Wiki: Spirit-Filled - Pentecostal/Charismatic

[probinson]

Someone who has 2999 posts and 1 year and 11 months gets 4 points. (the 1 point which everyone gets plus 2 for 2999 posts, and 1 for the one full year).
Clearly this system has some flaws. It's not right that someone that has been a member for 364 days doesn't get SOME weight, vs. the guy that signed up 32 seconds ago.

This is an administrative nightmare waiting to happen. Unless Erwin would code it so it was automated (which he said he would not do), it would be a HUGE pain to calculate the results of a poll.

[J4Jesus]

But how would we calculate a matrix? Also, who would calculate the matrix? Right now, the wiki team is responsible for getting the matters discussed and then out for members to vote on. Would they also be responsible for determining this matrix? It might be more confusing than necessary, IMO. I think we should just limit it to posters who have a certain amount of posts, and have been members for a certain length of time (to help reduce sock votes).

And what about someone with 5 socks?

( one foot would get cold! :P )
But seriously, some have alot, unfortunately:sigh:

[J4Jesus]

Yes, but we're talking about posts made in a certain forum, aren't we?

It would be a complex query to determine how many posts one had made in the SF area, and that's really the only way that I think weighting makes any sense in this instance.

Otherwise, people could go post in the TV forums and make 100 posts/day, talking about their favorite shows, and pop into the SF forum once a month to make 3 posts, and have more weight in the vote than say, someone who posts a dozen or so posts in the SF forum everyday.

...what he said...

[habeas]

Someone has already run all this by Erwin about a matrix?

I haven't seen it brought up in the WIKI.

We could limit it to number of posts, then, and not weight it at all. This does not seem to be very equitable, but then...oh, well.

That certainly does not alleviate your own concerns, however, Pete, that if the person has been spent half of his time talking to the robot guy (what is his name?) or posting in the t.v. forum, he has equal voting power.

If 100 posts is the cutoff but the person has been posting one word posts in those " let's see who makes it to 1000 posts" threads, and suddenly discovers and starts posting in our forum, he/she has the same voting power as the rest of us.

[probinson]

If 100 posts is the cutoff but the person has been posting one word posts in those " let's see who makes it to 1000 posts" threads, and suddenly discovers and starts posting in our forum, he/she has the same voting power as the rest of us.
But wouldn't it be WORSE if that same person chatting it up with ChrisBot or posting the one word responses in the "let's see who makes it to 1,000 posts first" thread has MORE voting power than the rest of us? That's what would conceivably happen if we weighted the votes by post count.

[J4Jesus]

But wouldn't it be WORSE if that same person chatting it up with ChrisBot or posting the one word responses in the "let's see who makes it to 1,000 posts first" thread has MORE voting power than the rest of us? That's what would conceivably happen if we weighted the votes by post count.

There is probably no easy way to find out who usually posts here. We know alot who do but not some we don't recognize.

[habeas]

But wouldn't it be WORSE if that same person chatting it up with ChrisBot or posting the one word responses in the "let's see who makes it to 1,000 posts first" thread has MORE voting power than the rest of us? That's what would conceivably happen if we weighted the votes by post count.


I think it would not be worse, but better to weight voting power by number of posts to lessen the influence of such folks (although not a perfect solution).

The reason for this is that if someone is a new member, he or she probably or may go about exploring CF before finding a home subforum. He/She may go into the friendship/relaxation threads, talk to Chrisbot, and post in the "let's see who gets to 1000 posts first" threads. Sometimes they do this to obtain enough blessings, or whatever.

All this if fine, but then when they find our subforum, they may have 100 posts (if we assume for the moment this is the post cutoff for voting), but none of such posts were made in our subforum. They have equal voting power.

Now if the system is weighted at least partially, by number of posts, and someone has 1000 posts - it is less likely the poster has been posting 1000 or 999 posts in those types of threads (if they are interested in the subforum enough to vote). These threads are, after all, somewhat tedious after a while.

By this time, they've found a home, and if that home is in primarily the TV forum, I doubt they will all be charging over to the SFPC subforum every time there is a poll.

So, I think the greater number of posts, the more likely it is that a reasonably large number of the posts have been made in our subforum, if indeed the poster has developed an interest in voting in our WIKI polls.

So, weighting gives greater voting power to those who are likely to be more established interested members of the SFPC subforum than to the newbies who just found their home here. but have little familiarity with it - and may not even stay too long (just a temporary interest).

This is why giving a point for each year or at least weighting by length of membership will also be helpful.

I must take a hiatus, myself, because of my work schedule, so I will not be able to answer posts for a while - so I will have to be content that you continue to discuss these matters amongst yourselves.

habeas

[probinson]

I think it would not be worse, but better to weight voting power by number of posts to lessen the influence of such folks (although not a perfect solution).

The reason for this is that if someone is a new member, he or she probably or may go about exploring CF before finding a home subforum. He/She may go into the friendship/relaxation threads, talk to Chrisbot, and post in the "let's see who gets to 1000 posts first" threads. Sometimes they do this to obtain enough blessings, or whatever.

All this if fine, but then when they find our subforum, they may have 100 posts (if we assume for the moment this is the post cutoff for voting), but none of such posts were made in our subforum. They have equal voting power.

Now if the system is weighted at least partially, by number of posts, and someone has 1000 posts - it is less likely the poster has been posting 1000 or 999 posts in those types of threads (if they are interested in the subforum enough to vote).

By this time, they've found a home, and if that home is in primarily the TV forum, I doubt they will all be charging over to the SFPC subforum every time there is a poll.

So, I think the greater number of posts, the more likely it is that a reasonably large number of the posts are in our subforum in order for the poster to want to vote in the WIKI polls.

So, weighting gives greater voting power to the what are likely to be more established interested members of the SFPC subforum than to the newbies who just found their home here. but have little familiarity with it - and may not even stay too long (just a temporary interest).

This is why giving a point for each year or at least weighting by length of membership will be helpful.

I must take a hiatus, myself, because of my work schedule, so I will not be able to answer posts for a while - so I will have to be content that you continue to discuss these matters amongst yourselves.

habeas
I do understand what you're saying, but as a demonstration of why this is impractical, tally the vote, using whatever weighting system you choose, of this poll (http://www.christianforums.com/t5844681-who-can-debate-teach-in-sf-pc.html). I'll wait...

Dum de dum... doo be dooo..

Done yet?

As of this moment, there are 24 voters in that poll. You would need to pull up the profiles of all 24 people, verify that they were eligible to vote in the first place, and then calculate the weight of each vote, before arriving at the full tally. Not only that, but you'd need to post your results so that there wouldn't be claims of impropriety.

Multiply that times the number of polls that we would have, and you would have a mess! Since the process can not be automated, it would have to be a manual process for each poll. Perhaps someone could create a spreadsheet to help with the task, but someone would still have to be responsible for plugging the values into the sheet for each poll, and then posting the results.

[habeas]

I do understand what you're saying, but as a demonstration of why this is impractical, tally the vote, using whatever weighting system you choose, of this poll (http://www.christianforums.com/t5844681-who-can-debate-teach-in-sf-pc.html). I'll wait...

Dum de dum... doo be dooo..

Done yet?

As of this moment, there are 24 voters in that poll. You would need to pull up the profiles of all 24 people, verify that they were eligible to vote in the first place, and then calculate the weight of each vote, before arriving at the full tally. Not only that, but you'd need to post your results so that there wouldn't be claims of impropriety.

Multiply that times the number of polls that we would have, and you would have a mess! Since the process can not be automated, it would have to be a manual process for each poll. Perhaps someone could create a spreadsheet to help with the task, but someone would still have to be responsible for plugging the values into the sheet for each poll, and then posting the results.

One of the things is, I know that the polls are supposedly public. However, I have voted in polls without commenting - how do you access that list?

If I could access that list, then I would not have to go through the entire poll thread, half of which is debate, and then quickly link to each member and tally the points.

However, I can see that my voting power would not be squat compared to some others on here, like J4Jesus, so it is probably not in my best interest to keep belaboring this point. :sorry:

So, if we don't weight the votes, then alternatively I suggest we have a minimum post count of say 300 or 350 (to weed out socks and squatters), and we should start making the voters agree to the tenets of the SFPC WIKI, particularly since it now looks like this will also be a requirement to teach/debate based on the poll results thus far.

habeas

[Balance]

How labor intensive do we make taking polls?

Who checks all the people in the polls?

And say you find someone that doesn't fit the criteria, how do you adjust the poll?

How often are we going to have polls?

It seems to me, that those questions need to be answered - or are we so close to finalizing our wiki, that we would spend more time talking about polls instead of just finishing the wiki?

[JAS4Yeshua]

It is the responsibility of the wiki team. We're the facilitators of the discussion, as well as the ones who start the polls. All polls need to be made public, so when you click on a number of votes, you can see the names of all who voted. From that list, you remove as necessary. So far, removal hasn't been necessary because it seems like all the voters have come from this forum. If one or two slipped in, it didn't offset the vote enough to affect the outcome.

How often to have polls depends on how the discussions go. Ideally we would start with discussion (as we're doing now) and depending on the discussion, the appropriate poll is created (if necessary). Rule finalization always needs a poll, in order to assure that everyone has a say.

[Balance]

It is the responsibility of the wiki team. We're the facilitators of the discussion, as well as the ones who start the polls. All polls need to be made public, so when you click on a number of votes, you can see the names of all who voted. From that list, you remove as necessary. So far, removal hasn't been necessary because it seems like all the voters have come from this forum. If one or two slipped in, it didn't offset the vote enough to affect the outcome.

How often to have polls depends on how the discussions go. Ideally we would start with discussion (as we're doing now) and depending on the discussion, the appropriate poll is created (if necessary). Rule finalization always needs a poll, in order to assure that everyone has a say.

I apologize, I've been extremely busy lately, but that has changed!

Can you catch me up on what still needs to be voted on, how far are we from finalizing the wiki?

[JAS4Yeshua]

No worries. ;)

Currently, we have the current wiki voted and agreed upon. We're discussing voting process now, and don't have any pending polls until the Debate poll concludes.

[J4Jesus]

No worries. ;)

Currently, we have the current wiki voted and agreed upon. We're discussing voting process now, and don't have any pending polls until the Debate poll concludes.

If after awhile we feel we need to add something do we do that by coming here discussing it here then adding it to the wiki?

I"ve been on others and polls didn't work :(
consenus here worked much better.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Consensus discussion always comes first. Polls are still done on an as-needed basis. The goal is to get as much member feedback as possible, so we can hopefully reflect the desires of our community. :)

[Balance]

Consensus discussion always comes first. Polls are still done on an as-needed basis. The goal is to get as much member feedback as possible, so we can hopefully reflect the desires of our community. :)

Help me out here - are you saying that the discussion happening here on this wiki is the 'consensus' and that always comes first?

If so, I have an issue with it, mainly because there are very few people from the forum that come here.

If the goal is to get as much member feedback as possible - then IMO it should be from a public poll on the forums - perhaps stickied for the duration of the poll, so we can get as much input as possible.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Consensus either in this thread or in the main forum. The point is to try to get as much feedback as we can from the forum members. If we just used this thread, we wouldn't get everyone, as you stated. We just want the poll to be the last thing used, if needed.

Reason I state poll should be last is because of what has happened with starting the polls immediately. You start a poll, and the verbiage doesn't work, not enough options are listed, or misunderstandings arise. Therefore, the discussion should always precede the poll, based on member feedback.

Hope this makes more sense. :)

[Balance]

Do we allow prophesy?

It was restricted to blogs, pre 7/7/

Do we make a rule?

[JAS4Yeshua]

I think there needs to be a rule relating to it. Do you want to head up the discussion on that?

[J4Jesus]

I didn't think we had a choice to do anything except use our blog since thats what the sticky says. Before that we had a couple of threads here because the forum closed.

They were talking about opening the forum again. Is it open yet ?

[JAS4Yeshua]

All rules pre 7/7/7 were erased. Now we're in the process of redefining the rules relating to the SF/PC forum. That includes prophecy, which just came about as a result of QC's prophecy thread.

[ARBITER01]

There is a prophetic ministry blog forum in place already that was structured for such activities.

Having prophecy active on our forum is bypassing that particular subforum. Just so people are aware of it's existance.

[J4Jesus]

All rules pre 7/7/7 were erased. Now we're in the process of redefining the rules relating to the SF/PC forum. That includes prophecy, which just came about as a result of QC's prophecy thread.
If we have any rules posted, they are still in effect until we make others or change them. Most forums did not have rules and is the reason they were saying there were no rules. But some congregations did. And those for the site registration are still in effect although those working on them change them often.

[Balance]

I believe with the exception of fellowship posts, there should be no off topic posts.

Politics should be in the political forums, unless there is a part of those politics that effects SP/PC people.

Issues concerning other mainline denominations should be held in their proper forums.

Please see the rules in the wiki in red

[JAS4Yeshua]

"Off topic" is a broad term. How would one handle or determne "Off topic." Since moving between forums is extremely difficult, what do we do with those threads deemed "off topic?"

[Tamara224]

I believe with the exception of fellowship posts, there should be no off topic posts.

Politics should be in the political forums, unless there is a part of those politics that effects SP/PC people.

Issues concerning other mainline denominations should be held in their proper forums.




I disagree. People come to the congregational sub-forums to fellowship with people of like mind. Fellowshipping always includes discussions/conversations about things that involve all of life, not just the little segment of life that could be considered "SF-P/C".

IMO, a "no off-topic" rule is waaaaay too ambiguous. It essentially would end up being a way to control the free-flow of information. People would use it when they just didn't like the topic or a person.

If it's a topic that interests enough people that the thread stays active, then obviously the members as a whole think it's fine to have. If the members aren't interested in it, it will die anyways.

If we made a rule about off-topic ... we'd end up having to close down threads about food/recipes, current events that effect us (because they might be political and one person would think it doesn't have any direct impact on specifically P/C people), etc, etc, etc.

IMO, let's let people talk about what interests people regardless of whether it is, strictly speaking, a PC P/C thing to talk about.

[he4rty]

But no dialogue will remain on topic unless people are only allowed to respond to the poster and no one else

[JAS4Yeshua]

I disagree. People come to the congregational sub-forums to fellowship with people of like mind. Fellowshipping always includes discussions/conversations about things that involve all of life, not just the little segment of life that could be considered "SF-P/C".

IMO, a "no off-topic" rule is waaaaay too ambiguous. It essentially would end up being a way to control the free-flow of information. People would use it when they just didn't like the topic or a person.

If it's a topic that interests enough people that the thread stays active, then obviously the members as a whole think it's fine to have. If the members aren't interested in it, it will die anyways.

If we made a rule about off-topic ... we'd end up having to close down threads about food/recipes, current events that effect us (because they might be political and one person would think it doesn't have any direct impact on specifically P/C people), etc, etc, etc.

IMO, let's let people talk about what interests people regardless of whether it is, strictly speaking, a PC P/C thing to talk about.
I agree with Tamara. SF/PC is a type of fellowship forum, and part of fellowship for some people includes talking politics, current news, etc.

[J4Jesus]

I think what ever the OP is wanting to say, discuss we should stick with that subject. Sometimes there are so many rabbit trails it really gets off subject and should stay on subject. In that way I am for it.

But it sounds like we may be talking about two different things here. I would think we could make a thread about many/almost any subject in this forum. If we have to go to all the others forums to talk of different topics, we wouldn't have the likeminded fellowship around that subject that we might here.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Polls... Polls... Polls...

Obviously, we need to have polls to determine what needs to be included in the wiki. Unfortunately some polls are started too early in the discussion process to adequately meet the needs for the poll. Adequate discussion should always precede the creation of a poll, IMO.

Also, let's try try to narrow our discussion. We're in the middle of discussion and voting of prophecy, and there is still the outstanding [OPEN] / [NO DEBATE] discussion that has yet to become a poll. It might take longer, but I think we should only handle one topic (maybe two topics, depending on the type) per wiki-team member at a time, to prevent overloading the forum with too many polls and questions, and to make things go smoother.

Let's not forget, there's still the outstanding issue regarding voting process that hasn't even been touched yet in the main forums. ;)

[J4Jesus]

I'm sorry :blush: I thought you must be finished on that here since there is another very active thread about that. And I saw a post about OFF TOPICS here :sorry:

[JAS4Yeshua]

Hold the presses!

This post is for Balance, Pete and myself, regarding adding the rules. Others may chime in with their comments toward us as necessary.

Editing of the Wiki was previously agreed to be handled only by the wiki-team, which is currently Balance, probinson and I. We were selected with the idea that we would handle the creation of the rules fairly for the forum. Part of being fair includes avoiding the appearance of evil, in this case, trying to push our own agendas.

My concern is adding or changing rules in the wiki, even if we put them in "red" might give the appearance of pushing our own agenda. We encountered this problem a couple weeks ago, and I suffered the brunt of that backlash. Since that time, I've proposed new changes for discussion prior to adding the new rules.

Before we add to the wiki, we should have at least had a relative amount of discussion to work out details before adding it. Once discussion is worked out with the forum, then the wiki-team member who brought the issue forward, should add it to the wiki in red and bring the proposed rule change to the forum in a poll.

Right now, we don't have adequate communication among the team members, and I'm hoping this thread will help facilitate that discussion, and help keep us all above reproach when it comes to establishing rules fairly and equitably.

[Tamara224]

Polls... Polls... Polls...

Obviously, we need to have polls to determine what needs to be included in the wiki. Unfortunately some polls are started too early in the discussion process to adequately meet the needs for the poll. Adequate discussion should always precede the creation of a poll, IMO.

Also, let's try try to narrow our discussion. We're in the middle of discussion and voting of prophecy, and there is still the outstanding [OPEN] / [NO DEBATE] discussion that has yet to become a poll. It might take longer, but I think we should only handle one topic (maybe two topics, depending on the type) per wiki-team member at a time, to prevent overloading the forum with too many polls and questions, and to make things go smoother.

Let's not forget, there's still the outstanding issue regarding voting process that hasn't even been touched yet in the main forums. ;)


Good point, Jason, I think we're starting to put the cart before the horse...

What we probably need is a list (maybe a sticky) about current topics being discussed, those that have been raised and need resolution. The list can have links to the discussion and voting threads.

I know, I know, lots of people never read stickies. But most people aren't reading this wiki either. And it's getting very very tiresome to wade through it all and see which topics are still on the table.

[Balance]

Hold the presses!

This post is for Balance, Pete and myself, regarding adding the rules. Others may chime in with their comments toward us as necessary.

Editing of the Wiki was previously agreed to be handled only by the wiki-team, which is currently Balance, probinson and I. We were selected with the idea that we would handle the creation of the rules fairly for the forum. Part of being fair includes avoiding the appearance of evil, in this case, trying to push our own agendas.

My concern is adding or changing rules in the wiki, even if we put them in "red" might give the appearance of pushing our own agenda. We encountered this problem a couple weeks ago, and I suffered the brunt of that backlash. Since that time, I've proposed new changes for discussion prior to adding the new rules.

Before we add to the wiki, we should have at least had a relative amount of discussion to work out details before adding it. Once discussion is worked out with the forum, then the wiki-team member who brought the issue forward, should add it to the wiki in red and bring the proposed rule change to the forum in a poll.

Right now, we don't have adequate communication among the team members, and I'm hoping this thread will help facilitate that discussion, and help keep us all above reproach when it comes to establishing rules fairly and equitably.


Then I misunderstood - if it changed - why does it still state new rules to be placed in red.

When did I miss that?

Remove it, if I goofed, but I am pushing no agenda here - just trying to keep things moving, we haven't spoken of any rules in quite a while.

Here, I'll do it.

[JAS4Yeshua]

It isn't your fault, Balance. I don't even think you did anything really wrong, other than I could see the light of a train coming at us (as a team). The fact was, we, as a team, haven't been communicating effectively. We all share the burden and the responsibility. ;)

I think we, as a team, need to discuss how to best bring the issues to the forum for discussion. And we should get feedback from other members on how to handle that here as well, so we aren't operating in a bubble. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Good point, Jason, I think we're starting to put the cart before the horse...

What we probably need is a list (maybe a sticky) about current topics being discussed, those that have been raised and need resolution. The list can have links to the discussion and voting threads.

I know, I know, lots of people never read stickies. But most people aren't reading this wiki either. And it's getting very very tiresome to wade through it all and see which topics are still on the table.
Maybe instead of a sticky, a thread that is periodically bumped by the wiki team.

[Tamara224]

Maybe instead of a sticky, a thread that is periodically bumped by the wiki team.


Either way would work I think. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

To facilitate discussion among (and to) the wiki-team, I'm going to post some comments. My previous posts weren't meant as a criticism of Balance, and I hope it didn't come off that way. I just want to make sure that we as a team are above reproach and accountable to the forum members for our actions.

The wiki-team is responsible for updating the wiki, obviously. That means facilitating discussion, getting feedback, and ultimately bringing to a vote if necessary. What does that mean for the team?

1) Communication. This is key. It should be handled openly here, so the members can add feedback and suggestions.

2) Prioritizing issues. There are a number of rules and procedures to discuss, some more urgent than others. A list of some sort that we follow and work on.

3) Brining issues to the forum for discussion. As not everyone participates in this discussion, we need to start threads and keep the discussion going until we have enough feedback to move forward.

4) Bring the issue to the forum for a vote. At this time a tentative rule may be added to the wiki in red, based on the discussion results. This isn't necessary, and may be detremental if discussion showed mostly negative responses.

5) Based on vote results and feedback, add or edit rule in the wiki, or refine for a new vote. If enough discussion was done previously, a second vote should not be necessary.

This is my opinion on how we should handle the discussion. Any comments, suggestions, additions or changes?

[J4Jesus]

It isn't your fault, Balance. I don't even think you did anything really wrong, other than I could see the light of a train coming at us (as a team). The fact was, we, as a team, haven't been communicating effectively. We all share the burden and the responsibility.

I think we, as a team, need to discuss how to best bring the issues to the forum for discussion. And we should get feedback from other members on how to handle that here as well, so we aren't operating in a bubble.
My experience:
Working on other wikis I can tell this, the wiki IS a bubble ;) ^_^ IF others do know about it its hard to find and then they have to know to go to the bottom and enter where is says discussion. IF you put these things on a sticky they rarely read them :doh: . Maybe make a thread announcing a subject and keep bumping it up??:scratch: :confused: I don't know a good way and others are having the same problem.

[Tamara224]

To facilitate discussion among (and to) the wiki-team, I'm going to post some comments. My previous posts weren't meant as a criticism of Balance, and I hope it didn't come off that way. I just want to make sure that we as a team are above reproach and accountable to the forum members for our actions.

The wiki-team is responsible for updating the wiki, obviously. That means facilitating discussion, getting feedback, and ultimately bringing to a vote if necessary. What does that mean for the team?

1) Communication. This is key. It should be handled openly here, so the members can add feedback and suggestions.

2) Prioritizing issues. There are a number of rules and procedures to discuss, some more urgent than others. A list of some sort that we follow and work on.

3) Brining issues to the forum for discussion. As not everyone participates in this discussion, we need to start threads and keep the discussion going until we have enough feedback to move forward.

4) Bring the issue to the forum for a vote. At this time a tentative rule may be added to the wiki in red, based on the discussion results. This isn't necessary, and may be detremental if discussion showed mostly negative responses.

5) Based on vote results and feedback, add or edit rule in the wiki, or refine for a new vote. If enough discussion was done previously, a second vote should not be necessary.

This is my opinion on how we should handle the discussion. Any comments, suggestions, additions or changes?


I think that sounds fantastic. I'm all for it, just as you have suggested. :thumbsup:

[Balance]

OK - let's look at what we need to finalize this - seems, we've let it die.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Just as an FYI: The current rules displayed in the wiki have been voted on and approved. It is just the new rules that haven't been agreed upon yet. Perhaps we should create the rule sticky so that our rules can be enforced first, then concentrate on the undecided upon rules.

[J4Jesus]

Just as an FYI: The current rules displayed in the wiki have been voted on and approved. It is just the new rules that haven't been agreed upon yet. Perhaps we should create the rule sticky so that our rules can be enforced first, then concentrate on the undecided upon rules.
I think it's a good idea if all that we have already done is posted on a sticky now and add to it as we do the rest.

[JAS4Yeshua]

We have two closed polls now.

Conerning Prophecy (http://foru.ms/t6002558-poll-concerning-prophecy.html): 15 Yes | 5 No

Ban Protocol (http://foru.ms/t6008566-poll-cacongregational-area-single-forum-ban-protocol.html): 11 Yes | 2 No

Even though these passed, we still need to add them to the wiki then do another snapshot. Until that happens, these aren't enforcable. My personal recommendation is that we add them to the wiki, but wait until the debate issue is resolved before doing the snapshot.

[Balance]

Just an FYI -

I added the prophesy info to the rules on August 29th - shortly after the poll was completed.

Fee free to do the same with the other -

I'd really be interested in being walked through the process of doing a snapshot.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Snapshot? Just copy and paste. Not much more to it than that. ;)

[J4Jesus]

That's fine if it's just words but a real snap shot, like for a picture or our character, its more complicated. :scratch: I was going to try it but guess I will pass on that one

[JAS4Yeshua]

Snapshot was done and updated in the forum. It now includes both the Prophecy and the Ban rules.