So, what do we do now?

[longhair75]

My friend and colleague Colabomb has said in his thread that we should keep things as they are for the future STR forum. I agree. Things have been working pretty well lately, and keeping the rules and procedures in place would maintain things well.

We will soon be prompted to get started on building our forum to suit ourselves. We do need to start working on this. I am not sure how soon things will be implemented, but we will be much better off if we can hammer out what we want STR to be once the changes are made. There are a few things we need to work on:

1. For the moment, I would suggest we put the whole Liberal/Conservative argument aside. We can sure pick it up later once we have our own forum in which to discuss it.

2. We need to decide what will be the qualifications for membership.

3. Once the criteria for membership is established, How do we determine who is elligble to vote.

4. we need to develop a system by which we can come to a consensus as to how our forum should operate.

I am sure there are more things we need to get started on, but these are some of the first steps. Once we get the structure of our forum in place, we can work on the fine details.

Please feel free to add your thought here.

[PaladinValer]

1. For the moment, I would suggest we put the whole Liberal/Conservative argument aside. We can sure pick it up later once we have our own forum in which to discuss it.

Agreed.

2. We need to decide what will be the qualifications for membership.

and

3. Once the criteria for membership is established, How do we determine who is elligble to vote.

These are probably the most difficult questions, and I believe they are possibly inextricably linked.

Since STR is now open to not just non-Anglicans/Old Catholics but also non-Christians altogether, we are going to have to allow them to have a place where they'll feel welcome yet a place that is still fundamentally Christian and home.

THIS IS ALL JUST AN IDEA.

I think membership should come in three "steps" with a step for guests:

1. Full Membership - You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic in good standing and are a regular participant in STR (regular meaning posting at least 3 times a day) for at least a month's time.

2. Associate Membership -

You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic in good standing but are not currently a regular participant in STR.
You are a Baptized Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism or affiliate yourself with Anglicanism/Old Catholic though you are not a member and are a regular participant in STR for at least a month's time.
You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic but are not in good standing and you are a regular or irregular participant in STR.3. Fellowship Membership -

You are a Baptized Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism or affiliate yourself with Anglicanism/Old Catholic though you are not a member and are not currently a regular participant in STR.
You are not a Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism and you are a regular participant in STR for at least a month's time.-----

4. Guest

You are a either a Christian (Nicene) or not who does not yet qualify above.Guests would not be allowed to vote.

Anyone who has Fellowship Membership has the right to a single vote on rules and have the right to a single vote on who sits at the vestry. Fellowship Members also have the right to a single vote to nominate a person for the vestry. They may serve as vestry for a six month term at a time.

Anyone who has Associate Membership has the right to a single vote on rules and have the right to a single vote on who sits upon the vesty. Associate Members also have the right to a single vote to nominate a person for the vestry. They may serve as vestry for a year term at a time.

Anyone who has Full Membership has the right to a single vote on rules and have the right to a single vote on who sits upon the vestry. Full Members also have the right to two votes to nominate a person for the vestry. They may serve as vestry for a two year term at a time.

A person cannot vote himself/herself for the vestry. A person can nominate himself/herself or others for the vestry. A Full Member cannot use both votes to the same person.

A person requires three nominations to be considered for the vestry. Those who receive the minimum nominations are then allowed to be voted upon for the actual vestry position.

Vestry are what we will call our moderators. They alone have the power to enforce rules in STR.

The Vesty must include at minimum one cleric or at least an ordinand/seminarian/individual who has officially received minor orders within Anglicanism/Old Catholicism only.

It is possible to force a recall of a vestry member only if a vestrymember is suspected of bad play, abuse of power, or a gross violation of the rules. Any member regardless of level have the right to call for a recall vote and if the vote receives a seconded, then the recall will occur.

Rules would be created/deleted/changed in a bicameral system. In order for passage, it must pass by the membership by a majority and the vestry by a majority.

Rules are permanent insofar as they are not sufficiently challenged. A challenge can either add a rule, delete a rule, or change a current rule. For there to be a successfully challenged, it requires a sponser and two co-sponsers, one of which must include a vestry member.

fin.
_________

I believe the above allows non-Christians to feel welcome and have a say while allowing Anglicans/Old Catholics to have the sense that STR is still their "home."

I also believe that it allows the chance to remove bad moderators, and forces the appointment of an actual expert as moderator.

Feel free to love it, hate it, critique it, adjust it, or suggest something entirely else.

4. we need to develop a system by which we can come to a consensus as to how our forum should operate.

How about everyone who has an idea like what I gave give their idea and then everyone can pick and choose what they like from each and everyone have a single vote?

I am sure there are more things we need to get started on, but these are some of the first steps. Once we get the structure of our forum in place, we can work on the fine details.

Please feel free to add your thought here.

Done (Thoughts added, that is) ;)

[Colabomb]

Paladin's idea may be worth looking into.

I also want to discuss non-member debate.

I don't want it. We have multiple open debate boards on this site, we don't need yet another.I want this to be a Christian and Anglican board.

Though I do want non Christian/non Anglican members to come and fellowship as they have always been able to do.

[Aymn27]

let's keep this simple...if you self-identify as Anglican, Old Catholic, then you are - if not you're a guest. Members who are Anglican may vote, guests may not.

I would suggest that we do include conservative/liberal forums from the get go...then those groups come up with their own definitions...then elect two mods from each "group" for the main forum - that way there would be a balance....that would give four mods...and then I think the main forum could vote on one or two supervisors....

I do think balance is the key... Balance and simplicity..

[PaladinValer]

I deliberately left out what membership levels would be allowed to debate. Needless to say, all guests would not enjoy that privilege.

We may actually have to allow non-Christians the possibility to debate. That, like everything else, is on the table. If it proves extremely unpopular, then it is of course left by the wayside. But to simply dismiss it right away is not wise. We want to be as welcoming as possible while keeping as much of the old STR as we can reasonably.

However, I'm already conjuring up an idea on how we could allow Fellowship Members to have a limited PRIVILEGE to debate. It would not be a unlimited right like Full Members and not a unlimited privilege that Associate Members would enjoy. I'll post it when I've gotten the bugs worked out.

[Aymn27]

I would REALLY like to see some room for "discussion" though...once discussion crosses over into debate, then let's nip it in the bud...but discussion (between ANYONE WITH ANY ICON)is healthy...

[Aymn27]

"limited Privelge" is a great idea...I think that would be workable somehow...

[Wigglesworth]

Some of these are good ideas for when the time is right to implement them.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[PaladinValer]

Okay, I think I have most of the kinks worked out:

Full Members have the unlimite right to debate.

Associate Members have the unlimited privilege to debate. The difference between the right and the privilege to debate is that Associates can debate so long as they are not told to that they may not. The OP of the thread may ask a person to not debate if and only if it is because the Associate (or Fellowship) Member is being rude or disruptive and not just because they offer an contradictory position. In addition, a vestry member can ask an Associate (or Fellowship) Member not to debate at any time if he or she feels like they are questioning Anglicanism/Old Catholicism in any way that is derogatory (not a true church/no valid Apostolic Succession/etc).

Fellowship Members have only the limited privilege to debate. In addition to the above, the difference between limited and unlimited is the range of potential topics. Fellowship Members may not debate issues as they pertain directly to Anglicanism (ie: is Latitudarianism acceptable in Anglicanism?) but they may debate issues that are general (ie: is Latitudarianism acceptable?). Certain hot button issues may or may not also sumarily be undebatable for Fellowship Members also depending on general behavior on the whole over time. They may ask questions within out-of-bounds debates however (ie: why is/isn't Latitudarianism acceptable in Anglicanism?) so as to allow learning and experience a breadth of opinion.

Vestry can void even a Full Member's right to debate if that person cannot consistently maintain dignity or good form. The vestry decide how long anyone's ban to debate will last and how "deep" the ban will go.

Any member so-banned can make an appeal and only one appeal per ban.

A vestry member can void an OP's request to an Associate Member or Fellowship Member to not debate if the vestry member feels that the OP's request was overzealous or unnecessary.

[Sonfest Rocker]

where do i come in to things
im not anglican tho i attend an anglican church
and i post in STR alot

[Fish and Bread]

I think perhaps all of this, while well-intentioned, might be a little bit premature.

We'd just had a great loosening up of a lot of old restrictions. We're going to likely see a lot of old folks return, a few familiar faces leave, and some entirely new folks show up. There's likely going to be an adjustment period where we'll see in reality how these changes work and whether it's different from how we think they might work out in theory.

Why not hold off on making any rules for a little while? Might be nice to let the forum breath a bit and give ourselves more time and information to learn before making rules that we're going to have to live by for an indefinite period of time. I think we can live for a few days or weeks without a ton of rules on an Internet forum without it causing any deathes or serious injuries. ;)

[ebia]

Agreed.



and



These are probably the most difficult questions, and I believe they are possibly inextricably linked.

Since STR is now open to not just non-Anglicans/Old Catholics but also non-Christians altogether, we are going to have to allow them to have a place where they'll feel welcome yet a place that is still fundamentally Christian and home.

THIS IS ALL JUST AN IDEA.

I think membership should come in three "steps" with a step for guests:

1. Full Membership - You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic in good standing and are a regular participant in STR (regular meaning posting at least 3 times a day) for at least a month's time.

2. Associate Membership -

You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic in good standing but are not currently a regular participant in STR.
You are a Baptized Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism or affiliate yourself with Anglicanism/Old Catholic though you are not a member and are a regular participant in STR for at least a month's time.
You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic but are not in good standing and you are a regular or irregular participant in STR.3. Fellowship Membership -

You are a Baptized Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism or affiliate yourself with Anglicanism/Old Catholic though you are not a member and are not currently a regular participant in STR.
You are not a Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism and you are a regular participant in STR for at least a month's time.-----

4. Guest

You are a either a Christian (Nicene) or not who does not yet qualify above.Guests would not be allowed to vote.

Anyone who has Fellowship Membership has the right to a single vote on rules and have the right to a single vote on who sits at the vestry. Fellowship Members also have the right to a single vote to nominate a person for the vestry. They may serve as vestry for a six month term at a time.

Anyone who has Associate Membership has the right to a single vote on rules and have the right to a single vote on who sits upon the vesty. Associate Members also have the right to a single vote to nominate a person for the vestry. They may serve as vestry for a year term at a time.

Anyone who has Full Membership has the right to a single vote on rules and have the right to a single vote on who sits upon the vestry. Full Members also have the right to two votes to nominate a person for the vestry. They may serve as vestry for a two year term at a time.

A person cannot vote himself/herself for the vestry. A person can nominate himself/herself or others for the vestry. A Full Member cannot use both votes to the same person.

A person requires three nominations to be considered for the vestry. Those who receive the minimum nominations are then allowed to be voted upon for the actual vestry position.

Vestry are what we will call our moderators. They alone have the power to enforce rules in STR.

The Vesty must include at minimum one cleric or at least an ordinand/seminarian/individual who has officially received minor orders within Anglicanism/Old Catholicism only.

It is possible to force a recall of a vestry member only if a vestrymember is suspected of bad play, abuse of power, or a gross violation of the rules. Any member regardless of level have the right to call for a recall vote and if the vote receives a seconded, then the recall will occur.

Rules would be created/deleted/changed in a bicameral system. In order for passage, it must pass by the membership by a majority and the vestry by a majority.

Rules are permanent insofar as they are not sufficiently challenged. A challenge can either add a rule, delete a rule, or change a current rule. For there to be a successfully challenged, it requires a sponser and two co-sponsers, one of which must include a vestry member.

fin.
_________

I believe the above allows non-Christians to feel welcome and have a say while allowing Anglicans/Old Catholics to have the sense that STR is still their "home."

I also believe that it allows the chance to remove bad moderators, and forces the appointment of an actual expert as moderator.

Feel free to love it, hate it, critique it, adjust it, or suggest something entirely else.



How about everyone who has an idea like what I gave give their idea and then everyone can pick and choose what they like from each and everyone have a single vote?



Done (Thoughts added, that is) ;)
All sounds excessively complex to me, and do we really need jargon of calling moderators 'vestry', which sounds horribly American to my ears more used to "Parish Church Council" (England) or "Parish Council" (Australia).

[norbie]

where do i come in to things
im not anglican tho i attend an anglican church
and i post in STR alot
I would think that you and myself would be an associate Member. And I would be quite happy with this solution.
But it's a little early now to say and we have to wait and see how everything turnes out.
Your Aussie-Mate, Norbie

[karen freeinchristman]

I would REALLY like to see some room for "discussion" though...once discussion crosses over into debate, then let's nip it in the bud...but discussion (between ANYONE WITH ANY ICON)is healthy...I agree with this!



I just want to thank PV for such an in-depth and well thought out suggested plan. There is some really good stuff in there, PV.
All sounds excessively complex to me, and do we really need jargon of calling moderators 'vestry', which sounds horribly American to my ears more used to "Parish Church Council" (England) or "Parish Council" (Australia).
I agree it does sound complex on first reading, but I think it is less complex than it sounds. I do agree with your observation on the term 'vestry'. It's PCC here.


John (Fish) I think it is OK to bat a few ideas around - I think we are all looking forward to things settling down, and just want to be able to proceed. Erwin's plan is for us to govern ourselves, and so I do think it is prudent to get going.

[TomUK]

A couple of points just echoing things that previous posters have said.

Why not hold off on making any rules for a little while? Might be nice to let the forum breath a bit and give ourselves more time and information to learn before making rules that we're going to have to live by for an indefinite period of time. I think we can live for a few days or weeks without a ton of rules on an Internet forum without it causing any deathes or serious injuries.

I agree with this totally. There is no rush and all of this is very new to us. I think it could be quite damaging if we make too many large changes too quickly. Why don't we all take it upon ourselves to reguarly look at other areas of the site and see how they are implementing the changes- what works, what doesn't etc. We Anglicans are not known for making rash decisions and there's a good reason for that! Let others make the mistakes and we can learn from them! :D

The Vesty must include at minimum one cleric or at least an ordinand/seminarian/individual who has officially received minor orders within Anglicanism/Old Catholicism only.

There have been a number of excellent ideas already raised on this thread but this is one which i don't think has been mentioned yet and i would just like to come to. I think PV made an excellent suggestion here and that it would be possible to do this. Unlike how CF implemented a similar idea, the ordained member shouldn't have any elevated status but i do think it would give a good foundation to any moderating that goes on here.

[Goodchild]

..

[EvAng]

1. For the moment, I would suggest we put the whole Liberal/Conservative argument aside. We can sure pick it up later once we have our own forum in which to discuss it.

I can see where you are coming from here however I think that one of the best ways to attract new posters to STR is to have subforums and so take some of the hostility off the main STR forum.

2. We need to decide what will be the qualifications for membership.

I have consistently maintained that a true Anglican is one who accepts the 39 Articles. Now there is the problem! Hence why I suggest that the main STR forum has the general rule of "If you consider yourself Anglican then you are". And then provide a conservative Anglican forum with stricter rules on posting based upon the Thirty Nine Articles.

3. Once the criteria for membership is established, How do we determine who is elligble to vote.

This is a tricky one. I would prefer consensus as to majority rule however this may be somewhat impractical considering the divisions we have in STR.

We can draw up a voting list of who is elligble to vote and to get upon that one must be an Anglican. People can lodge complaints and nominate people to be on the voting list.

4. we need to develop a system by which we can come to a consensus as to how our forum should operate.

Regarding mods - I would suggest that we have a minimum of three for the STR forum (one conservative, one liberal, one anglo-catholic) and then as many needed for the subforums with the subforum mods being of the same theological position as the group i.e. a conservative mod for the conservative subforum &c.

[kiwimac]

A liberal mod? WONDERFUL!

[Colabomb]

A liberal mod? WONDERFUL!

Pete and Higgs don't count?

[gtsecc]

Muslims are out, correct?

[PaladinValer]

All sounds excessively complex to me, and do we really need jargon of calling moderators 'vestry', which sounds horribly American to my ears more used to "Parish Church Council" (England) or "Parish Council" (Australia).

I admit I made it more confusing than it really had to be. Here's a more simplistic take:

Full Membership - All Baptized and Confirmed Anglicans/Old Catholics in good standing and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month.

Associate Membership - A) You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic who does not qualify for Full Membership yet (due to irregular participation, bad standing, etc) B) You are a (Nicene) Christian who either affiliates with or is interested in Anglican/Old Catholicism and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month.

Fellowship Membership - A) You are a (Nicene) Christian who does not qualify for Associate Membership yet (due to irregular participation, not affiliated with Anglicanism/Old Catholicism, etc) B) You are a non-Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month

----

Guest - All others who do not yet qualify for Fellowship Membership yet.

I think this helps simplies my admittedly complicated "membership status" suggestion while saying the exact same thing.

I agree with this totally. There is no rush and all of this is very new to us. I think it could be quite damaging if we make too many large changes too quickly.

I agree.

Why don't we all take it upon ourselves to reguarly look at other areas of the site and see how they are implementing the changes- what works, what doesn't etc. We Anglicans are not known for making rash decisions and there's a good reason for that!

While I think that looking at what other congregational forums are doing is a GREAT idea, I think it would be equally rash not to start our creative juices ourselves, least we are not able to keep STR "homey" for us Anglicans and Old Catholics anymore because we were too tardy!

Even if we "screw up" a bit, the BEST THING about the new policy is that we can easily make changes without nearly as much trouble as it used to be nor waiting for so long. Everything can be as easily or as painfully adjustable and fixable as we allow it to be.

Let others make the mistakes and we can learn from them!

There is a LOT of sense in this, but let us also not be lazy at the same time. : )

There have been a number of excellent ideas already raised on this thread but this is one which i don't think has been mentioned yet and i would just like to come to. I think PV made an excellent suggestion here and that it would be possible to do this. Unlike how CF implemented a similar idea, the ordained member shouldn't have any elevated status but i do think it would give a good foundation to any moderating that goes on here.

First off, I thank you and everyone else so far as well, for your critiques about my SUGGESTION.

Secondly, allow me to clarify: I did not mean for the cleric/ordinand/seminarian to have any "special status." What I mean is that at least one slot be "set aside" for an expert, nothing more. It would ensure that a professional theologian/cleric/expert in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism be always in place and ensure the Christian presence in STR.

What you do is pour me a drink and say 'Welcome'

What will you have? : )

Just popping in to say 'Hi" to an Anglican I remember fondly from my days as a christian. Heya PV! You'd likely remember me as either VNV Nation or Cathodox from a few years back when I was looking into the Anglican Church.

Yes I remember you foldly. Nice to see you again : )

I don't know a whole lot about Anglican's, but I hope to learn more in the time to come.

Remember that while you might want to limit participation and debate, no one is going to get to know you or your church unless you allow them the opportunity to question you ... and yes, even possibly debate you at times.

I agree, which is why I made sure that even Fellowship Members had at least some debate privileges in my suggestion. And I made sure that, even if asked not to debate, that Associate and Fellowship Members could still ask questions during a debate so they could learn. That would be a RIGHT of their's that could NOT be EVER taken away.

Make your rules such that they prohibit unruliness and disrespect while allowing honest questioning and considerate debate and I'm hopeful you'll find us to be very welcome and considerate guests.

I agree. If you see anything in my suggestion you'd like to change, do so please! I don't want it to remain my suggestion but a "we" suggestion; everyone's ideas come together. In the end, we could even come up with something entirely else, and that's alright with me so long as it receives popular support, so if you got your own ideas on the issues I've brought up or others, speak! Diversity is good right now! : )

[Fish and Bread]

Muslims are out, correct?
Nah, we'll just limit the exercise of their public posting ministry for a year so they can consider whether their path is compatible with their ministry as STR posters. ;)*


*This is a joke related to recent news items and not a serious suggestion

[Colabomb]

I admit I made it more confusing than it really had to be. Here's a more simplistic take:

Full Membership - All Baptized and Confirmed Anglicans/Old Catholics in good standing and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month.

Associate Membership - A) You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic who does not qualify for Full Membership yet (due to irregular participation, bad standing, etc) B) You are a (Nicene) Christian who either affiliates with or is interested in Anglican/Old Catholicism and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month.

Fellowship Membership - A) You are a (Nicene) Christian who does not qualify for Associate Membership yet (due to irregular participation, not affiliated with Anglicanism/Old Catholicism, etc) B) You are a non-Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month

----

Guest - All others who do not yet qualify for Fellowship Membership yet.

I think this helps simplies my admittedly complicated "membership status" suggestion while saying the exact same thing.





This seems like it is still a bit complicated and raises many questions and grey areas.

But I don't know If I know How to make it better honestly.

[longhair75]

For a beginning, I think the simpler the better. We can refine these rules as we go along.

[PaladinValer]

What questions might you think it raises or doesn't address?

In what way do you think it is complicated?

I might be able to simplify it more and address any "gray" issues. : )

And anything can be improved upon except perfection itself. And there's no way my suggestion is perfect until it is made so by everyone else. : )