What would option 3 look like

[openup4christ]

Sorry, Adiya... not a debate, exactly, just a POV.

Any private forum for Staff is a disaster waiting to happen. It generates a definite Us vs. Them attitude, it enables gossip which cannot be rebutted (so is often taken as truth), and it inhibits transparency and accountability.

In my experience, no medium- or large-sized board with a private Staff forum has benefited from it.

This, of course, does not apply to forums for address lists, phone numbers, and other private Member information.

I don't remember when i was not a mod feeling as the mods were against us.... Private forums are necessary to an extent, but lets not get into that debate because it will only bring us off track in getting this settled.

 

[GenemZ]

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.

Erwin, If I could make one suggestion? If there is to be a forum for Christians only? Could the requirement be that one agree with the Creed according to what it states on its face value?

Jehovah Witnesses would not say Jesus is God, nor would some other sects. They would be kept out.

But, what was happening? If someone was deemed a pain (heretic) by certain moderators? They could always interrogate this person, and - because of their particular church dogmas - tell the accused that even though one may believe in the Deity of Christ? Its' not correct because its not according to how they see it should be seen.

Then be told you only think you believe in the Deity of Christ. And, really do not.

The Creed requirements should be kept at face value. Those who do not believe Jesus is God? Would not be able to accept the Creed at face value.

Those who see Jesus as being God, but do not agree that Mary was the mother of God? Would not be able to be run off on the basis of the old canard that if you do not believe Mary gave birth to God? That means you do not really believe Jesus is God. Etc...

The Creed was being used as a means to get one banned when even a believer believed in the Deity of Christ!

Protestants generally do not believe Mary was the Mother of God. That she was the Mother of Christ. But, that was one way the Creed was misused to force out certain Protestants who refused to accept that dogma.

Face value on the Creed.

Do you believe in the Deity of Christ?

Yes?

Fine, then you can stay.

No more having to accept that God died on the Cross, in order to accept that Jesus was both fully man, and fully God. .

Humanity can die.

Deity? Its impossible for Deity to die.

That logic was used against me at one point to have my Cross icon denied. Why? I felt it was idiotic to even consider that the God of all life could die. I refused to accept it.

I reasoned that if one is to understand the Deity of Christ? It can not be according to that understanding. Just the same? I was refused my icon.

Then as I appealed I was getting newer angles thrown back at me after I clarified each point as to why something had to be so.

The Creed was used as a tool to achieve this goal, because the ones in control refused to accept its acceptance at face value.

I hope you would consider this factor. It would prevent the return of the ascension of power by ecumenical thinking that wished to dominate the forum's thinking.

Thank you...

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I don't remember when i was not a mod feeling as the mods were against us.... Private forums are necessary to an extent, but lets not get into that debate because it will only bring us off track in getting this settled.

We can discuss it here, if you like:
Should Staff Have Secret Forums?



ETA: In retrospect, I think I'll move my post here to that thread.

 

[SallyNow]

I think that this site finally is truly Christian. CF is finally allowing true dialogue between groups.

To split the site or to rename it would be, IMO, wrong at this juncture. Why finally, when CF has finally become its namesake, are we trying to change it?

Christians are to outreach to others, fellowship with others, not abandon them or exclude them.

 

[openup4christ]

We can discuss it here, if you like:
Should Staff Have Secret Forums?



ETA: In retrospect, I think I'll move my post here to that thread.

ya that would be good! thanks

 

[openup4christ]

2. Return to a more restricted Christians-only site with a heavy emphasis on uniting mainstream Christians only with a less emphasis on outreach, in which case we keep the name.

Why cant we have a heavy emphasis on both??

 

[GreenMunchkin]

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.

Without reading any of the other responses, my personal thoughts are:

• Bring back either the Nicene Creed, or if that's too restrictive, the Apostles' Creed. Any Christian entity will have some sort of basic system of determining what is and isn't Christian. It's not elitism, as everyone is able to affirm that creed if they take that step. But that doesn't mean having the right to yank icons as that could do an awful lot of damage.
• Non-Christian staff. Sparklecat and Ravenscape have been excellent mods, beyond reproach, but having non-Christian staff isn't good. It's not a reflection of who they are, it's a reflection of what the site needs to be.
• Staff shouldn't be voted in. It's a popularity contest and creates mistrust both for members and within staff ranks.
• Bring back some sort of warning system. Staff only being able to politely ask people to edit their post basically renders them obsolete, and allows people to flame/break rules incessantly without any sort of consequence. If we do something that's worthy of a warning, we deserve to get a warning. It's not being unforgiving; it's taking other peoples' feelings into consideration.
• Wiki has to go. It's been a disaster.

But the good things have been:

• Members being able to go in every forum. Not all of us knew how unwelcomed non-Christians felt before and that has to stop.
• Transparency. Reports should stay open to view, but only be open to comments by the people involved and staff, because they're developing into places people can flame anonymously and it's just making more work for staff.

Non-Christians felt they were being bullied by staff in secret before and that's appalling; the way to redress that is to have openness and staff accountability.

 

[Asherz]

Hi all, I've been hesitant to participate much in the rules creation and discussion since the big change because I'm leaving in a few weeks for some training for work that will last three months, and I really don't know how much time I will have for CF when I get back. I am deeply concerned about the direction that CF is taking, and I hope that everything gets iron out soon.

Below are a few things that I'd like to see be included in a third option:

1. Return to Nicene Creed standard to define Christian. I noticed a few posts about this standard being used to de-icon individuals under the old system because of nuances in the wording of the Nicene Creed. Perhaps agreement to the deity of Christ, the trinity, that Christ was crucified and resurrected, and that He died for the forgiveness of our sins or similar statements would suffice.

2. Only allow Christian moderators. There are many genuinely good hearted and fair non-Christians on this site who would probably make great moderators at any site. However, moderators hold a leadership position here and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a non-Christian mod to be leading Christians in matters of faith. I have no problem with non-Christians being involved with the armory or anything that doesn't involve getting into faith issues on a leadership level.

3. Institute a set of firm, unchangeable rules. We need to have a set of biblically based rules that are unchangeable and apply to all fora. This wiki madness is only serving to create division and confusion. I see no problem with allowing each forum to create specific rules that will address the specific needs of that forum provided they fall within the general rules. For instance, the marriage forum needs to be able to discuss sex related topics while somewhere like the sports area does not.

4. Encourage grace in the enforcement of the rules. Self explanatory.

5. Keep the staff transparency. I've read through a lot of the reports now that they are open, and so far I've been quite impressed with what I've seen. I also like that other people are allowed to comment. Oftentimes, members will be following a discussion much more closely than some of the mods, so their insight is helpful in determining whats really going on in the discussion.

6. Christians Only/Open areas. I am deeply torn on this issue right now. First off, I think non-Christians should be limited to question/answer scenarios in Congregation forums. Genuine discussion of questions by non-Christians should be encouraged in those areas, but not nasty criticism or attacks. I spend a lot of time in the Life Stages area, so I am really unsure of what would be the best setup here. There is a lot of general chit-chat, jokes, picture sharing, etc that goes on that I think non-Christians should be able to participate in. However, there are also a lot of personal discussions and requests for advice that I really feel should be Christian based. I'm not sure how to best separate this. Splitting those sections into Christian and open areas seems like it would send too much of a "you're not welcome here" message.

 

[*Rob*]

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

Totally agree with you bro

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

My wish list:

- First and foremost, decide who can and who cannot vote, and what the penalty will be for sock voting.

- Decide what to do with socks, returnees, and the banned.

- Establish a site-wide No Off Topic Posts rule for Reports (and *only* for Reports). This will keep the debate, flaming, and jurisdictional problems currently plaguing the Reports to a minimum, while encouraging clarification and allowing protest.

- Keep the Wikis for discussion only. Decide each point with a vote.

- Don't worry about any Creed. Judge people by what they write.

- Don't even think about icons, sigs, avatars, and assorted fluff until the issues that actually matter are sorted out.

- In non-Congregational Forums, anyone who can garner enough legitimate votes can be Modded.

- Keep everything as transparent as possible.

- Let everyone post everywhere, except in the Congregational Forums, which should be protected safe havens for those who need them.

 

[sparklecat]

I am very much against closing up the Christians Only section again; however, if it has to be done, I'd rather it be done by opening up the option for all congregational subforums to put [CO] tags in a thread with having them open the default, rather than the opposite. If the Christians want to exclude the non-Christians from a discussion, let it be because of intent rather than forgetfulness.

 

[*Rob*]

I am very much against closing up the Christians Only section again; however, if it has to be done, I'd rather it be done by opening up the option for all congregational subforums to put [CO] tags in a thread with having them open the default, rather than the opposite. If the Christians want to exclude the non-Christians from a discussion, let it be because of intent rather than forgetfulness.

Unfortunately putting {CO} on threads is not completely reliable, I put christian tags on my threads and have still had atheists come on and give their view on "why they don't believe in God"

I blame it on the wiki, it is unused within the teen section and I do not feel that a lot of them have read it, I think we need to bring back original rules, which are clear and easily available.

Rob.

 

[sparklecat]

Unfortunately putting {CO} on threads is not completely reliable, I put christian tags on my threads and have still had atheists come on and give their view on "why they don't believe in God"

I blame it on the wiki, it is unused within the teen section and I do not feel that a lot of them have read it, I think we need to bring back original rules, which are clear and easily available.

Rob.

Perhaps it would help if it was also put into the rules that a mod could act unilaterally to delete/move any non-Christian posts in a [CO] thread? It would still happen, but it could be taken out fairly quickly.

 

[pdudgeon]

My wish list:

- First and foremost, decide who can and who cannot vote, and what the penalty will be for sock voting.

- Decide what to do with socks, returnees, and the banned.

- Establish a site-wide No Off Topic Posts rule for Reports (and *only* for Reports). This will keep the debate, flaming, and jurisdictional problems currently plaguing the Reports to a minimum, while encouraging clarification and allowing protest.

- Keep the Wikis for discussion only. Decide each point with a vote.

- Don't worry about any Creed. Judge people by what they write.

- Don't even think about icons, sigs, avatars, and assorted fluff until the issues that actually matter are sorted out.

- In non-Congregational Forums, anyone who can garner enough legitimate votes can be Modded.

- Keep everything as transparent as possible.

- Let everyone post everywhere, except in the Congregational Forums, which should be protected safe havens for those who need them.

agreed! whether or not you split the site into two sites or divide the site,these are the problems that need to be solved. As for mods, members who call themselves Christians should be modding the Congregational and Theology Teams. Every other area and team should be open to all who wish to post or mod.

 

[Abiel]

We need to start in a different place.

What's the vision?

Once we know what the vision is, then we can work on ways to enact the vision.

The vision I signed up to was this:

Uniting all Christians as one body.

I now see an addition- a wonderful addition. We did it before, but it wasn't part of the vision

Reaching out to the lost.


There are many ways of doing these. One way is by huddling safely away, and making sorties into enemy territory. But CF shouldn't have any 'enemy territory'. That's why I am in total support of the opening up of the board that has happened. Mission has become incarnational. Except it hasn't- because barriers have been thrown up all over the place.

Here's what I would do (notwtihstanding I have no technical ability of talent to do it)

1. Re-open everything-FSRs are good- but not to the extent that they exclude.
2. The wikification of the rules isn't working yet. Maybe it will one day. It may work in the long run. In the meantime, simple rules, easily enforced.
3. It seems that we cannot moderate without some sanctions. I would re-introduce the old RFE, SEN, (it's so long ago I can't remember the others) etc warning system with this proviso- they result in much shorter time out/chilling bans, no more than a couple of weeks, rather than the '3 strikes in a week and you are out forever' style ( clearly there are nasty trolls who would still need to be ebanned)
4. Open staff forums and readbale reports are imo good. I do think that we need a limit on who can respond in the report threads- the reporter and the reportee plus concerned staff only.
5. I think the non-Christian staff we have so far have been great. I see no reason to change that. And though we have yet to see it in action, I think forums electing their mods is going to work. That remains to be seen though.


THat's all I can think of at the moment.

 

[Lisa0315]

.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I am very much against closing up the Christians Only section again;

Agreed. Non-Christians are unlikely to attempt to derail a thread simply because they can, and psychogically, re-building those walls will be damaging in terms of fellowship.

It *does* create an "us" and "them" dynamic, and this is a chance to make CF work for all of us.

 

[sparklecat]

In terms of the Wikis, my experience has been that the core site rules Wiki has been going quite well, and that it's the subforum and smaller issue ones that end up bogged down and problematic. Perhaps some sort of hybrid system could be managed?

 

[Mayflower1]

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.

I like this idea. This is a great middle. I also like "Christian Forums" as well. I thought "Mission Forums" though, because of the evangelism part of it. I definitely would love to see that happening more and something like this just might do it!

 

[Mayflower1]

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 become 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 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

This seems about right to me. About the posting thing though, I don't think I agree with that or not.