STR Debate

[EvAng]

Where and by whom should STR debate take place?

[Wigglesworth]

It should be the same as before. Members had the undeniable privelege of debate, and nonmembers were given the grace to debate, as long as they remained civil and cordial. If the nonmember chose to become nasty, the mods had the authority to squash him like a water balloon under an elephant's rump.

[Inside Edge]

Again, I agree with Wigglesworth. The main forum should be open, even moreso, than it was before.

Sub-forums should also be able to house debate. I liked your rules in the other thread: debate in a subforum can place restrictions on the debate, like you have to adhere to a certain creed or you have to assume/believe a certain position in order to participate.

The beauty of that system (in a sub-forum) is that you don't actually have to label anyone. If a thread in the "Conservative" subforum is discussing a topic on which I am typically conservative and I happen to adhere to the beliefs or conditions put on that thread, then I get a chance to participate. Essentially, it focuses the discussion to whatever slant is intended without banning someone wholesale because they are 'known in general' as a liberal or whatever. (All of this works vice versa, too).

An example would be, that someone may be OK with same-sex blessings but rabidly anti-abortion. If both topics were active in their own threads in a conservative sub forum (and thus having some sort of filter-disclaimer at outset of the thread), said person would be able to enter the one thread and discuss as a conservative on the issue, whereas they might be excluded from the other thread because they don't meet the basic criteria. But said member would not be banned wholesale from the entire subforum.

[Aymn27]

Again, I agree with Wigglesworth. The main forum should be open, even moreso, than it was before.

Sub-forums should also be able to house debate. I liked your rules in the other thread: debate in a subforum can place restrictions on the debate, like you have to adhere to a certain creed or you have to assume/believe a certain position in order to participate.

The beauty of that system (in a sub-forum) is that you don't actually have to label anyone. If a thread in the "Conservative" subforum is discussing a topic on which I am typically conservative and I happen to adhere to the beliefs or conditions put on that thread, then I get a chance to participate. Essentially, it focuses the discussion to whatever slant is intended without banning someone wholesale because they are 'known in general' as a liberal or whatever. (All of this works vice versa, too).

An example would be, that someone may be OK with same-sex blessings but rabidly anti-abortion. If both topics were active in their own threads in a conservative sub forum (and thus having some sort of filter-disclaimer at outset of the thread), said person would be able to enter the one thread and discuss as a conservative on the issue, whereas they might be excluded from the other thread because they don't meet the basic criteria. But said member would not be banned wholesale from the entire subforum.
Dude..since when did you get so freakin SMART!! :P

Totally agree....main forum - no holds barred
Anglicans Only - Only members debate
Conservative forum - no debating conservative doctrine open discussion for conserv.
Liberal forum - no debating liberal doctrine and open discussion for liberals

That sounds workable and reasonable...and not complicated!!!