Traditionals Only: New Rules For This Sub-Forum

[DarylFawcett]

Please vote for or against each of the following proposed rules for this sub-forum as they are quoted here:

4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventist Fellowship Sub-forum

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists, who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.

VOTING RULES AND RESULTS FOR THIS POLL
Only identified members of this sub-forum are eligible to vote here. A simple majority of votes for or against each individual rule will determine if the rule is adopted or dropped. It doesn't matter when a person joined for this particular poll.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Due to the limit on options, I had to group two of them together, therefore, I chose to group the first two together.

 

[DarylFawcett]

If there are any questions pertaining to the POLL, RULES FOR THIS POLL, ETC. please post them here.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I voted.

I'll send out some PMs about the poll.

 

[OntheDL]

I voted against 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4

4.2 I think the wording should change to non-TSDA can ask questions. We want to encourage them to ask all bible related questions, not just TSDA related. Also for an outsider, it can be unclear what's TSDA related.

4.3 the definition of debate needs to be spelled out. I think we should allow some kind of discussion.

4.4 again what's the def of teaching? Along the line of what Tall said, we should allow discussion and teaching within the confine of the tradditional/historic Adventist doctrines.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Due to the limit on options, I had to group two of them together, therefore, I chose to group the first two together.

Just curious, but I thought we weren't going to do the "for" or "against" thing again after the confusion in the other poll?

 

[DarylFawcett]

The rules for this POLL as stated in the OP takes care of that problem in that a simple majority for or against each one will be the determining factor irrespective of the percentages. In other words, if 13 votes for and 12 votes against whatever particular one, it will pass, irrespective of how many people voted overall.

 

[happywiththelord]

The sarcaism thing stands out to me. i speak alot in sarcasim. hopefully funny sarcasim, but sarcasim. Or however its spelled. anyway, this one stumps me.

i know why this was listed, but do we really need a rule for it? i think the other rules should cover it. i just hate the "rule" this place to death! ya know what i mean?!

I also like OntheDL's idea for 4:2!

 

[DarylFawcett]

As we had discussed the proposed rules in another thread, this POLL is what resulted, therefore, if you do not like a certain rule, then vote against it.

It is also a good idea to share why you either voted for or against any of these listed rules, as it may help the next person decide what way to vote.

 

[reddogs]

As we had discussed the proposed rules in another thread, this POLL is what resulted, therefore, if you do not like a certain rule, then vote against it.

It is also a good idea to share why you either voted for or against any of these listed rules, as it may help the next person decide what way to vote.

There is no such thing as a "Traditional Seventh-day Adventists" it is just a label and you all have to get over it and go meet your brothers and sisters who are baptized which is the only true designator of a Adventist until Christ comes down and changes it.........

Thats why these selections are divisive and should be null and void:

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists, who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

Be careful what you ask for as you just might get it from Red....

 

[DarylFawcett]

I personally don't like labels either, however, as that is how it goes here, we need to accept it and live with it.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Just a reminder that the proposed rules as well as the POLL RULES for voting in this POLL are on page one of this POLL TOPIC.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Wow. I become busy for a little while and two rule polls go up while I'm gone. *lol*

Here's my thoughts and votes:

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists, who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

I had some problems with these rules. I believe Tall had mentioned the idea of limiting subjects, rather than groups of people (to help with problems like those who are moderates) and I had really liked that idea. So, I was a little dissapointed to see this wording in the options. However, I voted for it simply because I don't disagree with it. I wonder if I made a bad call on that, though.

Would have prefered something more along the lines of "This forum is dedicated to fellowship and discussion in relation to topics that are in harmony with the 28 fundamental beliefs.". Keeping in mind that was coming from a very tired head right now, and was just an example of what I'd hoped for.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

Voted against this one for the simple reason I do not see it as needed. Aren't all of these forums supposed to be debate free, except the Debate one?

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

Fine with that one.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

Agreed.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.

Voted against this one because I just seemed to stand out wrong, somehow. It sort of just repeats what the main rules should be stopping, as it goes in line with disrespect and flaming of another individual. Also, it was not clear enough as to what kind of sarcasm. If we have a rule like this in here, it would be better to be a bit more in depth.

 

[DarylFawcett]

I like this reasons for why you voted the way you did, as I haven't voted yet and am waiting to see how and why people voted the way they did.

Whatever ones are not voted on my the majority here will not be implemented, however, they can be discussed and revised further for a future POLL and for possible future implementation, as any of the rules can here and in the SDA section.

Rules, once implemented, can be changed via this same process at any time, however, the join date rule for the other POLLS will eventually need to be revisited.

Does any or all of this make any sense?

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I like this reasons for why you voted the way you did, as I haven't voted yet and am waiting to see how and why people voted the way they did.

Whatever ones are not voted on my the majority here will not be implemented, however, they can be discussed and revised further for a future POLL and for possible future implementation, as any of the rules can here and in the SDA section.

Rules, once implemented, can be changed via this same process at any time, however, the join date rule for the other POLLS will eventually need to be revisited.

Does any or all of this make any sense?

*lol* Yes, it makes perfect sense. I've done the same as you on polls before, wait and see what others thing before forming my full opinion.

To put what you said plainly, any of the rules not voted in with this poll can be changed and revoted on in the future, as with any other rules, including those accepted. Right?

 

[reddogs]

I like this reasons for why you voted the way you did, as I haven't voted yet and am waiting to see how and why people voted the way they did.

Whatever ones are not voted on my the majority here will not be implemented, however, they can be discussed and revised further for a future POLL and for possible future implementation, as any of the rules can here and in the SDA section.

Rules, once implemented, can be changed via this same process at any time, however, the join date rule for the other POLLS will eventually need to be revisited.

Does any or all of this make any sense?

It's beginning to penetrate the gray matter....

It's good to have someone with managements skills, you are doing a fine job Daryl.......

 

[DarylFawcett]

*lol* Yes, it makes perfect sense. I've done the same as you on polls before, wait and see what others thing before forming my full opinion.

To put what you said plainly, any of the rules not voted in with this poll can be changed and revoted on in the future, as with any other rules, including those accepted. Right?

If we now have a type of ownership here, then I don't see why not.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Daryl,

I just wanted to let you know how much your effort here is appreaciated. I also would like to thank each one who has contributed.

Thanks,
Doc

 

[DarylFawcett]

All I am trying to do is to facilitate the process both here and in the wiki and in the formation of the POLLS, which I am learning what style or type of POLL works the best.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Sarah, I think we all know what type of sarcasm we've experienced in our forum in the past.

And although it is a general CF rule (well, it used to be, it may not be any more), by having the rule in here it will make it a whole lot easier for Doc and other mods to act on it if they don't have to go fishing for the rule that's violated.

Daryl, I agree that you're doing a fine job!