here do not have much confidence in what they believe and are intent on providing a safe place to allow themselves to go to sleep at night. If the Creator could tolerate Lucifer visiting what are we afraid of?

i think the goal of some is simply to have a forum where you can talk about the weather, recite some passages of scripture and thats about it.... everything else will be prohibited if all the proposed rules are implemented...

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Everyone:

Please see this post in regards to this problem with rules:

http://foru.ms/t5998451-about-rule-discussions-and-the-wiki-please-read.html

Thanks.

 

[JonMiller]

The main forum is suppose to not have any of those things (other doctrines/etc). But we need the discussion forum in place first, otherwise a lot of people will get bans, or there won't be any dicussion here for a long time (And people will leave).

JM

 

[DarylFawcett]

I discovered an error in 2.7 in which the suggested "There will be 30 days FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and permanent ban for the third" was supposed to have been removed before coming here to the POLL, as it doesn't belong in this section. It is in the other POLL, therefore, I am editing it out of this one.

 

[DarylFawcett]

As only one person voted against 2.7 before I made the correction in the wording of that proposed rule, if that person now wishes to vote in favour of that rule, I think the moderator can do it upon request.

I apologize for forgetting to correct that one before bringing it here to the POLL.

 

[NightEternal]

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

What if the thread ended with accusations or statements about yourself that are untrue and inaccurate? Should the charges go unaddressed just because the thread has suddenly been locked at that time? Does not one have the right to answer the charges and set the record straight for the eyes of the rest of the forum? What if starting a new thread is the only way to do this?

I suppose I can abide by the first stipulation, but not the underlined part. Who decides what topic is 'similar' to the locked one? Will any other topics that might be even remotely related to a locked topic also be locked? Where will this end and how far will it be taken?

Also, why has the thread been locked in the first place? Is it because the thread descended into fighting or was the topic itself too controversial? Who decides what is too controversial to be discussed?

There is no way I can vote in favor of such a vague rule.

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him should constitute satanic glorification.

Are we or are we not trying to be a witness to all sorts of people here? Just because I do not agree with the above said premises, does not mean I have to censor the other person. Truth does not need censorhip and the muzzling of different beliefs to help it. It will stand on its own, shining brightly, and people can make thier own choice when they see the contrast.

I cannot vote for this. It smacks of censorship and the crushing of out free speech.

If a Satanist comes here and begins to pontificate on the virtues of child sacrifice or sex with animals, action should be taken out of respect for the laws of common decency. If a Luciferian or a LaVeyan practitionier wants to dialogue on the main forum (Statanism is an official religion), than as long as they abide by the rules of order, I have no problems dealing with what they believe.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated.

If it is pornography under discussion, I concur. And even though I can appreciate art that is sensual in nature such as works from Michaelangelo or Raphael, I realize others might not have that appreciation.

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

Again, smacks of censorship and the crushing out of open discussion. If this what a person honestly believes, I feel no need of taping thier mouths shut. I don't have to agree with them. The truth of the Bible will stand in striking contrast. This forum is not communist China. Why are we trying to make it thus?

I cannot vote for this one either.

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

I concur with the first part. Not with the underlined part. I have no issues or problems using the term 'freaking' or 'fracking'. Neither do I have issues with 'darn', 'heck' or 'shoot'.

This is absolute, full-blown paranoia. How far do you plan to take this one as well?

Therefore, I cannot vote for this one either the way it is presently worded.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

This one is much too vague. If the disclaimers of 'some' or many' are in the statement, that should be fine. It's ridiculous that this even has to be done, as people should be intelligent enough to figure out it is never the whole SDA organization from the GC president right on down to the church janitor under discussion.

Who decides what is 'condescending'? What if it is true? What if it is valid according to the person's own personal expreinces in the church?

No way. I cannot vote for this one either.

It is clear this set of rules was rushed through as part of a knee-jerk reaction to the Moriah situation. We can do better than this.

 

[woobadooba]

For people that have issues with the poll please go here: http://foru.ms/t5999027-poll-revision.html

 

[JonMiller]

I discovered an error in 2.7 in which the suggested "There will be 30 days FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and permanent ban for the third" was supposed to have been removed before coming here to the POLL, as it doesn't belong in this section. It is in the other POLL, therefore, I am editing it out of this one.

I would vote for 2.7 with the penalties removed.

JM

 

[reddogs]

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

What if the thread ended with accusations or statements about yourself that are untrue and inaccurate? Should the charges go unaddressed just because the thread has suddenly been locked at that time? Does not one have the right to answer the charges and set the record straight for the eyes of the rest of the forum? What if starting a new thread is the only way to do this?

I suppose I can abide by the first stipulation, but not the underlined part. Who decides what topic is 'similar' to the locked one? Will any other topics that might be even remotely related to a locked topic also be locked? Where will this end and how far will it be taken?

Also, why has the thread been locked in the first place? Is it because the thread descended into fighting or was the topic itself too controversial? Who decides what is too controversial to be discussed?

There is no way I can vote in favor of such a vague rule.

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him should constitute satanic glorification.

Are we or are we not trying to be a witness to all sorts of people here? Just because I do not agree with the above said premises, does not mean I have to censor the other person. Truth does not need censorhip and the muzzling of different beliefs to help it. It will stand on its own, shining brightly, and people can make thier own choice when they see the contrast.

I cannot vote for this. It smacks of censorship and the crushing of out free speech.

If a Satanist comes here and begins to pontificate on the virtues of child sacrifice or sex with animals, action should be taken out of respect for the laws of common decency. If a Luciferian or a LaVeyan practitionier wants to dialogue on the main forum (Statanism is an official religion), than as long as they abide by the rules of order, I have no problems dealing with what they believe.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated.

If it is pornography under discussion, I concur. And even though I can appreciate art that is sensual in nature such as works from Michaelangelo or Raphael, I realize others might not have that appreciation.

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

Again, smacks of censorship and the crushing out of open discussion. If this what a person honestly believes, I feel no need of taping thier mouths shut. I don't have to agree with them. The truth of the Bible will stand in striking contrast. This forum is not communist China. Why are we trying to make it thus?

I cannot vote for this one either.

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

I concur with the first part. Not with the underlined part. I have no issues or problems using the term 'freaking' or 'fracking'. Neither do I have issues with 'darn', 'heck' or 'shoot'.

This is absolute, full-blown paranoia. How far do you plan to take this one as well?

Therefore, I cannot vote for this one either the way it is presently worded.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

This one is much too vague. If the disclaimers of 'some' or many' are in the statement, that should be fine. It's ridiculous that this even has to be done, as people should be intelligent enough to figure out it is never the whole SDA organization from the GC president right on down to the church janitor under discussion.

Who decides what is 'condescending'? What if it is true? What if it is valid according to the person's own personal expreinces in the church?

No way. I cannot vote for this one either.

It is clear this set of rules was rushed through as part of a knee-jerk reaction to the Moriah situation. We can do better than this.

Night is hitting it square on the nail.....
It was a emotional response as I said earlier with little thought to the consequences.......

 

[sentipente]

It was a emotional response as I said earlier with little thought to the consequences.......

This process has clearly lost its way and has become all about emotions.

 

[reddogs]

Here are basic rewrites that need to be done....

Need to take out the word "immediately" as that is redundant if alltogether unworkable in 2.5 as shown below:

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

Could you add the words "or Satanism" at 2.6 as shown below:
2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify Satan or Satanism...

Could you add the words "or of a sexual nature" at 2.7 as shown below:


2.7 Sexual content or nature within a post will not be tolerated.

Can you change the word "forbidden" to "not allowed" in 2.8 and spelling corrected as who is forbbiding anything that is incorrect, its just not allowed.....and take out "It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condecsneding or derrogatory remark be made about God." it is redundant.


2.8 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condecsneding or derrogatory remark be made about God.

Can you take off "nor will any variations of it be allowed." in 2.9 as it is redudant and rewrite it simply as below:

2.9 Profane language is not allowed.

Can you rewrite 2.10 as shown below:

2.10 No unnecessary or undue disparaging remarks about Adventists or the SDA church will be allowed.