Copied from the other thread:
Hi members
This poll, started by drstevej, was PMed to me recently. I think that it does make a good point and I wanted it moved out of the Conservative Christians forum to the Announcement forum to gather input from other members as well.
The issue here is whether CF's name should be changed and its vision modified to reflect its current framework.
This site at the moment is at a cross-roads, and can go either way. It can either become:
1. A safe social community site with a heavy and strong Christian influence (with the vision being to offer a safe online community, and a secondary vision being to allow Christians to outreach to non-Christians) - which will allow for a name change;
OR
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.
Bear in mind that options 1 and 2 are both valid - there is a place for either forums.
I think that at this moment members are frustrated because CF is halfway between options 1 and 2, so members are confused as we have a vision that belongs to option 2 but a setup that is more like option 1.
Therefore, I think we need to make a decision.
I'm going to leave this up to the community. I've extended the above poll to 3rd of August.
I will listen to the members here, and will defer to the final decision.
Please feel free to discuss this issue in this thread.
Obviously I'm coming late to this party, but I'd still like to throw in my non-Christian vote, although I have a feeling that it will be swallowed by the crushing mass of people reading and commenting on this thread.
I vote for neither option. This is Christian Forums, and it is and should remain a Christian website. I've never suggested anything different and so many people that are both Christians and non-Christians have never wanted anything for this site than for it to demonstrate the best qualities of Christianity.
However, from an outside perspective, uniting mainstream Christians in a Christians-only framework is not the same thing as uniting all Christians, which I think is a much more noble goal. The Christians that I've known for years have often times told me that you shouldn't compromise on your morals, and that's what this vote seems to be doing to me.
Christian Forums should be a safe and social community site based on
Christianity, and not just based on mainstream Christianity. Every Christian and Christian denomination has both positive and negative qualities that they bring to the table. I can go around the table and point out the best qualities in everyone that I meet here, and they should all be allowed to bring their contributions to the table.
For obvious reasons I wouldn't like to see the non-Christian moderators thrown out on their ears. They may not be Christians, but they're people too, and they would like nothing better to contribute to a place where then have had enjoyment and found friends. That's part of Christianity too, and if you don't believe me, then you'll have to take the word of my favorite Bible passage instead of me:
Mark 9:38-41
Here's the vision that I think would best serve CF: Focus on the ministry of members rather than on the ministry of staff. There are some amazing people that would like nothing better than to evangelize and witness here at CF but are not interested in the role of staff members. That's perfectly understandable. I've been involved in moderation for two years and I have to say that most people find it tedious and boring at best and painful and agonizing at worst. It isn't a job that lends itself to ministry (in any sense of the word).
The role of the moderator is to moderate; to enforce the rules. With a simple rule set that is basically static, that's easy and it can be accomplished quickly and easily.
Of course, even though I believe America is the best country, the people that founded it were much smarter than I am. They realized that every system has it's faults. It needs review by people that are disassociated from the process of writing the rules and enforcing the rules. Someone that is going to always be in a tough position because their job is going to entail a large gray area. Even less than the normal members, these people won't be able to preach or post without hurting someone at some time. I don't envy anyone in such a position.
Here's the practical application then: Most moderators should have limited powers. They should run their forums, but not have responsibilities in all forums because that seriously curtails their ability to be friendly and part of the community. A few people, perhaps ten or so very trusted moderators should have wide ranging powers to deal with emergencies.
The people that appoint those mods and super mods though, they should be removed from the process. They should be the judges, and they shouldn't be afraid to deal with problems among moderators like the normal moderators deal with problems among their forums. They should never moderate directly, but only should change things through talking and if necessary changing the makeup of the moderation team.
Where should this happen? Mostly out of sight. I hate to say it, but even small parades have staging areas. I know that CF has had some problems in the past, so here's my suggestion for dealing with the problem of hidden staff areas: How about elected teams of observers that can view the process but not interfere. If they say that everything is going well, great, but if they say something is going wrong the Administrators can take steps to fix the problem (and not by removing the observers, either). Otherwise, the behind the scenes area for moderation should be simple and geared toward enforcing the rules, and only enforcing the rules.
Now, I'm going to say something that I don't think that I've said in a long time (if ever before):
I agree with drstevej that wiki rules aren't a solution to the problem of writing rules. Any process in which the least common denominator wields as much authority as Jesus is going to have problems. Does that mean that a specific set of rules should be adopted and never changed? No. It means that a group of people need to be found that aren't afraid to change thi
ngs that aren't working (or that aren't fair) and try to make things better for all users. Different groups need different things, but everyone should be treated fairly. That doesn't mean just everyone getting their say at once but some reasoned debate about it, which we haven't really seen yet.
Still, the general gist of the rules seems pretty clear to me. The first rule should be "Love God." Simple enough. That was Jesus's first rule, so it seems good enough for CF. How should it be enforced? Well, Jesus seemed to indicate that it should be handled person by person, which seems good enough for CF as well.
The second, accordingly, should be "Love and respect others." That means that people should be polite. Anyone who deliberately hurts someone else should be in violation of this rule, but it should allow for jokes and apologies. In all honesty, this should be a rule that any moderator that sees broken can enforce right away.
Three, four and five are "don't violate copyright, don't talk about the google ads publicly, and don't spam." Again, those are fairly simple.
Six should be "No Obscene, Vulgar, Racist, Sexually Explicit or Illegal Posts and Links." What makes something obscene? Well, that depends on what forum it's in. A discussion of racism in Ethics and Morality should not be treated the same as a support thread.
Seven should be "Places within CF are different. Please understand that this is a large site, and please be understanding of the area that you are posting in or restrictions that may be enforced in some areas."
And just to be contrary to numerology, eight should be "This is a discussion board. Don't come back if your banned, don't talk about moderation in-thread, and remember that there are people behind the screens."
The simpler than those rules are, the easier it is to enforce the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
Anyway, those are my suggestions in response to the vote. Have a good day.
ST
