Statement from Staff

[A New Dawn]

I am posting a statement from staff, and will leave the thread open today, only, in case people have questions. If it becomes a staff-bashing thread, we will close it.

The owner and staff of Christian Forums have long desired for there to be respectful, caring discussion at CF. We have made repeated attempts at bring discussions in this forum under control to meet that end, to get the members to understand how the way they post (not necessarily what they post) can alter the very nature of the forum into something that is not a safe environment. As (hopefully) a last resort, it has been necessary to ban a few of the members who have not shown an interest in posting in a positive, respectful manner, and who have dominated the forum to the point that many left, stating it wasn't a safe place to ask for advice or to have a respectful discussion.

This forum does not belong only to those who have the loudest voices. We only banned those whom we considered to be the ones least responsive to our guidance and requests for help in bringing this forum to a place where it is safe for everyone. We are not here to tell you what to believe or to squash respectful discussion. You are free to discuss all that the rules allow, but you need to do it in a respectful manner. That is all we ask.

 

[tannicv2]

 

[JRSut1000]

Thank you for posting. I know mods do their best, I dont agree with all the 'calls' but I do understand just how easy it is for things to get out of hand and become downright nasty.

 

[JRSut1000]

There is going to be disagreement on virtually all sections of CF, but it's when those disagreements turn into endless debates that get hashed and rehashed over and over again, then things get nasty and things are said that needn't be. CF means Christian Forums and oftentimes the discussions turn into something that doesnt sound very 'Christ-like'. This is what the mods are trying to prevent. So let's try to be respectful of that, okay? Mods are available if we have an issue, but anytime we have an issue we should take it up with a person privately first, this is only Biblical.

 

[freezerman2000]

"This forum does not belong only to those who have the loudest voices. We only banned those whom we considered to be the ones least responsive to our guidance and requests for help in bringing this forum to a place where it is safe for everyone. We are not here to tell you what to believe or to squash respectful discussion. You are free to discuss all that the rules allow, but you need to do it in a respectful manner. That is all we ask."

Amen! If it were not for the mods, and the sometimes thankless jobs they do, CF in general would become no better than the sites that a lot of folks tell others to steer clear of.
I came here from a site where the vitriol was almost caustic..Atheists belittling those of faith, and visa-versa.
Almost no moderation was being done, and it turned out to be a hate fest.
For those who want an environment like that, they can leave here and find somewhere else to call home.
To All of the mods,and the powers that be, KUDOS!

 

[Athene]

this is a discussion forum, unless there is something big happening in the news then most discussions end up being churned over again and again and again.

As some of you may be aware, I'm the opposite end of the spectrum to IAL and chaz but I am disliking the fact they've been banned. Yes they were a cantankerous and sometimes just a little weird (no offence) but they were part of the forum make up, It's like church, some folk you have loads in common with - others you don't.

Banning a load of members has never worked in the past, women's discussion is practically dead, teens is not what it was. You get rid of the stronger members but they're usually the glue that holds the forum together so the end result is that there is nobody starting interesting discussions, nobody doing things which make the forum an attractive place for others to be part of.

You could have solved this in a different way, keep the main page for advice and support - and provide a sub-forum for those who want more intense discussions. That way, people who come to this forum looking for support will get the support without their threads inadvertently starting a bun fight. And if they do end up in the deeper discussion forum - well, they chose to be there so they can't complain about people with opposing views expressing themselves.

dallas, jane, chaz, ial an tamara are not horrible people, they're not trolls, they're not here to disrupt the forum and make it a horrible place for all. It shows a complete lack of respect fot the membership to not consider our feelings, or the fact that we build relationships with other members and that their absence affects us. Also, mass bannings creates insecurity, people can't relax and are worried whether they'll be next on the chopping block, so they don't post and drift off - is that the type of atmosphere you want to create?

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Strong, emotional responses and alternate POV's are fine. Baiting and harassment from some persons is not fine. It creates problems when you don't necessarily see their way. Especially when a question was answered biblically and one poster referred to me as a "prophet of Baal". Hardly qualifies as a 'strong emotional response' any longer at that point. (*Qualifier: I only experienced this problem with one of the posters. Most that I disagree with were respectful in their postings and were able to 'agree to disagree')

I enjoy great discussions, even ones that can be respectfully debated. But I also know I must keep myself in check and avoid disrespecting the views of others. I know that I am not always successful at that. But, as they say, "dem's da rules"! And it helps keep things relatively peaceful.

 

[tannicv2]

If they really wanted to know. I think the problem really is the "total lack of respect", "judgement", "Mr/Mrs know it alls" or those that really can't see another way besides their own [I'm really wording this nicely]. There will always be disagreements in the forums and there is no way that will be fixed. Like one rule says, don't understand ask a question. I can site bible about asking for clarification and even throw in a Chinese proverb. I don't see how singling some members out and banning them is the solution.

Hmmm....

 

[athenken]

I agree there are those who, unfortunately, cannot handle being put in a box (being held to specific rules) and they do need to be dealt with, whether being banned, which I understand is kind of difficult considering they can just create a new account a few minutes after being banned, or just being watched a bit closely on the comments they post.

One thing I do not agree with is the stringency that is placed on many threads about "staying on topic." Conversations flow and ebb and should be allowed to do so. Sometimes small caveats are created during the conversation and should be allowed to happen. Of course if a thread is subject to a malicious threadjack then that should be dealt with, but if a conversation naturally flows in a specific direction, even if it is not strictly aligned with the main topic, it should be allowed to do so. I realize this might make moderating a bit more difficult, but as long as the conversation remains civil then it should be allowed to flow how it will.

 

[Romanseight2005]

this is a discussion forum, unless there is something big happening in the news then most discussions end up being churned over again and again and again.

As some of you may be aware, I'm the opposite end of the spectrum to IAL and chaz but I am disliking the fact they've been banned. Yes they were a cantankerous and sometimes just a little weird (no offence) but they were part of the forum make up, It's like church, some folk you have loads in common with - others you don't.

Banning a load of members has never worked in the past, women's discussion is practically dead, teens is not what it was. You get rid of the stronger members but they're usually the glue that holds the forum together so the end result is that there is nobody starting interesting discussions, nobody doing things which make the forum an attractive place for others to be part of.

You could have solved this in a different way, keep the main page for advice and support - and provide a sub-forum for those who want more intense discussions. That way, people who come to this forum looking for support will get the support without their threads inadvertently starting a bun fight. And if they do end up in the deeper discussion forum - well, they chose to be there so they can't complain about people with opposing views expressing themselves.

dallas, jane, chaz, ial an tamara are not horrible people, they're not trolls, they're not here to disrupt the forum and make it a horrible place for all. It shows a complete lack of respect fot the membership to not consider our feelings, or the fact that we build relationships with other members and that their absence affects us. Also, mass bannings creates insecurity, people can't relax and are worried whether they'll be next on the chopping block, so they don't post and drift off - is that the type of atmosphere you want to create?

Well said! I am also wondering why the subforums were never formed on issues of Submission and Egalitarian views. I think that could have helped quite a bit as well.

For instance in the cases that someone mentioned above, like a person struggling with submission, etc. That person could lurk on both subforums to get an informed perspective. Those are just my thoughts.

 

[JRSut1000]

Those are good thoughts Romans! I definitely would like to have the subject out in the open a little bit to have both the male and female perspective, but with healthier boundaries on the subject.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Those are good thoughts Romans! I definitely would like to have the subject out in the open a little bit to have both the male and female perspective, but with healthier boundaries on the subject.

I actually thought of you! I think that there were dominant beliefs in each gender's section, that made it difficult for anyone of that gender to participate, if their views were different. I think that having sub forums where both sexes could participate but restricted. Like they could even have icons showing sub, or Egal. Only those with the proper icon could participate or post, but anyone could lurk, or at least people with no ico could lurk but not post. I think that could keep the temperatures from rising, and still be there for people who want to know more about those subjects.

I also think that making these issues off topic, while being motivated rightly, only served to cause these issues to stay under the skin, but they seeped out in every discussion. It became the elephant in the room so to speak, which only served to make temperatures rise even more.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Puptart]

I think the staff try to do their best with what they're given. I know this first hand. Whatever decisions have been made, they've been made after lengthy discussion and quite possibly some debate as well. These decisions also don't get made on a whim and do not get made based on a single event, either. If you think it's easy to be on staff here at CF, you'd be mistaken.

That being said, I think people on CF need more freedom to debate and to even shift off topic a bit. I think the more rules you put in place, the more frustrated people become, which in turn creates more rules being broken as people get more emotional in a negative way. In other words, you're creating the reality you don't want by the way this forum operates.

I'm all for rules, but the problem is that all the rules in place are not always wise limitations. That's entirely my opinion of course.

But that being said.. I did avoid certain threads after certain people posted because I pretty much "knew' it was going to go downhill from there. But does that mean I think people should be banned? No. I've avoided threads (not all, granted, but some ) so I wouldn't become part of the problem, and therein lies an important lesson: The fact is that it is just as much the responsibility of people who respond to poor posting behaviors as it is the people who exhibit the behaviors in the first place. Maybe people need to learn better forum behaviors and better online social interaction behaviors and better debate tactics, but maybe everyone else needs to learn to be a little less offended if they want to be on the internet at all.

So I guess in that respect, you should ban everyone. It can be a big old empty forum with just staff abiding by the rules because they're the only ones you can be sure won't break them.

The rest of us are too human for CF.

 

[Angeldove97]

Please be aware that some posts were removed that are considered off-topic and over the top with comments about the Staff actions. We get that some members do not like how we're doing x, y, or z in this forum-- we respect your opinions but please do not post snarky/baiting comments about the actions.

The post that Dawn put up is one of respect and sincerity towards all of membership-- even those who were banned. Many of the Staffers (and I wouldn't be surprised if the members too saw this happening) saw that if you did not hold certain opinions or points of views, you would get insulted and not be welcomed in this area. We hate to see this happening any where at CF.

Some of you are offering ideas on how things could be better handled-- and we want to hear from you. Instead of necessarily posting them in this thread, could you please post in the Member Services Center and talk to Staffers about what you would like to see in this forum. Maybe new forums, certain policies we should have, reminders about posting style-- whatever you think would make this a better place for EVERYONE.

Once again, please be aware that this thread is only going to be open to questions about staff actions in particular to this forum. Please no posts about bashing staff and questioning in an attacking way how or why we moderate the way we do. If you have honest and sincere questions, please know we would love to talk to you about these via pm or MSC (link above).

Thanks for your patience and your feedback
​

 

[mkgal1]

All points of view are important as it gives the entire picture.

I absolutely agree.....and isn't that the main purpose of a discussion forum like this? IMO....it's necessary to debate difficult topics that we struggle with, and hearing opposing thoughts and ideas (done respectfully) allows for more clarity.....more deeply rooted beliefs.

 

[mkgal1]

That being said, I think people on CF need more freedom to debate and to even shift off topic a bit. I think the more rules you put in place, the more frustrated people become, which in turn creates more rules being broken as people get more emotional in a negative way. In other words, you're creating the reality you don't want by the way this forum operates.

I'm all for rules, but the problem is that all the rules in place are not always wise limitations. That's entirely my opinion of course.

Excellent point. It really goes back to focusing more on the spirit of things, rather than the letter of the law. This should be a place of respectful conversation. We need to realize everyone has their own way of looking at things.....people should be honest about what they believe, and not shaming others for what they believe (especially comments about "having a low regard for Scripture"....or "skipping over parts of the Bible" should be clear rules violations).

 

[JRSut1000]

So it's not so much topic that should be verboten (sp?? I'll get it right one of these days!), but the HOW of the discussion. My husband actually talks about this principle - one can have the right revelation but in the wrong spirit. That's why the Love Chapter says that we're just a clanging cymbol without love, even if we have all the sparkly stuff like doctrine and prophecy etc.

 

[freezerman2000]

So it's not so much topic that should be verboten (sp?? I'll get it right one of these days!), but the HOW of the discussion. My husband actually talks about this principle - one can have the right revelation but in the wrong spirit. That's why the Love Chapter says that we're just a clanging cymbol without love, even if we have all the sparkly stuff like doctrine and prophecy etc.

 

[vincenticus]

Question: Do you really think that banning biblical subjects and culling the membership is good for a Christian forum?

Answer: *post deleted*

Well that clears that up. Now I'm confused as to the point of Dawn soliciting questions.

I absolutely agree.....and isn't that the main purpose of a discussion forum like this? IMO....it's necessary to debate difficult topics that we struggle with, and hearing opposing thoughts and ideas (done respectfully) allows for more clarity.....more deeply rooted beliefs.

Well said. What is the point of a married section when we can't talk about the issues actually facing us? Why not just have a "Married People's Favorite Colors" instead? I can tell you all about how burnt sienna is the greatest crayon ever.

And I'm right there with the comments about "off-topic" thread closures. Hmm... which one is more disruptive to the conversation? I'm sorry mods, just because you don't think a topic should turn in a direction, doesn't mean you should force it.

While we're at it, what is with the sensitivity of staff to commenting on their actions? It's ok, I understand you guys aren't perfect. Are you concerned that other people will agree that you screwed up? Don't you think that might mean something? Don't you think *mod hat, thread lock, infractions* kinda perpetuates the problem?

 

[JRSut1000]

I dont think that the 'mod hat' perpetuates the problem, I do think the mods are aware of our views concerning what should/should not be discussed vs. the HOW of it like we're saying. They are doing their best, this section of the forum goes through 'seasonal' changes because the mods are exploring what works best for respectful discussion. I can understand why they are tempted to say 'nope, THIS topic is out' if it turns into disrespect just about every single time, though I still would say that just remove the actual posts that are respectful, not the whole conversation.