• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Status
Not open for further replies.

Miracle Storm

...
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2005
22,697
1,213
✟119,696.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Permission granted to post this information.
 
Reactions: Time2BCounted

Lisa0315

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!
Jul 17, 2005
21,378
1,650
58
At The Feet of Jesus
✟52,577.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He should have revealed that in his moderator application. I knew him as WolfBitten and that name is listed as one of my buddies. I don't actually remember the subject that we posted about though.

I don't know how I feel about this as I was the one who submitted him for consideration as a mod. There have been other mods who were elected under a new name but they were very upfront about it. It leaves me feeling a bit betrayed because we could not look at his posts under his other name and make a judgement about him accordingly.

Lisa
 
Upvote 0

Father Rick

Peace be with you
Jun 23, 2004
8,997
806
Sitting at this computer
Visit site
✟36,931.00
Country
Thailand
Gender
Male
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Private
So...

If I'm reading Time's post correctly...

1) He debated a lot under a different username (not against rules).
2) He created "anger and division" (which may have been against previous rules-- depending on when this happened/which rules were in place at that time).
3) He flamed... but not as much as others. (flaming has always been against the rules)
4) He was banned for "bypassing a previous ban" (he states there was no previous ban).
5) Instead of appealing, he bypassed that ban and created a new account (which would dictate an immediate ban--very much against rules).
6) He ran for mod... to be one who enforces the rules.


Ok... as someone who has been on staff off and on for about 2 out of the past 3 years...

First, I'm surprised that he was not perm banned for the the current "bypassing a ban". Even if he didn't bypass a ban the first time, this time he definitely is. I know he feels that that ban was unjustified, but that's why there is an appeals process in place... so that if someone does have action taken against them that shouldn't be taken they can prove their case and have the action reversed. To me, it sounds like he is being extended grace by not being banned completely (which is what protocol would dictate).

If Time, as a mod, gives someone an fsb from CC... what if the person feels it isn't deserved? Can the person just keep posting anyway... or create a new username and post under that? Would it be appropriate for Time to then discipline the person for violating the ban... when Time was doing exactly the same thing himself? For that matter, how could he enforce ANY rule violations, when every post he makes would be a rule violation itself?

I don't know what happened the first go around, whether Time actually bypassed a ban or not. And I know that the appeals process can be a royal pain sometimes. But how can a mod expect others to have to follow these protocols if they're not willing to do the same themself?
 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,079
2,011
Visit site
✟39,990.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi SA,

Time asked me to pass this message to to you on his behalf. I doesn't seem like it contains anything
that would need a staff approval.

To the Mods: If I am out of line for passing this on, please let me know.

Time2BCounted said:
"i said i would address everything. Yes some people DO say i am a bit of a wild man at times when i deem it appropriate.

i sure dont deny that

But they have also seen how i PREFER to treat people when they come in here with love and respect Imho"
 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,079
2,011
Visit site
✟39,990.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To Lisa and Rick,

Time asked that I would pass this along to you on his behalf.

(To the Mods: If this is out of line for me to do this for Time, then I think the talking about Time while he is unable to defend himself needs to cease until such time as he is permitted to post himself.)






 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,079
2,011
Visit site
✟39,990.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From Time2BCounted to all of CC

 
Upvote 0

Father Rick

Peace be with you
Jun 23, 2004
8,997
806
Sitting at this computer
Visit site
✟36,931.00
Country
Thailand
Gender
Male
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Private
I've been around here long enough that I've had action taken against me that I felt was completely unfair/undeserved. And I've felt betrayed, etc. when that happened... so I understand what you are saying.

However...being fair to everyone in the situation... while you feel that the ban against you was unjust, staff don't just ban people for no reason--especially a ban for "bypassing". They run ip checks, email checks, etc. first to confirm it is the same person... and all of this would be documented in the old archive files (and for those who may not know, the old confidential reports still exist). So... my guess would be that if the ban was unjustified it was the result of an honest mistake by staff-- after running ip checks, etc.

Even when staff do the best they can, there are still mistakes occasionally. I don't know all the techie stuff, but I know that occasionally ip addresses come up funny, etc.

That's why there is an appeals process. Just in case there is some kind of mistake that happens. And as aggravating as it is... even when the action taken truly is unjustified, one has to go through that process-- not just take matters into their own hands and decide "Well, the rules don't apply to me" because someone made a mistake. If it was a mistake, or even deliberate misconduct by the staff issuing the ban, then the appeal would reveal such and the ban would be lifted.

This is the process that every person has to go through. As a staff member, I have to go through the exact same process as every other member. I'm not above the rules... nor would I dare think I can enforce rules on others that I am not willing to submit myself to as well.

And I realize that as staff, I may make a mistake. I do my very best to be fair to everyone involved in a situation. I am very careful to document everything and check all the documentation before I take action... but I realize that I am human and may make a mistake. And the same applies to all staff. If I, as staff, make a mistake does that mean the poster I took action against should say "the staff messed up, so I'm going to ignore them and keep doing whatever I want"? No... they will have to file an appeal-- just like I have had to file appeals. And if it was my mistake, then they would win the appeal (just as I won my appeals).

To me, that's the issue here. The rules aren't perfect. The staff isn't perfect. But, if one is going to be enforcing the rules, then one should also be willing to submit oneself to them (even when one feels at mistake was made) and be willing to go through the exact same process that everyone else has to go through.
 
Upvote 0
L

~*Lady Trekki*~

Guest
I don't see a problem Redeemed. As long as it's only for defense purposes. If people start posting in other areas of CC for Time, that would be excessive imo.

Thank you for clearing up the questions Time.
 
Upvote 0

BelindaP

Senior Contributor
Sep 21, 2006
9,222
711
Indianapolis
✟35,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's the deal.

I've reviewed the old files. I believe in my heart that the ban was the result of a case of mistaken identity. All Time would have needed to do was to contact the Ombudsman, and his ban would almost certainly have been overturned.

Instead, he created a new identity (actually more than one, if you really want to know). He posted under false pretenses and then applied to be mod. In doing so, he lied to everyone here. Every post was a lie. There were those of us who suspected he was a sock and asked him about it. He lied to us and denied it.

It was only when he was found out and presented with irrefutable proof that he confessed to it. So, he comes in here and posts a thread about it. No apologies for lying. No apologies for breaking the rules--just justifications (because it was unfair).

I'm sorry. But fair is fair. He should have owned up to it and accepted a ban. That's what Christians do. They accept responsibility when the break the rules--and they take the consequences for those rule breaks. Had he done that, he could have still appealed for grace and asked for a vote to be allowed back on the site. There is a protocol in place to do that, and we have done that in the CR. He would have almost-certainly been shown grace and allowed back on.

Instead, he decries the unfairness of it all and justifies his actions on that basis.

Let me ask you all this: Did the Christian martyrs complain about the unfairness of the regime that murdered thousands upon thousands of them? No. Instead, they praised God that they had the opportunity to suffer in his name.

Did the thief on the cross ask Jesus to release him from his torment? No. He berated the other thief for even suggesting it. He owned up to what he had done and thought his punishment was just.

I personally think Time's attitude stinks. Imo, he could use a dose of humility. He has yet to apologize for anything. Instead, it is self-justifications and calls to fairness based on him being a Christian brother.

Brother, I call upon you to walk in Jesus' footsteps and the footsteps of those before you. Own up to what you did. Apologize and accept the just consequences for what you did. Then, and only then, will you be deserving of the grace to which you think you are entitled.
 
Reactions: praying
Upvote 0

Miracle Storm

...
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2005
22,697
1,213
✟119,696.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here's the deal.

I've reviewed the old files. I believe in my heart that the ban was the result of a case of mistaken identity. All Time would have needed to do was to contact the Ombudsman, and his ban would almost certainly have been overturned.
Thank you for that. We know that to be true as does he.
Contact the ombudsman? Maybe he didn't know he could do that, but he did send an email to staff with no reply trying to explain....
Belinda said:
Instead, he created a new identity (actually more than one, if you really want to know).
The John one was created as his account he wagered the name and lost it, gave it to someone else and that is how he came to be Time2Bcounted. It wasn't as if he was trying to troll up the place. He was trying to replace what had wrongly been taken from him and didn't know how to go about getting his original name back. If it would be now I certainly would go to bat for him in ANY appeal.
Belinda said:
He posted under false pretenses and then applied to be mod. In doing so, he lied to everyone here. Every post was a lie. There were those of us who suspected he was a sock and asked him about it. He lied to us and denied it.
He didn't believe it was a sock as you think it to be. WBGS was banned under false pretenses, which caused him to create a new account which he traded off and his name became T2BC.
So ultimately, no matter how you look at it HE ISN'T A SOCK account and he didn't lie if you asked him if he had a sock and he said no. He said what he believed to be truth.
I knew that his name had once been WBGS, but HE WAS NOT A SOCK ACCOUNT, only as you all see it.
A bogus ban had taken place.
He has been himself this whole time, he is truthful now.
He didn't even have to come out with this, in the other thread Tishri even said there would be information general membership would not be privy to. He knew that before I posted this...
I don't think he owes ANYONE an apology.
He was banned by a case of mistaken identity as you even stated.
No one would listen to him, so he created a new account. So what? He shouldn't have been banned in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned he didn't break rules, it was staff's mistake.
Belinda said:
I'm sorry. But fair is fair.
That's right Belinda. Fair is fair and so his account that was done away with should be reinstated and the rest forgiven. That would only be fair to time.
belinda said:
He should have owned up to it and accepted a ban.
Accepted a false ban for "mistaken identity" is that what you would do belinda?
belinda said:
That's what Christians do. They accept responsibility when the break the rules--and they take the consequences for those rule breaks.
What are you talking about? You yourself admitted he was banned by a case of mistaken identity. Had he revealed other information sooner it might have happened again.
belinda said:
Had he done that, he could have still appealed for grace and asked for a vote to be allowed back on the site.
Grace? Grace for what? He had done nothing, as you have said.
Belinda said:
There is a protocol in place to do that, and we have done that in the CR. He would have almost-certainly been shown grace and allowed back on.
How was he to know who to contact? How was he to know what would be done. He had already tried emailing staff to no avail.
Belinda said:
Instead, he decries the unfairness of it all and justifies his actions on that basis.
It is justified imho.
Because others actions, for lack of better words, really screwed him over!
Belinda said:
Let me ask you all this: Did the Christian martyrs complain about the unfairness of the regime that murdered thousands upon thousands of them?
Are you now comparing him coming back to a message board to martyrdom? :o
belinda said:
No. Instead, they praised God that they had the opportunity to suffer in his name.
He does praise God.
Belinda he wanted this information out there no matter what happened to him.

Belinda said:
Did the thief on the cross ask Jesus to release him from his torment? No. He berated the other thief for even suggesting it. He owned up to what he had done and thought his punishment was just.
What are you doing Belinda?
This is nonsense.
You who is without sin, cast the first stone!!!
belinda said:
I personally think Time's attitude stinks.
I personally think your post stinks...
belinda said:
Imo, he could use a dose of humility.
In my humble opinion I think you could too...
belinda said:
He has yet to apologize for anything.
You don't know what he has done in personal messages, and in my opinion he doesn't owe an apology and if he did it certainly wouldn't be to you!
belinda said:
Instead, it is self-justifications and calls to fairness based on him being a Christian brother.
Fair is fair belinda.
This is not a trial, but an explanation of his actions and why he did what he did. I see them as justified.
Wow!
Belinda I call on you to take a big long look in the mirror and stare back into that accusing face.
 
Reactions: icedtea
Upvote 0

BelindaP

Senior Contributor
Sep 21, 2006
9,222
711
Indianapolis
✟35,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
MS, the double-standard you apply to your friends versus those you don't like is amazing to me. If anyone you didn't like had done this, you would have been on them like bees on honey, calling for permabans and everything else. I've said my piece. You can criticize it all you want, but it is solid Christian advice. No agendas--simply seeking justice.
 
Upvote 0

Miracle Storm

...
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2005
22,697
1,213
✟119,696.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
LOL
You don't know a spitting thing about me Belinda.
Justice is served by T2BC keeping his postion on staff and his former name being cleared. Hello?
You are the one that has been criticizing Belinda. Hello?
I have never shouted for anyone to be perma banned.
Show me one place, please oh pretty please. Or stop with your false accusations thrown out as a red herring to my post...
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟33,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
I really doubt you would wanta solid Christian brother who was unfairly banned out a forum that needs him SO MUCH.

ODD...
 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,079
2,011
Visit site
✟39,990.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you Lady Trekki

Yes, that is all he asked me to post
those few responses for. I agree anything above that would surely be out of line! hahaha

Thanks again. God bless!



I don't see a problem Redeemed. As long as it's only for defense purposes. If people start posting in other areas of CC for Time, that would be excessive imo.

Thank you for clearing up the questions Time.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.