- May 29, 2005
- 5,876
- 485
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
Can't they ALREADY be banned for repeated trolling (which is what you are describing)?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can't they ALREADY be banned for repeated trolling (which is what you are describing)?Okay, okay, okay. Everyone just keep it in mind though. This is not going to get better before it gets worse. Put your thinking caps on and lets come up with a solution. There has to be one. I am not one to settle for "There is nothing to be done about this".
What about adding a rule that sets up a precedent for banning a member from CCC if they have persistently caused conflict or disturbed the peace in CCC?
Lisa
Then our position on the matter should have adequately been addressed alreadyWell yes I did actually. Why do you ask?
tulc(getting more confused)
Yes they have to follow protocol though in getting the Admin of Ecumenical involvedCan't they ALREADY be banned for repeated trolling (which is what you are describing)?
My question is why would Liberals want voting power in Conservative Christians? Second, how could they be members if they are unable to accept our Statement of Belief?
Plain and simple it is against the rules and please do not come in here attempting to change our rules to accomodate your agendaI don't think they do. But we do have a couple of conservatives who like posting over in WWMC and wanted to be members in our forum also. Now I understand not letting us vote here, but why not them?
tulc(making another stab at this)
Some do.I don't think they do.
So make your voting open, without a membership roll.tulc said:But we do have a couple of conservatives who like posting over in WWMC and wanted to be members in our forum also.
For us, membership means you agree with the core tenets of conservative christianity, as outlined by the WIKI. It's for posting purposes, voting purposes, rule making purposes, debating purposes, advice purposes ...Now I understand not letting us vote here, but why not them?
Because, while the typical liberal statement is that everything is acceptable, the typical liberal belief is that everything is acceptable as long as it's liberal. So, while the conservative view is supposedly "acceptable", they still want to change everything to their way.I guess I don't get this "I want my cake, and to eat it to." mentality.
For us, membership means you agree with the core tenets of conservative christianity, as outlined by the WIKI. It's for posting purposes, voting purposes, rule making purposes, debating purposes, advice purposes ...
So if you're a full member of CC, from our POV, it means you agree with our tenets, and if you're a member of WWMC you must agree with theirs (pro-gay marriage, allowance of pro-choice positions, ambivalent about scriptural authenticity/inspiration, etc etc). If we don't have that rule, we need to devise rules on how to eliminate people from the CC rolls when it becomes obvious they're not conservatives. So, in this regard ... we just do it up front by making them choose. It's not like WWMC doesn't benefit. I've spoken to Joykins and she readily admits WWMC benefits from this as it keeps some of the more vocal CC members from joining the WWMC membership and being pesky. If I'm misrepresented her position, she can easily come here and disabuse me of my notions.
I guess I don't get this "I want my cake, and to eat it to." mentality. If you're a conservative, and you're friendly with the WWMC crowd, that's fine. Why you can't simply accept their choices for their staff, is beyond me.
CASI!!!
tulc(I've missed you my sista from anotha motha!)
No it's more like not letting a Democrat vote in the Republican primaries....because they aren't liberal, they're conservative? Think of it like this: you're a person who likes both coffee and tea, and you're on a website that has two forums one for coffee, one for tea. Now the coffee drinkers say "You can be either a coffee drinker or a tea drinker, but no both!" the tea drinkers on the other hand say: "we don't care if you like either coffee or tea, come on in!" the problem isn't that the tea drinkers want to take over the coffee forum they just like having both sides as members. See what I'm saying?
tulc(not a tea drinker but doesn't actually have a problem with them)
Perhaps the WWMC could/should make a list of "Guest Posters" for Conservatives that do not have voting rights, but are free to post??? There should be a way for Conservatives who enjoy posting over there (although I personally wouldn't) to be able to post with permission of your board, and without violating the rules of CC as it regards posting and voting???I don't think they do. But we do have a couple of conservatives who like posting over in WWMC and wanted to be members in our forum also. Now I understand not letting us vote here, but why not them?
tulc(making another stab at this)
The site-wide rules are that fellowship posts can be made anywhere by anybody. If the WWMC has a rule that you must be an official member there just to post, that rule violates the site rules. They can stop non-members from debating, and they can stop non-members from participating in forum government, but they can NOT stop anyone from fellowship posting. Now, I've read their Wiki, and I don't see such a rule in there.That way you wouldn't have to be a MEMBER of WWMC to post fellowship and such?
No, you're right WWMC hasn't any rule to keep anyone from posting, my question was about your rule #3. There was an "honorary-member" idea put forth...would you ban people from being members of your forum if they were honorary members of WWMC?The site-wide rules are that fellowship posts can be made anywhere by anybody. If the WWMC has a rule that you must be an official member there just to post, that rule violates the site rules. They can stop non-members from debating, and they can stop non-members from participating in forum government, but they can NOT stop anyone from fellowship posting. Now, I've read their Wiki, and I don't see such a rule in there.
And I wasn't addressing YOUR question, I was addressing Tangeloper's statement.No, you're right WWMC hasn't any rule to keep anyone from posting, my question was about your rule #3.
Depends on what an "honorary member" is. What is the difference between a regular member and an "honorary" one?There was an "honorary-member" idea put forth...would you ban people from being members of your forum if they were honorary members of WWMC?
Not really our rule says you can't be a member of both. Not that you can't post on WWMC occasionally. In the U.S. you cannot be a member of both the Democratic and the Republican National Conventions. Pretty much we are saying the same thing here. We have not told a single member here that they can't visit or post on WWMC.Uhmmm no, it's more like not letting a Republican vote in a Republcan primary because they hang out with Democrats once in awhile.
tulc(from Chicago, primaries I understand)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?