What would option 3 look like

[drstevej]

Reality Show: The WIKI Chefs

Concept:

Cameras are set up in a large kitchen where well know chefs from all over the world and an assortment of hobbyists are allowed to come in and add their favorite ingredients and spices into a large pot. They can also use a ladle or tongs to remove things from the pot.

At random times the pot is removed and the studio audience is required to eat a big bowl of the recipe. A poll is then taken to get reaction.

 

[CaDan]

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?

Will there be a plague of frogs or something if I agree with you?

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

Will there be a plague of frogs or something if I agree with you?

maybe locusts?

 

[CaDan]

Reality Show: The WIKI Chefs

Concept:

Cameras are set up in a large kitchen where well know chefs from all over the world and an assortment of hobbyists are allowed to come in and add their favorite ingredients and spices into a large pot. They can also use a ladle or tongs to remove things from the pot.

At random times the pot is removed and the studio audience is required to eat a big bowl of the recipe. A poll is then taken to get reaction.

Stone soup.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

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.

k... but then why do we even need the wiki system? Your solution is a possibility, but that sort of renders the wiki aspect obsolete. The whole point of wiki is that it's organic and ever-shifting. If formalized rules are to be posted in a list - written in stone, if you will - what's the point of maintaining the wiki system?

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

I'm not so sure, because there are a good 25 different wiki discussions going on at the moment - not including the individual fora discussions - and most of them develop into flamey flame-fests. Few people have the stomach for it, and there's really no way to prevent that happening. It's just part and parcel. Even wikipedia suffers from that. CF is inherently contentious as it is, so any excuse to get rowdy, and we do.

 

[Debi1967]

Stone soup.

I want some please.....

 

[Lisa0315]

Stone Soup...So THAT is what happened to my rock pile!

Lisa

 

[Colabomb]

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 this except I support closed report threads.

I like the fact that non-Christians can post with Christians.

 

[GenemZ]

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

If you post that you do not believe partaking of the elements in the Eucharist are the eating of literal flesh? And drinking the literal blood of Jesus? Some will immediately label you as anti-Christian according to their belief system.

Anti-Christian can be an ambiguously defined term, and abused easily by which ever bias has the majority control.


One sure way of defining what constitutes anti-Christianity it is to say Jesus was only a man. Another? Mary had illicit sex with Joseph, and tried to cover with the Messiah story, etc.

That being the case? Why even make it an issue? When it should only be based upon the obvious? It should be considered an non-issue - issue. Just deal with it when it occurs under forum rules concerning some very basic tenets.

The term anti-Christian can too easily enter into the realm of subjective power abuse. And, it has in the past.

That is one main reason Erwin hated coming online was to see Christians being told by other Christians, that they are not Christian. Erwin explained how that became painful to him. It was going on behind the scenes more often than realized.

As for standards? We should just have the main points extracted from the Creed that all Christians need to agree with on face value.

But, not the interpretation which motivated the creating of the Creed itself. For the Creed had elements of bias in its original making that can be used against certain Protestants if so chosen.

One of the motivating factors in creating the Creed (which is denied by some who were in power) was that it was created in part, to protect the mother church's teaching that Mary is the Mother of God.

Those who realize that God can have no mother? Because God Eternally exist? Where held accountable only to the Creed's intent, so that details of truth which the Church wanted suppressed could be bypassed as being an issue.

Some here will vehemently deny this is so. But, when the Creed was being written up, worshiping the Mother of God was a very popular concept in a good number of congregations. They found the logical exegesis of Scripture to be distasteful. They complained that it demystified their experience in worshiping of God (as they wanted to see him.) and Mary.

Mary is the mother of Jesus, whom God ordained to be in complete union with. Thus, giving Jesus full access to functioning as Deity equal to the Father - in all that his Deity is.

But? Mary did not give birth to God. God may have shared in the experience of his humanity being born... But, God can not be born. God created birth!

The Nicene Creed was created (in part) as to protect the church's dogma surrounding the popular notion that Mary was the mother of God.

To say you do not believe Mary is the Mother of God? Is to some moderators? A declaration that you do not believe Jesus Christ is God.

I know...... been there.

We have to establish that the Nicene Creed must be accepted on its face value. I agreed with it when I signed up. And, was shocked to find out how it was required for me to believe it, in order to accept it as true! It was used against me to ban me from posting in the Christians only section.

I believe Jesus is God. I agree with the Creed. But, not according to certain other's ways of seeing it.

This factor was used against me (via ecumenicalistic thinking) even though I believe God is as Jesus - - as the only means for making God known to us.

Confusing, I know... But that is the very cloak that those in power can hide behind when they wanted someone ousted from posting in the Christian section. Someone who made them feel uncomfortable with what they accepted and wanted to believe is truth.

Can't refute him? Use the Creed gimmick and get him out of our face.

Believe me when I say.. If I wanted to? I believe I can even get Erwin banned from posting in the Christian section if I used the Creed in the manner it was used against me. Many here are failing to see that, because they were never singled out for such an interrogation.

After the learning experience... here I stand.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[Lisa0315]

I agree with this except I support closed report threads.

I like the fact that non-Christians can post with Christians.

Oh, I think the open reports have been a wonderful thing. It has made me understand and even sympathize with the mods. They are now HUMAN to me.

Lisa

 

[Debi1967]

I agree with this except I support closed report threads.

I like the fact that non-Christians can post with Christians.

Ok I want open report threads I think that the person that is being reported against should have some input in their report and the outcome .....

 

[GreenMunchkin]

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.

I can't see that the wiki is any more conducive to hashing than a normal thread.

And if the issue is in transferring wikiness into ruleness, what was the actual benefit of the wikiness?

The snapshots are lame. No-one has any idea what is and isn't a rule break. There's absolutely no consistency in report threads because no-one knows what the rules are; what's a draft; what's been snapshotted already; whethere there's been an addendum to a snapshot... it's silly.

 

[Colabomb]

Oh, I think the open reports have been a wonderful thing. It has made me understand and even sympathize with the mods. They are now HUMAN to me.

Lisa

Except I've had little birdies in my ear trying to influence how I mod. Telling me something is unfair and complaining about how certain reports were being handled. It gets distracting, and I fear that people will start moderating in order to please people rather than to do what is right.

Frankly, Moderators have to do things that are unpopular. If you make it a popular process, it can't be done properly.

 

[Debi1967]

I can't see that the wiki is any more conducive to hashing than a normal thread.

And if the issue is in transferring wikiness into ruleness, what was the actual benefit of the wikiness?

The snapshots are lame. No-one has any idea what is and isn't a rule break. There's absolutely no consistency in report threads because no-one knows what the rules are; what's a draft; what's been snapshotted already; whethere there's been an addendum to a snapshot... it's silly.

We know we were just talking about it privately and are trying to come up with some solutions

Hopefully this will come together with what is actually wanted by the membership themselves.

 

[Lisa0315]

Except I've had little birdies in my ear trying to influence how I mod. Telling me something is unfair and complaining about how certain reports were being handled. It gets distracting, and I fear that people will start moderating in order to please people rather than to do what is right.

Frankly, Moderators have to do things that are unpopular. If you make it a popular process, it can't be done properly.

That is a good point, but don't moderators have to kind of do that anyway? They will have friends who are reported and they have to set aside those friendships to moderate fairly.

Lisa

 

[Colabomb]

concerning the wiki, I'll be frank, I don't even know what the rules are anymore. There is no real way to know. We have "votes" about them but no one really agrees on who is allowed to vote where.

So really, we are forced to mod by personal judgement, which is disasterous.

 

[CaDan]

I can't see that the wiki is any more conducive to hashing than a normal thread.

I think it helps to see various changes put together into one document. It's certainly not a perfect tool and not the only tool, but still a useful tool.

It is, though, only a tool.

 

[heymikey80]

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?

Yes. Confessional churches and non-creedal churches are extremely familiar with this -- the issue is essentially that lack of knowledge or even simply an inability to defend a doctrinal fact with what they know, excludes people from a church.

Confessional churches developed the view of "good-faith" subscription to the confessions, that they're accepted as authoritative though they're unlikely to be completely understood in all their ramifications. Doctrinal "confusion" then is no longer a reason to consider someone to be defying the confession.

My 2p on how one denomination handles this.

 

[Debi1967]

I think it helps to see various changes put together into one document. It's certainly not a perfect tool and not the only tool, but still a useful tool.

It is, though, only a tool.

To further expand on this certain procedures for even how the wiki process is to be used needs to be ironed out first before we can come to any sort of resolution and the wiki process will make any sense.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I think it helps to see various changes put together into one document.

Well men are visual creatures

It's certainly not a perfect tool and not the only tool, but still a useful tool.

It is, though, only a tool.

Perhaps, if the need for rules isn't pressing, or if there's no need to have anything set in stone, but for a forum like this, we desperately need hard and fast, enforceable rules. At the moment, the wikis are full of a lot of flaming and random mutterings, but very little actual solid rule making. The wiki reports must number in the hundreds, with no definite way of determining whether they're a violation or not, because the wiki isn't creating anything solid.

The dog is chasing his tail and shows no sign of stopping.