What would option 3 look like

[Joykins]

Here are my thoughts, for your consideration:

The old vision for CF was to

* unite all Christians as one body

* provide a safe haven for Christians on the web, and

* outreach to non-Christians.

I think the Congregational forums served and should continue to serve the goal of providing a safe haven. CF should have a section where the primary focus is on Christians edifying and having fellowship with other Christians. While open for anyone to post, his section should have Congregational forums and some of the ministry/edification forums, Christian moderators, and the understanding that this is a safe place for Christians and that
posts hostile to Christianity or that Congregation would not be tolerated. A section for unorthodox Christians should be in this section also, and clearly labeled as such. CF should be a place for all Christians, but it seems entirely valid to present and label mainstream Christianity as mainstream and unorthodox/non-Nicene Christianity as such. Congregational rules could be pretty strict about what could be "taught" or "promoted" in their forum according to the beliefs of that faith tradition.

There would be a second level of forums, providing for discussion, support, and debate of items primarily of concern to Christians (like the current theology and life stages forums) and ecumenical discussions, where we would expect non-Christians to participate as they felt led. Current rules against proselytizing and blasphemy would be enforced of course, but I think this section would be primarily a place where Christians post and all moderators could be Christians.

There would be a third level for *interfaith* discussion. This would include the "People of the Book" section and the current outreach / old all-members type forums. non-Christians could moderate in these sections. The idea would not be to promote Christianity so much as promote dialogue between Christians and members of other faiths. Rules in this section should be geared toward showing respect to *all* religions.

The wiki is a useful tool in creating rules but there needs to be more controls and stability built into the process. Moderators need to know what they're enforcing without having to learn it all over every week. Moderators need tools -- warnings, and private forums-- to do their jobs, but *only* to the extent necessary. Private forums should deal only with sensitive issues, and warnings should happen for aggravated / consistent bad/disruptive behavior and be followed by a ban if behavior does not improve. I like the idea of a neutral observer to the private forums, and the Ombudsman role seems suited to this. I also like the idea of some folks designated to conflict resolution.

Enforcing of self-identification as part of a faith group has to stop. However, if someone is overly disruptive or "trolling" in a congregational type forum, they would need to be removed from being allowed safe status there.

Open report threads is IMO working and a system seems to be involving from allowing them to decline into flamefests. I think being able to speak on report threads is satisfying a lot of the "I just need to say my piece" sentiment that used to be funneled into appeals, and is preventing them now.

That's all for now, I hope maybe some of these ideas could be explored further.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I am borrowing from some of the earlier comments regarding an option 3.

IMHO
Keep the Nicene Creed regarding the Trinity to define orthodoxy - it is immensely essential. However, let nonChristians post anywhere but do not allow proselytizing to nonTrinitarian or nonChristian views in Theology, Congregational forums.

Keep the staff forums and reports open..but either do not allow nonstaff to comment or make it all open with rules about conduct in the report thread (it ain't a flamefest!). No anonymity.

Continue to let the congregational forums make their own rules to a point.

Go back to the mod apps and voting by staff for mods. Otherwise it is a popularity contest and there is no way to control who votes.

Bring back a warning system for the truly recalcitrant.

Let non-christians mod in friendship, support and debate forums.

Some concrete rules are needed. It shouldn't be a continue wiki with continual change.

 

[MartinM]

For those who are concerned about Wikis remaining in a state of flux, would a clear set of rules determining a) how a Wikified rule would be decided upon, and b) that once decided, such a rule would remain in place for some minimum time period, put those concerns to rest?

 

[A New Dawn]

This site cannot determine who is and who is not Christian. Members of Staff cannot determine it either. Wheat and tares, and all that stuff. You are all probably familiar with my position by now.

What this site and members of Staff can determine is whether posts are off-topic or abusive. Not perfectly, of course, but fairly well.

If we approached the problem of "Christians only" areas from the perspective of judging what was posted rather than who posted it, I think we could reach a workable system of moderation.

This is no different than the old system. Why in the world would you suggest that?

 

[Joykins]

For those who are concerned about Wikis remaining in a state of flux, would a clear set of rules determining a) how a Wikified rule would be decided upon, and b) that once decided, such a rule would remain in place for some minimum time period, put those concerns to rest?

Yes.

 

[Joykins]

This is no different than the old system. Why in the world would you suggest that?

Perhaps the focus could not be "is this person a Christian" but "is this person posting something that is anti-Christian?

 

[GreenMunchkin]

For those who are concerned about Wikis remaining in a state of flux, would a clear set of rules determining a) how a Wikified rule would be decided upon, and b) that once decided, such a rule would remain in place for some minimum time period, put those concerns to rest?

Really not. Because how do you see that becoming how it's actually done? Are we gonna have to wiki that that's how wikis are handled? Are we gonna have to take a vote on it? It's like an ever-widening structure comprising of concentric circles and maybes, just to ascertain how fundamental rules are deciphered and created.

Wiki just needs to go.

 

[MartinM]

Because how do you see that becoming how it's actually done? Are we gonna have to wiki that that's how wikis are handled? Are we gonna have to take a vote on it?

Why not just have Erwin lay down some rules regarding how the Wiki process should be run, with the possibility of amending those rules with a sufficiently large supermajority?

What I'm driving at here is that many of the objections seem less like objections to Wiki, and more like objections to the current implementation of Wiki.

 

[GenemZ]

I am borrowing from some of the earlier comments regarding an option 3.

IMHO
Keep the Nicene Creed regarding the Trinity to define orthodoxy - it is immensely essential.

PM, me, please. I will show you by using the Nicene Creed, as some here have used it. That you can not qualify to call yourself a Christian. Even if you agree with what it says overtly!

There is a need to make our statement of faith something that can be taken at face value.

Such as.... One must believe Jesus is God.

Problem is? When you tell someone that immortal God can not die? And that the humanity of Christ is what died in our place? It can be used against you (if they want you out of the way) to mean that you are saying Jesus is not God.

Ask me why I know that is true.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[CaDan]

This is no different than the old system. Why in the world would you suggest that?

Ah, but it is different than how people's thinking and rhetoric is being expressed now.

Right now, the dispute is framed as "Should non-Christians be allowed to post in Forum X?" I propose that the question be reframed as "What types of posts should we allow in forum X?"

 

[JGG]

Why not just have Erwin lay down some rules regarding how the Wiki process should be run, with the possibility of amending those rules with a sufficiently large supermajority?

What I'm driving at here is that many of the objections seem less like objections to Wiki, and more like objections to the current implementation of Wiki.

What we need is a Rules Rules Wiki where we can decide on the rules for how the CF Wiki Rules can be run! That should be simple enough!

Of course we might need to start a Rules Rules Rules Wiki to get all that sorted...

 

[CaDan]

PM, me, please. I will show you by using the Nicene Creed, as some here have used it. That you can not qualify to call yourself a Christian. Even if you agree with what it says overtly!

There is a need to make our statement of faith something that can be taken at face value.

Such as.... One must believe Jesus is God.

Problem is? When you tell someone that immortal God can not die? And that the humanity of Christ is what died in our place? It can be used against you (if they want you out of the way) to mean that you are saying Jesus is not God.

Ask me why I know that is true?

In Christ, GeneZ
​

Which goes back to my standing complaint that people are confusing heresy (in the technical sense) with apostasy (also in the technical sense).

The folks with Downs Syndrom in my parish don't know squat about hypostatic unions or transubstantiation. But they sure can sing "Jesus Loves Me" really loud. In the end, that's a lot more important than a dissertation on the Definition of Chalcedon.

 

[flicka]

ERWIN: When I read "uniting all Christians" I don't see "as long as you agree with a certain creed"....but that's just me. As a non Christian I live in a world where I have to respect other peoples faiths (or act like it) and that includes all people who call themselves Christan, not just the orthodox ones or the KJV only ones, etc etc. It's not my place to say who is or isn't. Yet a large number of people on this site seems to WANT to do exactly that because they are laying claim to the title "Christian". Uniting all as long as everyone believes the same things? Makes no sense to me. I guess I really don't know what the heck your vision is.

I think it's a noble and unique idea to have a site that really does allow everyone who considers themselves to be Christian a voice, so my preference would be to keep things open with various sub groups for those who want to mingle only with like minded folk. Those of use who are not Christan but are interested in the topic are also invested in this place, BECAUSE IT'S SO UNIQUE. I hate the idea of separate forums and ghetto threads for the non orthodox. I also hate the idea of any Mod's having the power to proclaim who is and isn't Christian so that needs to be eliminated. Non believers can Mod all areas but the Congregational areas (and they can fight about what faiths can Mod in each thread....who needs that anyway? lol).

One last thing, although there is outreach and fellowship and such this isn't and will never be a church or a replacement church. Let's be honest...it's an online forum. If people get benefits that's great, but this shouldn't be the only place people go for their spiritual fix and it shouldn't be promoted as such.

 

[heymikey80]

I have an interest to actually find things a little more readily and spend time more wisely here.

Is there any way for a congregational group to have its own subscription? One of the things I'm noticing is there are so many different discussions I can't keep track.

It'd interest me a lot to have a congregational group tag certain kinds of other discussion areas, say theology, apologetics and evangelism areas, and get back a running list subscription of topics that interest them.

"common grace", "free will", "Martin Luther", "prevenient", "Mark 16".

If there's some way of getting this stuff outta search, I'd love to know that too. I tried a few times to do this for myself personally. "I got nuthin'."

 

[drstevej]

nm

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Why not just have Erwin lay down some rules regarding how the Wiki process should be run, with the possibility of amending those rules with a sufficiently large supermajority?

What I'm driving at here is that many of the objections seem less like objections to Wiki, and more like objections to the current implementation of Wiki.

I get you

But, to be honest, the problem with the wiki system is the wiki system. It's just unworkable for a forum this size. If someone wanted to, they could wade in and wipe it all clean and replace it with something insane. And until those rules were altered back, those would be the current rules.

The implementation of it all has been woeful, absolutely, but when there's hundreds of people wanting to get their thoughts in there, it's almost inevitable. And even if it's only a few people who have the stamina to keep up with it, they aren't necessarily speaking for everyone.

It ought to be down to the site leader to set the rules. Use the ones that have been created already, but in terms of its being the method we use routinely, it's just bad practise.

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

I have to wonder - if this place has lost Christ as some people are saying in their signatures and their posts - why are they not shaking the dust from their feet and leaving?

Maybe cause they are reading your signature! lol...

 

[MartinM]

But, to be honest, the problem with the wiki system is the wiki system. It's just unworkable for a forum this size. If someone wanted to, they could wade in and wipe it all clean and replace it with something insane. And until those rules were altered back, those would be the current rules.

There are ways around that. For example, once a rule was formally adopted, it could be posted in an official rules list by a staff member. The only way such rules could be altered would be if a replacement were formally adopted.

The implementation of it all has been woeful, absolutely, but when there's hundreds of people wanting to get their thoughts in there, it's almost inevitable. And even if it's only a few people who have the stamina to keep up with it, they aren't necessarily speaking for everyone.

Sure, participation is an issue. But I wonder how many more would be willing to participate if a clearer system were in place.

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

Which goes back to my standing complaint that people are confusing heresy (in the technical sense) with apostasy (also in the technical sense).

The folks with Downs Syndrom in my parish don't know squat about hypostatic unions or transubstantiation. But they sure can sing "Jesus Loves Me" really loud. In the end, that's a lot more important than a dissertation on the Definition of Chalcedon.

Exactly. We had a new Christian in the Outreach area just a month ago that was reported for "holding a Christian icon and not being Christian". Why? Because he stated in a post that the Trinity was confusing to him. (fyi-he did NOT get his 'icon' yanked but i was able to pm him and answer some questions for him).

are we gonna tell people they are not Christian unless they immediately understand all of the creed?

 

[CaDan]

I get you

But, to be honest, the problem with the wiki system is the wiki system. It's just unworkable for a forum this size. If someone wanted to, they could wade in and wipe it all clean and replace it with something insane. And until those rules were altered back, those would be the current rules.

Where I disagree with you is that I think the wiki is a pretty good tool for for hashing things out and creating documents. I don't want to abandon that.

The problem comes when we want to use what was created via the wiki process as rules. We don't have a clear system right now for how wiki documents turn into rules. The current system of taking snapshots is just barely working.