The Big Picture

[Aymn27]

I think we should decide how the forum will be laid out before we start voting on rules for the main board, etc...I think rules would be different if we continue with just one main board as opposed to if we have subfora...

[Inside Edge]

Wow. A clear and complete poll question. Who'd have thought it, around these parts?

I almost feel like it must be a trick question and I haven't figured out the trick!

[Fish and Bread]

On the flip side, though, for some folks the way the big board is laid out may determine whether they want sub-forums or not and, if so, what the sub-forums should be like. It all makes my head spin. :)

[Aymn27]

Wow. A clear and complete poll question. Who'd have thought it, around these parts?

I almost feel like it must be a trick question and I haven't figured out the trick!
no trick...I think we should split it down the middle...and let the chips fall as they may..

[Aymn27]

On the flip side, though, for some folks the way the big board is laid out may determine whether they want sub-forums or not and, if so, what the sub-forums should be like. It all makes my head spin. :)
agreed...and for what it's worth..I think the main board (if we have subfora) should be open to any and all with no restrictions...on beliefs, creeds, etc...but that's just me..

[karen freeinchristman]

I put that I lean towards sub-fora for the reason that I think it might help the harmony on the forum as a whole.

[Fish and Bread]

agreed...and for what it's worth..I think the main board (if we have subfora) should be open to any and all with no restrictions...on beliefs, creeds, etc...but that's just me..

I mentioned to Cola privately that I think it is fair and just to have progressive and conservative sub-forums with rule restrictions and then a main board open to all. That wouldn't make anyone less equal than anyone else, since everyone would be eligible to post in one forum and one sub-forum each.

The only potential issue I'd have with it is I think it might hurt the overall level of forum traffic and activity overall just because of the technical dynamics of three forums, but that is more of a technical issue than one I have a strong feeling about. I could see going with either one big forum that is fairly open or a big forum that is fairly open with two sub-forums with special rules. Either would be fair and just from my perspective. The question is just which would work better from a pragmatic perspective. My inclination would be to say try a fairly open big forum alone at first, then if it doesn't work after a period of time, approve two more restrictive sub-forums in addition.

[Inside Edge]

I voted leaning towards subfora as well. I would be 'all-in-favour' there were more specifics on the rules for subfora.

For example, I am not really interested in subfora if the subfora rules categorically restrict a member of STR from posting/debating/discussing.

However, as I said in another thread, I think there can indeed be subfora that focus/slant debate based on criteria and not self-identification or reputation on the Anglican-o-meter.

In this sense, we still all have access to all of STR. But when you're in a sub-forum, you would be more aware that there's some different rules that you have to assume and respect if you're going to participate.

To me, this is a far cry from a sign on the door knob that says "no XXXX allowed." The sign would read more like, "You can come in, but you need to accept that the talk in here assumes XXXX, so if what you're interested in is hashing out XXXX, keep it in the main forum. Otherwise, come on in and try not to get brainwashed. :)

And yes - I also thought of Fish's point, which is the technical feel to the forum once you tack on sub-forums. And like him, I don't really have strong feelings about it.

[Aymn27]

I voted leaning towards subfora as well. I would be 'all-in-favour' there were more specifics on the rules for subfora.

For example, I am not really interested in subfora if the subfora rules categorically restrict a member of STR from posting/debating/discussing.

However, as I said in another thread, I think there can indeed be subfora that focus/slant debate based on criteria and not self-identification or reputation on the Anglican-o-meter.

In this sense, we still all have access to all of STR. But when you're in a sub-forum, you would be more aware that there's some different rules that you have to assume and respect if you're going to participate.

To me, this is a far cry from a sign on the door knob that says "no XXXX allowed." The sign would read more like, "You can come in, but you need to accept that the talk in here assumes XXXX, so if what you're interested in is hashing out XXXX, keep it in the main forum. Otherwise, come on in and try not to get brainwashed. :)

And yes - I also thought of Fish's point, which is the technical feel to the forum once you tack on sub-forums. And like him, I don't really have strong feelings about it.
This is exactly what we had been advocating all along...for instance..in the conservative subforum...there would be no debating in favor of same-sex unions....but there could be discussion about it amongst those opposed to ssu...however, say you were in favor of ssu but took a conservative stand on women in ministry...then you would be allowed to discuss that topic and someone in favor of it would not be allowed to debate it. I don't think anyone wanted to categorically deny anyone else access from the subforum...at least not to my knowledge...

[Fish and Bread]

For example, I am not really interested in subfora if the subfora rules categorically restrict a member of STR from posting/debating/discussing.

However, as I said in another thread, I think there can indeed be subfora that focus/slant debate based on criteria and not self-identification or reputation on the Anglican-o-meter.

In this sense, we still all have access to all of STR. But when you're in a sub-forum, you would be more aware that there's some different rules that you have to assume and respect if you're going to participate.

To me, this is a far cry from a sign on the door knob that says "no XXXX allowed." The sign would read more like, "You can come in, but you need to accept that the talk in here assumes XXXX, so if what you're interested in is hashing out XXXX, keep it in the main forum. Otherwise, come on in and try not to get brainwashed. :)

I like that vision of sub-forums, if we decide to go with sub-forums -- without restrictions on who can post there, but with written-in assumptions that can't be debated in the individual sub-forums (i.e. For example people may not be able to debate against women priests in the liberal sub-forum, or against the 39 articles in the conservative sub-forum, but people who are against those things can post in either forum without debating those particular topics in the sub-forum which has views opposite their own).

[Colabomb]

To me, this is a far cry from a sign on the door knob that says "no XXXX allowed." The sign would read more like, "You can come in, but you need to accept that the talk in here assumes XXXX, so if what you're interested in is hashing out XXXX, keep it in the main forum. Otherwise, come on in and try not to get brainwashed. :)




That's exactly what (most of us) are proposing. Simply the assumption in discussion.

We aren't starting a "No Homers" Club.

(That's a simpson's reference, not a homosexuality reference)

[AngCath]

I lean toward not having subfora but won't "freak out" if they are created in accordance with the popular will of STR.

[Aymn27]

That's exactly what (most of us) are proposing. Simply the assumption in discussion.

We aren't starting a "No Homers" Club.

(That's a simpson's reference, not a homosexuality reference)
yea yea...u bigot!! rofl...

[Inside Edge]

That's exactly what (most of us) are proposing. Simply the assumption in discussion.
Well, that's good. I hadn't gotten that impression though, and it turns out I'm one of the proponents of "what you have been proposing all along." So you can see how things can go astray.

My guess is that terms like "refuge" and the like were thrown around too much. When I think back to the previous discussions, that's what I remember the most and I remember having the distinct impression that the desire was for a private club. Going forward, those who really want the subforums should maybe explain them as the recent posts above had - even if it means massive repetition on your part. Because it appears that this explanation has more going for it than previous ones. I have to say, I really see value in that kind of setup.

[Aymn27]

Well, that's good. I hadn't gotten that impression though, and it turns out I'm one of the proponents of "what you have been proposing all along." So you can see how things can go astray.

My guess is that terms like "refuge" and the like were thrown around too much. When I think back to the previous discussions, that's what I remember the most and I remember having the distinct impression that the desire was for a private club. Going forward, those who really want the subforums should maybe explain them as the recent posts above had - even if it means massive repetition on your part. Because it appears that this explanation has more going for it than previous ones. I have to say, I really see value in that kind of setup.
or maybe...just maybe...my intercessory prayer to have you converted to the "dark side" (aka conservative side) have been working....

makes one wonder ;)

[PaladinValer]

No subforums.

Anglicanism has traditionally been diverse. We can have STR have full membership for Nicenes only. We don't need subforums because we'll need them for every type of Anglican, and that will be way too complex to moderate.

Furthermore, what is already proposed for the "orthodox" subforum is nothing more than a pot-shot against moderates and liberals, which would unilaterally alienate them from that qualifier due to a differing position on human sexuality. That's what is NOT being said by the pro-subforum folks and it is what should have been brought to light right from the getgo in this thread. It is dishonest.

[Inside Edge]

Anglicanism has traditionally been diverse. We can have STR have full membership for Nicenes only. We don't need subforums because we'll need them for every type of Anglican, and that will be way too complex to moderate.
I don't think so, after some thought. As Longhair has pointed out, there may be other rules or red tape regarding sub-forums along theological grounds or over small or singular differences. Conservative/Liberal subforums would be pretty broad in and of themselves, and there is technically no specific subject or issue attached to them. Whereas stuff like "high church" is like a topic unto itself and far more narrow; and thus, I doubt anyone would reasonably campaign for such a subforum.


Furthermore, what is already proposed for the "orthodox" subforum is nothing more than a pot-shot against moderates and liberals, which would unilaterally alienate them from that qualifier due to a differing position on human sexuality.
I don't know how you can come to this conclusion given the explanations over the last several posts. I don't see how the subforum is intended as a pot-shot; and I don't see how qualifiers on the forum or threads in the forum will categorically exclude anyone. The examples above clearly state that efforts and thought are being spent on not categorically alienating anyone.

Let's say a subforum has the qualifier that "all discussion on homosexualty in this forum must respect and accept the act/lifestyle as sinful in order to participate in a thread on the topic." In other words, anyone can post or discuss or debate in that thread, but because the conversation is in the conservative subforum the qualifier stands. So whatever the discussion happens to be about, no one can enter it and start hammering away at how homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in the first place - that's not up for debate in this subforum. If you want to question it as part of a larger argument or establish it as acceptable in order to break down subsequent arguments, take that idea to the main forum and have at it. However, if you're willing to engage the discussion within the limits of the qualifier, more power to you.

So in this example, I could either accept the "basic premise" and argue/discuss within that context, or I can keep out knowing that anything I have to say of value would violate the request to accept the basic premise.

But then I hop over to the other thread about preserving sacraments, and I find I'm in support or beleive in the basic qualifiers for that issue. I'm not categorically excluded on that thread just because of my views on homosexuality.

Some might say that it will require a big manifesto of all the "prerequisites," but I doubt it. Let's face it, there's probably 5-10 issues that would need to be moderately defined (i.e. pre-reqs indicated), and that's it.

[JasonV]

Based on this thread I'm leaning more and more heavily towards sub-forums. I don't think it would be hard to moderate, as any one of us could be moderators for our favorite sub-forum. (I'd personally love to see an "Old Catholic" sub-forum.)

I voted "leaning for" but I'm thinking I'm all for it now.

[Colabomb]

No subforums.

Anglicanism has traditionally been diverse. We can have STR have full membership for Nicenes only. We don't need subforums because we'll need them for every type of Anglican, and that will be way too complex to moderate.

Furthermore, what is already proposed for the "orthodox" subforum is nothing more than a pot-shot against moderates and liberals, which would unilaterally alienate them from that qualifier due to a differing position on human sexuality. That's what is NOT being said by the pro-subforum folks and it is what should have been brought to light right from the getgo in this thread. It is dishonest.

Brother, please don't tell me what I have and have not bee proposing.

Some on here may not want a subforum for the reasons I do, but i am sure I am not alone in my reasons.

I just want a place where Nicea and the Scriptures are what they have always been The summary of the faith, and the inspired word of God.

[Colabomb]

Based on this thread I'm leaning more and more heavily towards sub-forums. I don't think it would be hard to moderate, as any one of us could be moderators for our favorite sub-forum. (I'd personally love to see an "Old Catholic" sub-forum.)

I voted "leaning for" but I'm thinking I'm all for it now.

Actually I had an idea earlier, that I held back for fear of giving off the wrong impression.

Is perhaps there are enough old Catholics now to start a small OC board in congregation.

But, I didn't suggest it, because tensions are high, and people could read it as me trying to kick you guys out, which is not really what I want.

[RadixLecti]

I mentioned to Cola privately that I think it is fair and just to have progressive and conservative sub-forums with rule restrictions and then a main board open to all. That wouldn't make anyone less equal than anyone else, since everyone would be eligible to post in one forum and one sub-forum each.


I agree with you guys, I think the main board should be open to anyone, and that the subforums could have more restrictions. This will allow everyone the ability to participate, and will allow discussion from specific viewpoints.

[TomUK]

I'm really getting pretty tired of this. Can't we just wait a while and implement the various new rules? We need to take one thing at a time. At this rate the forums going to fracture long before we need any subforums.

[JasonV]

Is perhaps there are enough old Catholics now to start a small OC board in congregation.

I'm not sure there are very many of us Cola. I only know of four or five total. That just doesn't justify an entire congregation forum I think. (But I'd be happy to see one at any rate....I mean, if the Oriental Orthodox can have one and they're not much bigger than us, then why not, huh?)

[RadixLecti]

I'm really getting pretty tired of this. Can't we just wait a while and implement the various new rules? We need to take one thing at a time. At this rate the forums going to fracture long before we need any subforums.
I think these guys are just trying to kill two birds with one stone:
The new rules have created a challenge to the forum organisation. 1. Some people want want forum membership to be limited to a certain belief system
2. Other people want the forum to be open to anyone who self identifies as Anglican regardless of the beliefs they hold.

Subforums are the only way anyone has come up with (so far) to allow everyone full membership in STR and still have areas that require adherence to certain principles.

[RadixLecti]

I'm not sure there are very many of us Cola. I only know of four or five total. That just doesn't justify an entire congregation forum I think. (But I'd be happy to see one at any rate....I mean, if the Oriental Orthodox can have one and they're not much bigger than us, then why not, huh?)
If the Old Catholics want their own congregational forum then I'm all for it. On the otherhand OCs and Anglicans are SO similar that a separate congregational forum may not be necessary. For example, all Reformed Christians share one forum.

[JasonV]

I'm having Bro. Longhair look into an OC church forum. Maybe between the half dozen of us we can establish rules a bit quicker? ;)

[Colabomb]

I really don't mind if the OC's stay with us indefinitely.

If they have a separate forum it would be for them, not for us. :)

[ebia]

I like that vision of sub-forums, if we decide to go with sub-forums -- without restrictions on who can post there, but with written-in assumptions that can't be debated in the individual sub-forums (i.e. For example people may not be able to debate against women priests in the liberal sub-forum, or against the 39 articles in the conservative sub-forum, but people who are against those things can post in either forum without debating those particular topics in the sub-forum which has views opposite their own).
This presuposes that the group(s) concerned can agree what is out of bounds. For instance, Anglo-Catholic conservatives may well not subscribe to the 39 articles.

Few of us are conservative on every issue, or liberal on every issue - life isn't that simple, so how does one work out which positions are assumed in which subfora?

[RadixLecti]

This presuposes that the group(s) concerned can agree what is out of bounds. For instance, Anglo-Catholic conservatives may well not subscribe to the 39 articles.

Few of us are conservative on every issue, or liberal on every issue - life isn't that simple, so how does one work out which positions are assumed in which subfora?
I see what you mean, but I think the idea would be that posts of a conservative nature would go in the conservative subforum and liberal posts in the liberal forum. Anything could go in the main forum.

[ebia]

I see what you mean, but I think the idea would be that posts of a conservative nature would go in the conservative subforum and liberal posts in the liberal forum. Anything could go in the main forum.
On some issues, one person's conservative opinion is another man's liberal position.

If we could carry on civilily, respecting each other and differing points of view, etc, we wouldn't need the subforums.

The contention of those in favour subforums is that they will reduce tension by limiting who can disagree with what where, but I can't see that working without very clear, unambiguous, guidelines/rules. I can't see that happening without a million and one subforums for every possibible combination of non-negotiable positions.

[Inside Edge]

Few of us are conservative on every issue, or liberal on every issue - life isn't that simple, so how does one work out which positions are assumed in which subfora?
Well, first of all, whoever wants to be a part of that subforum (i.e. those asking for it). Secondly, as I mentioned elsewhere, I really doubt it would come down to micromanaging minutae in the rules. I get the feeling that the conservative members (for example) that actively want the subforum would be able to come up with a few general rules (in common) to satisfy them. The remaining issues (if any) could be relegated to a per-thread basis. I have a feeling that there's probably only 5-10 true issues or points that, if presupposed, would do the trick.

Many people have mentioned there's more that we have in common (especially compared to the world in general) than we have differences. As a result, it's not like there would be this radically different and complicated sub-forum that had to be managed so differently. More likely, it'll come down to "protecting" some hot-button issues and a few interpretations of one thing or another, and that'll be it.

Finally, I see it this way: if 15 conservatives of different ilks request the forum, get it, and then bicker for the next century over what is conservative and what isn't, then...that's there business and they can sleep in the bed they made.

But those kinds of fears or speculations are, I think, not necessary at this time. I'm convinced that what they're asking is far more benign and simple than most of us have thought so far.

If 10 or 15 people at our church wanted to meet a couple times a week at the church to revel in their orthodoxy, we'd let them. If such meetings resulted in odd, demeaning, offensive behaviour towards the rest of us, then our Priest would do something about it. (sorry for the simplified language, I don't actually think anyone is in it for strictly an ego trip). Outside of that, they could do with their time whatever they wanted. (Except orgies. I remember our Priest mentioning something about orgies not being allowed in the church). :)

[Wigglesworth]

I have no interest in an Old Catholic congregational forum outside of STR.

Theologically, I am most aligned with OBOB, TAW and SFPC. Since I'm not in submission to the See of Rome, I am not free to participate deeply in OBOB. Since I'm not canonically Orthodox, I am not free to participate deeply in TAW. Since I'm catholic, I am not entirely welcome in SFPC.

Although I'm not theologically or politically aligned with most of the members of STR, Old Catholics have been welcomed here. We have enough in common to keep our shoe laces tied together. Here are some other sentimental points for me: I began my journey into the historic church by visiting Episcopal churches, and I first learned about Old Catholic churches in STR.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[ebia]

Well, first of all, whoever wants to be a part of that subforum (i.e. those asking for it). Secondly, as I mentioned elsewhere, I really doubt it would come down to micromanaging minutae in the rules. I get the feeling that the conservative members (for example) that actively want the subforum would be able to come up with a few general rules (in common) to satisfy them. The remaining issues (if any) could be relegated to a per-thread basis. I have a feeling that there's probably only 5-10 true issues or points that, if presupposed, would do the trick.

Many people have mentioned there's more that we have in common (especially compared to the world in general) than we have differences. As a result, it's not like there would be this radically different and complicated sub-forum that had to be managed so differently. More likely, it'll come down to "protecting" some hot-button issues and a few interpretations of one thing or another, and that'll be it.

Finally, I see it this way: if 15 conservatives of different ilks request the forum, get it, and then bicker for the next century over what is conservative and what isn't, then...that's there business and they can sleep in the bed they made.

But those kinds of fears or speculations are, I think, not necessary at this time. I'm convinced that what they're asking is far more benign and simple than most of us have thought so far.

If 10 or 15 people at our church wanted to meet a couple times a week at the church to revel in their orthodoxy, we'd let them. If such meetings resulted in odd, demeaning, offensive behaviour towards the rest of us, then our Priest would do something about it. (sorry for the simplified language, I don't actually think anyone is in it for strictly an ego trip). Outside of that, they could do with their time whatever they wanted. (Except orgies. I remember our Priest mentioning something about orgies not being allowed in the church). :)
That seems to me to be coming back to a forum for conservative members (or a subgroup thereof) rather than a forum for conservative issues.

We've had a few people saying (roughly) "I'll support it if it's open to all members and the restriction is that one must not dispute certain (unspecified) conservative issues", but the practicalities always seem to link back to the particular membership. It seems to me that there are quite contentions issues that would impinge upon many of the discussions in such a discussion (eg are the 39 articles authorative or not) that are vital in seeing what sort of forum one is actually producing.

I couldn't support the principle of such forums without some clearer idea of how we are going to sort out such details.

[karen freeinchristman]

This is how I would like to see STR set up:

All those who self-identify as Anglican or Old Catholic are members. All others are guests. (Perhaps we could have a sticky for members to acknowledge their self-identification, to make moderation easier?)

In the main forum, all members have full debating rights within the CF rules (i.e. no flaming, no plagerising, etc). All guests are welcome for fellowship, questions, and civil discussion (any discussion bordering on debate would have to be closely monitored).

Two subforums: conservative topics and liberal topics. In these subforums, there would be discussion of the relevant topic without the fear of cherished beliefs being challenged (whereas if the thread were in the main forum, challenges and debates by the opposing viewpoint may be made). The rules would be finalised by those who wanted to self-identify as conservative or liberal.

An example of possible conservative subforum qualifiers:

Nicene Creed and
One or more of the following:
39 Articles
BCP
Lambeth Quadrilateral
Ecumenical Councils
etc.

Notice my suggestion is 'one or more', because you'll never get everyone agreeing on them all.

The main forum rules should be implemented ASAP, so that some semblance of normality might return to STR, and the subforum ones can take longer.

Just my recent thoughts.

[Colabomb]

I have no interest in an Old Catholic congregational forum outside of STR.

Theologically, I am most aligned with OBOB, TAW and SFPC. Since I'm not in submission to the See of Rome, I am not free to participate deeply in OBOB. Since I'm not canonically Orthodox, I am not free to participate deeply in TAW. Since I'm catholic, I am not entirely welcome in SFPC.

Although I'm not theologically or politically aligned with most of the members of STR, Old Catholics have been welcomed here. We have enough in common to keep our shoe laces tied together. Here are some other sentimental points for me: I began my journey into the historic church by visiting Episcopal churches, and I first learned about Old Catholic churches in STR.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

I'd like to repeat it was not my goal to get rid of you. I welcome you here. Just a suggestion if you were interested.

[longhair75]

This is how I would like to see STR set up:

All those who self-identify as Anglican or Old Catholic are members. All others are guests. (Perhaps we could have a sticky for members to acknowledge their self-identification, to make moderation easier?)

In the main forum, all members have full debating rights within the CF rules (i.e. no flaming, no plagerising, etc). All guests are welcome for fellowship, questions, and civil discussion (any discussion bordering on debate would have to be closely monitored).

Two subforums: conservative topics and liberal topics. In these subforums, there would be discussion of the relevant topic without the fear of cherished beliefs being challenged (whereas if the thread were in the main forum, challenges and debates by the opposing viewpoint may be made). The rules would be finalised by those who wanted to self-identify as conservative or liberal.

An example of possible conservative subforum qualifiers:

Nicene Creed and
One or more of the following:
39 Articles
BCP
Lambeth Quadrilateral
Ecumenical Councils
etc.

Notice my suggestion is 'one or more', because you'll never get everyone agreeing on them all.

The main forum rules should be implemented ASAP, so that some semblance of normality might return to STR, and the subforum ones can take longer.

Just my recent thoughts.
Friend Karen, you make some excellent points here

[Albion]

This is how I would like to see STR set up:

An example of possible conservative subforum qualifiers:

Nicene Creed and
One or more of the following:
39 Articles
BCP
Lambeth Quadrilateral
Ecumenical Councils
etc.

Notice my suggestion is 'one or more', because you'll never get everyone agreeing on them all.

The main forum rules should be implemented ASAP, so that some semblance of normality might return to STR, and the subforum ones can take longer.

Just my recent thoughts.

I like your thinking except that I get stuck on the Ecumenical Councils as the only selection needed in that list. If one only is necessary and that one is the Ecumenical Councils, the person has no foot in anything distinctively Anglicanism at all except for the required self-identification (which I have supported being required). Otherwise, you've crafted an answer that makes good sense IMO.

[karen freeinchristman]

I like your thinking except that I get stuck on the Ecumenical Councils as the only selection needed in that list. If one only is necessary and that one is the Ecumenical Councils, the person has no foot in anything distinctively Anglicanism at all except for the required self-identification (which I have supported being required). Otherwise, you've crafted an answer that makes good sense IMO.
Yeah, I take that on board; my list was really just a very incomplete one and only illustrative. :)

[Inside Edge]

I think Karen's outline should do it.

Albion - the subforum qualifiers would be entirely up to you and the other members that want the forum. I'm pretty sure the others will feel the same as you and be willing to tack on more than just one of those qualifiers. However, if the lot of you can't agree on what makes you conservative, or what makes a conservative Anglican for the purposes of and STR subforum...well, hey, that's the conservative members' problem to work out.

Go Karen Go!

[Aymn27]

Friend Karen, you make some excellent points here
I agree...let's go with it!!!

[RadixLecti]

I agree...let's go with it!!!
same here, let's go with Karen's outline.

[Albion]

Yeah, I take that on board; my list was really just a very incomplete one and only illustrative. :)

I know that that's what you were saying to us--not a formal proposal but ideas on paper, etc. However, I found it solid enough (and so did others, as it turned out) to be something we should go with and without further delay, save only for that one point I made. Put another way, I saw it so close to signed, sealed, and acceptable, that I was asking only that there be this little alteration, for it then to be considered done. As I have voted, I'm not keen on subforums anyway. That's because it's no fun just exchanging 'attaboys.' I don't look forward to what Inside Edge suggested, that there will be negotiations and time for deciding on the subfora, etc. Let's just have this be, as you laid it before us but minus Ecumenical Councils, the layout for the subfora if and when it is decided to have one. Is there any problem anyone sees with that?

[longhair75]

Friend Albion,

I am pretty sure we will have no problems accomplishing this. Friend Karen's proposal is very reasonable, and in line with precedent CF wide for the establishment of these subfora. Once we get a voting procedure set, the membership can decide to go forward on the subfora plan.

[ebia]

This is how I would like to see STR set up:

All those who self-identify as Anglican or Old Catholic are members. All others are guests. (Perhaps we could have a sticky for members to acknowledge their self-identification, to make moderation easier?)

In the main forum, all members have full debating rights within the CF rules (i.e. no flaming, no plagerising, etc). All guests are welcome for fellowship, questions, and civil discussion (any discussion bordering on debate would have to be closely monitored).

Two subforums: conservative topics and liberal topics. In these subforums, there would be discussion of the relevant topic without the fear of cherished beliefs being challenged (whereas if the thread were in the main forum, challenges and debates by the opposing viewpoint may be made). The rules would be finalised by those who wanted to self-identify as conservative or liberal.

An example of possible conservative subforum qualifiers:

Nicene Creed and
One or more of the following:
39 Articles
BCP
Lambeth Quadrilateral
Ecumenical Councils
etc.

Notice my suggestion is 'one or more', because you'll never get everyone agreeing on them all.

The main forum rules should be implemented ASAP, so that some semblance of normality might return to STR, and the subforum ones can take longer.

Just my recent thoughts.
So we are back to defining it by who can post, rather than what may, or may not, be challenged?

[Colabomb]

I'd rather what than who

[ebia]

I'd rather what than who
If we must have subforums, then likewise.

Of course, all but the most liberal of us would quite happily sign up to Karen's list anyway.

[Colabomb]

This is how I would like to see STR set up:

All those who self-identify as Anglican or Old Catholic are members. All others are guests. (Perhaps we could have a sticky for members to acknowledge their self-identification, to make moderation easier?)

In the main forum, all members have full debating rights within the CF rules (i.e. no flaming, no plagerising, etc). All guests are welcome for fellowship, questions, and civil discussion (any discussion bordering on debate would have to be closely monitored).

Two subforums: conservative topics and liberal topics. In these subforums, there would be discussion of the relevant topic without the fear of cherished beliefs being challenged (whereas if the thread were in the main forum, challenges and debates by the opposing viewpoint may be made). The rules would be finalised by those who wanted to self-identify as conservative or liberal.

An example of possible conservative subforum qualifiers:

Nicene Creed and
One or more of the following:
39 Articles
BCP
Lambeth Quadrilateral
Ecumenical Councils
etc.

Notice my suggestion is 'one or more', because you'll never get everyone agreeing on them all.

The main forum rules should be implemented ASAP, so that some semblance of normality might return to STR, and the subforum ones can take longer.

Just my recent thoughts.

I love this.

[Aymn27]

Cola, I feel the same..and I would like to offer a proposal to my brothers and sisters who are uncomfortable with the subforums (this my own proposal, but others who are for the subfora can join in):

1. I will advocate that any rules for the conservative subforum will be based not on excluding any individual, but on prohibiting debate on certain topics. Any person may post in the subforum as long as they don't debate the areas that we come together and declare "indisputable".

2. That the structure of STR remain until Jan 1, 2008 if it includes the subforums. On that date, anyone may post a thread in the main forum challenging the benefit of the subforums and the outcomes that have resulted. If they have good cause to show that these suforums have been detrimental to the overall life and health of STR, I will withdraw my support of that structure and fully support an STR with just one main forum.

[ebia]

I'm having problems squaring this:
I love this.
with this:
I'd rather what than who

[ebia]

Cola, I feel the same..and I would like to offer a proposal to my brothers and sisters who are uncomfortable with the subforums (this my own proposal, but others who are for the subfora can join in):

1. I will advocate that any rules for the conservative subforum will be based not on excluding any individual, but on prohibiting debate on certain topics. Any person may post in the subforum as long as they don't debate the areas that we come together and declare "indisputable".
I would be much less unhappy (does that make sense?) with this than a forum that is entirely for self-identified conservatives (or any other group). Providing, of course, that we can identify what the non-negotiable areas are suffiently unambiously.

2. That the structure of STR remain until Jan 1, 2008 if it includes the subforums. On that date, anyone may post a thread in the main forum challenging the benefit of the subforums and the outcomes that have resulted. If they have good cause to show that these suforums have been detrimental to the overall life and health of STR, I will withdraw my support of that structure and fully support an STR with just one main forum.
I also like the idea of a formal review period (though I'm not at all sure how we could begin to objectively measure the effect).

[karen freeinchristman]

Cola, I feel the same..and I would like to offer a proposal to my brothers and sisters who are uncomfortable with the subforums (this my own proposal, but others who are for the subfora can join in):

1. I will advocate that any rules for the conservative subforum will be based not on excluding any individual, but on prohibiting debate on certain topics. Any person may post in the subforum as long as they don't debate the areas that we come together and declare "indisputable".

2. That the structure of STR remain until Jan 1, 2008 if it includes the subforums. On that date, anyone may post a thread in the main forum challenging the benefit of the subforums and the outcomes that have resulted. If they have good cause to show that these suforums have been detrimental to the overall life and health of STR, I will withdraw my support of that structure and fully support an STR with just one main forum.
I like these ideas.

[Aymn27]

Ok..we're over 48 hours into this poll and the group for/leaning to subfora have a 10/7 lead. I propose this thread be shut down (or if you can the poll only) as any further votes will probably not be reflective of regular members here...

It looks like the majority are in favor of subforums. I suggest that we make a proposal like the one above to show good faith to the entire board - that we as conservatives are not trying to schism the board, or start our own board etc...and that should the subfora not work out...we are willing to scrap it in favor of preserving the main board....

Thanks all who voted...

[ebia]

That sounds reasonable. As one of the two who voted completely against, I'm ok with taking this as a representative vote and trying things according to your points:
1. I will advocate that any rules for the conservative subforum will be based not on excluding any individual, but on prohibiting debate on certain topics. Any person may post in the subforum as long as they don't debate the areas that we come together and declare "indisputable".

2. That the structure of STR remain until Jan 1, 2008 if it includes the subforums. On that date, anyone may post a thread in the main forum challenging the benefit of the subforums and the outcomes that have resulted. If they have good cause to show that these suforums have been detrimental to the overall life and health of STR, I will withdraw my support of that structure and fully support an STR with just one main forum.

(At some point we have to make a decision and move on; even if the decision isn't the one I would have liked I will fully support its implementation.)

[longhair75]

Friend Aymn,

I will put together a poll question for the subforum vote and get it posted. I suggest limiting the time alloted for the vote to 72 hours, and suggest Monday Evening as the close of poll to allow those who do not post over the weekend to have a chance to vote. i will open this in about an hour.