As we create forum specific rules

[longhair75]

a link to the CF rules regarding this procedure can be found here (http://www.christianforums.com/t5669830-the-creation-of-subforum-rules.html)

[EvAng]

Thanks for the link mate

[PaladinValer]

Cannot limit access to STR? Cool! I don't think any of us would want to anyway. : )

Can limit debate? Excellent! That is something that is most definitely necessary.

Can exclude specific topics from being posted? Also excellent!

Can officially declare a statement of faith? Priceless! : D

[EvAng]

oops...

[EvAng]

Cannot limit access to STR? Cool! I don't think any of us would want to anyway. : )

Can limit debate? Excellent! That is something that is most definitely necessary.

Can exclude specific topics from being posted? Also excellent!

Can officially declare a statement of faith? Priceless! : D

This is why I think that those who left did so prematurely. I pray that they will return one the dust has settled :prayer:

[TomUK]

Initial guideline for the creation of subforum rules:
1. A subforum rule cannot deny entry
2. A subforum rule can limit subforum debate
3. A subforum rule can exclude specific topics from being posted

What does 'deny entry' mean?

[EvAng]

What does 'deny entry' mean?

You can't say "Unitarians are not allowed to post in STR".

[PaladinValer]

You cannot deny anyone the ability to enter into your forum and post, I believe.

Since CF no longer has any Christians-Only sections, it is a universal and unbreakable rule that everyone is allowed access everywhere. That is what it means I think, TomUK.

Congregational forums seem to have special rights to control how much access is allowed within their boarders, but we must allow non-Christians and non-Anglican/Old Catholic Christians to be allowed to post and discuss.

[EvAng]

we must allow non-Christians and non-Anglican/Old Catholic Christians to be allowed to post and discuss.

Not necessarily in that each congregational forum can restrict what is discussed and by whom.

Hence we could restrict debates over homosexuality and women bishops in the main STR forum and create a subforum for these to be discussed.

[TomUK]

So would we not be allowed to say with one in stroke "non-Christians (for example) are not permitted to debate here."? Would we have to specify the exact topics they are not allowed to debate in?

[longhair75]

Not necessarily in that each congregational forum can restrict what is discussed and by whom.

Hence we could restrict debates over homosexuality and women bishops in the main STR forum and create a subforum for these to be discussed.
Exactly!

[longhair75]

So would we not be allowed to say with one in stroke "non-Christians (for example) are not permitted to debate here."? Would we have to specify the exact topics they are not allowed to debate in?
I am pretty sure we can limit the debate however we choose.

[EvAng]

I am pretty sure we can limit the debate however we choose.

In STR I believe that the main forum should allow fellowship between Anglicans (this term needs defining) of various traditions. Debate is allowed here but only between members. If non-Anglicans wish to debate then they are welcome to but only in a subforum created for that purpose - "Debate with an Anglican".

I then see a number of subforums created for a number of reasons:

1. Ask an Anglican - The forum to ask Anglicans questions about their beliefs

2. Debate with an Anglican - The forum to debate with Anglicans about their beliefs

3. Anglican Library - A forum to discuss and recommend books and resources

4. Conservative Anglicans - The forum for conservative Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

5. Evangelical Anglicans - The forum for evangelical Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

6. Liberal Anglicans - The forum for liberal Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

7. Anglo-Catholics Together - The forum for Anglo-Catholics to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

So my vision is:

STR is a forum which champions unity whilst recognising diversity.

[Andy Broadley]

In STR I believe that the main forum should allow fellowship between Anglicans (this term needs defining) of various traditions. Debate is allowed here but only between members. If non-Anglicans wish to debate then they are welcome to but only in a subforum created for that purpose - "Debate with an Anglican".

I then see a number of subforums created for a number of reasons:

1. Ask an Anglican - The forum to ask Anglicans questions about their beliefs

2. Debate with an Anglican - The forum to debate with Anglicans about their beliefs

3. Anglican Library - A forum to discuss and recommend books and resources

4. Conservative Anglicans - The forum for conservative Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

5. Evangelical Anglicans - The forum for evangelical Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

6. Liberal Anglicans - The forum for liberal Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

7. Anglo-Catholics Together - The forum for Anglo-Catholics to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

So my vision is:


STR is a forum which champions unity whilst recognising diversity.


Sounds rather complicated and chaotic to me I'm afraid.

[EvAng]

Sounds rather complicated and chaotic to me I'm afraid.

Not very: If you as a non-Anglican wished to ask Anglicans a question you would do so in the subforum "Ask an Anglican". If you wished to debate with us then you would do so in the subforum "Debate with an Anglican". Sounds pretty simple to me :)

[Andy Broadley]

Not very: If you as a non-Anglican wished to ask Anglicans a question you would do so in the subforum "Ask an Anglican". If you wished to debate with us then you would do so in the subforum "Debate with an Anglican". Sounds pretty simple to me :)

Unlike the last two years where I have debated quite happily here in open forum, which was even simpler.

Whats needed is a much tighter clampdown on flaming, rather than a limit on who can say what and where.

[EvAng]

Unlike the last two years where I have debated quite happily here in open forum, which was even simpler.

Two years where there were not as many posters as there will be in the future. The creation of subforums would be a step towards encouraging more posters whilst letting everything being done decently and in good order.

Whats needed is a much tighter clampdown on flaming, rather than a limit on who can say what and where.

I disagree.

[Andy Broadley]

Two years where there were not as many posters as there will be in the future. The creation of subforums would be a step towards encouraging more posters whilst letting everything being done decently and in good order.



I disagree.


How would you enforce all these subforums?

No warninbgs anymore, so I'd just carry on as before in any case.

I honestly think that these changes will not be as extrememas some of the rection is suggesting.

Possibly deep breath time

[PaladinValer]

As I said in the previous thread, I disagree with so many subforums and subforums for specific types of Anglicans based on liberal, Evangelical, etc.

It is in the minority and it will not pass.

Furthermore, AGAIN, you already have a separate forum elsewhere that Redneck created. You have exactly what you want there. Why are you trying to force it to come into STR?

[EvAng]

Furthermore, AGAIN, you already have a separate forum elsewhere that Redneck created. You have exactly what you want there. Why are you trying to force it to come into STR?

If members of STR desire it then why should you wish to prevent it?

[PaladinValer]

It already exists.

And the only ones who seem to want it are those who are already members of it.

[EvAng]

It already exists.

And the only ones who seem to want it are those who are already members of it.

No it does not already exist. It is not on CF and if CF were to have it then more Anglicans would be attracted to post in STR because of itproviding them a place to do so.

[Naomi4Christ]

Can I just interject here something that has been troubling me as I have wandered around CF today?

One of the purposes of the reforms is to have simpler and less burdensome rules. Yes, we have a facility for forum specific rules now - but let's not get over-zeolous. We don't have to have a rule for every little scenario - we can use common sense and maturity in a lot of cases.

I'm not really targeting this at STR - just you happen to be the last place I am reading, and I have got to the point where I have to mention it. It seems in the Wiki threads that everyone who has an opinion has to add a little bit to each suggestion, and before you know it the rules will be far bigger and more complicated than before.

What we need to do is figure out our values and our objectives for STR, then add the minimum of extra rules to bring this about. We don't have to think up every scenario now, and we can tighten up over time, if that is what is necessary.

K.I.S.S. :)

[PaladinValer]

No it does not already exist.

How come I can find it then? How come you've even posted in it?

Here it is, in living color: http://www.setbb.com/conservativeang/index.php?sid=b8b193e406b482faede5dfb44f50c655&mforum=conservativeang

It is not on CF and if CF were to have it then more Anglicans would be attracted to post in STR because of itproviding them a place to do so.

It needn't be however because here, all Anglicans are equals. There, you separate them. You've already quite convinently separated moderates and liberals, I might add. Have that here? Nothankyou.

Can I just interject here something that has been troubling me as I have wandered around CF today?

One of the purposes of the reforms is to have simpler and less burdensome rules. Yes, we have a facility for forum specific rules now - but let's not get over-zeolous. We don't have to have a rule for every little scenario - we can use common sense and maturity in a lot of cases.

Usually I agree, and I do agree that the rules should be as simple as possible, but we need to have some things defined and some set order that is simple.

Oh, and KISS is such a great band! :thumbsup:

[EvAng]

How come I can find it then? How come you've even posted in it?

That is not a Conservative Anglican subforum at STR on CF which is what we are talking about as you well know!

[karen freeinchristman]

Can I just interject here something that has been troubling me as I have wandered around CF today?

One of the purposes of the reforms is to have simpler and less burdensome rules. Yes, we have a facility for forum specific rules now - but let's not get over-zeolous. We don't have to have a rule for every little scenario - we can use common sense and maturity in a lot of cases.

I'm not really targeting this at STR - just you happen to be the last place I am reading, and I have got to the point where I have to mention it. It seems in the Wiki threads that everyone who has an opinion has to add a little bit to each suggestion, and before you know it the rules will be far bigger and more complicated than before.

What we need to do is figure out our values and our objectives for STR, then add the minimum of extra rules to bring this about. We don't have to think up every scenario now, and we can tighten up over time, if that is what is necessary.

K.I.S.S. :)
:thumbsup: :amen: :clap: :thumbsup: :amen: :clap:

[PaladinValer]

That is not a Conservative Anglican subforum at STR on CF which is what we are talking about as you well know!

You don't need a conservative Anglican subforum. You have your separate forum for that.

In addition, and I know for certain you are knowledgeful of this, TomUK has already requested a conservative congregational forum open to all conservatives.

Why not, instead of wanting what you probably won't get, campaign with TomUK for that other board?

[EvAng]

You don't need a conservative Anglican subforum. You have your separate forum for that.

It was established because whilst we wished one on CF people such as you blocked us at every move in the name of diversity. Now there is a real chance that we can have a subforum which is what we wanted in the first place.

TomUK has already requested a conservative congregational forum open to all conservatives.

I know he has.

Why not, instead of wanting what you probably won't get, campaign with TomUK for that other board?

I see no reason why we should not be allowed a subforum on STR for evangelical Anglicans.

[PaladinValer]

Because otherwise, I will call for all other types of Anglicans to have theirs, and we'll have about 13 additional subforums. And they are just as Anglican as Evangelicals

Want to moderate that mess? Most people here I think will say NO.

[EvAng]

Because otherwise, I will call for all other types of Anglicans to have theirs, and we'll have about 13 additional subforums. And they are just as Anglican as Evangelicals

PaladinValer as his usual inclusive self :P

You can call for them but unless there is a need for them then why bother?

[PaladinValer]

There is a need: they are Anglican. It doesn't matter if they don't post yet: the fact that they are, and that STR is their's too, means that they should have their own private, self-contained, exclusionist area.

Sad...STR won't be available for all Anglicans to have Full-Membership it. We're splitting it up so that we might say "Yes, you're Anglican, but you're not like us, so you cannot post in here to debate."

That's your version of STR. Mine is much more Anglican.

[EvAng]

There is a need: they are Anglican. It doesn't matter if they don't post yet: the fact that they are, and that STR is their's too...

If they are not members of CF then they do not count. Indeed it is funny that STR belongs to those who do not even know that CF exists!! If members of STR desire a subforum then they should be granted it.

We're splitting it up so that we might say "Yes, you're Anglican, but you're not like us, so you cannot post in here to debate."

That is to allow like minded Anglicans to fellowship together.

That's your version of STR. Mine is much more Anglican.

Oh right :yawn: :sleep: