What would option 3 look like

[Erwin]

I don't know if this has been asked already, but...

How are we going to determine a clear victory in the poll? I mean... right now we've got a 60-40 split here and that means that if either side won, there would be a substantial amount of people unhappy with this decision.

Should there be majority minimums applied to this poll? Or will this really come down to such divisions?

Good question.

One possible solution that has been proposed already is to run 2 sites, one that is open, another that is Christians-only, based on the same membership data.

It's entirely possible. The previous version of CF is very similar, with 2 sections, one open and one close. The aim of the new system was to establish something like that but with members agreeing to do it themselves, but it hasn't worked out over the past month.

The ultimate aim would be to keep the good things of the recent changes such as moderator transparency, and see if we can formalise the wiki usage a bit more in a way that is acceptable (the wiki collaborative process is still the best process to get consensus for rules and guidelines).

There is no question that CF has 2 large groups of membership together, and to be honest, that is fantastic, because not many sites on the Internet are able to bring these 2 groups of people together into a place for discussion.

It is possible that Option 1 and Option 2 can be combined together into a middle ground of Option 3 since this is what the poll is really showing us (and I had hoped that the current CF setup would have been the Option 3, since it has elements of both, but apparently not). So the question is, if that's the answer (and I'm not saying it is at this stage), what would Option 3 look like?

It's a question that's does not have an easy answer.

 

[mnphysicist]

Some polls which may be helpful in thinking about option 3 ideas.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5793...main-open.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t5793...et-forums.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t5793...oderators.html

 

[mnphysicist]

Some earlier discussions, as a way to get folks thinking.

Bluesky idea #1

• Add another domain, one which is more of an open title.

• Let such domain cover all of CF.Use the CF domain, to include only the threads where Nicene Christians predominate, plus the fellowship area. That way, those who value separation can be part, yet are not offended.... and in time, they may migrate to the rest of the site.

Bluesky Idea #2

• Get a domain for the people of the book section, and link the databases and mirror it as subforums on CF.
• That way, we may draw in more Islamic and Jewish members.... and may well help that section grow tremendously.
• Such members upon seeing the people of the book section is also part of a larger site, may migrate to the fellowship and other parts of CF too.

 

[MichaelFJF]

Erwin, why are you trying to be all things to all people? It's your site - run it how you want to. You do this stuff on your own time - you're not obligated to keep everyone happy. Set the standards and keep them. If people leave, so be it.

"I don't know what the key to success is, but I know for sure the key to failure is trying to please everybody."
- Mark Twain

 

[ZACTAK]

I posted this in the other forum, before I saw this, but I think it is more fitting here...

A few pages back, Erwin asked about what types of changes we could see at CF. Since he asked, I am going to state what I feel should be the changes made.

1. Return the Christians Only area that encompasses ALL Christians... including the unorthodox Christians... that might not be a popular item, but I personally believe a person who believes Jesus is God is a Christian, who am I to judge their heart?

2. No forced icon changes. If a person states they are Christian, allow them to carry a Christian icon... encompass into the rules a rule stating that if a person talks against the Bible within the CO area, make it so it is a rule violation to do so.

3. Return the Open threads, where a person can choose whether or not they want to have the thread open to everyone.

4. Within some of the CO areas, allow for a subforum where everyone for the entire site can post. For example, have a CO men's discussion and an everyone men's discussion. If people are afraid the site would grow too large, then have only certain areas have a subforum.

5. No non-Christians on staff, however make it so they do have a voice. Have a non-Christian team possibly where they have access to post in all staff forums in which they can voice their concerns for the non-Christians. Also, continue with them being able to be on the armory team and other privileges we all have here.

6. Continue with the transparency. I was against this at first, but I think being able to see the reports and being able to participate in them is a good thing.. possibly make some restrictions so the reports do not get out of hand.

7. Have a set of rules that cannot change on a whim.. in other words, get a rid of the wiki. Condense the rules and don't have so many of them.

8. Bring back the warnings and infractions, but make them all appealable. If a person is causing problems, they are not going to learn by continuously getting warned, they unfortunately need consequences.

9. Have a conciliator team made up of unbiased members that will have access to the staff forums and regular forums. They will fight for equality and deal with conflicts within the staff as well as with the members... basically have staff/staff conflict resolution and staff/member conflict resolution. This team would be made up of anyone that can fulfill the job, and there will be one or several conciliators assigned to particular teams. They would also make sure things are being done ethically and the policies are being adhered to.

10. Within the appeals process, have a special team that listens to the appeals. This people would be the ones that understand the policies and procedures very well. This way, they will not be biased towards a team.. like the administrators of each team could have been while listening to appeals before.

11. Keep the Congregational areas open to everyone for those that are curious about the different denominations. Of course close that area off to debating, but people that are interested of any faith or non-faith can go there and discuss or ask questions about that denomination.

And if people do not like my suggestion of having a CO only area, then I would suggest having an open to everyone area, and then on the important forums, such as men's discussion have a CO area.. so there are not as many CO areas, but there are some, just for us Christians who want a special area just for us.

These are my proposals, I know there are a lot of them.. and I have given this some thought before, if you can't tell.

I think with the right amount of motivation CF could actually become a great place to be, like it once was... and I am NOT referring to the old system. God bless.

 

[Loki]

It is possible that Option 1 and Option 2 can be combined together into a middle ground of Option 3 since this is what the poll is really showing us (and I had hoped that the current CF setup would have been the Option 3, since it has elements of both, but apparently not). So the question is, if that's the answer (and I'm not saying it is at this stage), what would Option 3 look like?

This is the heart of the matter.

It looks like the hot issues that need to be resolved are:

Non-Christian moderators: yes/no, if yes, what is their role?

Formerly CO areas open or closed? Proselytizing is already prohibited, yet there are claims of non-believers running amok. These claims need to be investigated and it must be determined whether or not the non-believers actually do pose a threat to the ability of believers to fellowship and debate.

Speaking as one of those, should the old way be reinstated, who would be outside looking in, it's a really crummy position. The reason I returned was because I'd heard that the Congregational fora had been opened.

I think most people will agree that transparency of the moderator stuff and infractions is a desirable thing, and I hope that that will be retained.

The wiki issue seems to be especially sensitive. Perhaps determine a template of rules that would be able to be amended for the individual congregational fora, which would allow certain congregational foa to be open to non-nicene Christians, gay Christians, to define marriage as that congregation saw fit. It wouldn't be rewriting each rule by whoever decided to rewrite it, but rather something along the lines of vetoing/ratifying each point by itself.

 

[TheDerek]

Erwin, I love this site. I have put a lot into it over the last four years. It's been a blessing to me.

Some of the changes that have happened are good, but some need to go. Here's what I think needs to be done:

-Make the rules concrete. No more Wiki.

-Bring back the Niccene Creed.

-Make Staff Christian Only

What I like about the new site:

-Non-Christians can post with the Christians.

-The transparency (although I wouldn't mind a private forum for staff, it's not neccasary. PM's work. This way all members can see what happens in the super sekrit staff forum).


That's just my $.02

 

[Sothron]

Erwin, I love this site. I have put a lot into it over the last four years. It's been a blessing to me.

Some of the changes that have happened are good, but some need to go. Here's what I think needs to be done:

-Make the rules concrete. No more Wiki.

-Bring back the Niccene Creed.

-Make Staff Christian Only

What I like about the new site:

-Non-Christians can post with the Christians.

-The transparency (although I wouldn't mind a private forum for staff, it's not neccasary. PM's work. This way all members can see what happens in the super sekrit staff forum).


That's just my $.02

I agree with everything there except I would insist on faith boards to have a subforum for debate versus the main faith board being restricted.

 

[TheDerek]

I agree with everything there except I would insist on faith boards to have a subforum for debate versus the main faith board being restricted.

I could go with that.

 

[Letalis]

-Bring back the Niccene Creed.

Most important item for me.

Christian orthodoxy is important, and moving away from it would be a mistake, IMO.

ETA: Not to say I think we should go back to enforcing icons, but I do think the site's goal should include promoting orthodox Christianity.

 

[Taylor43]

I like how cf is running. It is hard for me to judge but this siute has helped me

 

[""]

This is my idea. I feel weird saying that. So I'll just say it's AN IDEA.

I don't know if you'll like it but after praying about it, it just sort of came to me.

Option 3 - Two sections of the forum, because dividing it up into two separate sites is damaging to our witness imho.

Section A: Christian only section (the smallest part of CF) of CF where only Christian staff are allowed to moderate, and post. A heavy emphasis on instruction of righteousness. The rules for this section could be wiki'd if the Christian members vote on this. Otherwise, they should be governed by the 10 commandments, and Jesus commandments. Those commandments would be used to create the rules for that area.
*Staff for secton A would be Christian only, and could be nominated by staff, accepted by SuperAdmins who would train. Then they would go into a Christian Only staff pool where the Team that needed them most would get to choose first.

Section B: An open section (the largest part of CF) where believers and non-believers can post, discuss and debate. This section should also include a heavy emphasis on witnessing, and compassion. Non-believers pay attention to compassion and the golden rule. Once people accept Christ, they can go on to learn more about living righteously from the Christian Only section. For this section I would suggest the rules remain wiki'd as the posters seem to like this. An area for the people, created by the people, run by the people.
*Staff for section B can be Christian and non-Christian and would be voted in by the posters, beginning January 1, with Supermoderators and Admins being chosen by the mods who have been voted in.


This is what drives my thoughts:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Jesus in Mark 16:15-16


Our forum could be renamed if staff insist. I like Christian Forums, but I suppose we could rename it Christian Witness... or something else that you'd like. I don't know. I feel shy about suggesting these options. I hope you don't think I'm too foward in doing so. I just felt like the idea was given to me.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Erwin, why are you trying to be all things to all people? It's your site - run it how you want to. You do this stuff on your own time - you're not obligated to keep everyone happy. Set the standards and keep them. If people leave, so be it.

I agree with MichaelFJF.

You're never going to be able to please everybody.

What is your vision, Erwin?

Is it a safe haven for Christians? If so, there are hundreds of sites which protect Christians from outside influences.
Manna Cabana is one, Jesus-Is-Lord is another.

Is it a place for outreach to non-Christians? Again, there are hundreds of sites for that. Religious Tolerance is an example.

In your vision, what makes CF special? If CF was everything you wanted it to be, what would be that one thing that makes it stand out from all the others?

 

[MariaRegina]

Good question.

One possible solution that has been proposed already is to run 2 sites, one that is open, another that is Christians-only, based on the same membership data.

It's entirely possible. The previous version of CF is very similar, with 2 sections, one open and one close. The aim of the new system was to establish something like that but with members agreeing to do it themselves, but it hasn't worked out over the past month.

The ultimate aim would be to keep the good things of the recent changes such as moderator transparency, and see if we can formalise the wiki usage a bit more in a way that is acceptable (the wiki collaborative process is still the best process to get consensus for rules and guidelines).

There is no question that CF has 2 large groups of membership together, and to be honest, that is fantastic, because not many sites on the Internet are able to bring these 2 groups of people together into a place for discussion.

It is possible that Option 1 and Option 2 can be combined together into a middle ground of Option 3 since this is what the poll is really showing us (and I had hoped that the current CF setup would have been the Option 3, since it has elements of both, but apparently not). So the question is, if that's the answer (and I'm not saying it is at this stage), what would Option 3 look like?

It's a question that's does not have an easy answer.

Option 3 is right now.

A. Wikis will continue, right?

However, the wikis are a problem.With the rules, it took a long time to find the thread where the current rules were being discussed. I found the old thread, but I had to ask where the new one was.

Sadly, very few people are working on them, and then some people are really addicted and do almost all the work, forgoing sleep. It becomes pathologically addictive. The Wiki becomes their baby.

I don't know. Personally, I have confused feelings.

Something is not right.

God is not relative. His laws are fixed.

God is the Truth. He is incomprehensible, unchangeable, indefinable, uncircumscribable, immortal, invisible, unknowable, and totally holy (above us).

Our rules should have some stability and should not be continually changing like the most current women's fashions or like Hollywood's PG ratings which have slipped to become more like the R ratings of old.

B. I think we should return to the warning system where after three strikes in a week or a month members will be suspended for a cool down period with some flexibility. Furthermore, I think that mods and members should have a chance to vote on a member's right to return early especially if that person has experienced a change of heart.

C. Maybe a probationary period can be imposed with some feedback adopting a policy similar to academic probation in college, where users will be limited to a certain number of posts per day. Some Yahoo Groups only allow 10 posts per day, and that policy does help those people who need to have set boundaries and more structure than others.

D. I really like the exceptional modding skills of Sparklecat and Ravenscape. They are very kind, fair, and wonderful women. I see nothing wrong with having them continue to serve as moderators in Support.

I hope these thoughts help.

Prayerfully in Christ,
Elizabeth

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Something is not right.

God is not relative. His laws are fixed.

God is the Truth. He is incomprehensible, unchangeable, indefinable, uncircumscribable, immortal, invisible, unknowable, and totally holy (above us).

True, but He has much better tools than we.

That whole "seeing into someone's heart", for instance.

D. I really like the exceptional modding skills of Sparklecat and Ravenscape. They are very kind, fair, and wonderful women. I see nothing wrong with having them continue to serve as moderators in Support.

Agreed, a million percent.

 

[thereselittleflower]

As I said in the other thread, I believe we are putting the cart in front of the horse, and the first thing we need to do is visit the vision for this site.

Right now it is "uniting all christians into one body".

Such a vision is impossible to acheive. That is just being pragmatic and logical. It is not within the scope of a website, any website, to acheive such a vision and lofty, noble goal. An impossible goal sets one up for failure.

Before we can decide how to structure CF in a way that will work, we need to have a vision that is workable, doable, acheivable.

As I proposed in the other thread, that vision should be more about understanding one another . .

So, Erwin, may I propose that the vision of CF be changed to something along these lines:

"Promoting understanding, fellowship and ministiry among christians and chrsitian witness to the world."

That is much more acheivable than trying to unify all christians, and doesn't set us up for failure.


Then it is much easier to see how to structure CF.


.

 

[""]

Please don't debate stuff in this topic (not that any of you have). Let's keep it free from debate so that people can express their ideas. I see some good ones being shared. It's exciting.

I believe we can achieve it, because we have a common goal, to celebrate our faith and to share it with others.

 

[Timothy]

Erwin, I love this site. I have put a lot into it over the last four years. It's been a blessing to me.

Some of the changes that have happened are good, but some need to go. Here's what I think needs to be done:

-Make the rules concrete. No more Wiki.

-Bring back the Niccene Creed.

-Make Staff Christian Only

What I like about the new site:

-Non-Christians can post with the Christians.

-The transparency (although I wouldn't mind a private forum for staff, it's not neccasary. PM's work. This way all members can see what happens in the super sekrit staff forum).


That's just my $.02

I would suggest that a private staff forum is needed. PMs lack accountability.

This is the list of things that the staff who resigned shortly after 7/7/7 resigned over. If they can be fixed, there's a whole lot of us who might consider returning.

 

[openup4christ]

CF needs middle ground. We need to keep the bible as our base. Christian mods, Christian rules, Christian site, But we need to keep most forums open to all members. I have already seen good ministry happen because of non Christians mingling with Christians and i would hate to lose that. The base of the site needs to remain solid in Gods word, and no wikis on what Gods word is. Once we have a solid foundation of the word then everything will fall into place.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

ETA: I thought this post would go better in a more appropriate thread.