Wiki: Obob

[JeffreyLloyd]

All core forum rules apply.

Wiki: Christian Forums Rules

OBOB Subforum Rules
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 Latin Rite or Eastern Rite Catholic 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 represented in Church leadership".) It is hoped that through dialogue, those who agree with the Magisterium 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.
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.
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 Rule #1 may serve as moderators for OBOB.Administrative Matters
Moderating Duties
Only moderators elected by the OBOB community will be allowed to moderate inside OBOB. Catholic staff, who serve in Administrative and Moderatory positions elsewhere throughout the site cannot moderate inside OBOB unless they have been voted upon.
Moderators serve at the pleasure of the OBOB community. They are elected, and as such should remember that they serve the community. The role of a moderator is first and foremost to help facilitate discussion.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.

[Goodchild]

..

[JeffreyLloyd]

Hrmm, that's overly broad do you think Jeffrey?

For example, as an ex-Catholic I could (and would) be glad to take part in debate where I am articulating an authentic Catholic viewpoint (i.e. I have a good deal of knowledge regarding the Decree of Nullity). Perhaps a better rule might be something along the line of 'No debating that is contrary to stated Catholic dogma'? That would not prevent a Catholic poster from saying, for example, "I disagree with the prohibition of married priests, but accept the Church's teaching" while still allowing a knowledgeable non-Catholic to contribute to the debate respectfully.

Just a thought.

Well, it was just a stub :) But that is a very good idea and makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

[Goodchild]

..

[helenofbritain]

Should I have not posted in the Wiki? Sorry if that wasn't kosher...

[JeffreyLloyd]

Of course you can, that is what it is for!

[WordofGod]

good idea to mention it here because it has a lot of merit....


Hi Jeff, I am not going to edit the Wiki, as I do not believe it is a place for debate, but this thread may be ok. I have a problem with the first statement in the wiki, as to how it will be interpreted.



Is this to mean that all liberal Catholics will be prevented from expressing their views here in OBOB? Is there no critique of the heirarchy allowed here in OBOB? What of those that respectfully disagree from a well formed conscience?

I just want to be clear, and I am fine either way. Is OBOB going to be truly open to all Catholics, or is this going to be a strictly conservative Catholic forum?

I think that we should find a way to incorporate the liberal Catholics into OBOB, as the magisterium has not excommunicated them, but if the forum disagrees, we can go from there. What do you think?

:crossrc:

[JeffreyLloyd]

Hi Jeff, I am not going to edit the Wiki, as I do not believe it is a place for debate, but this thread may be ok. I have a problem with the first statement in the wiki, as to how it will be interpreted.

You can comment in the wiki at the bottom right of the wiki.

Is this to mean that all liberal Catholics will be prevented from expressing their views here in OBOB? Is there no critique of the heirarchy allowed here in OBOB? What of those that respectfully disagree from a well formed conscience?

Well, liberal doesn't just mean critique does it? How do you think we should balance it? More importantly, how do we prevent non-Catholics from debating? There has to be a way to weight both sides.

I just want to be clear, and I am fine either way. Is OBOB going to be truly open to all Catholics, or is this going to be a strictly conservative Catholic forum?

I think it should be a Catholic forum. For Conservative and Moderate and Liberal. However, above all it should be orthodox.

[Letalis]

I think that, at least at first, the congregation forums should be strict as far as "dissent" goes. Because these forums are designed to be safe-havens for different communities, we should try to maintain that atmosphere.

[Letalis]

Do we need the more general rules? No flaming, and such? Since the "core" forum rules will already cover this, do we also need to add it?

[JeffreyLloyd]

Do we need the more general rules? No flaming, and such? Since the "core" forum rules will already cover this, do we also need to add it?

That is true, the golden rule one could be nixed.

[geocajun]

I was reading the book "Critical thinking" and came across the following:

"When you state a belief or opinion, you are making a claim.
When you present a reason for thinking a claim is true, you are giving an argument."
(Critical Thinking Chap. 1, pp 3)

I think we should use these definitions for the qualification of what is 'debate' or not in the rules.

Additionally this part is useful for further describing an argument:
"If one claim is given as a reason for another claim being true, you have an argument; If it isn't, you dont" (ibid, pp 5)
"Remember, and argument has two parts, and one part (the premise) provides a reason for thinking the other part (the conclusion) is true. (Ibid ..15)


"Argument: a two-part structure of claims, one part of which (the premise
or premises) is given as a reason for thinking the other part (the conclusion)
is true

[Lel]

The problem is that then outsiders can start debate by making claims without foundation.

I could go in and say "the pope is a heretic" and it wouldn't be debate, because it's only a claim, not an argument.* However, I do not believe OBOB should permit people coming in to say "the pope is a heretic."

What else would stop something like this?

*I don't personally think the pope's a heretic.

[geocajun]

well who ever said "the pope is a heretic" was debating in the past? that is something else, but certainly not debate.

[Lel]

That's true that it isn't debating now, but yes, it could have been in the past. A more realistic example might be someone saying "Catholics worship Mary" or something to that effect.

It's a separate issue but it will need to be addressed though.

[Maynard Keenan]

I like how it is now. Simple, to the point, and gives the mods the discretion to judge wisely. I think that we should run with this unless we see problems that need addressing.

[faerieevaH]

As to the question of liberal catholics and if they are able to present their viewpoints.... I think yes they should be able to, even if it may go against teachings, as long as they in their own posts admit that it goes against teachings.

For example: "even though the Church is against this or that.... I personally think this or that... because... "
This should of course only apply to Catholics, because otherwise we could indeed open the floodgates and lose the theological safe haven.

[Letalis]

I added that all core forum rules apply.

[ZooMom]

I corrected some spelling. :P But I do want to ask that we consider changing the line that reads 'All who consider themselves Catholic...'

Just want to remind everyone that there are alot of people who consider themselves Catholic who are not in communion with or recognize the authority of the Holy See. Anglicans, Old Catholics, SSPXers...are they to be allowed to debate? And the bit about the icon is pretty much useless...some people have them, some don't, some Catholics use a plain cross...yadayada.

I think the line should be changed to read..'All Catholics in communion with the Holy See in Rome are welcome to participate fully etc...' And just take out the whole bit about icons. But I didn't want to do it without running by y'all first. :)

[ZooMom]

I just got such a strong feeling of dejavu...have we had this conversation before?

[Letalis]

I corrected some spelling. :P But I do want to ask that we consider changing the line that reads 'All who consider themselves Catholic...'

Just want to remind everyone that there are alot of people who consider themselves Catholic who are not in communion with or recognize the authority of the Holy See. Anglicans, Old Catholics, SSPXers...are they to be allowed to debate? And the bit about the icon is pretty much useless...some people have them, some don't, some Catholics use a plain cross...yadayada.

I think the line should be changed to read..'All Catholics in communion with the Holy See in Rome are welcome to participate fully etc...' And just take out the whole bit about icons. But I didn't want to do it without running by y'all first. :)
Agreed, but I think it should be clarified who exactly would be considered in Communion with the Holy See.

[geocajun]

I see a discrepancy in that we are asking non-catholics not to debate catholic teaching in OBOB, and then stating at the discretion of the moderator, congenial debate 'may' be permitted. We should have more clarity here, as it would not be fair for a poster to attempt congenial debate only to find the mod didn't like it from them, but wouldn't have minded it from someone else.

[geocajun]

I corrected some spelling. :P But I do want to ask that we consider changing the line that reads 'All who consider themselves Catholic...'

Just want to remind everyone that there are alot of people who consider themselves Catholic who are not in communion with or recognize the authority of the Holy See. Anglicans, Old Catholics, SSPXers...are they to be allowed to debate? And the bit about the icon is pretty much useless...some people have them, some don't, some Catholics use a plain cross...yadayada.

I think the line should be changed to read..'All Catholics in communion with the Holy See in Rome are welcome to participate fully etc...' And just take out the whole bit about icons. But I didn't want to do it without running by y'all first. :)
Before you posted this, it stated that folks would need to be in communion with the pope.
That was removed, and whoever removed it did not log the change here.

[JeffreyLloyd]

So we need to change it back to in communion with the pope.

[Letalis]

I see a discrepancy in that we are asking non-catholics not to debate catholic teaching in OBOB, and then stating at the discretion of the moderator, congenial debate 'may' be permitted. We should have more clarity here, as it would not be fair for a poster to attempt congenial debate only to find the mod didn't like it from them, but wouldn't have minded it from someone else.
That part should be removed.

[geocajun]

So we need to change it back to in communion with the pope.
I think we should, definately.

[ZooMom]

I think we should, definately.
MikeK made the edit to remove it.


Done...and I changed the part about debate...but now the the bits at the bottom seem a bit redundant and unclear. Can we just take those out?

[Fish and Bread]

As a suggestion, I would like to submit for consideration the concept that it might be considered that having rules that are as unrestrictive as is considered feasible to begin could be to the benefit of the forum in the future by allowing everyone to see what works in practical reality and what does not. Having had that the experience, additional restrictions could be put in place (or not, depending on how things go) to optimize things. By starting from a less restricted basis one is often better able to discern what does and does not work than when one starts from a highly restricted basis without doing anything ad experientum.

Just thought that might be something that would be helpful in this conversation as gradually I see the entry growing more and more restricted and including fewer and fewer categories of discussion for more and more people.

[ZooMom]

Hi, F&B. :angel: God give you Peace!

I must disagree in that I don't see the outline we have right now being very restrictive at all. In fact...it's pretty darn close to what OBOB is supposed to have been all along. We WANT other people to come in...we want conversation and fellowship and even debate...but we *are* Catholic and we will ensure that the truth of our faith is presented without diluting or editing just to make other people 'ok' with it. If someone is sincerely desiring a well mannered and civil debate...I don't think it's asking too much to get the ok from an OBOB mod first. The thread will be flagged by the mod, so reports don't pour in by confused people...and will stay open as long as the rules regarding conduct are followed. :)


Peace be with you!

Sandy

[JeffreyLloyd]

Hi, F&B. :angel: God give you Peace!

I must disagree in that I don't see the outline we have right now being very restrictive at all. In fact...it's pretty darn close to what OBOB is supposed to have been all along. We WANT other people to come in...we want conversation and fellowship and even debate...but we *are* Catholic and we will ensure that the truth of our faith is presented without diluting or editing just to make other people 'ok' with it. If someone is sincerely desiring a well mannered and civil debate...I don't think it's asking too much to get the ok from an OBOB mod first. The thread will be flagged by the mod, so reports don't pour in by confused people...and will stay open as long as the rules regarding conduct are followed. :)


Peace be with you!

Sandy

Right on

[JeffreyLloyd]

I changed it to:

All core forum rules apply.

Wiki: Christian Forums Rules

OBOB Subforum Rules
Welcome to the One Bread, One Body - Catholic Forum. A place to discuss issues and topics relating to the Catholic Church. That is, all Christians and churches who are united under the leadership of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.


Non-Catholic's are welcome for fellowship, questions and inquiries. They may even participate in or propose debates with the specific permission of an OBOB moderator, so all such debates canl be clearly flagged to avoid confusion.
Debating the faith among Catholic brothers and sisters is allowed and encouraged as long as it is done respectfully.

[ZooMom]

Why does this thread show four pages of responses and I can only read three?

[ZooMom]

Well...fudge...that post put me on page four.

[geocajun]

Long ago, we had a sticky in OBOB titled "Please read before posting!!!!" and it contained the old forum-specific rules - does anyone have a copy of it? If so, can you post it here so we can use it for discussion?

[ZooMom]

I don't...even if it got unstickied it should still be in the forum. Someone who is a Site Supporter should be able to do a search for it. :)

[geocajun]

Found it: http://www.christianforums.com/t155768-please-read-before-posting-welcome-to-the-one-bread-one-body-forum.html

"Welcome to the One Bread, One Body Catholic Forum. (http://www.christianforums.com/f26) This is the place to discuss issues and topics relating to the Catholic Church---that is, Christians and churches who are united under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff, and who believe in Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. All Christians are welcome and are invited to discuss issues with us. We only ask two things in return:




1) This is a forum made up of Catholics who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II and the Holy See. We would ask that discussions of a doctrinal nature please bear this in mind as the model to adhere to; although there are varying definitions of what "catholic" is, in order to dispel confusion among non-Catholic visitors and disruption of the forum as a whole, this is the definition of "Catholic" for this forum.

2) Those with disagreements or issues about Catholic faith and doctrine are asked to post respectfully and politely; you may "agree to disagree", but you may not disparage, denigrate, or libel Catholicism, nor may you post links to anti-Catholic sites, pictures, etc. Die-hard anti-Catholics are firmly asked to take such material elsewhere; this is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. Feel free to ask questions; but do not slam Catholics, Catholicism, or the Catholic Church.

Everyone is welcome to post in this forum, and we look forward to stimulating discussions.

Please abide by the rules, and may God bless you! "

These rules are in addition to our general Forum Rules, and are specific to this forum.

Catholic Forum Rules

1) This forum is open to all Christians. Non-Christian members are not allowed to post here.

2) Catholic Christian members can post fellowship threads here as well as debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own Church and other denominations (including the Protestant and non-Catholic churches), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Catholic members (eg. Protestant members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Catholic doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Catholic. Any debate posts by Non-Catholics will be deleted and may earn the said member a warning. In other words, only Catholic members can debate here.

4) Only Catholics may moderate posts in this forum.

5) No posts that denigrate a Christian denomination (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) will be tolerated - these will be deleted and the poster will be warned.

Basically, we do NOT allow accusations that a particular Christian denomination or group is non-Christian. That is the bottom line. Debates regarding doctrine is allowed. Accusations are not.

Examples of what is not allowed, and what is allowed:

Not allowed: "Martin Luther was influenced by the Devil"
Allowed: "Martin Luther was misguided in his intentions" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "The Reformation was led by the Devil"
Allowed: "The Reformation was a misguided attempt at reforming the church" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "Protestant churches are cults"
Allowed: "Some Protestant churches have errors in some doctrines" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "The Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian Church"
Allowed: "The Catholic church have an important role to play in Christianity" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "All Non-Catholics go to hell"
Allowed: "Some Non-Catholics may not be saved because they have wrong beliefs" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "Speaking in tongues is demonic"
Allowed: "Speaking in tongues is being abused in some churches" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "Charismatic Christians are not saved"
Allowed: "The charismatic movement have gone too far in some cases" - as long as scripture a nd evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "Word of Faith preachers are false prophets"
Allowed: "The Word of Faith movement have gone too far in certain instances" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Basically, try to rephrase your question and post so that it does not come across as being judgemental and accusatory. You will find that the message gets across better, and the debate will remain civil.

6) Feel free to report posts that you believe have broken these rules to the moderators of this forum by clicking on the "Report" link at the bottom of each post.

God bless you all. We hope that these rules will promote unity between Christians from all denominations, and foster a better atmosphere for the exchange of ideas so that we can all grow together in God.

[ZooMom]

Awwww...it still says John Paul II...:angel:

[geocajun]

Awwww...it still says John Paul II...:angel:
yea, wild huh? Those rules sure bring back memories. I wouldn't mind seeing them reinstated as they were to be honest.

[ZooMom]

Looks good to me :)...except that we would need to remove the small bits about non-Christians not being allowed to post.

[JeffreyLloyd]

yea, wild huh? Those rules sure bring back memories. I wouldn't mind seeing them reinstated as they were to be honest.

re sticky it or add it as part of the new rules?

[geocajun]

re sticky it or add it as part of the new rules?
I think we should reuse the bulk of it in our new rules. Those old rules took a long time to develop, and I don't know if there was anything specifically bad about them. What are your thoughts?

[helenofbritain]

I think we should reuse the bulk of it in our new rules. Those old rules took a long time to develop, and I don't know if there was anything specifically bad about them. What are your thoughts?
Yep, the old sticky rules are topnotch :thumbsup: (with some small modifications anyway)

[kamikat]

I hope you don't mind a question, but we have something in common. How are y'all going to handle your catechumens? Since they aren't technically members of the church yet, do they qualify as OBOB members and do you plan on having special wording in your rules that applies to catechumens?

[JeffreyLloyd]

Yes, for me at least. As soon as someone sincerely says they want to be Catholic and they start the RCIA process, they are Catholic enough for me :)

[ZooMom]

Yes, for me at least. As soon as someone sincerely says they want to be Catholic and they start the RCIA process, they are Catholic enough for me :)


Ditto for me. :)

Catechumens are...by and large...just eager to learn. They are asking questions left and right and just soaking up the answers...they aren't debating. So there's really no need to specify or put limits on their participation.

[Letalis]

Yes, for me at least. As soon as someone sincerely says they want to be Catholic and they start the RCIA process, they are Catholic enough for me :)
Agreed.

I'd even go so far as to say catechumens should be given some degree of leniency.

[nyj]

Suggestion #1: We couch the OBOB rules in terms of Jesus' commandments found in Matthew 22.

Loving God would be in reference to all "Catholic theological matters" (i.e., orthodoxy), loving our neighbor would be in reference to "OBOB social interactions" (i.e., orthopraxy).

[JeffreyLloyd]

Suggestion #1: We couch the OBOB rules in terms of Jesus' commandments found in Matthew 22.

Loving God would be in reference to all "Catholic theological matters" (i.e., orthodoxy), loving our neighbor would be in reference to "OBOB social interactions" (i.e., orthopraxy).

I would really like to try this.

[geocajun]

I hope you don't mind a question, but we have something in common. How are y'all going to handle your catechumens? Since they aren't technically members of the church yet, do they qualify as OBOB members and do you plan on having special wording in your rules that applies to catechumens?

Yes, for me at least. As soon as someone sincerely says they want to be Catholic and they start the RCIA process, they are Catholic enough for me :)

Ditto for me. :)

Catechumens are...by and large...just eager to learn. They are asking questions left and right and just soaking up the answers...they aren't debating. So there's really no need to specify or put limits on their participation.

Agreed.

I'd even go so far as to say catechumens should be given some degree of leniency.

agreed - worth noting the practice of the catholic church in regard to catechumens is to give them catholic funerals and such if they die in the middle of the process of being fully accepted in communion.

[JeffreyLloyd]

Okay I have sticked the rules we have for now as OBOB Forum rules v1.0 because we need to have some rules in place. However the wiki is unlocked and you can edit it to improve upon what we now have. We have a pretty good consensus we will update OBOB's rules and make that version 2, and so on...

[faerieevaH]

I'm uncomfortable with the wording of this rule:
"No promotion of views contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church is allowed. Should a conflict arise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is considered the standard of orthodoxy and faith."

What is meant by promotion. We all know that there are areas, big and small, in which people differ of opinion with the Church, going from their opinion to 'traditional Catholic' organisations to birthcontrol.
This would make it impossible for them to even speak on how they feel and why. I think there should be a possibility for them, as long as they ACKNOWLEDGE within their posts that they are going against Church teachings.

[Fish and Bread]

The third rule and the creed seem to have been added with no discussion or debate at all, unilaterally, possibly even by someone just wandering by. Shouldn't they be taken down until people have been allowed a chance to discuss it and come to a consensus?

[geocajun]

I'm uncomfortable with the wording of this rule:
"No promotion of views contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church is allowed. Should a conflict arise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is considered the standard of orthodoxy and faith."

What is meant by promotion. We all know that there are areas, big and small, in which people differ of opinion with the Church, going from their opinion to 'traditional Catholic' organisations to birthcontrol.
This would make it impossible for them to even speak on how they feel and why. I think there should be a possibility for them, as long as they ACKNOWLEDGE within their posts that they are going against Church teachings.
I disagree with it as well. It is a challenge here, that anyone can edit the wiki without discussion, but that also means their edits can be deleted as well.

[JeffreyLloyd]

Okay, I just edited it using OBOB's first set of rules. What do you think?

[geocajun]

Okay, I just edited it using OBOB's first set of rules. What do you think?
I like it. I wonder though, if we can actually limit the ability of non-catholic supermoderators to mod posts within OBOB, given the statement by Erwin on where supermods are able to moderate?

[Tonks]

I like it. I wonder though, if we can actually limit the ability of non-catholic supermoderators to mod posts within OBOB, given the statement by Erwin on where supermods are able to moderate?

Probably not. Then again that sort of presupposes a burning desire to get up in OBOB's business - which I certainly hope is not the case...

[JeffreyLloyd]

I'm pretty sure we can do whatever we wish, same as other forums. Remember we now community based

[boughtwithaprice]

Okay I have sticked the rules we have for now as OBOB Forum rules v1.0 because we need to have some rules in place. However the wiki is unlocked and you can edit it to improve upon what we now have. We have a pretty good consensus we will update OBOB's rules and make that version 2, and so on...


I have removed the phrase "as long as it acknowledges that the teachings on faith and morals is infallible and unchanging" from rule 3 , as it would place liberals at a disadvantage. What I see happening would be debate over whether a teaching is infallible or not, rather than debate on the teaching itself. Liberals hope for change in the church, and I was under the impression that doctrine can be changed, what cannot be changed is dogma. Open defiance of church teaching and promotion of the same should be prohibited, but I don't think that those who humbly hope for change should be prohibited from expressing their views. A rule that requires the debates to remain respectful should be sufficient IMO

[JeffreyLloyd]

I have removed the phrase "as long as it acknowledges that the teachings on faith and morals is infallible and unchanging" from rule 3 , as it would place liberals at a disadvantage. What I see happening would be debate over whether a teaching is infallible or not, rather than debate on the teaching itself. Liberals hope for change in the church, and I was under the impression that doctrine can be changed, what cannot be changed is dogma. Open defiance of church teaching and promotion of the same should be prohibited, but I don't think that those who humbly hope for change should be prohibited from expressing their views. A rule that requires the debates to remain respectful should be sufficient IMO

Agreed

[Benedicta00]

I have removed the phrase "as long as it acknowledges that the teachings on faith and morals is infallible and unchanging" from rule 3 , as it would place liberals at a disadvantage. What I see happening would be debate over whether a teaching is infallible or not, rather than debate on the teaching itself. Liberals hope for change in the church, and I was under the impression that doctrine can be changed, what cannot be changed is dogma. Open defiance of church teaching and promotion of the same should be prohibited, but I don't think that those who humbly hope for change should be prohibited from expressing their views. A rule that requires the debates to remain respectful should be sufficient IMO
No, Jerome doctrine can not be changed. Rules and disciplines can but not doctrine.

[boughtwithaprice]

No, Jerome doctrine can not be changed. Rules and disciplines can but not doctrine.
I believe that you are confusing doctrine with dogma.
Do you have an official source for us to see?

[_Shannon_]

I'm really not sure how to work this in, or if it's even appropriate in the rules- but I really feel strongly that OBOB mods should not be editors-but moderators. e.g. If someone comes in making a claim that the Church teaches such and such- I would love to see a mod hat post explaining why that is wrong (with charity) rather than just having the post removed. I am very uncomfortable with the role of moderators being orthodoxy police. I think it is better to allow for things to be hashed out within a thread.

[Tonks]

I'm pretty sure we can do whatever we wish, same as other forums. Remember we now community based

I don't think that you can overrule Erwin's staff position descriptions. Short of that, yes you can do as you wish.

[JeffreyLloyd]

The wiki is locked. Let's figure out here what we are going to do in regards to "liberals" - the I edit, you edit games will get old otherwise.

[boughtwithaprice]

The wiki is locked. Let's figure out here what we are going to do in regards to "liberals" - the I edit, you edit games will get old otherwise.

No matter how things turn out; I wanted to take the time to thank you, Jeff, for all that you are trying to do for OBOB and CF

[JeffreyLloyd]

My worse nightmare is we have breakaway OBOBs. We are Catholic, we are united I don't want split forums for "liberals" and "Trads" - there has to be away we can all agree.

The rules right now say Catholics can debate each other as long as it is done so respectfully. This is a good start.

This is an extreme example -

I would hope no Catholic would come along to try and promote abortion or abortion "rights." But if they do, what is the best way to handle it? I think to ban all kinds of conversation is wrong and short sided because believe it or not there are many Catholics who are pro choice.

Me personally, I believe the Church, Scripture and our Bishops are on the other side so life. It wouldn't be hard to show a Pro-choice member the errors of their argument.

Remember if things get heated and out of line they then break our rule of being respectful. And we could edit, remove their posts.

Does this make sense?

[geocajun]

I'm pretty sure we can do whatever we wish, same as other forums. Remember we now community based
Ya know, thinking about it, I bet you're right.

[boughtwithaprice]

That makes sense to me, Jeff, and it is how I would want it. We, as Catholics, should be able to come together and discuss all aspects of our faith.
My theory, is that the truth can stand on its own, and error falls away under the light of truth. If we can speak of subjects openly and share our views and reasons for them, while maintaining respect as brothers and sisters, great learning and joy can take place for all involved. Some people may think that this is "kumbaya" kind of thinking, but it is what I believe.

I do believe that if speech is limited, and posts deleted or ignored, we may wind up with some splinter OBOBs; probably even in both directions:( SSPX and Catholics for Choice would be the two extremes. We have to find a way to keep OBOB as one forum, yet keep it from deviating too far in the extreme. Its going to take some cool moderators and apologists with level heads, and its is going to be a lot of work.

[geocajun]

I'm really not sure how to work this in, or if it's even appropriate in the rules- but I really feel strongly that OBOB mods should not be editors-but moderators. e.g. If someone comes in making a claim that the Church teaches such and such- I would love to see a mod hat post explaining why that is wrong (with charity) rather than just having the post removed. I am very uncomfortable with the role of moderators being orthodoxy police. I think it is better to allow for things to be hashed out within a thread.
I think that is a valid concern. I don't see why we cannot create rules which govern how moderators should apply the rules, so long as our rules do not conflict with the rules Erwin set forth.

[geocajun]

My worse nightmare is we have breakaway OBOBs. We are Catholic, we are united I don't want split forums for "liberals" and "Trads" - there has to be away we can all agree.

The rules right now say Catholics can debate each other as long as it is done so respectfully. This is a good start.

This is an extreme example -

I would hope no Catholic would come along to try and promote abortion or abortion "rights." But if they do, what is the best way to handle it? I think to ban all kinds of conversation is wrong and short sided because believe it or not there are many Catholics who are pro choice.

Me personally, I believe the Church, Scripture and our Bishops are on the other side so life. It wouldn't be hard to show a Pro-choice member the errors of their argument.

Remember if things get heated and out of line they then break our rule of being respectful. And we could edit, remove their posts.

Does this make sense?
I think it makes great sense. I think what also get a chance to demonstrate not only errors (when folks assert something contrary to catholic teaching), and how to handle those errors respectfully.

[helenofbritain]

You are an ideas man, Jeff.

Top work :thumbsup:

[geocajun]

why is the wiki locked right now?

[boughtwithaprice]

why is the wiki locked right now?
see post #63

[JeffreyLloyd]

I've unlocked it now. I hope we can contribute together and not make wild edits without talking to everyone else.

[geocajun]

I've unlocked it now. I hope we can contribute together and not make wild edits without talking to everyone else.
I think the Wiki admin will need to find a way to track folks who edit wiki articles with the same thing over and over again, without engaging in discussion in the wiki. I wonder how wikipedia handles that sort of thing - IIRC, they suspect editing rights for the individual. I think we should do some research on that..

[Benedicta00]

I believe that you are confusing doctrine with dogma.
Do you have an official source for us to see?
No, I'm not confused.

The deposit of faith that comes down to us from the apostles is infallible, thus it can not be changed.

Church rules and disciplines are not infallible, thus they can be changed. It's church law, not divine law.

Faith and morals are not rules and disciplines. They are infallible teachings that the Church has no power to change.

[_Shannon_]

My worse nightmare is we have breakaway OBOBs. We are Catholic, we are united I don't want split forums for "liberals" and "Trads" - there has to be away we can all agree.

The rules right now say Catholics can debate each other as long as it is done so respectfully. This is a good start.

This is an extreme example -

I would hope no Catholic would come along to try and promote abortion or abortion "rights." But if they do, what is the best way to handle it? I think to ban all kinds of conversation is wrong and short sided because believe it or not there are many Catholics who are pro choice.

Me personally, I believe the Church, Scripture and our Bishops are on the other side so life. It wouldn't be hard to show a Pro-choice member the errors of their argument.

Remember if things get heated and out of line they then break our rule of being respectful. And we could edit, remove their posts.

Does this make sense?
I think this is absolutely going in the right direction...more conversation is good, I think. I don't know if y'all who moderate knew how long I really needed to talk through some of my struggles with contraception--and didn't because I was afraid that the mods would just close it. However it turned out when I finally started my thread- that it was a thread full of orthodoxy--but one very full with respect, love, and reverence.

The one real problem I see is that "respectful" is pretty vague- and left up to an individual moderator's discretion. That could potentially cause some troubles --"Miss Shelby gets to say that, but I don't" However, if there are no warnings given out then hopefully those issues can again either be hashed out in the thread, or via PM from a mod???

Maybe we could add a sticky in OBOB that is a link to an online CCC?? And it could be there to be used readily as reference.

Ohh- I had a thought-- I need to dig out the specific verse about sharing the Gospel in love and reverence, but maybe that might be a good thing to frame our rules. Either that or the one about wrangling over words :)

[boughtwithaprice]

No, I'm not confused.

The deposit of faith that comes down to us from the apostles is infallible, thus it can not be changed.

Church rules and disciplines are not infallible, thus they can be changed. It's church law, not divine law.

Faith and morals are not rules and disciplines. They are infallible teachings that the Church has no power to change.
you still have provided no source for your statements; therefore, at this stage, it is just your opinion.

[geocajun]

you still have provided no source for your statements; therefore, at this stage, it is just your opinion.
If you start a thread about it in OBOB, I'm sure you'll get the citations (i may provide them myself).

[Pogue]

A question on rule 6- does 'other faiths' refer only to Christian denominations, or to all religious faiths? If it refers to all religious faiths, might it be worth adding an example or two of a non-Christian religion, to underline the fact that flaming of all faiths is banned?

Hope that made some sort of sense :)

[Miss Shelby]

I have concerns about usage of the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' as being descriptive of faith. These are political words and I don't think faith should be politicized.

[Maynard Keenan]

In politics you have liberal vs. conservative.
In faith you have liberal vs. traditional.

Liberal is used in both cases but they aren't synonymous. They often go hand in hand but not always. Political liberalism is characterized by support for social liberty, progressive taxation, and government action to improve the welfare of people and the nation in general. Religious liberalism is basically a departure from traditional thinking on issues of scripture and faith.

Liberal is just an adjective, not a solely political word. I could throw a liberal helping of jelly on my toast, and there would be nothing political about it. Come to think of it, that sounds like a tasty idea!

[geocajun]

In politics you have liberal vs. conservative.
In faith you have liberal vs. traditional.

Liberal is used in both cases but they aren't synonymous. They often go hand in hand but not always. Political liberalism is characterized by support for social liberty, progressive taxation, and government action to improve the welfare of people and the nation in general. Religious liberalism is basically a departure from traditional thinking on issues of scripture and faith.

Liberal is just an adjective, not a solely political word. I could throw a liberal helping of jelly on my toast, and there would be nothing political about it. Come to think of it, that sounds like a tasty idea!
That is a result of folks attempting to place dissension into a nicer, easier to swallow package. In reality it is not "liberal vs traditional" but rather "Orthodox vs Unorthodox".

[helenofbritain]

Quoth RoseofLima: Maybe we could add a sticky in OBOB that is a link to an online CCC?? And it could be there to be used readily as reference.

Here's one: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

:wave:

[Miss Shelby]

In politics you have liberal vs. conservative.
In faith you have liberal vs. traditional.

Liberal is used in both cases but they aren't synonymous. They often go hand in hand but not always. Political liberalism is characterized by support for social liberty, progressive taxation, and government action to improve the welfare of people and the nation in general. Religious liberalism is basically a departure from traditional thinking on issues of scripture and faith.

Liberal is just an adjective, not a solely political word. I could throw a liberal helping of jelly on my toast, and there would be nothing political about it. Come to think of it, that sounds like a tasty idea!
Jerome has expressed that some want to make this 'conservative Catholic' forum. If you want to justify the use of the word liberal, that's fine. But I don't identify as a conservative Catholic because I don't disregard Traditional Magisterial teachings on matters of faith and morals. I am a Catholic. Not a conservative Catholic.

[_Shannon_]

Here's one: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

:wave:
Yeah- like that :) I just think that having that prominently displayed, and easily accessible would allow mods or posters to easily reference what the CCC states about an issue. I dunno- what do y'all think??

Any chance we can couch the symantics argument?? Can we instead look at it from a perspective of being at different places on the same path---certainly there must be a way to allow for varied viewpoints within OBOB...as it is my feeling that far more Catholics tend to not be active enforcers of the entirety of millinea of Magisterial teaching. It just seems so much better to me not to moderate for perceived fidelity.

[MikeK]

Before you posted this, it stated that folks would need to be in communion with the pope.
That was removed, and whoever removed it did not log the change here.


I think we should, definately.
MikeK made the edit to remove it.

This goes back a ways, but I'm not a big enough man to let it slide. MikeK did no such thing. MikeK removed a comma from where it didn't belong and didn't feel like poiting such a simple error out. Sorry.

[geocajun]

This goes back a ways, but I'm not a big enough man to let it slide. MikeK did no such thing. MikeK removed a comma from where it didn't belong and didn't feel like poiting such a simple error out. Sorry.
doh! I thought I edited that. I went and looked at the history, and thought you did it at first, and when I realized I misread it, then I thought I edited my post. My apologies Mike, it wasn't you.

[MikeK]

No worries, Geo.:)

[JeffreyLloyd]

I've removed:

The Nicene Creed is very dear to our Church, and it is printed below for those interested in learning a little bit about our core beliefs before posting.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; begotten of the Father before all ages. God from God, light from light, true God from true God. Begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, Jesus Christ came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died and was buried. On the third day He rose from the dead, in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven. He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified. He spoke by the Prophets. And I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Thank you, God bless you, and we hope you have a wonderful time here with the OBOB family.


1) That is not the creed used at Mass
2) It has nothing to do with the rules

[geocajun]

I've removed:



1) That is not the creed used at Mass
2) It has nothing to do with the rules
good edit, Jeff.

[geocajun]

Doesn't rule #5 (Should a conflict arise of a doctrinal nature outside the debate subforum mentioned above, the Holy Scriptures together with the Catechism of the Catholic Church is considered the standard of faith expected from our Catholic members.) sort of presuppose the faulty idea that the moderators will have to intervene deciding which view is more catholic? I think in obvious cases, that wouldn't be a big deal, but in technical debates which go beyond the surface of what the CCC provides, we could run into difficulty. I'm just throwing it out there for discussion. Contraception for example, would not read the same in the CCC, as does HV, or other encyclicals on the matter. The CCC was never intended to be the representative of the complete deposit of faith, though it does a good job with most of it.

[Aaron-Aggie]

I made my contribution :)

[geocajun]

I made my contribution :)
I was going to ask what it was, but then I looked and it was obvious :D

[WarriorAngel]

I think that, at least at first, the congregation forums should be strict as far as "dissent" goes. Because these forums are designed to be safe-havens for different communities, we should try to maintain that atmosphere.

:thumbsup:

I propose the Apostles Creed. :)
In addition to or in place of the Nicene Creed.

[geocajun]

I edited and removed
"

Adoration :)
When expressing an opinion that differs from the Catholic Church teachings please state this as so there is no confusion."
because, even though I liked the adoration one, it isn't a forum rule so it doesn't belong there. The second one I see as over regulation, totally unnecessary. This is not an academic center, its an internet forum.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I agree

[_Shannon_]

My contribution was adding the word "Rite" in after Eastern and before Divine Liturgy.

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

The outline looks ok. I think we should keep al of the rules for OBOB as they existed on the old CF with the exception of the debate forum.

[RebekkaH]

I have a few questions.


If debates involve posting views that are contrary to the teachings of the Church, such debates should be moved to the debate subforum.
Promoting views contrary to the teachings of the Church in the main part of OBOB is strictly prohibited. Threads that dissent from Church teachings are seperated from the main part of OBOB to respect the rights of those who do not wish to read them

Probably a stupid question, but what is meant by that debate subforum - is it in OBOB, or somewhere else?

And is posting a view contrary to church teaching the same as promoting it? If it is, then what about

This forum is open to those who accept all the teachings of the Church as well as those who are struggling with some of them. It is hoped that through dialogue, both sides can learn from each other and grow to better understand the truths of our beautiful faith.

? :confused: What is the difference between struggling with something and posting about it (which probably leads to posting a view contrary to church teaching), and promoting views contrary to church teaching? How can you accept the struggling if those who struggle can't post about their struggles? And would those struggles have to be posted in the debate subforum? (And, where is the debate subforum? which was my first question.)

And (I'm really dense, and a computer illiterate, AND modern times have not yet reached me, sorry) I have no idea what wikification means - does this mean that the rules will change forever? :confused:

[boughtwithaprice]

The rules in the Wiki, as written, are unacceptable. We probably should form a seperate forum, as this seems to be getting nowhere. Do you have an alternate solution, Jeff?

[nyj]

I changed article #1 a bit, to read as follows:

This forum is open, for debate, discussion, and fellowship, to those who accept the teachings of the Church. 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. 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.

If it's off the mark, feel free to back the change out.

[geocajun]

I think that is well written nyj :thumbsup:

[boughtwithaprice]

I appreciate the gesture, Tom, but I don't like the idea of a debate subforum. I carries the possibility of some Catholics being treated as second class citizens. I think that we should either allow discussion or not. If threads are to be moved to a subforum, lets just make a whole new forum where things could be discussed freely amongst Catholics. Why bother with a subforum?

[Lel]

What are your specific disagreements, bwap?

[nyj]

Jerome,

I've only looked at Article #1 (and added #8 to get some discussion on that, because it's needed). I'm sure we can work out something on debate, maybe even without a sub-forum. Though why we would need a new forum, I'm not sure.

[boughtwithaprice]

Jerome,

I've only looked at Article #1 (and added #8 to get some discussion on that, because it's needed). I'm sure we can work out something on debate, maybe even without a sub-forum. Though why we would need a new forum, I'm not sure.
article 4 seems to specifically create a new forum, but leaves it as a subforum of OBOB.

My objection to this is that it treats some members of the Catholic church as second class. There are Catholics that wish to discuss controvesial topics and desire to do so with out interference from the moderators, other than to enforce civil discussion. I do not like the idea that staff should enforce orthodoxy. This sets them up as judges, rather than mods. If the members vote to have OBOB that way, then by all means do so, but you should not deny your Catholic brothers and sisters the right to speak freely either. That is why a seperate forum, with its own moderators may be necessary, undesirable, but necessary.

[nyj]

Define "discuss controversial topics". I need to know what you consider discussion.

[boughtwithaprice]

Define "discuss controversial topics". I need to know what you consider discussion.
Miriam Webster defines discussion two ways

Main Entry: dis·cus·sion http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?discus05.wav=discussion'))
Pronunciation: di-'sk&-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing


My thinking is along the lines of definition 1

[geocajun]

I am not in favor of a sub-forum for discussing things like contraception, or abortion, and so forth. I think they should be discussed among catholics in the open (as they have been in the past).

[JeffreyLloyd]

I am not in favor of a sub-forum for discussing things like contraception, or abortion, and so forth. I think they should be discussed among catholics in the open (as they have been in the past).

Yeah, no subforum. Everything out in the open.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I've removed all references to a subforum.

[RebekkaH]

I still don't know what promotion means.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I still don't know what promotion means.

Promoting adoration, for example:

Hey Rebekka , you should spend sometime at adoration, it will really help your spiritual life spending one on one time with Jesus.

[MikeK]

Promotion.

I would think that stating "I enjoy time spent in adoration, it it has really helped my spiritual life spending one on one time with Jesus." is not promotion, but "you should spend some time in adoration, it will really help your spiritual life spending one on one time with Jesus." is. Is this how everyone else sees it?

Put another way, "I acknowledge that the Church currently teaches that women cannot become Priests, but I personally believe that they should be able to" isn't promotion, but advocating changing Church Dogmas or encouraging others to dissent from Church teachings is?

[nyj]

I added an "Administrative Matters" section to the OBOB Wiki.

Send hatemail my way.

Administrative Matters

Moderating Duties

Only moderators, elected by the OBOB community, will be allowed to moderate inside OBOB. Catholic staff, who serve in Administrative and Moderatory positions elsewhere throughout the site cannot moderate inside OBOB unless they have been voted upon.Election of Moderators

Election of OBOB Moderators will be done by vote within the OBOB forum.
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, 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.
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.
At this point, both threads will be closed. The moderator who tallied the votes will, if they vote results in 80% or greater approval, 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.
To avoid accusations of bias and/or favoritism, only Catholics in communion with the Pope in Rome, will be considered for entry into the OBOB Roll Call.
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 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.

[JeffreyLloyd]

Is the roll call considered the "List of OBOB members?"

btw, I think what you added was very good.

[geocajun]

nyj, what practical value does the 'apply later' option provide in the polls with the new system?

[nyj]

nyj, what practical value does the 'apply later' option provide in the polls with the new system?Good question. I forgot to add it. It would allow someone to reapply in 120 days (4 months). A no would force them to wait an entire year.

Or at least that is what I would propose.

[nyj]

Is the roll call considered the "List of OBOB members?"
Well, that current list contains non-Catholics. We'd need something else, but it could serve as our template.

[JeffreyLloyd]

How often will be hold elections? Every January? Or could you for example call a special election if the need arises?

[nyj]

I dunno. Didn't think about that. :) Should we have a limit to the number of moderators we have in OBOB too?

[geocajun]

Good question. I forgot to add it. It would allow someone to reapply in 120 days (4 months). A no would force them to wait an entire year.

Or at least that is what I would propose.

How often will be hold elections? Every January? Or could you for example call a special election if the need arises?

hrmmm so will we have annual and mid-year elections? mid-year for those who are 'apply laters'? What about voting out staff? is that a mid-year function as well?

[geocajun]

I dunno. Didn't think about that. :) Should we have a limit to the number of moderators we have in OBOB too?
I think so. I think have 7-10 mods has always seemed to work well in OBOB.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I dunno. Didn't think about that. :) Should we have a limit to the number of moderators we have in OBOB too?

Yeah, I think so - from my experience we need:

1 - Team Leader - ADMIN
2 - Super Moderators - (Former Supervisor)
6 - Moderator

[JeffreyLloyd]

hrmmm so will we have annual and mid-year elections? mid-year for those who are 'apply laters'? What about voting out staff? is that a mid-year function as well?

I don't think we should handle "voting out staff" - lets let senior OBOB staff handle that if anyone becomes a problem.

[nyj]

hrmmm so will we have annual and mid-year elections? mid-year for those who are 'apply laters'? What about voting out staff? is that a mid-year function as well?
Perhaps current staff automatically come up for re-vote after 6 months. They're allowed to serve 2 consecutive terms and then must sit out a cycle?

We can hold elections on Jan 1 and July 1 (or skew it to be March 1 and September 1 for example). Even if a moderator is up for re-vote, they can nominate someone.

We should probably limit the number of nominations. This should be done by the current staff, and discussions are public in the Congregational Staff area?

[nyj]

Yeah, I think so - from my experience we need:

1 - Team Leader - ADMIN
2 - Super Moderators - (Former Supervisor)
6 - Moderator

How about Moderators (between 6 and 9) and a Team Leader who they choose from amongst themselves?

[geocajun]

I don't think we should handle "voting out staff" - lets let senior OBOB staff handle that if anyone becomes a problem.
I'm not positive, but I do not think that is what Erwin had in mind with the community based system.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I'm not positive, but I do not think that is what Erwin had in mind with the community based system.

I think so, if you look at the staff structure in the new CR. When we are having problems we have a chain of command. Do we really want to turn OBOB into a big court room for impeachment hearings?

[JeffreyLloyd]

How about Moderators (between 6 and 9) and a Team Leader who they choose from amongst themselves?

Good idea. I was just trying to think of how the TL would be chosen, I was thinking the member with the most yes votes, but that is a good idea too.

[geocajun]

I think so, if you look at the staff structure in the new CR. When we are having problems we have a chain of command. Do we really want to turn OBOB into a big court room for impeachment hearings?
no, that isn't what I want, but this isn't about what I want either. I know it's a touchy subject, but it should be discussed. Jeff, as the TL for OBOB can you address this with Erwin and let us know what you find out?

[geocajun]

Good idea. I was just trying to think of how the TL would be chosen, I was thinking the member with the most yes votes, but that is a good idea too.
Erwin stated the staff team would elect their leader here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36711940&postcount=49


1. The Admin decides which Staff Team he or she wants to join. The Admin joins the Staff Team.

2. The Staff Team decides whether they want that Admin to be their Admin. If yes, the Admin is the Admin of that Staff Team. If not, the Admin becomes a Supermod of that Staff Team.

This way, both parties are given choices.

[JeffreyLloyd]

Erwin stated the staff team would elect their leader here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36711940&postcount=49

Sounds good.

[MikeK]

I removed "Honey wins more bees than vinegar." Bees make honey, honey doesn't win bees.

[Letalis]

I think so, if you look at the staff structure in the new CR. When we are having problems we have a chain of command. Do we really want to turn OBOB into a big court room for impeachment hearings?
I'm not sure if OBOB can come up with its own way of dealing with staff problems. I agree with you that it would be a mess, but some members are trying to Wiki a set process, and I don't know if we would be allowed to write our own exception.

[JeffreyLloyd]

I removed "Honey wins more bees than vinegar." Bees make honey, honey doesn't win bees.

Good edit :D

[D'Ann]

Good work you guys and gals.

[poppinskw]

Election of OBOB Moderators will be done by vote within the OBOB forum.
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.I think these Adminstrative Matters rules are good.... but, I was wondering how it would work re the mod applications.. Dont the applications go to the ET applications and are voted on in general there?

Would they be moved from there to OBOB? Or could there be something added to the application that would bring them straight to OBOB.

Sorry if that is a bit messy, still trying to work this wiki thing out, its a first for me :)

Les

[RebekkaH]

Promotion.

I would think that stating "I enjoy time spent in adoration, it it has really helped my spiritual life spending one on one time with Jesus." is not promotion, but "you should spend some time in adoration, it will really help your spiritual life spending one on one time with Jesus." is. Is this how everyone else sees it?

Put another way, "I acknowledge that the Church currently teaches that women cannot become Priests, but I personally believe that they should be able to" isn't promotion, but advocating changing Church Dogmas or encouraging others to dissent from Church teachings is?
Yes, that's what I am confused about.

Let's take this example. Would a personal statement about women priests be seen as promoting, or not? So, are comments worded like "I personally believe that X, although I know that the church teaches differently" be seen as promoting X, or not?

I agree with Eva's suggestion that if worded like this, it would be acceptable.

[nyj]

[/list]I think these Adminstrative Matters rules are good.... but, I was wondering how it would work re the mod applications.. Dont the applications go to the ET applications and are voted on in general there?

Would they be moved from there to OBOB? Or could there be something added to the application that would bring them straight to OBOB.

Sorry if that is a bit messy, still trying to work this wiki thing out, its a first for me :)

LesLes, I believe the other rules which you did not quote answer your question. We can do the forum voting internally.

[Lel]

Ugh. We have got to redo these so there is at least some level of franchise for non-member participants.

How about commentary in the voting threads but no vote by non-member participants? I'm not a fan of no comment in the voting threads anyway.

I'm not opposed to a safe haven, but I think this goes utterly too far.

[Lel]

Les, I believe the other rules which you did not quote answer your question. We can do the forum voting internally.

Sure you can, but why the no commentary bit?

Time to remove that part and see if it sticks...

[Lel]

Oops -- I didn't read closely enough.

Well, I clarified. :)

[nyj]

Lel, there is a thread entirely FOR discussion. Otherwise counting votes in a thread 300 posts long when 20 members voted, and finding ALL the posts where people changed votes could turn out to be too time consuming.

The poll thread is only FOR votes and recording changed votes. There is another thread purely for discussion and Q&A with the candidate. This seems, IMO, like a fair compromise, no?

ETA: I see the change you made. I have no problem with non-OBOBer's commenting. They can comment all they want, but if they vote their vote will be discounted.

[helenofbritain]

I think so. I think have 7-10 mods has always seemed to work well in OBOB.
How many do we have at the moment? What with the resignations and all...

[WordofGod]

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 1Corinthians 6:1:crossrc:

http://www2.christianforums.com/t5701586-dare-any-of-you-having-a-matter-against-another-go-to-law-before-the-unjust.html

[_beloved_]

I agree with the proposed rules.
Thank you to all that contributed.

[Lel]

Lel, there is a thread entirely FOR discussion. Otherwise counting votes in a thread 300 posts long when 20 members voted, and finding ALL the posts where people changed votes could turn out to be too time consuming.

The poll thread is only FOR votes and recording changed votes. There is another thread purely for discussion and Q&A with the candidate. This seems, IMO, like a fair compromise, no?

ETA: I see the change you made. I have no problem with non-OBOBer's commenting. They can comment all they want, but if they vote their vote will be discounted.

Perhaps it is better to leave it as is, rather than argue for a voice. I don't want to see another dozen very helpful posters run off. :(

[Protinus]

1)This forum is open, for debate, discussion, and fellowship, to those who accept the teachings of the Church. 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. 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.

I think that this should be reworked to be more accepting of seekers or the fallen in Catholic faith. The statement implies that a "path must be established" to engage in Catholic discussion. Do you see the world around you? There are are fallen Catholics that are too abundant to mention apparently by OBOB. Why not heal the faith rather than build Wiki walls and proclaim the "Catholic standard"?

Would you suppress Catholics that have been hurt by what they perceive as injustice at the hands of teh Church in their minds? Would the moderators under this selection process be able to discern such pain?

[Irish Melkite]

An election process that discloses each person's vote inevitably leaves open, to subsequent adverse moderation, those who voted against a candidate.

The Roll Call - whatever that is - ignores the fact that persons join this site, declare themselves as Catholic, and presume that to be accepted. Suddenly, being a Catholic member of the site is not enough to be a "member of OBOB" - there is an additional, artificially superimposed registration required?

One, too, can wonder how a newbie, joining off the street, will garner these 3 "references" to "join OBOB".

It seems to me that what is being created here is a neighborhood treehouse club. The only thing missing being the secret handshake.

Many years,

Neil

[nyj]

Perhaps it is better to leave it as is, rather than argue for a voice. I don't want to see another dozen very helpful posters run off. :(I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your change to the WIKI was kept intact.

Would you suppress Catholics that have been hurt by what they perceive as injustice at the hands of teh Church in their minds? Would the moderators under this selection process be able to discern such pain?Any moderators, under any selection process would not be able to discern the pain in anyones mind. Not unless there is a cadre of people who can read minds. As far as suppression goes, if people are Catholic, they have a voice here. Or are you arguing that some Catholics don't assent to Catholic teaching?


The Roll Call - whatever that is - ignores the fact that persons join this site, declare themselves as Catholic, and presume that to be accepted. Suddenly, being a Catholic member of the site is not enough to be a "member of OBOB" - there is an additional, artificially superimposed registration required?It's not that much more difficult than joining the site and declaring themselves as Catholic in the first place. If they've come to OBOB, they'll know about this extra step, which is nothing more than making one post which reads: Add me to the Roll Call please.

One, too, can wonder how a newbie, joining off the street, will garner these 3 "references" to "join OBOB".One can wonder how a newbie, not knowing the people being brought forth as moderators, can reasonably vote.

It seems to me that what is being created here is a neighborhood treehouse club. The only thing missing being the secret handshake.We'll probably work on that in version 3. ;)

The doors, the doors!

[Lel]

I mean more that I was thinking that "hey, I'm a part of this too and I want more than a side comment" but then I realized that the tradeoffs of giving non-Catholics too much of a voice would be excessive.

[WordofGod]

When will all these rules go into effect?:confused:

#1 (http://www2.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36565771&postcount=1) http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www2.christianforums.com/report.php?p=36565771)
Obob

All core forum rules apply.

Wiki: Christian Forums Rules

[top] (http://www2.christianforums.com/t5670224-wiki-obob.html#top)OBOB Subforum Rules


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, for debate, discussion, and fellowship, to those who accept the teachings of the Church. 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. 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 in full communion with the Pope may serve as moderators for OBOB.[top] (http://www2.christianforums.com/t5670224-wiki-obob.html#top)Administrative Matters


Moderating Duties

Only moderators, elected by the OBOB community, will be allowed to moderate inside OBOB. Catholic staff, who serve in Administrative and Moderatory positions elsewhere throughout the site cannot moderate inside OBOB unless they have been voted upon.
Moderators serve at the pleasure of the OBOB community. They are elected, and as such should remember that they serve the community. The role of a moderator is first and foremost to help facilitate discussion.Election of Moderators

Election of OBOB Moderators will be done by vote within the OBOB forum.
Voting for OBOB Moderators will occur in 6 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 "No/Nay" vote will mean that the candidate cannot come up for revote until a full 12 months have passed (i.e., they must skip a voting cycle). An "Apply Later"or a vote of "Yes/Aye" less than 80% indicates that the candidate may be brought up for vote in the next voting cycle
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.
To avoid accusations of bias and/or favoritism, only Catholics in communion with the Pope in Rome, will be considered for entry into the OBOB Roll Call.
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 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.Thank you for responding to this.:crossrc:

[Protinus]

Any moderators, under any selection process would not be able to discern the pain in anyones mind. Not unless there is a cadre of people who can read minds. As far as suppression goes, if people are Catholic, they have a voice here. Or are you arguing that some Catholics don't assent to Catholic teaching?

I am not responding to your implication that I do not assent but I anticipated it. My comments are to the ability of the moderators not to "read minds" but to sufficiently counsel and facilitate Catholics that are questioning their faith without being barred for having expressed their difficulties. And for that matter, what is the measure of Catholicity, a faith icon? No, it is the substance of their writing and ability to communicate difficulties with our Church. Clairvoyance has nothing to do with it.

I fear that they will be suppressed before they can adequately express themselves and I am stating that this needs to be accounted for.

[nyj]

I mean more that I was thinking that "hey, I'm a part of this too and I want more than a side comment" but then I realized that the tradeoffs of giving non-Catholics too much of a voice would be excessive.As it stands, their comments in the discussion thread could very well sway voters if its convincing enough. That would qualify as a bit more than a "side comment". Technically, everything in that thread could be considered "side comments" or "potentially swaying". It depends on what is said, and who is reading it.

I am not responding to your implication that I do not assent but I anticipated it.I asked you a question. I didn't imply anything. Essentially, you anticipated something and made whatever I said fit your anticipation. Whatever.

My comments are to the ability of the moderators not to "read minds" but to sufficiently counsel and facilitate Catholics that are questioning their faith without being barred for having expressed their difficulties.I see nothing in the current set of rules which lead to such a situation. Would you like to point out to me which rule would lead to such, and perhaps suggest something to counter such a situation?

And for that matter, what is the measure of Catholicity, a faith icon? No, it is the substance of their writing and ability to communicate difficulties with our Church.Why must everything be couched in terms of "difficulties within the Church"? Some people are not going to want to discuss some issues. Some may have no problems whatsoever. Some may just want to discuss the basics. It has nothing to do with their ability to communicate effectively, especially on a handful of topics you may find interesting.

I fear that they will be suppressed before they can adequately express themselves and I am stating that this needs to be accounted for.How about suggesting something then.

[Michelina]

The proposed OBOB Rules seem very good to me. I am grateful to all who contributed to their composition and refinement.

[nyj]

An election process that discloses each person's vote inevitably leaves open, to subsequent adverse moderation, those who voted against a candidate.I've thought a bit about this, and I wanted to comment now. Any option we consider can be open to abuse. If we have an election process that is anonymous, we can open ourselves to outside voting and ballot stuffing. While outside voting might be fine for some fora, we're the Catholic forum, and as such it's not absurd to think that it's fair that the Catholics themselves choose their moderators.

Also, it's my hope that Moderators are usually nothing more than facilitators of discussion. They won't be doing much in terms of active moderation, and I hope they do even less pro-active moderation. Plus, given a fair number (up to 10) of them and their working together on decisions, the open moderating system now, and the lack of any warning system instituted ... that abuse is going to not only be hard to cover up, but next to impossible to do.

I'm open to any ideas to make abuse even less of a possible scenario from the moderating end.

[Debi1967]

Why are we frightened of outside voting?

Why are we going to further distance ourselves?

Why would we want anyone to think we are being cliquish?

[Protinus]

Why are we frightened of outside voting?

Why are we going to further distance ourselves?

Why would we want anyone to think we are being cliquish?


There must be accomodation of all these points in the new OBOB or we must cleave off and form a Liberal Catholic Forum. The rules must state that these topics are allowable in some fashion or agreed upon here with verifiable responses.

Not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate tradition; in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition.... Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also critically.

- Ratzinger, Joseph. "The Transmission of Divine Revelation," in Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 3. New York: Herder and Herder, p. 185

1. Provide social justice- the Church must follow its own teaching regarding Full time employees and fulltime volunteers

The laity is the future of the Church and parochial teachers drastically underpaid. The Church herself says that “one must earn a just wage and living wage”. K-12 to teachers at Catholic universities can not even support their families…it is abhorrent. leaves.

2. Restore election of bishops and hierarchy

Saint Augustine himself was elected and the practice continued centuries beyond.

3. Install elected non-clerical parish administrators and elect cleric as spiritual directors

4. Give canonical power to parish councils who then set parish direction

Parish councils should also be elected, and they ought to have some canonical power to remove an incompetent administrator or pastor.

5. Give much more canonical power to local bishop’s synods

6. Utilize lay advisory review boards for all diocesan policies and financial administration.

This idea comes from the lay review boards established after Vatican II for holding the Church financially accountable, especially in the era of bankruptcies caused sex abuse crises.

7. Ordain women priests and ordain women as deacons.

The Church is simply looking foolish on this issue, and spends too much time defending a doctrine that is difficult, if not impossible to defend. Women priests would give Christian witness to the dignity of women in the Church.

8. Restore optional celibacy for ministerial priests

9. Enact term priesthood (serve for ten years, then re-enlist)


10. Revise the teaching on contraception


11. Bless gay unions

Marriage is a sacrament but the Church is capable of blessing non-sacramental unions.

12. Promote a consistent ethic of life

The Church should be more supportive of those who oppose the death penalty and work for peace, along with opposition to abortion but it is not right to excommunicate a teenager who does not know what she is doing.

13. Permit divorced and remarried Catholics to return to communion without annulling their first marriage


14. Increase emphasis on social services tied to parish level and as missions

15. Keep increasing emphasis on social justice activities


16. Allow local adaptation and experimentation in missionary countries

17. Be more ecumenical


The Church should put its doctrinal development in greater practice by seeking more opportunities to pray and work for others.

18. Simplify the Basic Message

We sometimes worry more about whether someone understands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception properly than whether they understand the significance of the resurrection.

19. Allow Academic freedom for theologians, and create lay theologians

Theologians are seekers of truth. Seekers of truth take the evidence wherever it leads. It is the job of a theologian to ask tough questions, speculate out on a limb, critique the status quo, argue and debate fine nuances and distinctions, and research uncharted waters. Laity should be invited to participate in the theological enterprise with priests.

[geocajun]

And for that matter, what is the measure of Catholicity, a faith icon? No, it is the substance of their writing and ability to communicate difficulties with our Church. Clairvoyance has nothing to do with it.


Do you not see the problems with that statement?

Let me paraphrase your words: The measure of ones Catholicity is in the substance of their writing and their ability to communicate difficulties with our Church.

wow... I hope our catholicity is deeper than that, and it is measured faith our faith rather than our gripes - regardless of how eloquently we may express the gripes.

[geocajun]

I'm personally torn on the outside voting issue. I would not like to be unable to vote in the baptist forum for example, since I may choose to post there and I'd hate it if they stacked the deck with baptists who hated catholics (just teasing out an example; not speculating about baptists). I recently cast a vote against an anti-catholic mod-applicant who would have been assigned in a different forum. I was happy I could do that.

[Debi1967]

I'm personally torn on the outside voting issue. I would not like to be unable to vote in the baptist forum for example, since I may choose to post there and I'd hate it if they stacked the deck with baptists who hated catholics (just teasing out an example; not speculating about baptists). I recently cast a vote against an anti-catholic mod-applicant who would have been assigned in a different forum. I was happy I could do that.
In my case since most of the people that I affected in the wiki are from all Faiths and they are the ones who accurately know how I moderate then by disallowing them the opportunity to vote yes or no for me and tell their personal reasons is not really fair to me.

[Protinus]

wow... I hope our catholicity is deeper than that, and it is measured faith our faith rather than our gripes - regardless of how eloquently we may express the gripes.
thanks for completely taking my point into "out of context" territory.

please answer the nineteen points I provided.

[Debi1967]

thanks for completely taking my point into "out of context" territory.

please answer the nineteen points I provided.
Several of the points you have provided are in direct contradiction with Conservative Orthodox Christianity which has alsways been maintained in OBOB, I cannot agree.

[geocajun]

In my case since most of the people that I affected in the wiki are from all Faiths and they are the ones who accurately know how I moderate then by disallowing them the opportunity to vote yes or no for me and tell their personal reasons is not really fair to me.
Imagine how unfair it must be for those of which no one here on CF "knows how they moderate".

[Debi1967]

Imagine how unfair it must be for those of which no one here on CF "knows how they moderate".
True...

[geocajun]

There must be accomodation of all these points in the new OBOB or we must cleave off and form a Liberal Catholic Forum. The rules must state that these topics are allowable in some fashion or agreed upon here with verifiable responses.


I see no reason at all for the rules to provide protected areas of critical views of church practices. All of that is covered under the catholic's ability to debate respectfully in the forum. There does not need to be any further statement made about it either way.

[rushingwind62]

From the stand point of RR's husband, I know it would be kind of unfair for my wife, but I would have to say for the majoirty voting should be held within each faith. If outsiders were allowed in they could effectively ruin someones chances of getting moderator. At least within our own ranks people know the person.

[Protinus]

I see no reason at all for the rules to provide protected areas of critical views of church practices. All of that is covered under the catholic's ability to debate respectfully in the forum. There does not need to be any further statement made about it either way.


Thanks for your intransigence...I can not and will not believe that liberal Catholics will be welcome in OBOB as per your remarks.

[Debi1967]

Thanks for your intransigence...I can not and will not believe that liberal Catholics will be welcome in OBOB as per your remarks.
Our Rules as they are written now state you must be in Communion with the Holy See, to advocate for Gay Rights is not in Communion with the Holy See. You can't have it your way and not God's in this instance especially with the Church.

[geocajun]

Thanks for your intransigence...I can not and will not believe that liberal Catholics will be welcome in OBOB as per your remarks.
I'm one person, and this is a community discussion. Don't try to bully people into agreeing with you, but rather try to convince them. If you can make a persuasive argument then so be it, if not, then so be that... So far you have left me completely unconvinced.

[Protinus]

I'm one person, and this is a community discussion. Don't try to bully people into agreeing with you, but rather try to convince them. If you can make a persuasive argument then so be it, if not, then so be that... So far you have left me completely unconvi