Appeals Option Forum

[k]

Please forgive me if this suggestion is a bit late...but after some prayer and thought, here is the idea.

Make Appeals optional for public viewing. Obviously no one but the Member filing the Appeal and Mods handling the Appeal in the Chain of Command would be allowed to respond. This would eliminate the question of secrecy and allow no room for doubt in the application of rule enforcement.

Furthermore, this would be a great learning tool for all CF members who are unsure about how some rules are violated.

Overall the Mods have a tremendous responsibility and it cannot be an easy job by anyones' standards. Thank you to all who so freely dedicate your time and effort to CF!

[Chrysalis Kat]

I have always supported this idea. I would like for the appealing member to have the option of making their appeals public information or not. Presently, the appeal process is extremely unbalanced and set up for the benefit of staff, not the member.
Actually, the entire appeal process needs to be overhauled. I think Erwin is well aware of this.

[k]

I have always supported this idea. I would like for the appealing member to have the option of making their appeals public information or not. Presently, the appeal process is extremely unbalanced and set up for the benefit of staff, not the member.
Actually, the entire appeal process needs to be overhauled. I think Erwin is well aware of this.

Thanks for your input...my kitty says hello. :wave:

[seebs]

I think that, in an appeal, the user's expectation of privacy is a good thing.

But if I, as the person with a right to privacy, wish to waive it, this should also be possible.

There are certainly cases in which the substance of a complaint or appeal is such that I'd want to keep it private with staff. However, in many cases, I would have no reason to do so. In such cases, I would rather other users be able to see my question, and its answer, so we can all better understand how the moderators understand the rules.

If I don't understand a rule, it's entirely possible other people will have the same misunderstanding; a public response that clarifies it is then a huge win for everybody.

[k]

I think that, in an appeal, the user's expectation of privacy is a good thing.

But if I, as the person with a right to privacy, wish to waive it, this should also be possible.

There are certainly cases in which the substance of a complaint or appeal is such that I'd want to keep it private with staff. However, in many cases, I would have no reason to do so. In such cases, I would rather other users be able to see my question, and its answer, so we can all better understand how the moderators understand the rules.

If I don't understand a rule, it's entirely possible other people will have the same misunderstanding; a public response that clarifies it is then a huge win for everybody.

Excellent points, and I have run into problems where I received OWs even after I read the rules to make sure my posts were not in violation. The point of saying this is to say had there been a Forum for Public Appeals it is highly possible I could have seen the same mistakes by others thereby avoiding the rule violations and the OWs.

[A New Dawn]

I know that I have not understood the appeals process, and therefore botched appeals, but I am not for this suggestion one bit.

Sorry.

[k]

I know that I have not understood the appeals process, and therefore botched appeals, but I am not for this suggestion one bit.

Sorry.

No need to apologize because I am more than willing to listen to thoughts, especially those that oppose the idea.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, why would this be a bad option?

Thank you

[A New Dawn]

No need to apologize because I am more than willing to listen to thoughts, especially those that oppose the idea.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, why would this be a bad option?

Thank you
I don't know of a lot of people who are willing to air their dirty laundry in public. You talk about viewing other people's appeals, but your's would also be open for viewing. Is that OK with you?

(It's not with me.)

[k]

I don't know of a lot of people who are willing to air their dirty laundry in public. You talk about viewing other people's appeals, but your's would also be open for viewing. Is that OK with you?

(It's not with me.)

That's why the crucial point of this is that it would be strictly optional for the Member filing the appeal. For those who choose to keep it quiet, they may do so. I have 3 that I would love to see in a public forum.

The more I realize that the only secret is that there are no secrets, the less I tend to be concerned about people rifling through my dirty laundry. :)

Thanks for your feedback.

[ChristianCenturion]

No need to apologize because I am more than willing to listen to thoughts, especially those that oppose the idea.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, why would this be a bad option?

Thank you

Since you ask why this may be a bad option:
I'm a firm believer that if misdeeds are done, then in God's Sovereignty and timing, those misdeeds will be exposed in a proper manner.

As far as having public appeals, I see it as having potential harm in being open to gossip and preconceived if not superficial impressions given to the viewer. Granted those are aspects that are dependent on the viewer, however making a feature where only claims were held against people invites those given to such to frequent it. You may have no qualms of 'airing your laundry'; however, creating a formal arena where people are privy to your or other's situation sets up for further moderation efforts if or when such incidents are 'brought up' again out of that arena i.e. "Wasn't it you that got reprimanded for..." and thus, the moderators will have to further enforce the no publicly discussing moderator actions.

The only cause I can see that would warrant this addition would be popular opinion pressure and second-guessing moderator actions. I post here under the trust and consent by the forum and that sentiment is reciprocated.
Terms by which I agreed to as is.

IMHO

[A New Dawn]

That's why the crucial point of this is that it would be strictly optional for the Member filing the appeal. For those who choose to keep it quiet, they may do so. I have 3 that I would love to see in a public forum.

The more I realize that the only secret is that there are no secrets, the less I tend to be concerned about people rifling through my dirty laundry. :)

Thanks for your feedback.
The OP did not state that this would be optional. If that is part of your intended suggestion, then it should be stated.

[k]

The OP did not state that this would be optional. If that is part of your intended suggestion, then it should be stated.

From the first line in the 2nd paragrah:

Make Appeals optional for public viewing.

Maybe there was a better way to state it, but it seemed clear when I wrote it.

[k]

Since you ask why this may be a bad option:
I'm a firm believer that if misdeeds are done, then in God's Sovereignty and timing, those misdeeds will be exposed in a proper manner.

As far as having public appeals, I see it as having potential harm in being open to gossip and preconceived if not superficial impressions given to the viewer. Granted those are aspects that are dependent on the viewer, however making a feature where only claims were held against people invites those given to such to frequent it. You may have no qualms of 'airing your laundry'; however, creating a formal arena where people are privy to your or other's situation sets up for further moderation efforts if or when such incidents are 'brought up' again out of that arena i.e. "Wasn't it you that got reprimanded for..." and thus, the moderators will have to further enforce the no publicly discussing moderator actions.

The only cause I can see that would warrant this addition would be popular opinion pressure and second-guessing moderator actions. I post here under the trust and consent by the forum and that sentiment is reciprocated.
Terms by which I agreed to as is.

IMHO

I agree that all misdeeds will be revealed in God's timing, but God uses people to get things done all the time. (Not saying I am being used for that at all.)

It seems the base of your argument is that making an appeal process public (strictly by the permission of the one making the appeal) will exacerbate tension among the CF community. If I have misunderstood the argument please correct me.

My response is since the goal of CF is unity, the aspect of transparency on rule enforcement will release a lot of tension and remove any doubts people may have. These doubts may or may not be warranted, I am not here to argue or discuss that.

Even without this option, many people can see what posts have been staff edited mainly by the absence of a post, so I am not swayed by the argument it would deepen the pool of animosity.

I appreciate your feedback, even though we may disagree. :)

[A New Dawn]

From the first line in the 2nd paragrah:

[/size]

Maybe there was a better way to state it, but it seemed clear when I wrote it.
Oh. Sorry, I interpreted that differently. :sorry:

[k]

Oh. Sorry, I interpreted that differently. :sorry:

No hassles. :) I probably could have worded it differently. Language is a tricky thing sometimes.

[ChristianCenturion]

It seems the base of your argument is that making an appeal process public (strictly by the permission of the one making the appeal) will exacerbate tension among the CF community. If I have misunderstood the argument please correct me.

That was my common, administrative reasoning.
However, my foundational reasoning would be that it is contradictory to Christian teaching in authority, correction, and resolving issues. Citing scripture has not proven effective in focusing the minds of those that want that feature, so I will leave that simply referenced.

Since this has been a topic or has had a small "following" in repeated requesting, I'm curious as to what the advocates for this proposed addition think will actually be brought about in way of benefits. Aside from the mentioned 'removing doubts' or tension (which can equally be attributed to entertaining gossip BTW), I don't see how a user allowing their appeal to be made public would bring change, much less benefit. After all, it isn't a popularity/polling based moderation or a democracy where viewers have a vote, and it isn't a shareholder's position where investment brings authority. So even if the moderation was placed into the extreme of it was clearly correct application or clearly mishandled/in error, what benefit would it be for random (very much assumed) viewing merely for the sake of 'seeing'. After all, moderators need to develop their skills and require the same grace and privacy during the process (to my understanding) and that already contains a jury of peers via fellow moderators. If the spirit of the rules are applied on both sides, legalism and hyper-focusing on precedents are avoided. Additionally, it's not actually being proposed that non-Christians should have a say in the moderation on a Christian forum, is it?

[Shannonkish]

I think the first step would be to make the moderator's secret posts viewable to the appelate first... see how that works... then give the option to make the appeals thread public or not.

As it is right now, the appealate only sees one-three posts telling them that it is being looked at, and the decision.

I think it is bias (for lack of a better word, if you have a suggestion, let me know) for the moderator you appeal to be able to see both sides of the story, however, the appealate doesn't get to see the side of the moderator because of the secret posts.

[ChristianCenturion]

I think the first step would be to make the moderator's secret posts viewable to the appelate first... see how that works... then give the option to make the appeals thread public or not.

As it is right now, the appealate only sees one-three posts telling them that it is being looked at, and the decision.

I think it is bias (for lack of a better word, if you have a suggestion, let me know) for the moderator you appeal to be able to see both sides of the story, however, the appealate doesn't get to see the side of the moderator because of the secret posts.

So I understand... does that mean you are only interested in seeing the posts dealing strickly with your own apeals? I was under the impression that this was 'open to public' in the generalized sense that was being discussed. :confused:

[Rochir]

Please forgive me if this suggestion is a bit late...but after some prayer and thought, here is the idea.

Make Appeals optional for public viewing. Obviously no one but the Member filing the Appeal and Mods handling the Appeal in the Chain of Command would be allowed to respond. This would eliminate the question of secrecy and allow no room for doubt in the application of rule enforcement.

Furthermore, this would be a great learning tool for all CF members who are unsure about how some rules are violated.

Overall the Mods have a tremendous responsibility and it cannot be an easy job by anyones' standards. Thank you to all who so freely dedicate your time and effort to CF!

I'd support this wholeheartedly!:thumbsup:

[Crazy Liz]

You raise several important questions, CC. Thanks for bringing them up as you did. This is something I've thought about a lot, too, and I think there may be room for improvement if we work on this idea some more.

That was my common, administrative reasoning.
However, my foundational reasoning would be that it is contradictory to Christian teaching in authority, correction, and resolving issues. Citing scripture has not proven effective in focusing the minds of those that want that feature, so I will leave that simply referenced.

OK, I'll cite what I think is the most relevant scripture:

matthew 18:15-20

This is the only instance I can think of in the gospels where Jesus himself gives a step-by-step procedure for anything, so it makes sense that we pay close attention to this scripture in creating or reforming a dispute resolution system for use in a Christian community.

Since this has been a topic or has had a small "following" in repeated requesting, I'm curious as to what the advocates for this proposed addition think will actually be brought about in way of benefits. Aside from the mentioned 'removing doubts' or tension (which can equally be attributed to entertaining gossip BTW), I don't see how a user allowing their appeal to be made public would bring change, much less benefit. After all, it isn't a popularity/polling based moderation or a democracy where viewers have a vote, and it isn't a shareholder's position where investment brings authority. So even if the moderation was placed into the extreme of it was clearly correct application or clearly mishandled/in error, what benefit would it be for random (very much assumed) viewing merely for the sake of 'seeing'.

If the member and mod can't work it out between the two of them, let the first appeal be private, with only the mod's immediate superiors able to view it. Gossip is a problem, but it can happen among staff just as much as it can happen among members. Making appeals visible to all staff but invisible to all members does not solve the gossip problem. Staff can gossip via PMs and staff forums, and members can gossip via PMs and Elsewhere.

You're right that this forum is not modeled after a democracy or a corporation. What should it be modeled after? Shouldn't we look first to the procedures prescribed by Jesus himself for resolving disputes in a church? There may be some difficulties with applying that procedure here, but shouldn't we look at it first.

As specifically applied to the OP, Jesus prescribes a first step that is entirely private, a second step that brings in one or two helpers, and a third step that is public. Jesus doesn't expect us to be perfect. We can't always resolve disputes privately. Sometimes we need help, and sometimes it is appropriate to make it public, if all else has failed.

After all, moderators need to develop their skills and require the same grace and privacy during the process (to my understanding) and that already contains a jury of peers via fellow moderators. If the spirit of the rules are applied on both sides, legalism and hyper-focusing on precedents are avoided.
A VERY important point that should be added to the OP's suggestion, IMHO.

If we want to follow Matthew 18, there needs to be an opportunity to work things out privately before making it public. A mod might realize he or she made a mistake. If so, let that mod reverse his/her decision before the appeal is made public.

Additionally, it's not actually being proposed that non-Christians should have a say in the moderation on a Christian forum, is it?

Another point for discussion, after the other points have been explored.

[k]

Additionally, it's not actually being proposed that non-Christians should have a say in the moderation on a Christian forum, is it?

Crazy Liz resonded so well to the rest that I have nothing to add except to say that I was not aware a non-Christian made the suggestion in the OP. More importantly, I am not trying to "have a say" because I have no authority as a guest/member of CF. In my experience, suggestions seeking unity can always be beneficial, even if the suggestions are not used.

[PACKY]

I favor the Idea of a enhanced Due process when it comes to the appeals system.
I favor the idea of being able to confront my accuser..I think that many appeals and actions are not needed if the lines of communication remained opened and uncluttered by false perceptions and bias. on both sides of the "fence"
I think that if the appeals system was given the option of being public many members would opt to use this...it would also serve a duel purpose of exposing the inner workings procedural wise when it comes to the way a appeal is processed.
It would also act to dis-spell any accusations or mis-perceived wrong doings as it would be in plain view of the membership...This of course is merely my two cents..

[Crazy Liz]

I favor the Idea of a enhanced Due process when it comes to the appeals system.
I favor the idea of being able to confront my accuser..I think that many appeals and actions are not needed if the lines of communication remained opened and uncluttered by false perceptions and bias. on both sides of the "fence"
I think that if the appeals system was given the option of being public many members would opt to use this...it would also serve a duel purpose of exposing the inner workings procedural wise when it comes to the way a appeal is processed.
It would also act to dis-spell any accusations or mis-perceived wrong doings as it would be in plain view of the membership...This of course is merely my two cents..
I understand staff can put posts in an appeal thread that are only visible to staff, but not to the member who is appealing. I don't know for sure whether this is true or not.

If this is true, and it continues, the inner workings won't be exposed. But again, that's something that can be discussed later, after some of the bigger issues have been addressed.

[k]

I favor the Idea of a enhanced Due process when it comes to the appeals system.
I favor the idea of being able to confront my accuser..I think that many appeals and actions are not needed if the lines of communication remained opened and uncluttered by false perceptions and bias. on both sides of the "fence"
I think that if the appeals system was given the option of being public many members would opt to use this...it would also serve a duel purpose of exposing the inner workings procedural wise when it comes to the way a appeal is processed.
It would also act to dis-spell any accusations or mis-perceived wrong doings as it would be in plain view of the membership...This of course is merely my two cents..

Thanks for your feedback and it reminds me to re-state the benefit of people being able to see actual posts that violate the rules. Many of us come from several different backgrounds, and each comes with its own understanding of communcation. I think misunderstandings make up for about half of "heated" moments between members.

Hopefully a Staff member or two will be able to provide us with some of their insights as well?

[Shannonkish]

So I understand... does that mean you are only interested in seeing the posts dealing strickly with your own apeals? I was under the impression that this was 'open to public' in the generalized sense that was being discussed. :confused:

I don't think you understand what I am saying....

Currently, when you make an appeal... you post a message in the Appeal Forum... that thread is then accessible by all staff and you. Posts are made by staff that can only be seen by staff (ie, the secret posts) discussing the appeal, etc... basically to gain the other's opinion. I am all for gaining both sides of the story... however, with the current way that it is, the person making the appeal cannot see the other side of the story because they are posted so only staff can see them.

What I was proposing is the first step... make those secret posts not secret.... so that the person appealing can see both sides..

if we accomplish this, first, then we mght be able to talk Erwin into making the optional public appeal (as suggested)

Does that make a little more sense?

[seebs]

I don't know of a lot of people who are willing to air their dirty laundry in public. You talk about viewing other people's appeals, but your's would also be open for viewing. Is that OK with you?

(It's not with me.)

You misunderstand.

I want the option of making my own appeals visible. In some cases, I do not feel that it is "dirty laundry".

That said... Even if it is, as a Christian, I am compelled to favor openness and honesty over pride.

[ChristianCenturion]

You misunderstand.

I want the option of making my own appeals visible. In some cases, I do not feel that it is "dirty laundry".

That said... Even if it is, as a Christian, I am compelled to favor openness and honesty over pride.

You may probably be a better judge of whether you have issues concerning pride, but someone else not wanting their business open for ridicule could just as easily be an issue of shame or uncertainty. Just in case there were misconceptions regarding that, your statment compels me to express 'my' or possibly another's representation so as not be mistakenly grouped in with yours.

[ChristianCenturion]

Crazy Liz resonded so well to the rest that I have nothing to add except to say that I was not aware a non-Christian made the suggestion in the OP. More importantly, I am not trying to "have a say" because I have no authority as a guest/member of CF. In my experience, suggestions seeking unity can always be beneficial, even if the suggestions are not used.

I didn't even notice that you didn't show a profession icon or not. The non-Christian statement was directed at the premise that these posts would be public (IOW - open to a response from the public) to anyone and thereby being open for non-Christian participation or ridicule. Sorry that wasn't explained better - the non-Christian statement wasn't directed at the author of the thread.

[KristianJ]

It has been previously stated by Erwin, and I shall reiterate it for the benefit of those who are unaware of it, that the option of making an appeal public will be considered in the reforms to come. As per his thread at http://www.christianforums.com/t1977560, appeals system changes are planned as teh final step in the process. Therefore I would encourage all members to keep an eye on the Annoucements area of CF for further developments and not to ask for updates in threads in other areas of CF, because Erwin and AngelAmidala are very unlikely to get the chance to regularly look in other areas of CF Support.

So in response to the OP, I can tell you that it is being considered. :)

[Shannonkish]

KJ, thanks for that update. I didn't realize that this was going to be considered in the reforms!

[PadmeAmidalafan]

1. Rules
2. Staff Team Structure
3. Staff Protocol
4. Moderating Guidelines
5. Reporting/ Warning/ Appeals System



Yep its there :) just found it :)

[KristianJ]

KJ, thanks for that update. I didn't realize that this was going to be considered in the reforms!

Not a problem, Shannon :) I don't know if Erwin ever made a specific mention of it, but from past threads on the topic, I am led to believe that it will be considered. However I am open to correction from any of the senior staff members if I am wrong.

[seebs]

However, my foundational reasoning would be that it is contradictory to Christian teaching in authority, correction, and resolving issues. Citing scripture has not proven effective in focusing the minds of those that want that feature, so I will leave that simply referenced.

Maybe you should quote it. When I looked, I found that we were encouraged to make things public if they were not adequately resolved in private.

Since this has been a topic or has had a small "following" in repeated requesting, I'm curious as to what the advocates for this proposed addition think will actually be brought about in way of benefits.

A very concrete one: The ability to learn more about how moderators understand the rules. In many cases, moderators do not all agree on a rule, or the way moderators understand a rule may not be the way some users understand it. I have had a few clashes with staff where the pedantic literal meaning of a rule was not the same as the staff's understanding of the rule.

If I could read appeals, I could then learn how the staff understand the rule.

I cannot speak for everyone else, but for my own part, I find that seeing examples helps me a lot in understanding the intent of a rule. I have an easier time following rules when I can see how they are applied.

So even if the moderation was placed into the extreme of it was clearly correct application or clearly mishandled/in error, what benefit would it be for random (very much assumed) viewing merely for the sake of 'seeing'.

Have you heard of, or looked at, the legal system of the United States? It is not flawless, but it makes heavy use of publication of opinions and public review of documents to provide fairer and more even treatment of all cases.

Additionally, it's not actually being proposed that non-Christians should have a say in the moderation on a Christian forum, is it?

No more than we'd propose that blacks get the vote in a country ruled by whites, I hope. :) In the end, if we are to have effective outreach, we should certainly take into account the witness we bear to our guests.

[seebs]

You may probably be a better judge of whether you have issues concerning pride, but someone else not wanting their business open for ridicule could just as easily be an issue of shame or uncertainty. Just in case there were misconceptions regarding that, your statment compels me to express 'my' or possibly another's representation so as not be mistakenly grouped in with yours.

This is why it should be an option.

BTW, shame is a kind of pride.

[Teshi]

The only cause I can see that would warrant this addition would be popular opinion pressure and second-guessing moderator actions.

IMO popular opinion pressure and second-guessing is what keeps those in charge of any community from overstepping their bounds. When the populus loses their ability to question authorities' actions, you get tyrannical behavior on the part of leaders, whether that's on a micro scale, such as in a office environment, family - and dare I say it, online message board - or on a macro scale, as can be seen in the histories of various nations.

[TheBear]

Please forgive me if this suggestion is a bit late...but after some prayer and thought, here is the idea.

Make Appeals optional for public viewing. Obviously no one but the Member filing the Appeal and Mods handling the Appeal in the Chain of Command would be allowed to respond. This would eliminate the question of secrecy and allow no room for doubt in the application of rule enforcement.

Furthermore, this would be a great learning tool for all CF members who are unsure about how some rules are violated.

Overall the Mods have a tremendous responsibility and it cannot be an easy job by anyones' standards. Thank you to all who so freely dedicate your time and effort to CF!

Although I have not found myself in any CF appeals process, this suggestion does sound reasonable, for all the reasons listed, plus a few more. :)

- Direct accountability of staff members.
- Consistent and across the board fair treatment.
- It is scriptural.

[ChristianCenturion]

This is why it should be an option.

BTW, shame is a kind of pride.

Does that mean it should be an 'option' for the moderators too? They are after all members and entitled to their right to privacy too.

BTW - you may be interested that pride is not inherently negative. The scripture cites pride in righteous context several places i.e. pride in God's works, pride in another's victory, etc. Shame is an antonym for pride.

[Crazy Liz]

Does that mean it should be an 'option' for the moderators too? They are after all members and entitled to their right to privacy too.
If we followed the scripture you didn't want to quote, then moderators would have even greater privacy than they have now at the earlier stages of the system. Right now, as I understand it, all staff are able to see all appeals. I proposed that we follow Matthew 18:15-20 more closely, and give the moderator an option to reverse the action voluntarily while the matter is still private, or to reverse the action at the second stage, where only the moderator's immediate superiors know about it, not the entire staff.

I realize this is different from making public appeals an option. What I proposed is that all appeals become public after two opportunities to resolve the issue privately and semi-privately.

[TheBear]

Does that mean it should be an 'option' for the moderators too? They are after all members and entitled to their right to privacy too.

Hogwash!

The enforcing of rules and board policies, should be standard operating procedure, handled by every staff member the same. What in the world would make it a privacy issue on the part of the staff member?

[ChristianCenturion]

If we followed the scripture you didn't want to quote, then moderators would have even greater privacy than they have now at the earlier stages of the system. Right now, as I understand it, all staff are able to see all appeals. I proposed that we follow Matthew 18:15-20 more closely, and give the moderator an option to reverse the action voluntarily while the matter is still private, or to reverse the action at the second stage, where only the moderator's immediate superiors know about it, not the entire staff.


Your only one referenced scripture has potential conflict in several areas which until now, I didn't see a need to point out. The verse mentions brothers, that is among fellow believers and moderation involves non-believers. That would be the first conflict.
The second is the third attempt to resolve (a sin against another brother) in that scripture, they are to take it to the church. That reference would most likely be concerning the elders (i.e. moderators), not as the entire church as a democracy which would include new converts and the spiritually young (much less non-believers).

We could also reference Romans 13 dealing with God appointed authorities while we are at it and I am specifically refraining from referencing how non-believers that are seen as quarrelsome or erroneous without repentance are cast out in hopes that they learn from their mistakes.

I realize this is different from making public appeals an option. What I proposed is that all appeals become public after two opportunities to resolve the issue privately and semi-privately.

IMO - I am fully against public appeals whether optional or not, whether last option or not.

[k]

I don't think you understand what I am saying....

Currently, when you make an appeal... you post a message in the Appeal Forum... that thread is then accessible by all staff and you. Posts are made by staff that can only be seen by staff (ie, the secret posts) discussing the appeal, etc... basically to gain the other's opinion. I am all for gaining both sides of the story... however, with the current way that it is, the person making the appeal cannot see the other side of the story because they are posted so only staff can see them.

What I was proposing is the first step... make those secret posts not secret.... so that the person appealing can see both sides..

if we accomplish this, first, then we mght be able to talk Erwin into making the optional public appeal (as suggested)

Does that make a little more sense?

I had no idea this was the process. :eek: That changes things a bit...

[k]

I didn't even notice that you didn't show a profession icon or not. The non-Christian statement was directed at the premise that these posts would be public (IOW - open to a response from the public) to anyone and thereby being open for non-Christian participation or ridicule. Sorry that wasn't explained better - the non-Christian statement wasn't directed at the author of the thread.

From the OP: "Obviously no one but the Member filing the Appeal and Mods handling the Appeal in the Chain of Command would be allowed to respond."

Hopefully this clears up any misconception.

[k]

It has been previously stated by Erwin, and I shall reiterate it for the benefit of those who are unaware of it, that the option of making an appeal public will be considered in the reforms to come. As per his thread at http://www.christianforums.com/t1977560, appeals system changes are planned as teh final step in the process. Therefore I would encourage all members to keep an eye on the Annoucements area of CF for further developments and not to ask for updates in threads in other areas of CF, because Erwin and AngelAmidala are very unlikely to get the chance to regularly look in other areas of CF Support.

So in response to the OP, I can tell you that it is being considered. :)

Thank you so much for the response and link!!! :wave: :thumbsup:

[ChristianCenturion]

From the OP: "Obviously no one but the Member filing the Appeal and Mods handling the Appeal in the Chain of Command would be allowed to respond."

Hopefully this clears up any misconception.

It does, thanks.
It seems pointless then; No interaction, no reason other than voyeurism (of course, in the non-sexual sense).

[ChristianCenturion]

Thank you so much for the response and link!!! :wave: :thumbsup:

Ditto, I didn't see your post either KJ, sorry and thanks. :blush:

[Crazy Liz]

Your only one referenced scripture has potential conflict in several areas which until now, I didn't see a need to point out. The verse mentions brothers, that is among fellow believers and moderation involves non-believers. That would be the first conflict.

I'm having trouble understanding what difference it would make to have non-believers know about it. In fact, seeing Christians handle conflicts successfully might even influence them positively toward Christianity.

The second is the third attempt to resolve (a sin against another brother) in that scripture, they are to take it to the church. That reference would most likely be concerning the elders (i.e. moderators), not as the entire church as a democracy which would include new converts and the spiritually young (much less non-believers).

Actually, the word ekklesia means the entire assembly. Since Jesus said this before any church organization existed, I think the meaning is the plain meaning. Anabaptists have practiced this for hundreds of years. So what if the assembly includes the young and the immature? They will not predominate. The Holy Spirit may choose to speak through the young and immature, but more likely they will grow by observing the actions of those who are more mature.

We could also reference Romans 13 dealing with God appointed authorities while we are at it

How does this apply to Christian Forums?

and I am specifically refraining from referencing how non-believers that are seen as quarrelsome or erroneous without repentance are cast out in hopes that they learn from their mistakes.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by this or how it is relevant. Don't people usually learn by seeing the consequences of others' mistakes?

IMO - I am fully against public appeals whether optional or not, whether last option or not.

[PACKY]

Your only one referenced scripture has potential conflict in several areas which until now, I didn't see a need to point out. The verse mentions brothers, that is among fellow believers and moderation involves non-believers. That would be the first conflict.
The second is the third attempt to resolve (a sin against another brother) in that scripture, they are to take it to the church. That reference would most likely be concerning the elders (i.e. moderators), not as the entire church as a democracy which would include new converts and the spiritually young (much less non-believers).

We could also reference Romans 13 dealing with God appointed authorities while we are at it and I am specifically refraining from referencing how non-believers that are seen as quarrelsome or erroneous without repentance are cast out in hopes that they learn from their mistakes.

IMO - I am fully against public appeals whether optional or not, whether last option or not.

CC taken right from one of your very own posts:

That aside, I know of precedent that would show otherwise, but I would rather the forum speak as to where those boundaries lie, thank you for your input. :kiss:

[k]

It does, thanks.
It seems pointless then; No interaction, no reason other than voyeurism (of course, in the non-sexual sense).


It may seem pointless to some, but others may disagree on the principle of transparency for rule application. It is not voyeurism because that is stealing looks on people who believe they have privacy and since the member would be aware of the public option there is no belief of privacy, thus voyeurism cannot exist.

I cannot discuss any further specifics as there would be CF violations incurred.