Should the SDA Forum Be Split?

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
We were split before--it didn't work because they come over to attack.

We weren't really split though, not like the way I think totally separate forums would address.

I don't see how it could be much different (each would be proclaiming that they are the "true" SDA). And, even if you could somehow have compleletly separate forums (vs. sub-forums) there's nothing to stop people from claiming they are one and not the other and coming over to attack.

 

[djconklin]

We need to put our heads together and make the rules as definitive as possible, so that there will be no room for doubt as to what constitutes a violation. The old rules were not definitive enough (at least not for the SDA forum), and so they didn't work.

Have fun trying. I doubt that you will ever be able to make the rules definitive enough to stop the attacks. They'll just a new way to make a dig, or to waste a post, so they can side-track a thread.

 

[woobadooba]

This is exactly why I haven't voted yet. I totally see your point Happy, I really do.

I just keep getting the feeling that even if we vote for the stricter rules, it isn't anything that would happen any time soon, and we'd need the mods here a lot to enforce them constantly.

I just don't see that happening.

When problematic people are actually banned you will find that less rule violations will take place. We just need to raise the stakes higher than what they were while we were under the old rules. The old rules were not definitive enough. So people got away with all kinds of things that they should have been warned about. And when warning were issued, they were given with too much passivity. 2 week FSBs with just 2 violations will suffice to bring about peace and order in here. Of course, repeat offenders will have to be dealt with with greater severity. This will work. Trust me on this.

 

[djconklin]

When problematic people are actually banned you will find that less rule violations will take place. We just need to raise the stakes higher than what they were while we were under the old rules. The old rules were not definitive enough. So people got away with all kinds of things that they should have been warned about. And when warning were issued, they were given with too much passivity. 2 week FSBs with just 2 violations will suffice to bring about peace and order in here. Of course, repeat offenders will have to be dealt with with greater severity. This will work. Trust me on this.

It certainly can't hurt to try? How soon can we start?

 

[happywiththelord]

We were split before--it didn't work because they come over to attack.

well somehow that needs to be addressed. Just ignore them or report them if they try doing that again? I dont know.

 

[TrustAndObey]

But Woob, we'd need mods that sat here 24 hours a day practically.

Why not take away the cause that would need so much intervention?

 

[woobadooba]

[/color][/size][/font]

Have fun trying. I doubt that you will ever be able to make the rules definitive enough to stop the attacks. They'll just a new way to make a dig, or to waste a post, so they can side-track a thread.

Well, at least we can do what we can to try to stop it. Not trying won't help anything.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I don't see how it could be much different (each would be proclaiming that they are the "true" SDA). And, even if you could somehow have compleletly separate forums (vs. sub-forums) there's nothing to stop people from claiming they are one and not the other and coming over to attack.

I would personally thwack the first Traditional I saw going over there. There's no need in that and if anyone even THOUGHT about it, I'd try to talk them out of it.

We need to worry about ourselves, not others.

 

[woobadooba]

But Woob, we'd need mods that sat here 24 hours a day practically.

Why not take away the cause that would need so much intervention?

If the Lord so wills for us to be united in this way, He will see to it that we get what we need to carry out this objective.

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
We were split before--it didn't work because they come over to attack.

well somehow that needs to be addressed. Just ignore them or report them if they try doing that again? I dont know.

I did that before; it seemed virtually useless. But I agree with woob that not trying doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[happywiththelord]

true

 

[NightEternal]

Night is already promising not to agree with Woob in any wiki discussions

No, not in everything. Only certain things. If Woob has good suggestions, I will support them. Don't put words in my mouth Trust.

When I say 'I have nothing to say to them' I mean only in the forum dialogues, not the wiki discussions.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This is all really quite strange. Now we have people complaining that we don't have enough rules in place and just a few weeks ago those same people were complaining that the wiki produced by consensus in the wiki discussion was not acceptable because every little thing was supposed to be voted upon. Naturally with a 4 day period of time that idea which was accepted by the squeaky wheel theory has produced very little. Still just talking about sub-forums.

And now sub-forums are not enough some want to divide into to separate forums. Yet we have no definition of the two forums would be, no conception of what it would look like to anyone looking in at the Adventists section. When we previously had the two sub-forums it was based upon someones idea of what separated progressives from Traditional yet they did not even know the name progressive and they called the progressiv forum Reformed.

There is a very large semi-arian group of traditional Adventists and like I pointed out to T&O they are in disagreement with the official 28 Fundamentals. T&O does not seem to get that but it comes about because those who set up the rules did not really know the difference between a Traditional and a Progressive Adventist. Tragically T&O can't seem to see the larger picture and thinks bringing such information up is just trying to get her banned from a sub-forum. A sub-forum that only has temporary rules and that rule is agree with the 28. Yet the reality is that there are lots of historic/traditional Adventists that don't agree with the 28. Probably much of this comes because people just think their local congregation is the begin all and end all of what the SDA church is and they have not taken the time to research these things. The semi-arian view is probably the main disagreement on the 28 but it is a huge disagreement. Things like last generation perfection and pre or post fall nature of Christ are not part of the 28 but they caused major problems after the church published "Questions on Doctrines."

This latest round to call for seperate forums comes about because there have been a couple of people who have been totally uncivil to others, in ways that are clearly against the previous rules. Such people are merely taking advantage of the situation and should be ashamed at their actions. They will not however as long as others side with their attacks and name calling. And that is where we as forum members have let ourselves down. We need to police are own forum and not just side along ideological ideas. Surely we can do that when people say things like people are morons, or devilish or even that old favorite hateful. We should not tolerate such language.

So I say get rid of this separate forum question as it is not well thought out and deal with what is a problem right now, if we must do this long process of voting on every little thing. Let's vote on specific language which will not be allowed in any debate forum.

 

[woobadooba]

This is all really quite strange. Now we have people complaining that we don't have enough rules in place and just a few weeks ago those same people were complaining that the wiki produced by consensus in the wiki discussion was not acceptable because every little thing was supposed to be voted upon. Naturally with a 4 day period of time that idea which was accepted by the squeaky wheel theory has produced very little. Still just talking about sub-forums.

And now sub-forums are not enough some want to divide into to separate forums. Yet we have no definition of the two forums would be, no conception of what it would look like to anyone looking in at the Adventists section. When we previously had the two sub-forums it was based upon someones idea of what separated progressives from Traditional yet they did not even know the name progressive and they called the progressiv forum Reformed.

There is a very large semi-arian group of traditional Adventists and like I pointed out to T&O they are in disagreement with the official 28 Fundamentals. T&O does not seem to get that but it comes about because those who set up the rules did not really know the difference between a Traditional and a Progressive Adventist. Tragically T&O can't seem to see the larger picture and thinks bringing such information up is just trying to get her banned from a sub-forum. A sub-forum that only has temporary rules and that rule is agree with the 28. Yet the reality is that there are lots of historic/traditional Adventists that don't agree with the 28. Probably much of this comes because people just think their local congregation is the begin all and end all of what the SDA church is and they have not taken the time to research these things. The semi-arian view is probably the main disagreement on the 28 but it is a huge disagreement. Things like last generation perfection and pre or post fall nature of Christ are not part of the 28 but they caused major problems after the church published "Questions on Doctrines."

This latest round to call for seperate forums comes about because there have been a couple of people who have been totally uncivil to others, in ways that are clearly against the previous rules. Such people are merely taking advantage of the situation and should be ashamed at their actions. They will not however as long as others side with their attacks and name calling. And that is where we as forum members have let ourselves down. We need to police are own forum and not just side along ideological ideas. Surely we can do that when people say things like people are morons, or devilish or even that old favorite hateful. We should not tolerate such language.

So I say get rid of this separate forum question as it is not well thought out and deal with what is a problem right now, if we must do this long process of voting on every little thing. Let's vote on specific language which will not be allowed in any debate forum.

ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS! WHEN WILL YOU LEARN???

 

[djconklin]

Let's vote on specific language which will not be allowed in any debate forum.

The post as "whole" is not too bad. Now here we have something specific. Let's start by banning language that implies that something is true when no evidence is around to support it, such as: "There is a very large semi-arian group of traditional Adventists." Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of having to read these subtle digs that are without warrant.
===
Woob, you are assuming that a) they want to learn--the first thing one has to know to do that is that you are as "dumb as a box of rocks" on everything you have not studied in detail (your bibliography of sources amounts to less than 10 pages), and b) that they really, really care about finding out the truth. Some people have an agenda and are going to repeatedly pound at it every chance they get. They aren't even welcome elsewhere because of their history (hearing things through the grapevine about some people here).

 

[woobadooba]

I have noticed that some have voted who do not even participate in discussion on a regular basis. In fact, one person that voted is someone that I have never seen in here before.

I ask that if you are going to vote, at least back your vote up by participating in this forum. These people that I am referring to have not even participated in the Wiki.

In all honesty, I don't think their vote should count. Only the vote of those that are regulars in here should be accounted for.

 

[RileyLovesJesus]

I didn't say anything because I do not want to fight with anyone.

I read the other poll about who could vote, and I was here before July 4th. I'm adventist.

I don't want to see any more fighting.

 

[djconklin]

Welcome, but I hate to burst your bubble of newness so quickly. As long as we are sinners we will be fighting. The only difference is some are trying to base their beliefs on the Bible and others are attacking us for doing so.

 

[woobadooba]

I didn't say anything because I do not want to fight with anyone.

I read the other poll about who could vote, and I was here before July 4th. I'm adventist.

I don't want to see any more fighting.

It is commendable that you don't want to see any more fighting. We are trying to establish rules to minimize this.

If there is a split it will only serve to further confuse non-SDAs about who we really are, and support the animosity that is dividing us. It is best to learn how to love each other. This will only happen when we look to Christ, and allow Him to unite us. By running away from each other we will not solve the problem, but by creating rules that keep bad behavior in check we can make good things happen in here. You can help us do that.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I didn't say anything because I do not want to fight with anyone.

I read the other poll about who could vote, and I was here before July 4th. I'm adventist.

I don't want to see any more fighting.

Good for you, hopefully more people who normally don't say much will also become involved in the votes.