A moment of your time, if I may....

[longhair75]

Good afternoon friends.

We have the opportunity to work together to rebuild STR into a forum to suit ourselves. The first task is to make some decisions regarding forum specific rules. I am sure we can come up with a set of simple rules that will allow us to continue on to refine our forum. The future of this forum may include a selection of subfora. My reading of Friend Erwin's proposals seem to indicate that this is indeed within the scope of the new CF rules.

Our first task is to decide the character of our forum, and by what rules we will post. We have those things that we disagree upon, but there is much more that unites us. This is what we need to concentrate on first.

We have multiple threads active now that seem to be moving from discussion to argument about the number and types of subfora we need and how we are to divide. This argument is turning mean, and is doing no one any good.

I move that we table the subfora discussion for the moment and return to refining the rules Wiki with the basic posting rules that we can discuss and come to some sort of consensus. Once we have a working set of rules, we can return to the subject of subfora and have a civil discussion regarding their formation.

In the meantime, I will research the mechanism by which the subfora can be created and labeled, and report back on CF policy regarding this. With the facts in hand, maybe our best avenue would be to nominate a committee of a cross section of posters to come up with a plan for whatever subfora we want.

Just my ever so humble opinion.

God Bless All Here,

Peter

[Wigglesworth]

A proposal I would like to make is to (1) include a refined version of Pamela's locked sticky in the current wiki, then (2) put the whole thing in a poll, then (3) post it in a locked sticky as the STR rules if 2/3 of the Anglican and Old Catholic voters approve of it.

Future amendments could be made through continuing the wiki work and posting other polls.

Peace.

[longhair75]

I would like to second Friend Wigglesworth's proposal

[karen freeinchristman]

Going now to re-read Pamela's locked sticky. brb.

[karen freeinchristman]

Just noticed some of our sticky's are missing - or is it just me? The vocations one (St. Lawrence Lounge) and the 1611 Bank fund are gone. :scratch:

[karen freeinchristman]

Just noticed some of our sticky's are missing - or is it just me? The vocations one (St. Lawrence Lounge) and the 1611 Bank fund are gone. :scratch:
Also the most current Alehouse, no. 18, is gone! :eek:

[longhair75]

I have sent a message to find out the policy regarding subfora. When I get an answer I will post it.

[EvAng]

Our first task is to decide the character of our forum, and by what rules we will post. We have those things that we disagree upon, but there is much more that unites us. This is what we need to concentrate on first.

We have multiple threads active now that seem to be moving from discussion to argument about the number and types of subfora we need and how we are to divide. This argument is turning mean, and is doing no one any good.

I move that we table the subfora discussion for the moment and return to refining the rules Wiki with the basic posting rules that we can discuss and come to some sort of consensus. Once we have a working set of rules, we can return to the subject of subfora and have a civil discussion regarding their formation.

I understand your concerns however the vision I have of STR is dependant upon the creation of subforums:

1. If the main STR forum is open for debate on any topic by members and non members then I would like to see at least a conservative Anglican subforum where such debate would not spill over into.
2. If the main STR forum restricts debate then I should like to see a subforum created specifically for debate. Perhaps a rule that debates regarding homosexuality and women's ordination be confined to the subforum for that purpose.
3. If members of STR must affirm the creeds then I would like to see a subforum for those who call themselves Anglican who do not affirm the creeds a place to discuss and fellowship.

I may be painted by certain people as uninclusive but in fact I wish STR to be inclusive but have safeguards in place to ensure STR does not become unruly.

[Colabomb]

A proposal I would like to make is to (1) include a refined version of Pamela's locked sticky in the current wiki, then (2) put the whole thing in a poll, then (3) post it in a locked sticky as the STR rules if 2/3 of the Anglican and Old Catholic voters approve of it.

Future amendments could be made through continuing the wiki work and posting other polls.

Peace.

The only problem with this is determining who is a member.

[Wigglesworth]

The only problem with this is determining who is a member.


Let the mods decide who among the voters is a self-identified Anglican or Old Catholic. It's not that hard. If you look at who voted in the polls that are open now, you will see that they are not being hijacked by Seventh Day Adventists or Atheists.

NonAnglicans/Old Catholics really don't care much about these rules STR is developing.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Inside Edge]

I'm all for Wigg's proposal. It would be a good basis for setting the tone and ground rules for the forum, everything else can flow from there.

I'm particularly interested in getting something done so all the threads won't be about the forum and its rules, and back to the usual discussion (and then some, with the new freedoms).

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm particularly interested in getting something done so all the threads won't be about the forum and its rules, and back to the usual discussion (and then some, with the new freedoms).
Me, too!

[PaladinValer]

I approve of Wiggle's suggestion, although I think a simple plurality of votes should be necessary for formal approval.

[Colabomb]

I approve of Wiggle's suggestion, although I think a simple plurality of votes should be necessary for formal approval.

We could compromise between 51% and 75% and settle at 60%?

[Colabomb]

Me, too!

You guys aren't the only ones.

But unforutnately there is business to be done :(

[Wigglesworth]

We could compromise between 51% and 75% and settle at 60%?

My teachers told me 2/3 was 66.67%.

Was it all a lie?

:eek:

[PaladinValer]

Funny Cola :)

And actually, your math is slightly off. The midway point would be 59, not 60.

(51+67)/2 = 59 ;)

[Colabomb]

My teachers told me 2/3 was 66.67%.

Was it all a lie?

:eek:


Man I am tired :P

[Colabomb]

Funny Cola :)

And actually, your math is slightly off. The midway point would be 59, not 60.

(51+67)/2 = 59 ;)

I wasn't doing math, I estimated.

And my estimation was very close for the record. :P