A self-regulating STR

[Iosias]

Erwin has said:

The idea would be that individual forums have membership that can form their own rules through a wiki/collaborative process. If the current congregational forum wants to ban debate, and if the members of that congregational forum vote to agree, then it is so. Why should a person from another section care? They can request and form their own forums for their own group. Moderation will be decentralised according to each forum/category - members that the forum members respect get voted to be their mods. Mods usually only have power to moderate their own forums. Reports go into forums that are subforums of these forums/categories. It's a massive restructure that I need to embark on.

The aim is to make this a true community where people have the power to ultimately moderate themselves.

Could someone with the knowledge explain to us what is going to happen on the ground as it were.

When would we in STR get to decide how it is to be run and who is allowed to post here?

Could we limit who could post here?

Could we ensure that fellowship occurs and not debate 100%?

[ProdigalSeeker]

Could we ensure that fellowship occurs and not debate 100%

Is that to say, no debate whatsoever? Speaking personally, I don't think that would be a good change.

[longhair75]

friend AV1611,

That is what I get from reading Friend Erwin's statement. We, the members here at STR will decide on forum specific rules and elect moderators to keep the forum within those rules.

It is not yet clear how the membership and the criteria for voters will be resolved. As these things are decided, I will post them here.

All of this will be pretty confusing for the near future. I am sure we can untangle it and rebuild STR into a forum where we all can be comfortable.

[Iosias]

Is that to say, no debate whatsoever? Speaking personally, I don't think that would be a good change.

The aim of the congregational forums before 7.7.7 was that those from a congregational forum, say Anglican, would not be allowed to debate in another congregational forum, say Baptist.

i.e. We should be IMO allowed to discuss together without our friends at OBOB inundating STR with threads about the invalidity of Anglican orders.

[Tonks]

i.e. We should be IMO allowed to discuss together without our friends at OBOB inundating STR with threads about the invalidity of Anglican orders.

I believe that you'll have the ability to do just that should you wish. I don't know how things are going to work out but I believe that is in *intent* of the changes.

[Wigglesworth]

We should be IMO allowed to discuss together without our friends at OBOB inundating STR with threads about the invalidity of Anglican orders.

That's a good point.

:crossrc:

[Albion]

.