Something to share

[Lisa0315]

So, honestly, I do not know why people are being so ugly to me and Jim about this. If anyone is owed an apology, it would be us. We didn't do anything wrong. Instead, it looks more like people are not even bothering to read how this came about...

We protected ourselves, were as nice about it as could be, and then have to defend our actions from everyone. Not good...

Lisa

 

[Joykins]

You know, I have seen links to videos or sermons posted in Congregational forums before with no problem. Generally people are only suspicious if the poster is very new to CF, but even then it might be worth checking out the link (by which I mean researching it, not clicking on it) before giving the person the 3rd degree?

 

[Lisa0315]

Yes, and that was fine, but I would not have suggested reporting. And when I realized that the person was offended, I would have tried to extend friendship rather than get defensive. If something you say is taken the wrong way (even if you don't believe it's your fault), there's no reason not to extend the first olive branch. This is especially true when a newcomer is unsure of her welcome.

I suggested reporting after a whole day had passed with no reply from the OP. OP was on the 30th. I suggested a report on the 31st. Then, the OP returns and gets mad about it. I could have just reported it and not tried to save them from a ban.


Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

You know, I have seen links to videos or sermons posted in Congregational forums before with no problem. Generally people are only suspicious if the poster is very new to CF, but even then it might be worth checking out the link (by which I mean researching it, not clicking on it) before giving the person the 3rd degree?

Joykins,
No one gave the OP the third degree, and I am beginning to resent this whole conversation. All we did was try to explain to the OP why we had such a reaction to a newbie link. What she did is flat out against the rules. I think next time I will just report it, let the person get banned, and just exactly what kind of welcome do you think that will be?

Lisa

 

[Macrina]

So, honestly, I do not know why people are being so ugly to me and Jim about this. If anyone is owed an apology, it would be us. We didn't do anything wrong. Instead, it looks more like people are not even bothering to read how this came about...

We protected ourselves, were as nice about it as could be, and then have to defend our actions from everyone. Not good...

Lisa

I wasn't aware that I was being ugly. I thought I suggested the approach that I would have taken, and emphasized the importance of fellowship.

Established members, even in an internet forum, are in a position of power. We have the opportunity to affect how welcome others feel here.

If I was ugly to you, please show me and I'll apologize and edit the post. Such was certainly not my intent; I just wanted to offer suggestions for how to handle such things in the future -- namely, to kindly explain the issue without getting into reporting and defensiveness

 

[Lisa0315]

I wasn't aware that I was being ugly. I thought I suggested the approach that I would have taken, and emphasized the importance of fellowship.

Established members, even in an internet forum, are in a position of power. We have the opportunity to affect how welcome others feel here.

If I was ugly to you, please show me and I'll apologize and edit the post. Such was certainly not my intent; I just wanted to offer suggestions for how to handle such things in the future -- namely, to kindly explain the issue without getting into reporting and defensiveness

There it is...defensiveness...that implies that we did something wrong, know that we did, but refuse to make it right. I consider that "ugly".

I assure you that your position on this will be different when you click on a link that takes you to a site that you do not want to go to. There is a reason it is in the rules, and the only thing that was done in this thread was explain the rules to this person. The mention of reporting was because the OP had disappeared giving further assertion that it was spam. The OP did not even attempt to understand why people were wary of a link such as this. The OP was the first person to "raise their voice" at everyone else. In fact, the OP questioned our Christianity, then, stomped off like a petulant child.

All I can say is...whatever...Like I said, watch and see if I ever try to help out a newbie again only to be called to task for it later.

Lisa

 

[Macrina]

There it is...defensiveness...that implies that we did something wrong, know that we did, but refuse to make it right. I consider that "ugly".

I assure you that your position on this will be different when you click on a link that takes you to a site that you do not want to go to. There is a reason it is in the rules, and the only thing that was done in this thread was explain the rules to this person. The mention of reporting was because the OP had disappeared giving further assertion that it was spam. The OP did not even attempt to understand why people were wary of a link such as this. The OP was the first person to "raise their voice" at everyone else. In fact, the OP questioned our Christianity, then, stomped off like a petulant child.

All I can say is...whatever...Like I said, watch and see if I ever try to help out a newbie again only to be called to task for it later.

Lisa

I'm sorry, I didn't think the word "defensiveness" implied that you were in the wrong. I used it in the sense of "defending one's position" -- like, your emphasis seemed to be on proving your point rather than on establishing friendship.

You handled the situation the way you thought was best. I'm not attacking you for it, just saying how I would have responded. You may take it into consideration, or not, but I would have waited longer than a day before drawing any conclusions about the nature of the post.

I hope I have made it clear that I am not trying to be ugly to you, and I'm not attacking you for how you responded. I'm offering some thoughts on the matter, that is all. No attack or ugliness was intended in any way.

 

[MrJim]

Thanks Lisa for defending me in my absence.

The rest of you:

Love,
Jim

 

[Joykins]

Lisa, this is nothing personal, you and Mr. Jim have done nothing wrong in telling others to be wary of links from new posters. It is a good rule of thumb. My phrase 3rd degree was probably too harsh.

I'm putting on my old Ombudsman hat now.

Is it against the rules?

Spamming?

3.1 No Spamming3.1 Spamming will not be tolerated. It is defined as promoting personal commercial ventures, repeatedly duplicating the verbiage of one’s previous posts, or separating a single sentence into several posts.

Not spamming, it doesn't fit the definition.

I can't find anything here defining spamming more narrowly. http://www.christianforums.com/t5716860-wiki-conservative-christians-forum.html

Perhaps I am missing something though. Is it another rule, or in an older rule that is now gone?

I understand being wary of a new poster posting links. I don't click media links myself because I have turned my sound off. But that doesn't make it spam, or get anyone banned. This was a video I have played for a church service.

 

[Macrina]

Thanks Lisa for defending me in my absence.

The rest of you:

Love,
Jim

May I reiterate that I was not attacking? There is no need to defend against me.

 

[MrJim]

May I reiterate that I was not attacking? There is no need to defend against me.

Why are you getting defensive about me being defended?

 

[Joykins]

Are you offended
About being defended?
Or are you offended
About not being defended?
Or are you defended
while being offended?
Or are you defended
While not being offended?

Offention, detention, diddly boom
Don't post linkies and come back soon!

 

[MrJim]

Are you offended
About being defended?
Or are you offended
About not being defended?
Or are you defended
while being offended?
Or are you defended
While not being offended?

Offention, detention, diddly boom
Don't post linkies and come back soon!

...mebbe we call you 52cent