Wiki: Obob

[nyj]

cool. Can I vote on Debiwebi's app now-- are we ready to go on voting?Under our WIKI, applications need to be started by a moderator (they open two threads, a poll and a Q&A thread). We're not using the system Erwin provided.

[Debi1967]

I want to abide by my own forums rules when doing this. I will wait until such time that one of the mods or over sponsors me. I am still interested.

[fragmentsofdreams]

I figured that was the way it was already. I have not seen any discussion about taking away icons, and the only rule in the current WIKI that speaks to OBOB membership is predicated on the person claiming to be Catholic saying so. That's it. Basically it's an honor system.

The reason that many here are uncomfortable with the current language because it has been used to kick out people belong to Catholic churches before.

[nyj]

The reason that many here are uncomfortable with the current language because it has been used to kick out people belong to Catholic churches before.Ok. I've seen this claim laid out before, but I'm not seeing it.

Are you referring to the word "assent"?

[kimber1]

Let me be very clear: I challenged this thread with topics that will be deemed inappropriate in OBOB for discussion. There were some points that were OK I think...placed on the list to see if anyone was listening. These points are what "liberal" Catholics talk about.

Debi and Sandy are the only persons who responded to me directly about these points and without sarcasm and insults.

I do not think that OBOB is a place for liberal Catholics. I will be seeking a remedy for this.i know this is going to come as a shock but i actually don't have a problem with the proposed rules (not that it matters- seems i read too slow:P)

they have said that topics will be allowed for discussion adn obviously those of us who are more "liberal" should expect the more "conservative" to disagree with us however we're still able to discuss things respectfully adn i for one would be pretty offended as a liberal to be shoved over into the heretic's hut. i don't think we need another forum or subforum. we just need to respectfully post in OBOB why we feel like we do.

[Protinus]

i know this is going to come as a shock but i actually don't have a problem with the proposed rules (not that it matters- seems i read too slow:P)

they have said that topics will be allowed for discussion adn obviously those of us who are more "liberal" should expect the more "conservative" to disagree with us however we're still able to discuss things respectfully adn i for one would be pretty offended as a liberal to be shoved over into the heretic's hut. i don't think we need another forum or subforum. we just need to respectfully post in OBOB why we feel like we do.

I do not trust that my views will be seen as "not disruptive". My posts have been deleted of late without even a courtesy pm. I have been called a "heretic", "schismatic" and "dissenter" in open forum.

I need language in the preamble that expresses that my views and others will be respected and not deleted without warning, given the respect that I should show others as well.

[kimber1]

I do not trust that my views will be seen as "not disruptive". My posts have been deleted of late without even a courtesy pm. I have been called a "heretic", "schismatic" and "dissenter" in open forum.

I need language in the preamble that expresses that my views and others will be respected and not deleted without warning, given the respect that I should show others as well.ah i didn't know that. personally i think that should not happen and i would HOPE with the new changes on CF it would not happen again. ahem....

i think any deletion (and correct me if i'm worng) is first supposed to arrive in the form of a pm with that specific member...ah i realize this is completley off topic. my bad:sorry:

[JeffreyLloyd]

I promise guys we will be open to everyone. We want OBOB to feel like a home to all Catholics.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I want to abide by my own forums rules when doing this. I will wait until such time that one of the mods or over sponsors me. I am still interested.

I will sponsor you. I will PM you about it.

[Debi1967]

I will sponsor you. I will PM you about it.
Thank you Jeff

[kimber1]

question, what's the difference between debate and actively promote?

[nyj]

question, what's the difference between debate and actively promote?I didn't add #4 so I'm not sure what the intended angle was. I'd personally write it such that "promotion of sinful activity" was disallowed. So you couldn't tell someone they should have an abortion, or that it's fine to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Things that are clearly marked as sinful by the Catholic Church.

Saying "I think a woman should be a priest!" isn't what I'd call promotion of sinful activity, but perhaps telling someone to go ahead with an invalid ordination would be. But that would stand to reason for invalid male ordinations too.

[fragmentsofdreams]

Ok. I've seen this claim laid out before, but I'm not seeing it.

I've had my icon removed for a while for saying something the moderators deemed out of bounds. I've seen others have their icons removed and more have faced attempts to have their icons removed.

Are you referring to the word "assent"?

The problem is that I don't know what the language will mean in practice. Are things going to be like they were before, or will any Catholic be welcome?

[JeffreyLloyd]

I've had my icon removed for a while for saying something the moderators deemed out of bounds. I've seen others have their icons removed and more have faced attempts to have their icons removed.



The problem is that I don't know what the language will mean in practice. Are things going to be like they were before, or will any Catholic be welcome?

All Catholics will be welcome.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I am suggesting we make a change now before the first set of voting takes place. In regards to non-Catholics voting in MOD apps, we have a number of awesome non-Catholic members of OBOB who should have a say in elections like everyone else.

I am suggesting, for non-Catholic members who wish to vote, they need:

At least 500 Posts and to have been a member for longer then 6 months.
Have at least 5 Catholic members who sponsor them (each sponsor must have over 1,000 posts and have been a member for 1 year).

What does everyone think?

[nyj]

I think it's simple ... if the moderators of OBOB approve, they can be added. That'll avoid any abuse. Maybe I'm being paranoid.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I think it's simple ... if the moderators of OBOB approve, they can be added. That'll avoid any abuse. Maybe I'm being paranoid.

That does may more sense. What do we say? They need at least 1 mod and 1 SuperMod (or just one Administrator)?

[nyj]

If the support for their addition comes from 3 moderators (not Admins, since they're not elected), they're added.

[Debi1967]

ok with me

[JeffreyLloyd]

If the support for their addition comes from 3 moderators (not Admins, since they're not elected), they're added.


Unless there are any objections I will add this to the rules tomorrow.

[Aaron-Aggie]

Jeff might i propose we approach Erwin for a list of post per person in OBOB.

Those who have stuck around for 500 plus post in OBOB it self should be granted a vote

[JeffreyLloyd]

Jeff might i propose we approach Erwin for a list of post per person in OBOB.

Those who have stuck around for 500 plus post in OBOB it self should be granted a vote

Erwin has already said it's not possible to do that. That would be handy however :)

[geocajun]

I'd like to discuss the possibility of having the rules reference the voting protocol which is maintained in a seperate link, and kept in OBOB as a sticky. As it is right now the mod election protocol takes up more space than all the rules combined and since it is the least significant part of the rules it seems clunky to me.

[_Shannon_]

I think 3 mods sounds good :) Or a moderator and 5 OBOB members.

[geocajun]

I think 5 moderators and note from their mother, along with a major credit card should do it ;)

[Aaron-Aggie]

I think 5 moderators and note from their mother, along with a major credit card should do it ;)
i say 30 mins of adoration ;)

or 10,000 posts in the pub :)

[JeffreyLloyd]

I'd like to discuss the possibility of having the rules reference the voting protocol which is maintained in a seperate link, and kept in OBOB as a sticky. As it is right now the mod election protocol takes up more space than all the rules combined and since it is the least significant part of the rules it seems clunky to me.

That's a good point...

[Michelina]

I think we need a lot more Mods to cover the forum effectively.

[Debi1967]

I'd like to discuss the possibility of having the rules reference the voting protocol which is maintained in a seperate link, and kept in OBOB as a sticky. As it is right now the mod election protocol takes up more space than all the rules combined and since it is the least significant part of the rules it seems clunky to me.


Either way they are going to be there for anyone to access and read. Maybe if they are not part of the rules per se then members just looking for that set of rules will find them handier and easier to access.

Also, I did make a comment to my hubby the other day that our rules seemed to expand a lot. Now if we separate the two it won't seem so overwhelming.

[nyj]

I'd like to consider a "grace" provision. Something that says that our rules should be viewed in light of the spirit of the law, and that if by the letter of the law, spiritual harm would fall on someone, the moderators can stay the rules.

Or something to that effect.

[Michelina]

I'd like to consider a "grace" provision. Something that says that our rules should be viewed in light of the spirit of the law, and that if by the letter of the law, spiritual harm would fall on someone, the moderators can stay the rules.

Or something to that effect.
Yes, Tom, that's a good point. OBOB has always been moderated that way and I'd like to see that continued.

[Debi1967]

cool that means that OBOB will remain open and inviting to everyone as it always has been.

[kimber1]

I'd like to consider a "grace" provision. Something that says that our rules should be viewed in light of the spirit of the law, and that if by the letter of the law, spiritual harm would fall on someone, the moderators can stay the rules.

Or something to that effect.meaning? the mods can overlook the rules to extend grace?

[RebekkaH]

I'd like to consider a "grace" provision. Something that says that our rules should be viewed in light of the spirit of the law, and that if by the letter of the law, spiritual harm would fall on someone, the moderators can stay the rules.

Or something to that effect.
Good point. :)

[_Shannon_]

Yes, Tom, that's a good point. OBOB has always been moderated that way and I'd like to see that continued.
Personally, I don't think that's a good idea at all. The rules ought to be written with grace (I am not asserting that they have not been :) ). Giving moderators power to disregard the rules, opens up the possibility to (real or perceived) favoritism. I don't think arbitrary enforcement of rues is a good idea at all.

If the basic rules can be burdensome- then perhaps that indicates a problem with the rules.

[nyj]

meaning? the mods can overlook the rules to extend grace?Yes. People go through their times of struggle, and they may often say things to hurt others, things which are clearly against the rules. Do we penalize them to the maximum extent the rules warrant, or do we consider extenuating circumstances (which I should point out our justice system in the United States does) as the situation warrants?

[Debi1967]

Yes. People go through their times of struggle, and they may often say things to hurt others, things which are clearly against the rules. Do we penalize them to the maximum extent the rules warrant, or do we consider extenuating circumstances (which I should point out our justice system in the United States does) as the situation warrants?
Yes to demonstrate this their was a time when I had a real crisis in my Faith and some latitude had to be extended to me. I was new to Catholicism and my uncle had just died and there was much about God that I questioned in general.

If my Bothers and Sisters as well as the administration had not extended me some grace during that time I am sure the rules would have made me feel like an outsider in my own sub-forum.

Instead it was and still is the openness of OBOB that continues to astound to this day. Unlike most of the other forums they are very open to newcomers and to people who are seeking answers. They are also very welcome to those that just feel welcomed in our forum and want to hang out with us. This is also one of the many reasons that I converted to Catholicism was because of the people here on CF.

[_Shannon_]

Seriously- why is it so difficult to ask someone to use "I" statements when expressing their struggles and not allow debate or other questionable approaches?? Either the rules accept and allow for people struggling or they don't. But, in my opinion, either one or the other needs to be chosen. Cannot OBOB be both a haven for the holy, and a free clinic for sinners?

[Debi1967]

Seriously- why is it so difficult to ask someone to use "I" statements when expressing their struggles and not allow debate or other questionable approaches?? Either the rules accept and allow for people struggling or they don't. But, in my opinion, either one or the other needs to be chosen. Cannot OBOB be both a haven for the holy, and a free clinic for sinners?
I thought we were all sinners ..... So this question is a little baffling to me.

Do you mean for Catholics only or for Catholics and Non?

[nyj]

Either the rules accept and allow for people struggling or they don't. But, in my opinion, either one or the other needs to be chosen. Cannot OBOB be both a haven for the holy, and a free clinic for sinners?You asked for OBOB to be a haven for the holy and a free clinic ... but then you tell us we must choose. Or you did you mean "neither one or the other needs to be chosen"?

As it stands, moderation can sometimes be arbitrary. I've done enough moderating at CF over the years to know that, and we took great pains to be as fair, unbiased and considerate of other people and the struggles they go through in life as we possibly could. There are oftentimes many things that fall into grey areas, and regardless of how we ruled, someone was going to be offended. Sort of like the daily drama that occurs CF-wide lately.

I suppose we could just leave the rules as they are, and have you call it a "haven for the holy". The Church is the "hospital for sinners", and I doubt OBOB will ever (nor should it!) approximate that. It's a MB, where people from all walks of life will come and congregate and discuss issues near and dear to them.

I'll retract my suggestion.

[Debi1967]

Then I am resuggesting it that we extend grace as God has extended his Grace to us when needed. We are not here to judge everyone for every little flaw they make but to hopefully help them to grow. If all we show is that we can only extend negativity to them then that is how they will percieve us and Catholicism.

[chrislife]

I haven't read through every post in this thread, so my apologies if it's been brought up before, but I have a suggestion.

I think that for new members to be added to the roster, something more than the assent of three members should be necessary. Maybe a minimum number of posts. One reason is that people generally want to be nice, and many will almost automatically approve anyone but the most obnoxious trolls; and some would even approve trolls simply because it gives them a kick.

Another reason is that a person who is brand spankin' new on the board really wouldn't know what/who they are voting for anyway.

Finally, I think it would be a bit too easy for a troll-minded person to come on, stay just long enough to convince people they're sincere, get on the roster, and then show true colors.

[Debi1967]

I haven't read through every post in this thread, so my apologies if it's been brought up before, but I have a suggestion.

I think that for new members to be added to the roster, something more than the assent of three members should be necessary. Maybe a minimum number of posts. One reason is that people generally want to be nice, and many will almost automatically approve anyone but the most obnoxious trolls; and some would even approve trolls simply because it gives them a kick.

Another reason is that a person who is brand spankin' new on the board really wouldn't know what/who they are voting for anyway.

Finally, I think it would be a bit too easy for a troll-minded person to come on, stay just long enough to convince people they're sincere, get on the roster, and then show true colors.
What do we do about newbies then? I mean shouldn't we give them the benefit of innocent until proven otherwise?

[_Shannon_]

Then I am resuggesting it that we extend grace as God has extended his Grace to us when needed. We are not here to judge everyone for every little flaw they make but to hopefully help them to grow. If all we show is that we can only extend negativity to them then that is how they will percieve us and Catholicism.
If you create good rules, that allow for struggles to be expressed in an appropriate way---then you don't need to sometimes allow people leeway; it will always be available. They can say what they need to say- they just have to say it in accordance with the rules. I guess I don't understand how or why that lacks in grace:scratch:

[Debi1967]

If you create good rules, that allow for struggles to be expressed in an appropriate way---then you don't need to sometimes allow people leeway; it will always be available. They can say what they need to say- they just have to say it in accordance with the rules. I guess I don't understand how or why that lacks in grace:scratch:
Ok I know of one time that I posted that I remember ..... I got caught for it too....

I was so enthralled in the conversation and I let my enthusiasm take over.... Then someone started posting really negatively about the Church and instead of handling it with Grace and charity I instead automatically snapped backed at the person and hit the post button... Well then I thought about what I just did but it was to late...
I did go and rectify my post but not before a moderator had already seen it that was sitting in the thread.

I thank God that I explained to the moderator what happened and asked if they could forgive me for being so nasty and I posted a public apology to the person as well .... For this the moderator decided not to give me an infraction because they decided I already infracted myself.....LOL

[nyj]

So RoseOfLima, how would you improve the WIKI, to make the rules good, all encompassing and protective of the OBOB community?

[_Shannon_]

So RoseOfLima, how would you improve the WIKI, to make the rules good, all encompassing and protective of the OBOB community?
Well first I'd remove nearly all of #1- or change it back to what it was before.

Secondly-I think a better definition for a message board for Catholic would be something like: anyone who is currently a member of Roman Catholic or Eastern Rite parish or student center.

I would also include that if posting about personal struggles or disagreement about teachings of the Church that "I" statements must be used. e.g "I really think that there ought to be married priests", "I want to use contraception." , "I think homosexuals ought to be allowed to be priests." "In my opinion the liturgy ought to be in pig-Latin."

[MikeK]

I would also include that if posting about personal struggles or disagreement about teachings of the Church that "I" statements must be used. e.g "I really think that there ought to be married priests", "I want to use contraception." , "I think homosexuals ought to be allowed to be priests." "In my opinion the liturgy ought to be in pig-Latin."

The way I read the rules none of that would be forbidden....and I don't think Rule #1 is all that exclusive either. One must accept that the teachings of the Church are what they are, though they need not agree. Assenting can mean "agreeing" but it can also mean "conceding". While the strictest reading could reveal that only posters who follow the Church's teachings are welcome, we know better than to read it that way because there hasn't been anyone in the last 2000 years who would be able to post. I think the rules as written clearly allow an appropriate level of informed dissent without allowing one to try to subvert the Faith.

I mentioned my interpretation of #4's "Active Promotion" ealier in this thread and nobody disagreed with it, therefore I'll assume everyone agreed.

I guess I would remove the part about the sheopard's hook though, just because it's dumb.

Secondly-I think a better definition for a message board for Catholic would be something like: anyone who is currently a member of Roman Catholic or Eastern Rite parish or student center.

I agree. I'm not sure what "full communion" means or if anyone is in it.

[Debi1967]

Calling all of OBOB to here where Protinus is trying to split our congregation

http://www.christianforums.com/t5714756-liberal-catholic-forum.html&page=7#post36818796

[RebekkaH]

Well first I'd remove nearly all of #1- or change it back to what it was before.

Secondly-I think a better definition for a message board for Catholic would be something like: anyone who is currently a member of Roman Catholic or Eastern Rite parish or student center.

I would also include that if posting about personal struggles or disagreement about teachings of the Church that "I" statements must be used. e.g "I really think that there ought to be married priests", "I want to use contraception." , "I think homosexuals ought to be allowed to be priests." "In my opinion the liturgy ought to be in pig-Latin."
I agree with this. I think it is acceptable to post about disagreements/struggles when you make it an "I" statement, explain why you struggle and acknowledge that the church teaches differently.

It should be noted that acceptance is different from agreement. Catholics may not agree with certain teachings, but they assent to those teachings as a lamb would assent to the gentle prodding of the shepherds crook.
I accept ( ;) ) the first statement, I have problems with the second - although if it is meant the way Mike interprets it, I accept it.

[nyj]

Jeff can you unlock the WIKI so we can start working on v.03?

[chrislife]

Those who are not in full communion probably know who they are. Generally it means those who are members of other Churches, including those that call themselves Catholic but are not under the authority of the Pope. (Old Catholic, Anglican, SSPX, etc.)

[MikeK]

Those who are not in full communion probably know who they are.

Are people who obstinately sin because the simply don't believe one particular Church teaching in full communion with the Church?

[nyj]

I define "full communion" as those who have not broken from the Church in a formal act of schism. That means Old Catholics, out. SSPX, out. People who get their knickers in a bunch over no female priests ... in.

[RebekkaH]

I define "full communion" as those who have not broken from the Church in a formal act of schism. That means Old Catholics, out. SSPX, out. People who get their knickers in a bunch over no female priests ... in.
Thanks for the clarification. :)

[_Shannon_]

Those who are not in full communion probably know who they are. Generally it means those who are members of other Churches, including those that call themselves Catholic but are not under the authority of the Pope. (Old Catholic, Anglican, SSPX, etc.)
So couldn't we use my definition? I just think it makes clearer the distinction NYJ made-- about the female priest folks--or the contraception folks --or what have you.

I just think the rules should read inclusively as opposed to exclusively and allow for discussion. I learned the most I ever learned on OBOB when there were lots and lots of discussions and disagreements.

[JeffreyLloyd]

Jeff can you unlock the WIKI so we can start working on v.03?

Will do now... I have added the rule about how a non-Catholic can be added to the roll.

[_Shannon_]

okay made my edits :)

[RebekkaH]

Welcome to the One Bread, One Body - Catholic Forum. This is the place to discuss issues and topics related to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is comprised of all Christians and churches who are united in full communion with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.

This forum is open to those who are members of a Roman Catholic or Eastern Rite parish for debate, discussion, and fellowship. Catholics may not agree with certain teachings, and may even hope for change on certain teachings- but will use "I" statements to clearly represent their views and struggles as their own. (e.g. "I really don't understand why I can't contracept." "Or I think women ought to be better repreented in Church leadership".)It is hoped that through dialogue, those who agree and those who struggle can learn from each other and grow to better understand the truths of our beautiful Faith.
Non-Catholics are also welcome to join us in fellowship. They are encouraged to ask questions. They are not allowed to give advice, or advocate positions, which run contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Debate among Catholic brothers and sisters is allowed and encouraged as long as it is done respectfully.
Active Promotion of views contrary to the teachings of the Church is prohibited.
Due charity and respect must be shown to those of other faiths. Disagreement with other belief systems is to be expressed in a charitable manner. For instance, posting "I disagree with Protestant doctrines because..." is permitted. Posting "Protestant churches are demonic cults" is not permitted.
There is to be no irrational liturgical prejudice. Whether a person attends the Ordinary or Extraordinary use of the Latin Mass, or an Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy, their liturgy must be acknowledged as fully Catholic and of equal dignity with all other Catholic rites. However, liturgical preferences may be expressed, but only in a charitable manner.
Only Catholics as defined in No.1 may serve as moderators for OBOB.I agree with this one.

Thanks Shannon. :)

[nyj]

I made one change. I changed the phrase "Roman" to "Latin Rite" and put the word Catholic at the end of the Rites, because I HATE the phrase "Roman Catholic" as its origin was as a pejorative. The meaning of the sentence changes no one iota.

[_Shannon_]

Yeah- I hate Roman Catholic , too. Latin Rite is much better.

[helenofbritain]

I hate to nitpick... but is "Eastern Rite" an umbrella term? Does it include thins like the Maronite Rite and the Coptic Rite (I think there's a Russian/Cyrillic language Rite too...) Cos otherwise we're unintentionally excluding people...

[Michelina]

Yes, it is an umbrella term for all non-Western (non-Latin) Rite Catholics, Helen. That's how it is used at the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in Rome.

[Protinus]

Rule #4 needs to be removed. If not removed, reworked.

This is not trying to create problems as I've said it before. We all know where we've been.

Tom said that he would replace it with an acceptable alternative. What happened to that?

[JeffreyLloyd]

Rule #4 needs to be removed. If not removed, reworked.

This is not trying to create problems as I've said it before. We all know where we've been.

Tom said that he would replace it with an acceptable alternative. What happened to that?

Yeah we were talking about maybe use the OLD CF rule of "No promotion of sin."

[Protinus]

Yeah we were talking about maybe use the OLD CF rule of "No promotion of sin."
excuse me?

[JeffreyLloyd]

You're excused.

[Protinus]

You're excused.
from what? and I would like to add why an exclusionary process (intended or not) has proceeded with this Catholic Wiki Rule formation? Does the roll call reflect what is deemed appropriate in these rules and with proper accounting from "members"? Who was consulted in the rules formation group? Was it core rules vs new rules? who was informed?

[JeffreyLloyd]

from what? and I would like to add why an exclusionary process (intended or not) has proceeded with this Catholic Wiki Rule formation? Does the roll call reflect what is deemed appropriate in these rules and with proper accounting from "members"? Who was consulted in the rules formation group? Was it core rules vs new rules? who was informed?

I don't know, you asked to be excused

excuse me?

It's polite to excuse someone when they ask. I don't understand the rest of your post, so I will just let it be...

[Protinus]

I don't know, you asked to be excused



It's polite to excuse someone when they ask. I don't understand the rest of your post, so I will just let it be...
I asked you specific questions...shall I enumerate them?

[nyj]

Tom said that he would replace it with an acceptable alternative. What happened to that?Since you've removed yourself from OBOB, and your partner Jerome thinks I'm abusive ... I see no need to rework anything for anyones behalf any longer. Why should I?

[geocajun]

Since you've removed yourself from OBOB, and your partner Jerome thinks I'm abusive ... I see no need to rework anything for anyones behalf any longer. Why should I?
should we try to help write the rules for the liberal forum?

[nyj]

should we try to help write the rules for the liberal forum?
Lets.

[DeiGratia]

Nice rules so far.

[Protinus]

Since you've removed yourself from OBOB, and your partner Jerome thinks I'm abusive ... I see no need to rework anything for anyones behalf any longer. Why should I?

I asked you in good faith to remove #4. Call me the Enemy but you even suggested a replacement for it. I gave you ample reasons and references for my reasoning as per Church writings why I said and claim things as I do. Would you have me repost them?

And blame me for the evil ...Jerome is out of this.

[Protinus]

should we try to help write the rules for the liberal forum?

in your day you are revered...

[geocajun]

I asked you in good faith to remove #4. Call me the Enemy but you even suggested a replacement for it. I gave you ample reasons and references for my reasoning as per Church writings why I said and claim things as I do. Would you have me repost them?

And blame me for the evil ...Jerome is out of this.
here is your rules forum for the liberal catholics subforum: http://www.christianforums.com/t5725946-wiki-liberal-catholics.html

[nyj]

I asked you in good faith to remove #4. Call me the Enemy but you even suggested a replacement for it. I gave you ample reasons and references for my reasoning as per Church writings why I said and claim things as I do. Would you have me repost them?

And blame me for the evil ...Jerome is out of this.That's the rub Protinus. I didn't call you anything. Yet your contingent felt fit to call me a liar and an abuser. I also offered to drop #4 in its entirety if you reconsidered giving OBOB one more chance. You declined. Did you not?

So, now you got your cake ... you really expect me to sit here and watch you eat it too?

I'm done arguing. I tried to extend a non-threatening hand to you during this process and that entire discussion. I offered you apologies. You didn't accept the offers, nor did you acknowledge the private apologies, at the time they were extended. I'm done with it.

[Protinus]

That's the rub Protinus. I didn't call you anything. Yet your contingent felt fit to call me a liar and an abuser. I also offered to drop #4 in its entirety if you reconsidered giving OBOB one more chance. You declined. Did you not?

So, now you got your cake ... you really expect me to sit here and watch you eat it too?

I'm done arguing. I tried to extend a non-threatening hand to you during this process and that entire discussion. I offered you apologies. You didn't accept the offers, nor did you acknowledge the private apologies, at the time they were extended. I'm done with it.

Are you the sole arbiter of these rules? And that thread was not a way to ask me to drop such a rule. Should I have clamored to your oblique offering as you wanted to revise it to "avoidance of sin"? Give me a break.

My contingent? poopy cock whatever...I have lost more than I have gained in this and you know it.

I got your rep apology for not counting you in the mess...what offer?? what is it that you think I can take something so flippantly as to not write you in private when I feel it is so significant...by your implication alone???
I just really don't get it

[nyj]

Are you the sole arbiter of these rules?No, so why are you bothering me with requests then?

[boughtwithaprice]

Since you've removed yourself from OBOB, and your partner Jerome thinks I'm abusive ... I see no need to rework anything for anyones behalf any longer. Why should I?


Slander is not one of your best suits. I made no such post calling you abusive. This is not about you, and I would ask you retract your remarks. You don't know what I think because you never ask, you assume and then state that assumption as fact. Your behavior is despicable. Is that how you would like to be treated? Have people twist your words to make them say something that they don't?

I said in an earlier post that I applaud your efforts, as I thought that you had a genuine commitment to solve this problem. Is that still true or have you given up?

[nyj]

Slander is not one of your best suits. I made no such post calling you abusive.You likened OBOB to an abusive relationship, with the liberals being the abused children, and the rest of us as the abusive adults. Ok, so you may not have directly called me abusive ... you just lumped me in with about 200+ other regular OBOB members. I suppose you somehow think that's better.

[MikeK]

Active promotion of views contrary to the teachings of the Church is prohibited.


That's rule 4. I think it should stand as written. I have plenty of issues with official Church teachings but I don't for one minute think it's appropriate for me to promote my own personal views on a Catholic board. I'll defend my own beliefs all day long if need be but it would be wrong for me to try to convince others to agree with me.

...and I moved a quotation mark.

[RebekkaH]

That's rule 4. I think it should stand as written. I have plenty of issues with official Church teachings but I don't for one minute think it's appropriate for me to promote my own personal views on a Catholic board. I'll defend my own beliefs all day long if need be but it would be wrong for me to try to convince others to agree with me.

...and I moved a quotation mark.
Is that what promotion is? Trying to convince others? But merely stating your own opinion, whatever it is, is allowed?

[nyj]

Is that what promotion is? Trying to convince others? But merely stating your own opinion, whatever it is, is allowed?I was thinking of offering to write it along the lines of:

Suggesting that others commit acts considered sinful by the Catholic Church is prohibited.

So telling people they can use birth control "just 'cause", or have an abortion, or go right along and marry into that homosexual relationship ... all of that would be disallowed. But saying those are your opinions, would not be disallowed.

[_Shannon_]

NYJ, I think that makes it clearer exactly what is meant--maybe with the examples??:confused:

[RebekkaH]

I was thinking of offering to write it along the lines of:

Suggesting that others commit acts considered sinful by the Catholic Church is prohibited.

So telling people they can use birth control "just 'cause", or have an abortion, or go right along and marry into that homosexual relationship ... all of that would be disallowed. But saying those are your opinions, would not be disallowed.
Thanks for your clarification! It's very clear to me now. :)

[RebekkaH]

I agree with RoseofLima, I think it's better to include the examples that you gave here, nyj. For clarification.

[MikeK]

Suggesting that others commit acts considered sinful by the Catholic Church is prohibited.

Make it happen, that's much clearer. I humbly rescind my above statement.

[nyj]

I made the changes, but the font didn't come out exactly the same as the other rules. Someone may want to reformat the font in the final version so it doesn't look hodge-podgey.

[CaDan]

Can I just say that everybody who worked on this set of rules did a great job? Clear, simple, and readable.

[Protinus]

When was #4 changed????:confused:

[nyj]

When was #4 changed????:confused:If you checked the history of the WIKI, you'd see that it was done at least a week and a half ago.

[Angeldove97]

Forgive me if this has been addressed already in this discussion thread...

But if the election of moderators, are they strictly to be on the Ecumenical Team or can they be from various teams? Let's say should I become a mod on a team other than Ecumenical (because I know as superadmin I can not moderate) and I wanted to also moderate OBOB, I could simply put in an application and be voted on?

If someone could clarify that for me, either posting here or via a pm (in case I forget to check this Wiki) I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you! :)

[nyj]

I'd say that you still have to be nominated by a current OBOB staff member. This helps keep team cohesion. If a current staff member is a "bad fit" for the team, allowing them to self-nominate would be a bad idea.

[Michelina]

I'd say that you still have to be nominated by a current OBOB staff member. This helps keep team cohesion. If a current staff member is a "bad fit" for the team, allowing them to self-nominate would be a bad idea.
This makes good sense. :thumbsup:

[helenofbritain]

So, these are the current rules regarding moderator elections, and I have highlighted the bits a few people think could use some work:

Election of Moderators
Election of OBOB Moderators will be done by vote within the OBOB forum.
Voting for OBOB Moderators will occur in 12 month cycles.
In order to ensure that a Moderator election does not cause undue strife amongst the OBOB community, the election must result in the candidate receiving a minimum 80% approval (Aye/Yes) vote. This threshold is set high because a lower approval vote (51% for example) indicates that a large portion of OBOB regulars do not think the candidate is currently ready to moderate.
Elections of OBOB Moderators will be closed. In other words, voting will be done only by Catholic members. Membership to OBOB is indicated by being registered in OBOB's Roll Call.
A candidate must receive a nomination by a current OBOB staff member. This staff member will then construct two threads within OBOB which will both link to each other:
A non-anonymous poll with three options: Yes/Aye, No/Nay, Apply Later.
A thread for Q&A and discussion of the candidate. Both OBOB members and non-member participants may participate in this thread, but only OBOB members may vote.
The poll will not be open for discussion. The only posts that can be made in the poll thread are posts indicating an individuals vote has changed. All other posts will be deleted without discrimination.
Voting will be open for seven days. A minimum of 20 votes must be garnered for the application to be considered. Once the voting is closed, a OBOB moderator who did not nominate the candidate will count the votes. The votes will be checked against the OBOB roll call and the final tally showing whose vote was counted and how they voted, will be posted in the poll thread. This will allow members to check to see if their vote was recorded properly.
A majority vote in the "No/Nay" or "Apply Later" categories, and votes of "Yes/Aye" less than 80% mean that the application was not successful and the candidate will not become a moderator. They can come up for revote during the next election cycle in 12 months.
If the vote is 80% or greater "Yes/Aye", the moderator who tallied the votes will contact the CF HR officials and have them place the candidate into OBOB for moderator duty.OBOB Roll Call
The OBOB Roll Call is designed to help OBOB keep a tally of members eligible to vote in OBOB elections. It has no other purpose.
Grandfathering clause: All current Catholic members of OBOB are to be included onto the OBOB Roll Call.
Future additions: New Catholic members wishing to vote in OBOB Moderator elections must be added to the OBOB Roll Call. They can do so by starting a thread indicating that they wish to be added. They then need three current members of the Roll Call to support them. If they receive this support, an OBOB Moderator will add their name to the list.
Non-Catholics who actively participate in OBOB, may apply for eligibility by requesting the sponsorship of three OBOB moderators.
If it is found that a member has more than one account on the OBOB Roll Call and more than one was used in any single election, all accounts shall be removed from the OBOB Roll Call.
To help facilitate checking the Roll Call against a Moderator Application, the OBOB Roll Call will be kept in alphabetical order.Would you agree? What shall we do?

[JeffreyLloyd]

I believe we made it OBOB mods because we were afraid of strong anti-catholics getting approved by just three members. (I believe)

[geocajun]

I believe we made it OBOB mods because we were afraid of strong anti-catholics getting approved by just three members. (I believe)
That makes sense, but I think we need to further qualify that. What I want to avoid is OBOB mods not presenting a catholic applicant because they feel 'they wouldn't have a chance at a favorable poll'.

[BAFRIEND]

My main input is this:

Non-Catholics who wish to be on the voting list should be, at least be in RCIA, IMO.

Moderators being given the authority to inculde non-members is really a stretch. It gives the impression that somehow moderators are the boss.

I think that non-members should only be included by vote at the same approval rating as moderators.

I believe that approval ratings should be at the lowest allowable by Foru.ms standards and I have been lead to believe that is 70%, even though I think 60% is more realistic.

If non-Catholics are going to be allowed, I think the vote should be held, but for non-Catholics in RCIA, I believe the vote should be

...

[Fish and Bread]

I feel the process should be given a chance to work. There were a lot of discussions, arguments, and even heated arguments that went on for some time in order to come up with the system that is in place now.

The system that came about as the result of so much hard work and effort has not yet been tried. No one knows if it will work or not. The way we can find out if it will work or not is to go through actual moderator elections, preferably lots of them (in order to get an adequate sample size), and then evaluate how things have gone afterwards. It would be a shame to throw out all that hard work used to come up with the system without at least giving it a shot first.

The 80% threshold should, at least in theory, give us nice fair stable moderators who are beloved by all, much like our current crop. :) By the way, I still need a third moderator to approve me as an official member (See my thread on OBOB asking to join the roll call). ;) Thanks. :)

Anyhow, the folks that the high threshold will weed out are those who are considered by 21% or more of the forum to be likely to be biased or prejudicial in some way. I think if such candidates made it through, it could diminish their capacity to be seen as fair brokers. Remember, not electing someone as moderator is not a comment on their character, being a moderator takes a unique combination of skills such as non-partisanship and diplomacy and so on and so forth -- and, just as importantly, the ability to be perceived that way and be respected by all the different types of posters we have here. The 80% threshold ensures that they have that respect.

As far as the membership rule for non-Catholics goes, I might be seen as a little biased in what I am about to say, but it should be noted that there already *are* non-Catholics on the membership roll. Taking them off now would send a really bad message and cause a lot of hurt feelings. It was something that was carefully negotiated in the past and won the approval of enough folks for the rules to be as they are. It hasn't caused any problems. I'd say that, on the contrary, it has endangered more warm feelings and feelings of community on the forum.

[helenofbritain]

Here are my thoughts.

I think 70% approval is enough, but 75% would be better.

I honestly don't think it matters who backs a mod candidate, because if people thin they'll do a bad job, they won't get elected anyway.

For non-Catholics who want to be on the electoral roll, I think three mod votes is a bit difficult - since there's only 5 of us atm, and only three active, as far as I can tell. Maybe they should get, say, 9 member votes and one mod (just in case there are non-public issues, not because mods are "better").

Thoughts?

[BAFRIEND]

I don't like the appearance of elitism that comes with only allowing mods to make the decision on non-Catholics. I think a genreal vote a much better idea.

If the purpose of the rule in only allowing the mods to allow non-catholics to join is primarily to prevent people with anti-Catholic sentiments voting power, I also believe that at least a 48 hour waiting period between the request and the moderator decision be placed in effect. This gives all the moderators a chance to view and dsicuss the applicant with the general OBOB community. It also allows the moderators time to consider the reaction and input of the community.

There also needs to be a time limit or some kind of concensus for when requests become void. Is a new mod going to come in and give a stamp of approval to someone who made the request 10 years ago ?

[BAFRIEND]

Elections of OBOB Moderators will be closed. In other words, voting will be done only by Catholic members. Membership to OBOB is indicated by being registered in OBOB's Roll Call.

We need to clarify, it appears that only Catholic members on the roll call can vote for mods and that the non-Catholics accepted by the 3 mod rule are excluded.

[Fish and Bread]

We need to clarify, it appears that only Catholic members on the roll call can vote for mods and that the non-Catholics accepted by the 3 mod rule are excluded.

I think there is another section that sheds light on this:

The OBOB Roll Call is designed to help OBOB keep a tally of members eligible to vote in OBOB elections. It has no other purpose.If the roll call's only purpose is to keep a tally of members eligible to vote in OBOB elections, and there are provisions for non-Catholics on the roll call, it follows that even the non-Catholics on the roll call can vote. This then interprets the earlier clause "Catholic members" to mean members of the Catholic forum, OBOB (versus meaning just members of the Roman Catholic Church), even though we might take that to mean something different if the the latter clause wasn't in there. It is also worth keeping in mind that the very next sentence after Catholic members says "Membership to OBOB is indicated by being registered in OBOB's Roll Call.", essentially defining "Catholic members" as "anyone on the OBOB roll call" for forum purposes.

In the interests of clarity, though, it might be a good idea to amend the section BA highlighted to read "OBOB members" instead of "Catholic members". He rightly calls to our attention that it is a little bit confusing if one doesn't read through the entire document carefully.

[helenofbritain]

I don't like the appearance of elitism that comes with only allowing mods to make the decision on non-Catholics. I think a genreal vote a much better idea.

If the purpose of the rule in only allowing the mods to allow non-catholics to join is primarily to prevent people with anti-Catholic sentiments voting power, I also believe that at least a 48 hour waiting period between the request and the moderator decision be placed in effect. This gives all the moderators a chance to view and dsicuss the applicant with the general OBOB community. It also allows the moderators time to consider the reaction and input of the community.

There also needs to be a time limit or some kind of concensus for when requests become void. Is a new mod going to come in and give a stamp of approval to someone who made the request 10 years ago ?
I see your point here.

How would you word the rule?

[geocajun]

I don't think we should have non-catholics editing the wiki for OBOB...

[BAFRIEND]

OBOB Roll Call

The OBOB Roll Call is designed to help OBOB keep a tally of members eligible to vote in OBOB elections. It has no other purpose.
Grandfathering clause: All current Catholic members of OBOB are to be included onto the OBOB Roll Call.
Future additions: New Catholic members wishing to vote in OBOB Moderator elections must be added to the OBOB Roll Call. They can do so by starting a thread indicating that they wish to be added. They then need three current members of the Roll Call to support them. If they receive this support, an OBOB Moderator will add their name to the list. If within 7 days, three current members have not supported the new Catholic members request to be added, the request will expire and be void. The new member must open a new thread to restart the process to be added.
Non-Catholics who actively participate in OBOB, may apply for eligibility by requesting the sponsorship of three OBOB moderators. Moderators must wait for 48 hours after the creation of the thread requesting sponsorship before giving sponsorship for the purpose that other members of the forum be able to voice their opinions or offer information on the request. The moderator is not required to take into account the opinions expressed in the thread. If within 7 days, the non-Catholic has not received the sponsorship of three moderators, the request will expire and be void. The non-Catholic must then open a new thread to restart the process to apply for eligibility.
If it is found that a member has more than one account on the OBOB Roll Call and more than one was used in any single election, all accounts shall be removed from the OBOB Roll Call.
To help facilitate checking the Roll Call against a Moderator Application, the OBOB Roll Call will be kept in alphabetical order.

The blue submission is new.

Submissions in red would be additions in order to set time limits for requests for sponsorship or support to be added to the roll call.

[helenofbritain]

So we're not going with the 9 members and a mod for non-Catholics?

[helenofbritain]

But I like the wording. Good work.

[BAFRIEND]

So we're not going with the 9 members and a mod for non-Catholics?
I don't know if we should change the three mod rule. I think that is okay because the mods are elected and thus represent the community. I know this is different than what I stated before.

I do believe that a waiting period of 48 hours should occur between the creation of the non-Catholic's request and any sponsorships granted by moderators so that moderators can take into consideration the viewpoints other members have of the applicant.

proposed Wiki change to follow.

[BAFRIEND]

The blue submission is new.

Submissions in red would be additions in order to set time limits for requests for sponsorship or support to be added to the roll call.
Blue is new proposal.

[helenofbritain]

I don't know if we should change the three mod rule. I think that is okay because the mods are elected and thus represent the community. I know this is different than what I stated before.

I do believe that a waiting period of 48 hours should occur between the creation of the non-Catholic's request and any sponsorships granted by moderators so that moderators can take into consideration the viewpoints other members have of the applicant.

proposed Wiki change to follow.
I think that is a good idea.... basically the OBOBers could lobby the mods... like in parliament.

[helenofbritain]

Where's the new blue, BAFRIEND?

[helenofbritain]

Now, the next questions - who can nominate a potential mod? Only existing mods? Or anyone?

What is a reasonable percentage of "yes" votes to be elected? It cannot be less than 70%.

And this needs to be edited to remove the contradiction:
Elections of OBOB Moderators will be closed. In other words, voting will be done only by Catholic members. Membership to OBOB is indicated by being registered in OBOB's Roll Call.I would change this to:

Elections of OBOB Moderators will be closed. In other words, voting will be done only by OBOB members. Membership of OBOB is indicated by being registered in OBOB's Roll Call.

[helenofbritain]

I just noticed that Rule #4 is not the same as the Rule #4 in the sticky. Obviously it needs to be snapshotted to apply, but if we're updating the rules, we should check we agree before we get to v3.0

Wiki Rule 4

4. Suggesting that others commit acts considered sinful by the Catholic Church is prohibited. For example, telling people they can use birth control "just because", or have an abortion, or marry into a homosexual relationship, all would be disallowed. However discussion of such topics are allowed, as long as only opinions are stated. For clarification on this point, see Rule #1.Sticky Rule 4
4. Active Promotion of views contrary to the teachings of the Church is prohibited.
I actually like the sticky rule 4 more - it allows the mods a bit more room.

[BAFRIEND]

Where's the new blue, BAFRIEND?
OBOB Roll Call

The OBOB Roll Call is designed to help OBOB keep a tally of members eligible to vote in OBOB elections. It has no other purpose.
Grandfathering clause: All current Catholic members of OBOB are to be included onto the OBOB Roll Call.
Future additions: New Catholic members wishing to vote in OBOB Moderator elections must be added to the OBOB Roll Call. They can do so by starting a thread indicating that they wish to be added. They then need three current members of the Roll Call to support them. If they receive this support, an OBOB Moderator will add their name to the list. If within 7 days, three current members have not supported the new Catholic members request to be added, the request will expire and be void. The new member must open a new thread to restart the process to be added.
Non-Catholics who actively participate in OBOB, may apply for eligibility by requesting the sponsorship of three OBOB moderators. Moderators must wait for 48 hours after the creation of the thread requesting sponsorship before giving sponsorship for the purpose that other members of the forum be able to voice their opinions or offer information on the request. The moderator is not required to take into account the opinions expressed in the thread. If within 7 days, the non-Catholic has not received the sponsorship of three moderators, the request will expire and be void. The non-Catholic must then open a new thread to restart the process to apply for eligibility.
If it is found that a member has more than one account on the OBOB Roll Call and more than one was used in any single election, all accounts shall be removed from the OBOB Roll Call.
To help facilitate checking the Roll Call against a Moderator Application, the OBOB Roll Call will be kept in alphabetical order.Back on the other page on post 357, but here it is so never mind.

I would not call it lobbying (unless you are open to bribes).

More like allowing input to assist the mods and let them know the opinions or concerns about the applicant.

[helenofbritain]

Lobbyists don't bribe in Australia...

It wasn't there - I looked. Strange.... Thanks for reposting!