a. Changing the site rules - simpler, less legalistic, and more open
This could be good, or it can be bad. Time will tell.
I think it will definitely be good. There are so many rules that people rack up warnings for small things at times. Having been a mod in GT some of the rules are hard to apply or interpret as they are written, and some of the rules that were enforced were not written ones but internal policies. This is much needed.
b. Changing the way rules are developed or changed - wikify it! The rules process should be a member-initiated community-propelled, and consensus driven, not something that a minority can decide on.
How could this be possible when we are divided?
I think getting member input is good. However, majority rule likely will not be as minorities will get abused (Adventists, Atheists, JW's etc.) which to some degree already happened. Strangely this goes against what Erwin also initiated which was more freedom for some of those groups.
There did need to be more openness though. Before the rules were announced and then discussed once they were already in place in many cases, and problems could have been avoided by getting more input to see possible issues.
c. Changing the way moderators are appointed - the members decide! There will be forum moderators, category moderators, and then super moderators. Members nominated, members vote, members appointed. Appointments are for a 12 months - at the end, can be renominated, or not. The power is with the people.
Where does God fit in?
This may or may not be good. You could have folks voting against moderators who were simply enforcing the rules.
On the other hand, those who are respected should be put in the position.
Now, I do like the idea of having a vote, but look what happens next:
And yes, if you are not a Christian, you can be on staff, if people vote for you to do so. The whole process will be open, transparent, and clear. What about current staff? They will all have to be renominated and voted in at some stage.
Since when has it ever been a part of God’s plan for His body of believers to allow non-Christian people to oversee His people, or be appointed as leaders within the body?
There are some atheists I would not have a problem with simply applying forum rules. They can be quite fair. On the other hand, moderators have opportunities to minister, and for obvious reasons that would not be the same with atheists.
d. No more warnings. If God can forgive, so can we. Of course, consistent rule-breakers and trolls will still be banned, but hey, that's not going to be avoidable for any site. But not legitimate users.
How could people be identified as consistent rule-breakers when there’s no longer a warning system by which to make this determination?
I agree with you here, this one has too many question marks right now. I guess we will see what happens.
e. No more restriction of forums for non-Christians - if a non-Christian can walk into a church, a non-Christian can walk and post in any forum here. Some forums may still have gender or age restrictions, but the whole side, as should be any Christian site, will now be totally [OPEN].
This could be good, or bad. Time will tell.
Given that they will already have a GA forum (and likely moderated by non-theists as that is what the majority are there) I don't think we will have massive abuse of these new posting rights. I actually think this was much needed. Some non-Christians may want to ask questions or fellowship, and previously they were not always treated well.
For instance, it would have been great if Sunrunner could have been allowed to still post there though he became non-trinitarian.
f. No more restriction of faith icons - who are we to tell you who you are or what you believe in? In fact, no other restrictions - if you want to call yourself married, go ahead. It is between you and God, not you and CF.
So it is OK to lie to men, but not God? The implications of this rule will prove to be hazardous to forum morale.
This is one that I completely think was the right move. I was witness to some of the ...ahem...investigations...that took place, and it was just not good. People who often had little idea of the trinitarian formulations or the creeds were determined to be non-Christian and could not longer post. That was not helpful at all.
People always had the option of lying before, so I don't see that as the key aspect. For those who were not on staff, or not on staff in areas where these discussions happen you might not understand why this was so big. It was heartbreaking for some folks to have their Christian icon taken away when they considered themselves Christian.
As to the marriage issue, they were actually discussing the particulars of what they could find about some people's sex lives in the staff forums. There is no reason for that at all. The marriage thing is just for people to characterize their relationship. That is all it needs to be.
Debate can still happen one whether gay marriage is acceptable, etc.
g. Related to the above, if you believe you are a Christian, you are. No more reliance on our own definition of what we think is a Christian. In the end, who are we to judge.
What about God? What about the Bible? Are we not to judge by these?
It was the creed that was used before, not the Bible directly, which was part of the problem. People didn't have any clue about the complex definitions that underly the creed.
In any case, discussions can still happen about correct belief, so folks who are off on their doctrine will have to re-evaluate.
Erwin is basically throwing out the Bible here, and saying anyone can be a Christian just simply by believing he is a Christian, even if that person espouses views that are anti-Christian.
In fairness he is simply referring to CF policy about where people can post. Erwin doesn't really have any say at the pearly gates
I think this is good. CF doesn't have to make a determination of your Christianity to allow you to discuss. There is a Righteous Judge who will judge the hearts of men, and we are not to disturb the wheat by removing the tares.
h. Transparent appeals of moderator actions in a much more simpler format - with member input allowed - in fact, the community has a say in all appeals. The way it should be. As the community has written the rules up in the end.
No more right to privacy
To some degree yes. That just means more accountability though. Many people would flame publicly, so it makes sense to acknowledge the problem publicly.
The bigger issue here though is not the privacy but the fairness. Trust me, in some cases you WANT publicity, not back-room decisions where you can't even defend yourself, or don't even know you are accused. Spite reporting will also be less likely as folks will know that if they report someone over and over just to get them in trouble everyone will see it.
This will also help in the rare cases of staff bias or agenda moderation. Discussion will be open so it will be seen if they are making decisions on their own theology rather than the rules.
I think overall this is good.
i. No more hidden moderator forums - in fact, no hidden forums at all (except trash forums). If we can read it, you can read it. What is there to hide? If it has to be private, it can be in a PM. This will mean more transparency from all people.
No more right to privacy
Yes, to some degree. But that privacy was abused. So many problems, for members and staff alike, stemmed from secret talks where nothing could be shared. Even staff protocol--the rules that governed staff, were not available to the members. Policy discussion was not seen by members, when really it had nothing to do with moderation or people's records.
If a member was accusing staff of things ,the staff couldn't defend themselves, again, because of confidentiality.
Even the different levels of staff could not share information due to confidentiality at each one--it was a nightmare.
I think this one overall is good. Some hidden forums for staff discussion may still be needed though for some cases--suicide, stalkers, issues involving personal info etc. I am not sure how they will work that.
There are plusses and minuses to both ways. I think some hidden forums, but open policy discussion would be a big help.
Especially when I thought that some of my comments didn't warrant a warning. I also didn't like not being able to discuss the mod's decisions or why they came to them. In my opinion--that is very communisitic.
the clean underwear is my parable. you'll understand .
