PDA

View Full Version : My Suggestion - Its own thread


PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 11:09 AM
A few things first:

1. It isn't as complicated as it looks. Most of the subpoints are simply to explain rights and privileges.
2. It isn't set in stone, nor do I want it to be unless everyone agrees upon it.
3. Thanks to Colabomb and to the others who have already given positive feedback!

Here we go:

1 Definition of Christianity – To be considered a Christian by the rules within STR and in the STR forum, you must accept the Nicene Creed (filioque optional) as historically interpreted. This does not mean that you are not considered a Christian as per CF rules. All who claim to be Christians, Nicene and non-Nicene, are welcome to post in STR and become Members in STR.

2 Membership – Your membership status is determined by your adherence to the Nicene Creed, your membership in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism, your affiliation or interest in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism, and your current religious belief:
2.1 Full Membership – All Baptized and Confirmed Anglicans/Old Catholics in good standing and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month.
2.2 Associate Membership - A) You are a Baptized and Confirmed Anglican/Old Catholic who does not qualify for Full Membership yet (due to irregular participation, bad standing, etc) B) You are a (Nicene) Christian who either affiliates with or is interested in Anglican/Old Catholicism and are a regular.
2.3 Fellowship Membership - A) You are a (Nicene) Christian who does not qualify for Associate Membership yet (due to irregular participation, not affiliated with Anglicanism/Old Catholicism, etc) B) You are a non-Christian (Nicene) who is interested in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month.
2.4 Guest - All others who do not yet qualify for Fellowship Membership yet. Guests are not considered Members.

3 Membership Rights and Privileges – All posters, Christians and non-Christians, are welcome in STR and enjoy the right to post and discuss topics within STR. Depending on your membership status, you may have additional rights and privileges they you may enjoy as well as any restrictions you must follow:
3.1 Full Members – As Full Members of STR, you are entitled to the following:
3.1.1 The unlimited right to debate in STR.
3.1.2 The right to a single vote to add, change, and edit rules.
3.1.3 The right to a single vote to elect moderators in STR.
3.1.4 The right to serve two terms reelectably as a moderator in STR.
3.1.5 The right to two (2) nominative votes to select STR moderator candidates
3.1.6 The right to ask an Associate Member, a Fellowship Member, or a Guest to not debate in their thread as long as such a request is justifiable.
3.1.7 The right to make appeals against moderator action against them.
3.1.8 The right to call for a recall of a moderator (see moderator rules).
3.1.9 The right to propose an alteration to the current rules in any way.
3.2 Associate Members – As Associates of STR, you are entitled and obligated to the following:
3.2.1 The unlimited privilege to debate in STR.
3.2.2 The right to a single vote to add, change, and edit rules.
3.2.3 The right to a single vote to elect moderators in STR.
3.2.4 The right to serve one reelectable term as a moderator in STR.
3.2.5 The right to one (1) nominative vote to select STR moderator candidates.
3.2.6 The right to make appeals against moderator action against them.
3.2.7 The right to call for a recall of a moderator (see moderator rules).
3.2.8 The right to propose an alteration to the current rules in any way.
3.2.9 The requirement to refrain from debating in a thread when asked by the OP or by a moderator. However, you enjoy the right to appeal this action.
3.2.10 The requirement to not question Anglicanism’s/Old Catholicism’s claims of Catholicity, validity of their Holy Orders, their status as a true church in the proper sense, etc. However, you have the right to ask questions about these claims and the right to discuss these claims as you wish.
3.2.11 The requirement to, if a moderator, not perform unilateral actions that deal with Anglicanism/Old Catholicism directly. You must always consult with a Full Member moderator in acts that deal directly with Anglicanism/Old Catholicism.
3.3 Fellowship Members – As Fellows of STR, you are entitled and obligated to the following:
3.3.1 The limited privilege to debate in STR.
3.3.2 The right to a single vote to add, change, and edit rules.
3.3.3 The right to a single vote to elect moderators in STR.
3.3.4 The privilege to serve one reelectable term as a moderator in STR.
3.3.5 The right to one (1) nominative vote to select STR moderator candidates.
3.3.6 The right to make appeals against moderator action against them.
3.3.7 The right to call for a recall of a moderator (see moderator rules)
3.3.8 The right to propose an alteration to the current rules in any way.
3.3.9 The requirement to refrain from debating in a thread when asked by the OP or by a moderator. However, you enjoy the right to appeal this action.
3.3.10 The requirement to not question Anglicanism’s/Old Catholicism’s true claims of Catholicity, validity of their Holy Orders, their status as a true church in the proper sense, etc. However, you have the right to ask questions about these true claims and the right to discuss these claims as you wish respectfully.
3.3.11 The requirement to not question Christianity’s, the Nicene Creed’s, or the Trinity’s truth. However, you enjoy the right to ask questions about these truths and the right to discuss these truths as you wish respectfully.
3.3.12 The requirement to, if a moderator, not perform unilateral actions that deal with Christianity and/or Anglicanism/Old Catholicism directly. You must always consult with at least an Associate-level moderator first in actions that deal directly with Christianity and a Full Member moderator in acts that deal directly with Anglicanism/Old Catholicism.
3.4 Guests – As Guests in STR, you are entitled and obligated to the following:
3.4.1 The right to make appeals against moderator action against them.
3.4.2 The right to suggest an alteration to the current rules in any way.
3.4.3 The requirement to refrain from debating.
3.4.4 The requirement to not question Anglicanism’s/Old Catholicism’s claims of Catholicity, validity of their Holy Orders, their status as a true church in the proper sense, etc. However, you have the right to ask questions about these true claims and the right to discuss these claims as you wish respectfully.
3.4.5 The requirement to not question Christianity’s, the Nicene Creed’s, or the Trinity’s truth. However, you enjoy the right to ask questions about these truths and the right to discuss these truths as you wish respectfully.

4 Moderators – The election of and the rules for moderators in STR
4.1 Election of Moderators
4.1.1 One (1) month to the day before elections, everyone is given one week to use their nominative vote(s) to select candidates for the election
4.1.1.1 You may not nominate yourself.
4.1.1.2 You may, under no circumstances, use a sock puppet. Doing so voids your vote and expels you from this year’s election and may be punishable otherwise.
4.1.2 Those who received at least five (5) nominations will become official candidates.
4.1.3 On Election Week, everyone is given one week to use their single vote to elect a moderator. Those who receive the highest votes will be installed in one (1) month after the initial day of elections as moderators.
4.1.3.1 The number of available moderator seats is dependant on the number of Members divided by three (3).
4.1.3.2 One (1) of these musts must be held by an Anglican/Old Catholic who has received either:
4.1.3.2.1 The Sacrament of Holy Orders
4.1.3.2.2 Is a seminarian or ordinand
4.1.3.2.3 Is an ordained Subdeacon
4.1.3.2.4 Has officially received minor orders
4.1.4 Full Members elected are moderators receive an automatic two year term and are therefore not subject to reelection the coming year but are so the year after.
4.2 Rules for Moderators
4.2.1 Moderators must follow the same STR rules as Members do
4.2.2 Moderators who show bad form, are abusive with their powers, or grossly violation rules are at the mercy of Members and their fellow moderators of being nominated for a recall.
4.2.2.1 If nominated for a recall, the moderators temporarily suspend the accused moderator for his/her duties for a week while deliberating what to do. Those potentially affected by the accused moderator have the right to bring evidence and comment on the deliberations and those not affected have the privilege to comment on the deliberations.
4.2.2.2 After the week, the moderators vote whether to fire the moderator. A majority of votes is all that is required. A fired moderator becomes a Member and may not be electable next new term.

5 Rules – The ratification to these rules and to the addition, subtraction, and/or edits to these rules.
5.1 Changing the Rules
5.1.1 A Member must draw up a bill and have it co-sponsored by either two other Members or one other Member and a Moderator.
5.1.2 A set period of time is established in which to discuss and debate the bill. That period is extendable and the bill is editable during this time.
5.1.3 At the end of the debatable period, Members are given one week to cast their vote on whether to pass the bill or reject it.
5.1.3.1 The bill must be passed by a majority in the House of Members and in the House of Moderators to pass.
5.1.3.2 Line-item vetos are not permitted.
5.1.4 If the bill fails, it may be resubmitted at a later time no earlier than six (6) months.
5.1.5 If the bill passes, then its author is entitled to, at his/her earliest convenience, change the rules as per the passed bill.

Colabomb
11th July 2007, 11:19 AM
Just for clarification, I stated it as a decent starting point, and perahaps necessary of a bit of tweaking.

I need to read over it a bit, before I can make any suggestions.

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 11:25 AM
Positive feedback doesn't mean necessarily agreement; it must means feedback which was positive in its agreement, critique, disagreement, etc. :)

Colabomb
11th July 2007, 11:33 AM
How do you describe the difference between right and privilage?

EvAng
11th July 2007, 11:44 AM
1 Definition of Christianity – To be considered a Christian by the rules within STR and in the STR forum, you must accept the Nicene Creed (filioque optional) as historically interpreted. This does not mean that you are not considered a Christian as per CF rules. All who claim to be Christians, Nicene and non-Nicene, are welcome to post in STR and become Members in STR.

Contradictory. In order for STR to call you a Christian you must accept the Nicene Creed (:amen: ) but you can be a member of STR if you do not agree with the Nicene Creed and are therefore not a Christian according to STR rules :scratch:. Far better, IMO, to say that if you call yourself an Anglican then you are.


2 Membership – Your membership status is determined by your adherence to the Nicene Creed, your membership in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism, your affiliation or interest in Anglicanism/Old Catholicism, and your current religious belief:

This will be way too complicated and impossible to police.

2.1 Full Membership – All Baptized and Confirmed Anglicans/Old Catholics in good standing and are a regular participant in STR. You have been a regular participant for at least one month.
What if your congregation had fallen out with its bishop (him being a heretic) and so you are not confirmed although you are still a member of the Church of England? (My case)

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 12:20 PM
Contradictory. In order for STR to call you a Christian you must accept the Nicene Creed (:amen: ) but you can be a member of STR if you do not agree with the Nicene Creed and are therefore not a Christian according to STR rules :scratch:. Far better, IMO, to say that if you call yourself an Anglican then you are.

Not contradictory, since STR is still a part of CF. CF rules maintain that those who call themselves Christians may post anywhere.

STR rules dictate that, for the purpose of the rules, Christian is defined by the Nicene Creed. However, we stil must be in line with CF's base rules. And that includes that anyone who claims to be Christian, is. That doesn't not prohibit congregational forums to be more restrictive so long as they allow base CF rules.

This will be way too complicated and impossible to police.

You need to say why you think so. I don't think it is at all.

Actual membership quite easy.
Affiliating with and interest can be explicitly expressed and easily detected.
Adherence to the Creed is also detectable.
Current religious belief? Just look at the icon!

What if your congregation had fallen out with its bishop (him being a heretic) and so you are not confirmed although you are still a member of the Church of England? (My case)

1. Anglicanism rejects Donatism, don't forget.
2. Heretic defined by...?
3. Baptized and Confirmed. At your age, you should have a formal mature pronouncement of Confirmation of your faith and Baptism.

If the bishop is in communion and is uninhibited, then his sacraments are valid. Even if he weren't, technically, his sacraments are still valid. That's the beauty of Holy Orders.

And if your congregation is outside the communion of its bishop, how is it then in communion with the Church of England?

Naomi4Christ
11th July 2007, 12:26 PM
Real church isn't this complicated.

For folks to be a voting member of our church, they have to be over-16, baptised, and either have to live in the parish (and not even attend, and can be of any denomination, including non-Christian or none at all), or if living outside the parish, have worshipped regularly for 6 months (with no specific definition of regular).

How about building our forum membership on this solid Anglican priciple?

Colabomb
11th July 2007, 12:32 PM
Because it is a forum, not a church.

In a church those are wonderful and great rules. In a forum it breeds chaos.

Naomi4Christ
11th July 2007, 12:38 PM
PV - I don't want to seem to trash your idea - why don't you C&P it into a wiki. I think you can create one in the Ecumenical Wiki area if you would like.

Naomi4Christ
11th July 2007, 12:39 PM
/shrug We can still use Anglican principles.

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 12:41 PM
Real church isn't this complicated.

But STR isn't a church. :)

For folks to be a voting member of our church, they have to be over-16, baptised, and either have to live in the parish (and not even attend, and can be of any denomination, including non-Christian or none at all), or if living outside the parish, have worshipped regularly for 6 months (with no specific definition of regular).

I already have it that any actual Member has a right to vote.

How about building our forum membership on this solid Anglican priciple?

But...that principle is spelled out quite firmly in my suggestion.

Because it is a forum, not a church.

In a church those are wonderful and great rules. In a forum it breeds chaos.

Exactly.

PV - I don't want to seem to trash your idea - why don't you C&P it into a wiki. I think you can create one in the Ecumenical Wiki area if you would like.

STR already has a wiki, and I'm not goint to edit it with my suggestion arbitarily.

Camden202
11th July 2007, 01:18 PM
Is this whole 'concept' serious??? or am I missing the punch line????

Can someone explain to me what STR is?? :help: and while your at it explain how an Anglican can be a "non-nicean" ???

I know I am in Australia..... CRIKEY!!!! But what I lack for in geography... i make up for in other 'talents' :liturgy:

Thanks kindly,

God Bless

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 01:35 PM
STR=the forum you are posting in. It is called Scripture, Tradition, Reason.

karen freeinchristman
11th July 2007, 03:17 PM
I gotta tell you, PV, I'm not liking the membership levels idea.

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 04:08 PM
What don't you like about it? Why? Please elaborate.

Wigglesworth
11th July 2007, 05:00 PM
The moderator section doesn't line up with Erwin's rules for moderator election. He has commanded a one-year term. Moreover, the requirement that a mod be a seminarian or priest is superfluous. No sacraments should be offered online.

karen freeinchristman
11th July 2007, 05:09 PM
What don't you like about it? Why? Please elaborate.Seems unnecessarily exclusive. Too many conditions. I would agree with distinctions only between [Anglicans & Old Catholics] and all others (other denoms + non-Christians). Really, I guess I'm saying there should be two levels and not 4 or however many were in your suggestion.

The moderator section doesn't line up with Erwin's rules for moderator election. He has commanded a one-year term. Moreover, the requirement that a mod be a seminarian or priest is superfluous. No sacraments should be offered online.I agree. There is no need whatsoever in having an ordained person or an ordinand in the moderating group.

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 05:36 PM
The moderator section doesn't line up with Erwin's rules for moderator election.

How? They are one-term elections.

Full Members elected would automatically be reelected. All we have to do is say "X" is reelected.

He has commanded a one-year term.

Reelective, of course.

Moreover, the requirement that a mod be a seminarian or priest is superfluous. No sacraments should be offered online.

I don't think it is superfluous. I believe it is vital that an Anglican/Old Catholic always be assured one seat.

Seems unnecessarily exclusive. Too many conditions. I would agree with distinctions only between [Anglicans & Old Catholics] and all others (other denoms + non-Christians). Really, I guess I'm saying there should be two levels and not 4 or however many were in your suggestion.

But should people who just pop in be given voting rights?

As for reducing member ship levels, I suppose you could drop off the Fellowship level and bump the people who would apply for it to the Associate level. Would that be a more acceptable alternative to you?

I agree. There is no need whatsoever in having an ordained person or an ordinand in the moderating group.

The point of that is twofold:

1. It assures an official Anglican/Old Catholic presence
2. It assures that an expert within Anglicanism/Old Catholicism, a real theologian, always be present among STR staff.

Inside Edge
11th July 2007, 05:48 PM
I tend to agree with Karen's observations. I don't see a necessity for a mandatory ordained person on the mod staff. There's absolutely nothing about being a priest or deacon that predisposes a person to being a better moderator on an internet board vs someone else.

If it's Anglican/Old Catholic presence on the mod staff that is the issue, then just make a rule that at least one person has to be an Anglican/Old Catholic regular member. I find the idea of privelaging or burdening clergy on these boards repugnant.

Colabomb
11th July 2007, 05:58 PM
Karen makes some sense, 2 levels....

But that would again bring up the question of Nicea vs. Non-Nicea. I've been called a 13 year old girl already, and been accused of being a monster.... SO I'm considering throwing in the towel....

RadixLecti
11th July 2007, 09:47 PM
Karen makes some sense, 2 levels....

But that would again bring up the question of Nicea vs. Non-Nicea. I've been called a 13 year old girl already, and been accused of being a monster.... SO I'm considering throwing in the towel....
Stick around, your posts really bring a lot to STR.

Wigglesworth
11th July 2007, 09:54 PM
Consider this posted by someone upstairs:

The members of the Congregational fora will be empowered to elect their own moderators and establish their own rules for who may debate in them. In essence, they will remain safe-havens for members of the Congregation.

This does not mean that Congregational fora are allowed to make rules that conflict with the CF rules.

The only clear guidance this offers with respect to this thread is that the members of STR can decide who can debate in STR. The other circumstances, such as who can be a moderator, may not be up to our discretion, but rather, may be the subject of CF general rules.

Peace

:crossrc:

Inside Edge
11th July 2007, 10:11 PM
I've been called a 13 year old girl already, and been accused of being a monster.... SO I'm considering throwing in the towel....
Sorry, I guess my comment didn't have the intended effect. But you gotta see the humour in being called both of those in one day? A 13 year old girl and a monster - it's like you crossed the entire spectrum over a few heartbeats! (although in my defense, I didn't actually call you a 13 year old girl :sorry: )

Unless of course some people equate 13-year old girls with monsters...:eek:

(To anyone wondering, I said in another post that I found his actions lately bordering that of a wigged-out 13-year old girl).

longhair75
11th July 2007, 10:15 PM
Friend PaladinValer,

After a very careful read and some time to consider you original post, I commend you for a fully thought out concept.

I think we need a much simpler set of membership criteria to get us started, and some basic ideas to form the beginning forum specific rules.

Naomi4Christ
11th July 2007, 10:33 PM
Have a look at this thread for reference:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5670030-initial-guideline-for-the-creation-of-subforum-rules.html

EvAng
12th July 2007, 06:51 AM
I gotta tell you, PV, I'm not liking the membership levels idea.

You are not the only one.

EvAng
12th July 2007, 06:51 AM
Have a look at this thread for reference:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5670030-initial-guideline-for-the-creation-of-subforum-rules.html

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

For example, one could limit thread and post contents within a subforum with statements of faith, such as the Nicene Creed, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Westminster Confession. Or one could limit debates to only those who hold to a specific belief, while allowing topics to be discussed, or one could be pretty open. It is for the members to decide.

In the event, a subforum cannot achieve some level of agreement on what their rules should be, the creation of additional subforums are a possibility.

PaladinValer
12th July 2007, 11:35 AM
Who's denying entry? Did you actually read my suggestion, EvAng?

And it says that you can limit debate.

And it says that you can exclude certain topics for debate.