Wiki: Seventh-day Adventist Rules Wiki--Take 2!

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Makes you wonder what the discussion was like when they put together the 27 Fundamental Beliefs book!

These discussions about rules always tend to end up trying to categorize everyone so they can be kept in their place, and if anyone comes out of their pre-determined place they get whacked with the rule stick. While I believe forums should be guided by a few simple guidelines, most of this is much ado about nothing and does little to nothing for lifting up Christ on this Christian forum.

I've sat on dozens of SDA committees and academy handbook committees where people, their motives, their behavior, their tithing habits, or a number of other traits are discussed and then rules are formed, debated, written, voted, changed, etc. Most often the most vocal fundamentalists push their agendas and make powerplays to control the masses.

I know you all will do what you do, and in the end there'll be more rules than you know what to do with. Please try to remember that Christianity is about Jesus, him crucified, and the freedom that he has provided to ALL who believe in him. Don't strap the constraints so tight that it's near impossible for other Christians to be able to discuss, debate, fellowship, and learn together as a united body with Christ as our head (EVEN though we will not always agree on all points!).
I think that's some wonderful points, and can be so easily forgotten when we get into the midst of discussing all of this. :)

I don't think we'll go overboard..but with past experience, some of these rules are needed in this forum.

[reddogs]

I messaged Red last night to see why he wasn't posting here and found out the same thing as you, T&O. He says it's not coming from his end because it's happening both at work and home. It could simply be a glitch in the website, or for some reason he's been blocked..? :confused: I've seen things happen before with other websites where for a time being certain areas are not accessible for some people, while others are fine. That normally ends up being server problems at the website's end.

Thanks for opening a new thread to work this out, T&O. :) Very good idea!

For the time being, I had informed him about how some people felt about the Sabbath Quiet time and he told me to post this in:



Although, if we agree on seperate polls then I guess that can be discussed there. ^_^

I tried it from a different IP Adress that I had never used before and I was able to get in with no problem, unfourtuonately not my office, it so the IP Adress is being blocked somehow...

[DarylFawcett]

The POLL for the proposed rules from 2.1 to 2.5 inclusive has been created and four of us have already voted there.

[reddogs]

Finally I am in, but it looks like the deed is done and nothing left but the consequences..........

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Finally I am in, but it looks like the deed is done and nothing left but the consequences..........
For now, Red. :) There'll be pleanty more rules we still need to discuss in here. Hopefully you'll be able to stay around.

[tall73]

Alright, I imagine since the progressive and traditional forums are making their own rules we just need to work out the debate area rules and the bible study/new Christian rules.

Any more global rules first?

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Alright, I imagine since the progressive and traditional forums are making their own rules we just need to work out the debate area rules and the bible study/new Christian rules.

Any more global rules first?
Wait. Does that mean there's seperate discussions for the rules of the Progressive and Traditional subforums? Am I missing out on something here? =\

[Sophia7]

Wait. Does that mean there's seperate discussions for the rules of the Progressive and Traditional subforums? Am I missing out on something here? =\

Yes, the Progressive and Traditional members will have to make their own rules for their sub-forums. These could be discussed in the sub-forums themselves rather than in the wiki to make things easier. There are already some threads that were started there for that purpose.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Yes, the Progressive and Traditional members will have to make their own rules for their sub-forums. These could be discussed in the sub-forums themselves rather than in the wiki to make things easier. There are already some threads that were started there for that purpose.
Great. Found them, thanks to this thread. ^_^ I posted a thread in the main area to let others know who don't always check in the subforums, like myself.

[Sophia7]

Great idea.

[DarylFawcett]

I am going to start the next ball rolling by suggesting/proposing the following based somewhat on what was in the old wiki:

Sub-forums

3. Debate/Discussion

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in an Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists. Other Christians and non-Christians are allowed to debate respectfully.

3.2 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

3.3 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion.

For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."

[thecountrydoc]

Daryl posted:Sub-forums

3. Debate/Discussion

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in an Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists. Other Christians and non-Christians are allowed to debate respectfully.

3.2 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

3.3 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion.

For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."
I'm sorry but 3.1 and 3.3 are not acceptable from a very realistic, practical, and legal standpoint. When a person ask about the SDA denomination/church they are not asking for personal viewpoints or opnions. To give potentialy conflicting answers is to degrade the entire denominational name. Worse yet it could very easily deter non-SDAs from accepting any part of Adventism. If this forum is to use the SDA name, it MUST give only the offical information that makes up the SDA denomination.

Personal opinions may well be used in discussion or debate if so noted. But personal opinion may not be given when giving a discription of a legal enity that has an established and pulished identity.

Respectfully,
Doc

[sentipente]

Questioners usually ask, "What do Adventists believe about . . .?" There are two problems raised. 1. Is this a request for an official position? 2. Even the church does not have a position on every issue that may be raised.

[Sophia7]

Questioners usually ask, "What do Adventists believe about . . .?" There are two problems raised. 1. Is this a request for an official position? 2. Even the church does not have a position on every issue that may be raised.

And even if the church does have a position on such an issue, not all Adventists agree. In a debate sub-forum, people are allowed to express disagreement. It is not necessary to say, "This is my opinion," as a preface to everything. That is not a good rule. If all people want is the official church answer, they can ask their question in the main forum, where no debate is allowed.

[DarylFawcett]

Seeing that we have a concern about 3.1 and 3.3 by at least one person, do others share, either the same, or similar concerns?

[Sophia7]

I have no problem with 3.1, but I think 3.3 could use some work, now that we are revisiting these issues.

[tall73]

The main forum is already for inquiries about beliefs.

All inquiries should be directed there.

Let me find the rule proposal I drew up on that some time back.


EDIT:

Those inqiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.


This provides for a place to answer inquiries with only official statements, when possible, and only by Adventists.

The debate section has a different purpose.

[DarylFawcett]

The POLL is closed, therefore, I added the following onto the wiki:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.1 When posting a reply to a pre-existing thread, please stay to the topic of the origional post and/or the replies.

2.2 Temporary deviation from the topic will be permitted as long as the integrity of the topic is not compromised.

2.3 All reports will be left for Sunday, unless very urgent. Moderators will also still be free to offer help if needed, in accordance with Biblical standards.

2.4 Due to the multiple time zones, the term "Sabbath" is defined as the 24 hour period from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, according to your local time zone. Please respect that even though yours may be over, others may still be keeping it.
I removed 2.3 quoted below:

2.3 The Sabbath is reserved for a quiet time of fellowship and Bible study. During this time period no debate is to take place. This not only allows moderators to rest and relax, but it creates a more positive atmosphere for us all to spend time with God.
I renumbered 2.4 to 2.3 and 2.5 to 2.4 accordingly.

[DarylFawcett]

If there are any concerns about the 2.3 rule that failed to meet the required 50%, we can bring it back to the table for further discussion here.

If necessary, we could create a POLL to vote for or against that one.

[sentipente]

If there are any concerns about the 2.3 rule that failed to meet the required 50%, we can bring it back to the table for further discussion here.

If necessary, we could create a POLL to vote for or against that one.
What is the use of having a vote if you are just going to bring back what has been voted down? This is pitiful. This is a farce.

[DarylFawcett]

The main forum is already for inquiries about beliefs.

All inquiries should be directed there.

Let me find the rule proposal I drew up on that some time back.


EDIT:

Those inqiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.


This provides for a place to answer inquiries with only official statements, when possible, and only by Adventists.

The debate section has a different purpose.
This is what we voted on in regards to the Main SDA forum as posted in this wiki:

1. Main SDA Forum

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

[DarylFawcett]

What is the use of having a vote if you are just going to bring back what has been voted down? This is pitiful. This is a farce.
Personally, I am satisfied to leave the results as is, but I am also open to revisiting it, simply for the reason that, if it were the only one being voted for or against, and as more people voted for it than against it, it would have been over the 50% requirement.

[sentipente]

Personally, I am satisfied to leave the results as is, but I am also open to revisiting it, simply for the reason that, if it were the only one being voted for or against, and as more people voted for it than against it, it would have been over the 50% requirement.
Are you making the rules as you see fit or are there rules that mean something?

[DarylFawcett]

As this is also being discussed in the POLL thread, I posted this there:

The others definitely passed without any kind of dispute, however, I can see the possible need to do a POLL on 2.3 alone, or declare it a pass based on 13 votes for and 12 votes against, based on the fact that, if it had been done alone, 13 Times 100 Divided by 25 = 52% for and 48% against.

[DarylFawcett]

What are others thoughts on this?

[woobadooba]

What are others thoughts on this?

I worded the rule of stating that it should be noted that it is an opinion when an answer is given to a question directed at SDAs that does not agree with our official beliefs, because I was assuming that the main forum would not be off limits for such answers.

But since it is now off limits for such answers, it is not necessary to have the rule.

[Sophia7]

What is the use of having a vote if you are just going to bring back what has been voted down? This is pitiful. This is a farce.

Well, unfortunately, that's how the system that Erwin has created works. The forum-specific rules can be revised later by the members if that's what they decide to do. Any of these voted measures could be changed later with consensus or a vote. Some forums have written into their rules requirements for changing the rules in the future.

[tall73]

This is what we voted on in regards to the Main SDA forum as posted in this wiki:
[/font][/color][/size]

Check again. They are not quite the same. The one compliments the other noting that inquiries should be directed to the main forum and ONLY Adventists can answer them.

[tall73]

But since it is now off limits for such answers, it is not necessary to have the rule.


Agreed. There is no problem with having debate in the debate section and official answers in the main forum.

I like 3.1.

I would just change 3.3 to say that any one inquiring about beliefs go to the main section while those debating post in the debate section.

If you all want just put a sticky in the debate section that says "warning, views expressed here may not be the view of the Seventh-day Adventist Church--for official statements see the main section", or something along those lines.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

What is the use of having a vote if you are just going to bring back what has been voted down? This is pitiful. This is a farce.

It hasn't really been decided, though. Yes we had a poll, but the results for that particular rule are unclear due to the options the poll included. We ended up with 12 voting for the rule, and 11 voting against..Yet it was below 50%. So which way do you go?

Hense the possible need for another poll, and now we've all learned that having a for or against isn't the best way in a multiple vote. :)

[DarylFawcett]

Check again. They are not quite the same. The one compliments the other noting that inquiries should be directed to the main forum and ONLY Adventists can answer them.
Tall73,

What I quoted about the voted Main SDA Forum rules was taken directly from this wiki, therefore, I don't follow you.

Would you please quote the difference here, as well as explain this further?

[DarylFawcett]

Tall73,

I think I am following you now.

I thought you were questioning the voted rules for the Main SDA forum rather than discussing the proposed rules for the 3. Debate/Discussion forum.

Now that we seem to be back on the same page, I will re-read your post and respond to it again. :)

[DarylFawcett]

Tall73,

Are you proposing that this (quoted below) be added or replace something in our discussion on the proposed rules for the 3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum?


EDIT:

Those inqiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.

To bring this all together in one post, I am also quoting the proposed rules below:

3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in an Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists. Other Christians and non-Christians are allowed to debate respectfully.

3.2 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

3.3 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion.

For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."

By the way, I added the words Sub-forum to the above quote.

[Sophia7]

I would favor replacing 3.3 with Tall's proposed edit. I don't agree with Rule 3.3 at all.

[TrustAndObey]

I like 3.3. It keeps people from being confused about what the Adventist church really teaches. If someone states it's an opinion, it alleviates the confusion.

[sentipente]

I like 3.3. It keeps people from being confused about what the Adventist church really teaches. If someone states it's an opinion, it alleviates the confusion.
When you have been around long enough you will discover that non of this matters. Why do you think people confuse SDA with LDS? There is nothing similar about those two acronyms. People see what they want to see depending on their attitude.

[woobadooba]

When you have been around long enough you will discover that non of this matters. Why do you think people confuse SDA with LDS? There is nothing similar about those two acronyms. People see what they want to see depending on their attitude.

Senti, I don't know why you are arguing in here. We made it very clear that people that were not members prior to july 4th of 2007 can not participate in this process.

Please respect our rules.

[woobadooba]

I like 3.3. It keeps people from being confused about what the Adventist church really teaches. If someone states it's an opinion, it alleviates the confusion.

It is a good rule for that very reason. However, because questions that are asked in the main forum must be answered according to what our church officially believes, the rule is not necessary.

[sentipente]

Senti, I don't know why you are arguing in here. We made it very clear that people that were not members prior to july 4th of 2007 can not participate in this process.

Please respect our rules.
Before you ask for respect for rules you should get acquainted with the rules. The rules restrict those who can vote. I have a very strong suspicion that you know the difference between the act of casting a vote and the art of intellectual discourse.

[woobadooba]

Before you ask for respect for rules you should get acquainted with the rules. The rules restrict those who can vote. I have a very strong suspicion that you know the difference between the act of casting a vote and the art of intellectual discourse.

No.

When we made the rules we did so with the understanding that those whose votes are not to be counted, are likewise not allowed to participate in making up, or debating the rules.

It's common sense, senti. If you can't vote, why should you be allowed to make up rules?

[sentipente]

No.

When we made the rules we did so with the understanding that those whose votes are not to be counted, are likewise not allowed to participate in making up, or debating the rules.

It's common sense, senti. If you can't vote, why should you be allowed to make up rules?
Then I guess you have quite a bit of reporting to do. You had better get busy. I reserve the right to decide what level of intelligence I will take advice from.

[TrustAndObey]

When Senti first came here he said he didn't want any part of making up our rules. That didn't last long.

I think he keeps trying to keep votes from even going UP to a poll vote (like with Red's rule about the Sabbath), but everybody's rule suggestion has a right to be voted on. They may not win, but they do need to go up for a vote.

That's what we decided and that's what we need to stick with.

[woobadooba]

When Senti first came here he said he didn't want any part of making up our rules. That didn't last long.

I think he keeps trying to keep votes from even going UP to a poll vote (like with Red's rule about the Sabbath), but everybody's rule suggestion has a right to be voted on. They may not win, but they do need to go up for a vote.

That's what we decided and that's what we need to stick with.

But only those who are allowed to vote on the rules are allowed to participate in the rule making process. This was the understanding that we had when we made the rule, and I see no reason now why we should change it.

[sentipente]

When Senti first came here he said he didn't want any part of making up our rules. That didn't last long.

I think he keeps trying to keep votes from even going UP to a poll vote (like with Red's rule about the Sabbath), but everybody's rule suggestion has a right to be voted on.
I have the right to appeal to wisdom wherever it may reside.

[sentipente]

But only those who are allowed to vote on the rules are allowed to participate in the rule making process. This was the understanding that we had when we made the rule, and I see no reason now why we should change it.
All that matters is the rule. You can have whatever understanding you wish to have.

[TrustAndObey]

But only those who are allowed to vote on the rules are allowed to participate in the rule making process. This was the understanding that we had when we made the rule, and I see no reason now why we should change it.

Me either.

[tall73]

It is a good rule for that very reason. However, because questions that are asked in the main forum must be answered according to what our church officially believes, the rule is not necessary.

Yup. Debate in the debate section and ask in the main.

[tall73]

No.

When we made the rules we did so with the understanding that those whose votes are not to be counted, are likewise not allowed to participate in making up, or debating the rules.

It's common sense, senti. If you can't vote, why should you be allowed to make up rules?


That was not my understanding.

But regardless of people's understanding that was not what the text said.

It looks like you now have a poll, so I guess in four days we will know.

[woobadooba]

That was not my understanding.

But regardless of people's understanding that was not what the text said.

It looks like you now have a poll, so I guess in four days we will know.

Please explain to me how it makes sense to not allow people to vote on the rules, but to allow them to participate in making up the rules???

[tall73]

Please explain to me how it makes sense to not allow people to vote on the rules, but to allow them to participate in making up the rules???

I think anyone can give suggestions. We need all the input we can get. They just can't vote.

Sorry you don't feel the same way but what you are saying is NOT what the poll said. You need an official poll to make your new rule.

[woobadooba]

I think anyone can give suggestions. We need all the input we can get. They just can't vote.

Sorry you don't feel the same way but what you are saying is NOT what the poll said. You need an official poll to make your new rule.

You are not being reasonable.

If a person is not allowed to vote on a rule, it follows that that person can't participate in making up the rule.

You can avoid the issue of your inconsistant logic all you want, but any thinking person will agree that you are not being logically consistent, or fair.

[DarylFawcett]

Unless it was stated that a person who can't vote also can't participate in the discussion, then they are allowed to participate.

Was it stated or not stated that a person who can't vote also can't participate?

Where would I look to verify this one way or the other?

[woobadooba]

Unless it was stated that a person who can't vote also can't participate in the discussion, then they are allowed to participate.

Was it stated or not stated that a person who can't vote also can't participate?

Where would I look to verify this one way or the other?

Before the rule was voted on I had stated that these people shouldn't be allowed to participate in the rule making process. A general consensus was not made to counter this idea.

Perhaps it would be best to go back to the beginning to see exactly what was said.

[tall73]

Before the rule was voted on I had stated that these people shouldn't be allowed to participate in the rule making process. A general consensus was not made to counter this idea.

Perhaps it would be best to go back to the beginning to see exactly what was said.

We don't rule by consensus. You all didn't like it when that happened. You suggested public polls that ran for four days. You yourself picked the four day time span.

Sorry, we didn't vote what you want.

Start an official poll if you want it.

[sentipente]

Woob, how many balls do you wish to take home with you?

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Not that I want to get into a possible arguement here, but I have to agree with Tall to an extent on this. I understand where you're coming from about participating in general, but as long as someone is just suggesting a rule..what harm is in it? It's still the people who are allowed to participate who decide if the rule is going to be included or not, right? :)

Had I, lets say, joined this forum on July 5th and thought of suggesting a subforum for New Adventists, would that have been completely disregarded because of my join date? Even though the majority actually voted the idea in?

[woobadooba]

Not that I want to get into a possible arguement here, but I have to agree with Tall to an extent on this. I understand where you're coming from about participating in general, but as long as someone is just suggesting a rule..what harm is in it? It's still the people who are allowed to participate who decide if the rule is going to be included or not, right? :)

Had I, lets say, joined this forum on July 5th and thought of suggesting a subforum for New Adventists, would that have been completely disregarded because of my join date? Even though the majority actually voted the idea in?

It's a matter of being logically consistent.

As to where the harm comes in, what happens when one of these people gives the people that are able to vote a hard time while they are trying to make up the rules because he has an agenda to be disruptive? What then?

The point of the rules is to protect the people from such disruptive people that do not have the best interest of the people in mind, but are only interested in pedaling their hatred.

[sentipente]

Is someone giving you a hard time, Woob?

[woobadooba]

Is someone giving you a hard time, Woob?

You know him quite well.

[sentipente]

Not just me, but several people in the SDA forum.

He enjoys likening people that have a few character hang-ups to scum of the earth, as if to suggest that he is more righteous than they are.
Where did he do that?

[DarylFawcett]

Well, if a vote wasn't taken one way or the other, then anybody can participate in the discussion side of things, at least until an open poll for four days has been created in which we can see who voted and how they voted.

[DarylFawcett]

To get back to the the proposed rules we have been discussing, before this who can participate in the discussions began, I am quoting again the slightly revised proposed rules:

3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in a Seventh-day Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists.

3.2 Other Christians and non-Christians are also allowed to debate respectfully.

3.3 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

3.4 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion. For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."
I made a separate rule out of what was once the last sentence under the proposed 3.1 rule.

We had some discussion on these proposed rules, however, there wasn't a consensus on what was 3.3 and is now 3.4 to make any revision.

What Tall73 proposed as an edit (quoted below) may need to be added as a separate rule in itself as a proposed 3.5 rule. Any thoughts on this?

Those inqiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.

[DarylFawcett]

Here it is again after adding Tall73's proposed rule:

3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in a Seventh-day Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists.

3.2 Other Christians and non-Christians are also allowed to debate respectfully.

3.3 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

3.4 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion. For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."

3.5 Those inqiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.

[TrustAndObey]

Those look good.

Should we go ahead and set a warning system and criteria for FSBs if we find that to be necessary?

[TrustAndObey]

I think we should determine those BEFORE we open up the debate section.

[tall73]

Well, if a vote wasn't taken one way or the other, then anybody can participate in the discussion side of things, at least until an open poll for four days has been created in which we can see who voted and how they voted.

Yup.

[tall73]

Get rid of 3.4. We already have a forum for getting the official Adventist view. There is no reason for people to say something is there opinion in the debate section. We already know it is their opinion.

[Sophia7]

Get rid of 3.4. We already have a forum for getting the official Adventist view. There is no reason for people to say something is there opinion in the debate section. We already know it is their opinion.

I agree.

[sentipente]

Just a question. Are these rules aimed at Adventists or at visitors? I am wondering to what extent FSB's based on this sub-forum's rules can be applied to non-members of this sub-forum.

[DarylFawcett]

As far as getting rid of 3.4 goes, shouldn't that be decided in the POLL itself as to whether this ,or any of the proposed rules here in this section, should either stay or go?

[woobadooba]

Just a question. Are these rules aimed at Adventists or at visitors? I am wondering to what extent FSB's based on this sub-forum's rules can be applied to non-members of this sub-forum.

FSBs happen when people continue to break the rules. Since it is possible for both SDAs and Non-SDAs to break the rules, FSBs apply to everyone.

[sentipente]

FSBs happen when people continue to break the rules. Since it is possible for both SDAs and Non-SDAs to break the rules, FSBs apply to everyone.
That was not the question. You have repeated what is understood. The question was "to what extent"

[DarylFawcett]

I am all for looking at rewording any of them in the latest quote I provided.

I am also all for any suggested proposed additions to any of the ones already listed there.

I am against deleting any of these proposed section of rules, unless it is by unanimous agreement, which I don't presently see here.

[DarylFawcett]

As an aside, do we know when the sub-forums that we previously voted on will be created?

[sentipente]

As an aside, do we know when the sub-forums that we previously voted on will be created?
Which raises another question. Who will decide where all the existing posts will go?

[woobadooba]

That was not the question. You have repeated what is understood. The question was "to what extent"

I already answered this.

Should one group be treated differently than the other, while both are guilty of committing the same offenses?

[woobadooba]

I am against deleting any of these proposed section of rules, unless it is by unanimous agreement, which I don't presently see here.

Didn't you know that the rules only apply for certain people when it is convenient?;)

[tall73]

As far as getting rid of 3.4 goes, shouldn't that be decided in the POLL itself as to whether this ,or any of the proposed rules here in this section, should either stay or go?
It can go to a vote if necessary. But we have revised poll options before.

This sets a precedent.

We need to clarify how many people need to propose something before it goes to a vote.

For instance, I might propose the rule "Let's ban anyone who's name starts with D"

According to your suggested guideline I need only ONE person to agree with it to send it to a vote.

[tall73]

That was not the question. You have repeated what is understood. The question was "to what extent"

we have control over our little space on CF from what I can tell.

We can block both from using it.

However, I have no idea what happens if they violate it, since, unless it has changed, FSB's are not hard coded.

[tall73]

Didn't you know that the rules only apply for certain people when it is convenient?;)

A. There is no rule yet on how many it takes to get something to a vote.

B. Yes, I noted that trend often.

[DarylFawcett]

It can go to a vote if necessary. But we have revised poll options before.

This sets a precedent.

We need to clarify how many people need to propose something before it goes to a vote.

For instance, I might propose the rule "Let's ban anyone who's name starts with D"

According to your suggested guideline I need only ONE person to agree with it to send it to a vote.
I am not basing this on only one or two persons' thoughts, I am basing it solely on the fact that there is at least one person against deleting it.

If it is preferred that we wait to see how everybody here feels about keeping it or deleting it before taking it to a POLL, that is OK with me.

My personal preference is to let the eligible voters decide what stays and what goes in a POLL for the reason that I see this as the fairest way to decide this and any other proposed rule here by section by section.

[DarylFawcett]

As Tall73 has indicated in another thread that he is no longer participating, is there any further comments to be made, or are we ready to create the POLL?

[DarylFawcett]

I would like to have some feedback on whether or not to go ahead with creating the POLL on this section of rules.

[TrustAndObey]

3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in a Seventh-day Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists.

3.2 Other Christians and non-Christians are also allowed to debate respectfully.

3.3 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

3.4 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion. For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."

3.5 Those inqiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.

I guess we could go ahead and make a poll on these rules and then discuss FSBs and a warning system afterwards, BEFORE we actually open up the debate section?

[Sophia7]

For the record, I am still against Rule 3.4 and thus will vote against the whole set of rules if they are a package deal in the poll.

[DarylFawcett]

I plan on setting up the POLL so each proposed rule from 3.1 to 3.5 inclusive can be voted either for or against, therefore, they won't be a package deal.

This will be done with the understanding that each rule will pass by a majority vote for that rule.

For example, 11 for and 12 against proposed rule 3.4 would mean the rule would be dropped, whereas 12 for and 11 against the proposed rule 3.4 would mean that the proposed rule would be adopted.

This will avoid a repeat of what happened in the POLL voting on the last section of rules.

Does this sound OK with everybody here?

[DarylFawcett]

I may be having a senior moment, but what does FSB mean? :)

[Sophia7]

I plan on setting up the POLL so each proposed rule from 3.1 to 3.5 inclusive can be voted either for or against, therefore, they won't be a package deal.

This will be done with the understanding that each rule will pass by a majority vote for that rule.

For example, 11 for and 12 against proposed rule 3.4 would mean the rule would be dropped, whereas 12 for and 11 against the proposed rule 3.4 would mean that the proposed rule would be adopted.

This will avoid a repeat of what happened in the POLL voting on the last section of rules.

Does this sound OK with everybody here?

That would be fine, but I would suggest just listing each rule in the poll and allowing people to select all of the rules that they support, rather than having yes and no options for each rule. That would eliminate the problem that we had in the previous poll over what happens when an option doesn't receive 50% of the vote but has more yes votes than no votes.

[Sophia7]

I may be having a senior moment, but what does FSB mean? :)

Forum-specific ban.

[DarylFawcett]

If I set up the POLL listing each rule, which those who like that particular rule will select. A non-select would be that they are not for that rule.

Would that work?

[Sophia7]

Yes, I think that would be the best way to do it.

[DarylFawcett]

That is what I will do then. :)

[DarylFawcett]

The POLL has been created as a Take 2 POLL as I forgot to check off the POLL option on my first try. :)

[woobadooba]

OK, we have a serious problem in our forum.

Much of the content that you will find in this thread, as well as the thread itself, does nothing but glorify Satan http://foru.ms/t5965141-the-exorcism-of-emily-rose.html

We should be lifting up Christ in our forum, not drawing people's attention to satanic symbols, flicks, devilish threats, or speak in such a way that the devil is deemed to be greater than Jesus Christ (we do have a no blasphemy rule, right?).

We need to come up with some kind of rule to prevent this stuff from happening. And threads like these should never be allowed to be posted in our forum.

I can understand the argument that some have posed against the limitation of certain subjects, and feel that it does have some merit. However, what we see happening in this thread goes way beyond that, and is totally inappropriate for a Christian forum.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

OK, we have a serious problem in our forum.

Much of the content that you will find in this thread, as well as the thread itself, does nothing but glorify Satan http://foru.ms/t5965141-the-exorcism-of-emily-rose.html

We should be lifting up Christ in our forum, not drawing people's attention to satanic symbols, flicks, devilish threats, or speak in such a way that the devil is deemed to be greater than Jesus Christ (we do have a no blasphemy rule, right?).

We need to come up with some kind of rule to prevent this stuff from happening. And threads like these should never be allowed to be posted in our forum.

I can understand the argument that some have posed against the limitation of certain subjects, and feel that it does have some merit. However, what we see happening in this thread goes way beyond that, and is totally inappropriate for a Christian forum.
I scanned over that thread in responce to this post, but I'm failing to really see how it's lifting Satan above Jesus. o.O Maybe I missed something?

I understand what you mean about focussing on the negative in such a way, yes. Although I think it can be a wake-up call to some who need to see that kind of thing, in most cases it's not needed. I'm not sure we could actually ban a subject matter like that..could we?

I remember when I first looked at the rules the AF school has for whose who wish to attend for evangelism. I couldn't believe how strict they were on what you could not bring with you. Anything related to spiritism was disallowed. I wonder where they draw the line. Same goes for this. Wouldn't it be hard to draw a line in what would and wouldn't be allowed?

[woobadooba]

I scanned over that thread in responce to this post, but I'm failing to really see how it's lifting Satan above Jesus. o.O Maybe I missed something?

I understand what you mean about focussing on the negative in such a way, yes. Although I think it can be a wake-up call to some who need to see that kind of thing, in most cases it's not needed. I'm not sure we could actually ban a subject matter like that..could we?

I remember when I first looked at the rules the AF school has for whose who wish to attend for evangelism. I couldn't believe how strict they were on what you could not bring with you. Anything related to spiritism was disallowed. I wonder where they draw the line. Same goes for this. Wouldn't it be hard to draw a line in what would and wouldn't be allowed?

There was a part in it where the implication that Satan is a greater savior than Jesus was made. Not that I want you to read such trash, but you really have to read more closely to pick some things up that aren't so obvious at a glance.

[sentipente]

There was a part in it where the implication that Satan is a greater savior than Jesus was made. Not that I want you to read such trash, but you really have to read more closely to pick some things up that aren't so obvious at a glance.
Woob, have you ever taken a close look at what you believe about Satan? Do you realize that there is no Satan in Judaism? Do you really know what you believe? Start by telling us how Satan is compatible with your belief in Creation.

[woobadooba]

Woob, have you ever taken a close look at what you believe about Satan? Do you realize that there is no Satan in Judaism? Do you really know what you believe? Start by telling us how Satan is compatible with your belief in Creation.

Please do not try to create a digression in here. If you want to DEBATE with people there is a PROPER PLACE FOR DEBATE! Go there!

[thecountrydoc]

Woob is right! We need to put a stop to this before it gets any worse.

At the moment there is more than just this one that needs to be dealt with. There should be a way to completely block these intruders. I know that on other sites and forums it can be done and we should be able to also.

As for AFCOE and their rules, it is zero tolerance for any kind of satanic, spiritualistac, witchcraft, astrology, or demonic information or material.

We should draft a simular rule and impliment it A.S.A.P. I know that Daryl has been working very hard at drafting rules and I would like to thank him for that. Daryl, if you want, or need, help in prepareing a draft please let me know.

Respectfully,
Doc

[woobadooba]

Woob is right! We need to put a stop to this before it gets any worse.

At the moment there is more than just this one that needs to be dealt with. There should be a way to completely block these intruders. I know that on other sites and forums it can be done and we should be able to also.

As for AFCOE and their rules, it is zero tolerance for any kind of satanic, spiritualistac, witchcraft, astrology, or demonic information or material.

We should draft a simular rule and impliment it A.S.A.P. I know that Daryl has been working very hard at drafting rules and I would like to thank him for that. Daryl, if you want, or need, help in prepareing a draft please let me know.

Respectfully,
Doc

So it appears that I have a 'second' on this proposition. Doc, perhaps we could just write this one up and put it in a poll. Surely then we will find out who is on what side when it comes to vote;)

[Imana]

Hi Wooba! :wave: :hug:

[thecountrydoc]

Sentipente, this is not a personal debate thread. Please respect the purpose of this thread.

Respectfully,
Doc

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Woob is right! We need to put a stop to this before it gets any worse.

At the moment there is more than just this one that needs to be dealt with. There should be a way to completely block these intruders. I know that on other sites and forums it can be done and we should be able to also.

As for AFCOE and their rules, it is zero tolerance for any kind of satanic, spiritualistac, witchcraft, astrology, or demonic information or material.

Wow. Strong feelings and words when it comes to this subject. These are moments when I feel a little different, because I look at this whole subject different..since I came from it all.

What exactly aree you meaning by zero tolerance? No talk of the subject at all, or no promoting it?

[woobadooba]

Wow. Strong feelings and words when it comes to this subject. These are moments when I feel a little different, because I look at this whole subject different..since I came from it all.

What exactly aree you meaning by zero tolerance? No talk of the subject at all, or no promoting it?

There is no need to talk about these things. We ought to follow the rule of Phil. 4:8.

[NightEternal]

Woob, if you have a problem with my thread, talk to me about it instead of behind my back please! I am not 'glorifying Satan' at all, so don't bear false witness.

Maybe you aren't aware of it, but at the end of both The Exorcist and The Exorcism Of Emily Rose THE DEVIL LOSES. Maybe you should keep that in mind before you pass judgment on me or my choice of movies.

Perhaps the movies I like don't reflect your taste, but you have no right to try and ban any discussion I want to start on films I enjoy. If this is the sort of censorship we are in for, Lord, please let us split this forum, and the sooner the better.

As for Moriah, she is a friend of mine. And so help me God, if you guys run her out of here like a bunch of witch-hunters, you will be hearing from me.

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Sarah,

I appoligize if I offended you. It certainly was not my inention to sound critical of anyone's past and I do undestand your confussion. All I ask for right now is to be patient with me and I will try to give you something that may help you to understand my concerns. I will also tell you that I have more than a little personal knowledge of this subject.

I won't try to give you, or anyone else, the rules from AFCOE from memory. I think I either have, or can get, a copy and will post it here as soon as I can retrive it.

Perhaps after we get the Bible study sub forum up and running this might be a topic to consider for study.

Respectfully, your friend and brother in Christ,
Doc

[sentipente]

Please do not try to create a digression in here. If you want to DEBATE with people there is a PROPER PLACE FOR DEBATE! Go there!
And in your wisdom you believe that calling someone's ideas trash is not a debating tactic? FYI, I was not trying to debate with you. I was hoping to alert you to the true nature of your comments.

[sentipente]

If you guys have your way I hope you realize that there will be no chance to discuss the biblical story of Saul and the Witch of Endor, or of the rebellion of Lucifer. The Bible is full of stories that "glorify" Lucifer.

[DarylFawcett]

thecountrydoc,

Be my guest and draft up the rule, which we will look at here first before setting up a POLL.

[woobadooba]

As for Moriah, she is a friend of mine. And so help me God, if you guys run her out of here like a bunch of witch-hunters, you will be hearing from me.

Night, the Lord is going to clean this place up. And if you stand in His way you will be hearing from Him!

You better guard your words very carefully!

It's not Moriah that we wish to run off; rather, it is the demonic entity that she has brought into this forum that we want to see leave.
And if you are so blind that you can't see what is happening, then you must be standing with it.

As for your promotion of the Exorcist, it doesn't matter how the movie ended, it is nothing less than allowing the works of the devil to serve as a source of entertainment. It would do you well to meditate on Phil. 4:8.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

There is no need to talk about these things. We ought to follow the rule of Phil. 4:8.

Philippians 4:8 - Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Wonderful verse that is. :) And it's certainly a good idea to follow it, but censoring topics which not all consider to go against it can cause a problem. I highly doubt Night started that thread for the purpose of glorifying Satan in any way, thusly it would be very hard to decide what is right and wrong..without taking freedom from people.

Woob, if you have a problem with my thread, talk to me about it instead of behind my back please! I am not 'glorifying Satan' at all, so don't bear false witness.

Maybe you aren't aware of it, but at the end of both The Exorcist and The Exorcism Of Emily Rose THE DEVIL LOSES. Maybe you should keep that in mind before you pass judgment on me or my choice of movies.

Perhaps the movies I like don't reflect your taste, but you have no right to try and ban any discussion I want to start on films I enjoy. If this is the sort of censorship we are in for, Lord, please let us split this forum, and the sooner the better.

As for Moriah, she is a friend of mine. And so help me God, if you guys run her out of here like a bunch of witch-hunters, you will be hearing from me.

I do understand where he's coming from with the glorifying thing, Night. In the aspect that I enjoy some shows like "Supernatural" and "Meduim". Fiction shows, however when watching them I've countless times considered the fact that I could be spending my time in more productive ways with God than them. In this sense they can be harmful, including putting thoughts in ones mind which are not in harmony with God.

Would I stop others from watching them, or try to force others to watch them? No. Never. Thusly I'm not keep on the censorship.

I first saw The Excorsist a few years ago, as I was just beginning to read the Bible. It inspired me greatly because of how God did truimph. So yeah, I know what you're getting at with that. :)

I think the problem we are going to face here is the intentions behind speaking of "questionable subjects" if we create a rule against it.

Hi Sarah,

I appoligize if I offended you. It certainly was not my inention to sound critical of anyone's past and I do undestand your confussion. All I ask for right now is to be patient with me and I will try to give you something that may help you to understand my concerns. I will also tell you that I have more than a little personal knowledge of this subject.

I won't try to give you, or anyone else, the rules from AFCOE from memory. I think I either have, or can get, a copy and will post it here as soon as I can retrive it.

Perhaps after we get the Bible study sub forum up and running this might be a topic to consider for study.

Respectfully, your friend and brother in Christ,
Doc

No hard feelings, Doc. :) I've ran into it several times in the past, where I end up a bit of an outsider in regards to how I handle this subject matter and those who follow it. All things considered, I live 24/7 with my mom who is actively a mix of Christian/Spritiualist/Wiccan/You name it. So I'm never very keen on the need to cut out this subject matter completely.

I'd be very interested in seeing these rules you mention when you get a chance.

Also, a Bible study on it is a wonderful idea. I can't wait for when we have all of this taken care of and have those forums up.

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

[woobadooba]

Wonderful verse that is. :) And it's certainly a good idea to follow it, but censoring topics which not all consider to go against it can cause a problem. I highly doubt Night started that thread for the purpose of glorifying Satan in any way, thusly it would be very hard to decide what is right and wrong..without taking freedom from people.

The Bible is to be our guide for truth, to determine what God does or doesn't approve of both in thought and in behavior.

It's not a matter of what everyone considers to be appropriate. It's not about what we think, that makes something right or wrong, but about bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

You may not realize this, but your thought above is tainted with relativism. This is the idea that there are no absolutes, but that truth is relative, and thereby subject to ones own private interpretation. In other words, what we think is what determines what is right or wrong.

Now, I know you don't believe that there are no absolutes. What I am just trying to point out to you is that your thought above constitutes a double standard. In other words, though I know you believe in absolute truth, your thought above does not testify of that belief, but actually counters it.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

The Bible is to be our guide for truth, to determine what God does or doesn't approve of both in thought and in behavior.

It's not a matter of what everyone considers to be appropriate. It's not about what we think, that makes something right or wrong, but about bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

You may not realize this, but your thought above is tainted with relativism. This is the idea that there are no absolutes, but that truth is relative, and thereby subject to ones own private interpretation. In other words, what we think is what determines what is right or wrong.

Now, I know you don't believe that there are no absolutes. What I am just trying to point out to you is that your thought above constitutes a double standard. In other words, though I know you believe in absolute truth, your thought above does not testify of that belief, but actually counters it.

I agree with this completely. It is what the Bible says that is most important, not our interpretations. But does the Bible strickly say that movies of such nature should not be discussed? No.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to come off as being too picky on this subject. The problem is, what level would be censored? Anyone who merely wishes to discuss a subject matter that someone else does not consider to be biblical cannot be censored, because all it becomes is a control issue at that point.

Rather, if we believe a subject is wrong should we not be trying to explain why it is so to that individual? If we are concerned that these things are harmful to someone, should we not be trying to show them how? By creating a rule it will become legalism to those who do not see it that way.

It's like the fact a dear Christian friend of mine does not agree with the Sabbath, so when she hears of me not shopping and such on it she considers it legalism and swears she would never do it herself. This is simply because she does not see it as truth, so how can she warmly embrase the act of it?

If someone does not see a problem with discussing something, creating a rule to censor it will only create a rebellious responce. Those that see it as wrong have been shown reasons for it to be that have touched their hearts.

This is when the problem of absolute truth vs relativism comes in.

As you said, I believe in some absolute truths. I also believe in some things which are relative, because I have seen more than enough in my life to constitute this.

When I was a wiccan, I considered myself following God. The same Christian God you guys follow. I considered it to be truth and I considered it to be right in His eyes. Had someone told me that it was wrong and not to discuss it in their presence, I would have taken offence and have fought it. Why? Because my eyes and heart had not been opened to the truths of it yet. My truths were relative, and still are. Except now they are relative to the Bible. ;)

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

The thing is WHO is going to decide what fits where and who means what by what. If there is no permitting an individual to clarify themselves but summarily subjecting their words to a Kangaroo Court judgment, you will make yourselves oppressors, and God will withdraw His hand from your efforts and leave you to the hatred and torture of others you love ... and once those others are summarily banished you will turn and feed upon yourselves. You do not see the end from the beginning on this.

[JonMiller]

Why not just have certain topics restricted, so that they can't enter into general threads at all? Moderators can move them into the proper thread if they occur. The topics would still be allowed to be discussed in flagged threads [X} or something.

The issue with absolutism and relativism is that our perceptions are relative, while reality (based on God) is absolute. We can only see through our own eyes right now... so we are restricted to a relative viewpoint.

JM

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Flagging threads is a great idea. Those who don't want to read a flagged thread don't have to, and if they do, they cannot complain as it was their decision...

[DarylFawcett]

By flagged threads, are you referring to advance warning threads such as in X-rated?

[NightEternal]

Night, the Lord is going to clean this place up. And if you stand in His way you will be hearing from Him!

Woob, you are being ridiculous. Who made you the all-knowing authourity on who are wheat and tares? Who are you to decide who we can and cannot dialogue with? Who are you to decide who needs to be 'cleaned out of here'?

I hope everyone here plans to fight such dictatorial nonsense.

You better guard your words very carefully

Woob, I have told you this before, your barking commands are growing tiresome. Please cease and desist, I am not your family dog and I won't respond well at all to such attempts. I have no desire to quarrell with you, but you are really trying my patience.

It's not Moriah that we wish to run off; rather, it is the demonic entity that she has brought into this forum that we want to see leave.

If this is even true, since when do God's soldiers flinch or run from the face of demonic presence?

Why don't you try to accept Moriah for who she is and where she is at at this point in time, instead of trying to run her off like so many of the other forums here at CF have done? She came here thinking we were different, and your overblown actions are showing her the exact opposite.

And if you are so blind that you can't see what is happening,

I know very well what is happening with Moriah. Probably more than you do. You really should just stop this crusade and leave her alone.

then you must be standing with it.

Oh, give me a break! Woob, I can only give such a preposterous statement the full attention it deserves, which would be absolutely none. I can't even believe you would imply I am 'standing with the Devil'. :doh:

I won't report this as a flame, but I will let it stand on its own ridiculous merits.

As for your promotion of the Exorcist, it doesn't matter how the movie ended, it is nothing less than allowing the works of the devil to serve as a source of entertainment.

Woob, really, you need to step off. I am a grown man and I do not need to you presume to tell me what I can and cannot enjoy for cinema entertainment. Please stop forcing your own criteria and standards on others. Your opinion of The Exorcist is just that. I do not share your opinion. Get over it. I feel it is a beautiful tale of how a child is set free from demonic possession as well as the selfless sacrifice of a man of God on her behalf.

It would do you well to meditate on Phil. 4:8

And it would do you well to stop applying said passage to situations where it isn't even relevant. I did not ask for your advice on what I 'should or should not do', so I will thank you for keeping such advice to yourself.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

NightEternal is a true servant of the Most High God, and knoweth the way unto salvation!

(*vanishes*)

[DarylFawcett]

The wiki is for proposing rules, therefore, as far as proposing new rules goes, we have three POLLS going on proposed rules; one in the Main Forum, one in the Traditional Forum, and one in the Progressive Forum.

Once these close, we can edit the ones that passed into the wiki and move on from there.

[DarylFawcett]

Also, seeing there is another splitting the forum POLL, we need to see what happens there, as that may also affect what happens here next.

[DarylFawcett]

As the POLL in the Traditional Sub-forum is CLOSED, I have edited in those VOTED rules into the wiki.

[DarylFawcett]

Also, as the POLL in the Progressive Sub-forum is CLOSED I edited their rule statement into the wiki as 5.1

[DarylFawcett]

The next RULE POLL will be closing tomorrow, the results of which will then also be edited into the wiki.

[DarylFawcett]

Things seem to be coming together. :)

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Why not just have certain topics restricted, so that they can't enter into general threads at all? Moderators can move them into the proper thread if they occur. The topics would still be allowed to be discussed in flagged threads [X} or something.

The issue with absolutism and relativism is that our perceptions are relative, while reality (based on God) is absolute. We can only see through our own eyes right now... so we are restricted to a relative viewpoint.

JM
Exactly! That's what I was trying to say, except you said it in waaay less words. ;)

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Oh, and I could go with the flagged idea, if it's possible.

[TrustAndObey]

Hi all,

I want to give my input about a warning/FSB system quickly because I have to go clean up after the hurricane (my nephew) that hit this morning. I'll try to come back after that.

I had mentioned a warning system earlier and Tall said it was WAY too lenient. I think he was right so here's what I'd like to suggest.

I think we should let it be known that in all subforas and the main forum, we have a ZERO tolerance policy for personal flames.

Upon a rule violation, a person will receive a warning from one of our mods.

After 3 violations, they will receive a one-week FSB.

After that if they continue to be disruptive, 7 warnings constitutes a two-week FSB.

10 warnings, a permanent FSB. It's clear that after that many warnings, a person doesn't care to follow our rules.

The only problem is that thread derailment isn't always intentional, but I think the mods would be able to discern that rather quickly, don't you guys?

I also think we should do like the Messianic forum and have a sticky that says "Read and sign this BEFORE you post in our forum." Then ignorance of the rules cannot be an excuse.

[DarylFawcett]

The last POLL on proposed rules will be closing tomorrow, therefore, we should continue with the process here.

What should we do next, suggest rules for the New Adventist/Bible Study subforum, the warnings and FSBs, or the limitation or flagging of topics for all the SDA forums?

[DarylFawcett]

T&O has just posted, therefore, shall we discuss those suggestions first?

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Hi all,

I want to give my input about a warning/FSB system quickly because I have to go clean up after the hurricane (my nephew) that hit this morning. I'll try to come back after that.{/quote]

Good luck with the cleaning! ;)

[QUOTE]
I had mentioned a warning system earlier and Tall said it was WAY too lenient. I think he was right so here's what I'd like to suggest.

I think we should let it be known that in all subforas and the main forum, we have a ZERO tolerance policy for personal flames.

Upon a rule violation, a person will receive a warning from one of our mods.

After 3 violations, they will receive a one-week FSB.


That sounds good.


After that if they continue to be disruptive, 7 warnings constitutes a two-week FSB.


Hmm. You mean 7 in total, right? Meaning including the first 3? I'd suggest 6, not 7. I mean, that way it just doubles the first. If they can't get it straight after that many, I'd think 2 weeks is called for.

10 warnings, a forum-specific ban that for good. It's clear that after that many warnings, a person doesn't care to follow our rules.

I'm okay with that, too.

The only problem is that thread derailment isn't always intention, but I think the mods would be able to discern that rather quickly, don't you guys?

I'd trust the mods with that one, especially with the open reports now. If it was judged unfairly it would be known. :) Also, if you derailed a thread by accident and a mod pointed it out to you (not a warning, just pointed it out because it was an obvious accident) don't you think you would quickly ratify the situation? Pretty good way to tell if it's accidental or intentional.

I also think we should do like the Messianic forum and have a sticky that says "Read and sign this BEFORE you post in our forum." Then ignorance of the rules cannot be an excuse.

As long as there's no penalty if we have to point people to it one time. I've passed by that kinda stuff before...:doh: Does it work well in that forum, though?


P.S. Working on my website right now, so I'm back and forth while online.

[TrustAndObey]

Okay, good idea, 6 warnings instead of 7 (and yes, TOTAL) would be a two-week FSB.

So I guess 9 would be permanent then, instead of 10.

Oh I definitely think we should be able to tell new posters "hey please go read and sign our rules and then I'll answer you, okay?"

It seems SO unfriendly to me to slap them with a warning without giving them a chance to know what our rules are.

Also, I still agree with edits. Something might be on the brink of a rule violation and if the mods decide to have the poster edit it instead of issuing a warning, I'm okay with that.

But if it's a personal flame....here is where I do want to be very strict because that is what was PROMISED to me. If we don't split, there will be stricter rules against personal flames.

I don't think there should always be an opportunity to edit those...they need to be dealt with somewhat harshly.

If we're lax on those, after I was promised we wouldn't be, I'm going to be angry....like grrrrr angry (fear me).

There is no room for personal attacks in our forum.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

T&O has just posted, therefore, shall we discuss those suggestions first?
Good idea. Plus. If anyone has suggestions for the New Adventists/Bible Study forum please post those too. :) Just so we can get some ideas going.

Here is the thread where it was discussed origionally, for those of you who don't know the details:

http://foru.ms/t5721573-new-adventists-section.html

[TrustAndObey]

Sarah, you quoted me before I fixed all my typos. LOL! I'm in and out too. You would not believe what children can do to a bedroom.

[DarylFawcett]

I would like to change this to go like this:

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Moderators will give warnings on both unintentional and intentional rule violations.

6.3 Intentional rule violations will be recorded for FSB actions.

6.4 Upon a rule violation, a warning will be given by one of the moderators

6.5 After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.

6.6 After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.

6.7 After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.

6.8 After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.

6.9 After fifteen violations, violators will receive a permanent FSB.

[TrustAndObey]

Here are my suggestions for the newbie/bible study forum.

#1 a quick comment about what Christ said about having a millstone tied around your neck if you keep children from coming to Him.

#2 The delicate heart and mind of a new Christian or a new Adventist is very important to us and no one has any intentions of "indoctrinating" a newcomer. Our prayer for this forum is that they seek God on their own and ask earnest questions about our faith. Answers will be given from scripture. Insinuations or accusations that we're merely trying to indoctrinate people will not be tolerated.

# 3 No debate.

#4 All teaching of the Adventist faith must be given by those that believe in the fundamental message of our church.

I can't think of any others right now. No debate is the biggie!

[TrustAndObey]

Daryl, those look okay to me. I mean a one-month FSB might as well be permanent as far as some people are concerned anyway.

Can you also add that once we issue an FSB, the use of another name to continue the same type of behavior is traceable (sp?) by our mods and will not be tolerated?

I think that's important due to what I've seen happen in the past.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Okay, good idea, 6 warnings instead of 7 (and yes, TOTAL) would be a two-week FSB.

So I guess 9 would be permanent then, instead of 10.

Sounds good, actually. No one wanted a month ban before a full ban? Or a year ban rather than a full ban? One forum I know of does year bans, simply because most flamers will give up by then.


Oh I definitely think we should be able to tell new posters "hey please go read and sign our rules and then I'll answer you, okay?"

It seems SO unfriendly to me to slap them with a warning without giving them a chance to know what our rules are.


Totally agree. ^_^


Also, I still agree with edits. Something might be on the brink of a rule violation and if the mods decide to have the poster edit it instead of issuing a warning, I'm okay with that.


I think that's the best thing. If a person refuses to edit, it says they really mean it. If they edit without a problem, that's a different story.


But if it's a personal flame....here is where I do want to be very strict because that is what was PROMISED to me. If we don't split, there will be stricter rules against personal flames.

I don't think there should always be an opportunity to edit those...they need to be dealt with somewhat harshly.


I agree. But I will say we all do have bad days sometimes, and things can rub us the wrong way. If a person edits them of their own accord and, most importantly, apologizes freely, that's different.

However, it's very clear many people don't wish to do this and stand by their position. Thusly, I'm totally for strict rules for flaming. As Christians, we are responcible to be nice to eachother, as Christ would have. Otherwise it is blashemy to call ourselves His followers.


If we're lax on those, after I was promised we wouldn't be, I'm going to be angry....like grrrrr angry (fear me).


:P @ fear me. Aww. You're just a big teddy bear inside, we all know it. ;)

Sarah, you quoted me before I fixed all my typos. LOL! I'm in and out too. You would not believe what children can do to a bedroom.

Lol! I never even noticed any typos. That's why they call me Fast-Fingers-McSarah. :D (Yes, I know that was lame)

You think that's bad? You shoulda seen some of my teen friends. One of them. Oh my. You never saw her floor, it was completely covered with clothes and junk. Every surface was, and her closet litterally overflowed if opened.

I was chatting to her one day and she's like.."I was looking for a pen..and I just found mcdonalds fries..I haven't had mcdonalds in 2 months". *twitch*

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Ahh! Slow down. I'm not that slow a typer, and you guys are posting twice to my once. *twitch*

[DarylFawcett]

Here is an updated list:

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Moderators will give warnings on both unintentional and intentional rule violations.

6.3 Intentional rule violations will be recorded for FSB actions.

6.4 Upon a rule violation, a warning will be given by one of the moderators

6.5 After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.

6.6 After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.

6.7 After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.

6.8 After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.

6.9 After fifteen violations, violators will receive a permanent FSB.

6.10 Second registrations as a result of an FSB will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will quickly receive a permanent FSB under both registrations.
How does this look now?

Any further changes, additions, etc.???

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I would like to change this to go like this:
6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Moderators will give warnings on both unintentional and intentional rule violations.

6.3 Intentional rule violations will be recorded for FSB actions.

6.4 Upon a rule violation, a warning will be given by one of the moderators

6.5 After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.

6.6 After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.

6.7 After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.

6.8 After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.

6.9 After fifteen violations, violators will receive a permanent FSB.

I like the suggestions, although I think it can be condensed a bit. :)

More like:

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Upon a rule violation, whether intentional or not, a warning will be given by one of the moderators. If this violation is then deemed intentional, it will be recorded towards a FSB.

6.3 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.
2) After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.
3) After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5) After fifteen violations, violators will receive a permanent FSB.6.4 Second registrations as a result of an FSB will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will quickly receive a permanent FSB under both registrations.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Here are my suggestions for the newbie/bible study forum.

#1 a quick comment about what Christ said about having a millstone tied around your neck if you keep children from coming to Him.

#2 The delicate heart and mind of a new Christian or a new Adventist is very important to us and no one has any intentions of "indoctrinating" a newcomer. Our prayer for this forum is that they seek God on their own and ask earnest questions about our faith. Answers will be given from scripture. Insinuations or accusations that we're merely trying to indoctrinate people will not be tolerated.

# 3 No debate.

#4 All teaching of the Adventist faith must be given by those that believe in the fundamental message of our church.

I can't think of any others right now. No debate is the biggie!
That sounds good, actually. :) And yes, no debate is huge. So is the scripture-based approach. I think that's the part that's most important to me.

I gotta be off, guys. Gotta finish up and get pizza. ^_^

Be back later!

[TrustAndObey]

Daryl, I'd take out the word "second" registration and put ANY duplicate registration.

I'm serious, I've seen people sign up again and again just to start up where they left off with the fighting (like no one would know it was them).

Sarah, we probably need to split up the newbie/bible study rules, because I would like to hear some EGW quotes on some of the bible study questions I would have.

What do you think?

[TrustAndObey]

Maybe we could just say "the newbie section will be sola scriptura, but the bible study section will include some of the writings of Ellen G. White."

??

[DarylFawcett]

Here is the updated list per suggestions:

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Upon a rule violation, whether intentional or not, a warning will be given by one of the moderators. If this violation is then deemed intentional, it will be recorded towards a FSB.

6.3 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.
2) After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.
3) After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5) After fifteen violations, violators will receive a permanent FSB.
6.4 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will quickly receive a permanent FSB under both registrations.

[TrustAndObey]

Beautiful work! On the very last one, I'd take out the word "both" & put in all.

[TrustAndObey]

Sarah, we could ask that all "newbie" questions be thread-titled to reflect that. Something like "NEW: What do Adventists teach about death?"

For the bible study we could have "STUDY: What is a soul?"

I started to say "BS" for bible study. ;) That wouldn't work.

[TrustAndObey]

Oh...and I think it's very important that our newbie/bible study section be Adventists only since it's not a debate area?

What do you guys think?

Maybe say "this section is reserved for new Adventists, and teenagers that want to have "hang out" threads without the fear of seeing debate."

"The bible study threads are open to all Adventists, but the material discussed here will be more advanced."

??

ADD-ON we could also ask that any Adventist teens that want to hang out, could start their threads with "TEEN: How many Adventists here are under 18?" etc.

[TrustAndObey]

We need to add this to the warning system thingy Daryl!

Any threads started by a person that are a continuation of a currently locked thread will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated in our forum either.

I mean, seriously, do we need threads hanging around where someone proclaims satan is their LOVER? And if those threads are locked by mods, it should NOT be okay just to start another thread to keep it up!

[TrustAndObey]

Those types of things should be an immediate one-week FSB in my opinion...counted as 3 warnings.

If people really want to help someone, they can still PM them. They just wouldn't be able to post in the forum until they calmed down from an episode.

I'm not trying to be cruel, I just think this is very necessary....especially right now.

[woobadooba]

Those types of things should be an immediate one-week FSB in my opinion...counted as 3 warnings.

If people really want to help Moriah, they can still PM her. She just wouldn't be able to post in the forum until she calmed down from an episode.

I'm not trying to be cruel, I just think this is very necessary....especially right now.

We need to go further than this!

In one post a graphic description of a sexual act was given. There are teens that come into our forum, and they should never see repulsive stuff like this!

I suggest that if someone does this they should get a FSB for at least 1 month. And repeat offenders will be baned from the forum permanently.

I don't care if it's a confession of what had happened. Stuff like that doesn't need to be spoken of in a public forum. Again, teens come here.

[TrustAndObey]

Are you serious Woob? How did I miss that?

Who posted it?

[TrustAndObey]

edit

[woobadooba]

It was there:sigh:

[TrustAndObey]

Who posted it?

[DarylFawcett]

I agree that graphics, topics, and posts like that have no place in any Christian forum.

I also agree that we need clearly worded rules that forbid such a thing with strict consequences against violators.

[DarylFawcett]

Here is another updated list:

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Upon a rule violation, whether intentional or not, a warning will be given by one of the moderators. If this violation is then deemed intentional, it will be recorded towards a FSB.

6.3 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.
2) After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.
3) After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5) After fifteen violations, violators will receive a permanent FSB.6.4 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will quickly receive a permanent FSB under all registrations.

[woobadooba]

I agree that graphics, topics, and posts like that have no place in any Christian forum.

I also agree that we need clearly worded rules that forbid such a thing with strict consequences against violators.

I just may vote for you after all, Daryl!

[TrustAndObey]

Okay, can you add on those suggestions Daryl?

I love the ones you've written up so far, they look perfecto!

[woobadooba]

Okay, can you add on those suggestions Daryl?

I love the ones you've written up so far, they look perfecto!

I think it is good too. I would just suggest that under more extreme circumstances the penalty may be less tolerant, such as what we have discussed with sexual content and Satanic glorification. Also, veggie cussing should not be tolerated.

What do you propose we do about this?

Perhaps we could give a 30 day FSB on the first offense, a 90 days FSB on the second offense, and a permanent FSB on a third offense.

What do you think?

[TrustAndObey]

Okay, but what is veggie cussing?

[TrustAndObey]

I'm really hoping this isn't something we have to deal with a lot, BUT we really do have to set up some pretty strict rules about that sort of thing to deter people from even trying it in our forum.

[TrustAndObey]

WHO KNEW?! You know, just when you think things can't get ANY worse....BAM!

[woobadooba]

Okay, but what is veggie cussing?

It's when people use words like 'Frack' instead of the other four lettered word, etc..., in such a way that they are telling you to Frack off.

Just today I experienced something like this in our forum.

[TrustAndObey]

Oh okay. Here we call that "flim flarn" (don't ask me why).

I agree. It's against the general rules already to work around the swear filter, but I guess we do need something like that too. For instance, you can't say "C_A_R_P" (obviously a variation from the real word) so that the swear filter doesn't pick it up.

[woobadooba]

Oh okay. Here we call that "flim flarn" (don't ask me why).

I agree. It's against the general rules already to work around the swear filter, but I guess we do need something like that too. For instance, you can't say "C_A_R_P" (obviously a variation from the real word) so that the swear filter doesn't pick it up.

I think the veggie cusses could just simply be counted as flames and fall under the rule violation regime that Daryl mentioned.

However, the sexual references and satanic glorification should fall under an entirely different category. Like I had said, a 30 day FSB for the first offense, 90 for the second and a permanent FSB for the third.

This should get the message across to people that these things will absolutely not be tolerated in our forum.

[TrustAndObey]

I think the veggie cusses could just simply be counted as flames and fall under the rule violation regime that Daryl mentioned.

However, the sexual references and satanic glorification should fall under an entirely different category. Like I had said, a 30 day FSB for the first offense, 90 for the second and a permanent FSB for the third.

This should get the message across to people that these things will absolutely not be tolerated in our forum.

I'm totally okay with that idea.

[TrustAndObey]

I have to get to bed. It's been a LOOOOONG day.

[woobadooba]

One other matter that really peeves me is the constant condescending generalizations about Adventists and the SDA church. Such generalizations are not called for, because not all Adventists think alike. I don't like it when people speak of us as though we are all the same simply because they had a bad experience with certain members.

The irony of it all is that there are some within our forum that can't keep themselves from making such condescending generalizations, while at the same time referring to themselves as Adventists. So what then are they saying about themselves by making such generalizations?

I find such talk to be highly judgemental and insulting to the members of our church.

Therefore, just as there is a rule that states that attacks on organizations or people that are dear to us will not be tolerated, so it should be the same with negative remarks that are made about Adventists and the SDA church. If people want to share an experience that they had, and say they were bothered by an elder in the church, or a pastor, then that is fine, but to say something like, "Adventists are legalistic", or "the SDA church has not treated outsiders fairly", etc..., is totally inappropriate, because not all members are the same, and to make such generalized statements is to suggest that we are whatever that disgruntled poster is saying about Adventists.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Wow. So many posts to catch up on. :swoon: *lol*

Daryl, I'd take out the word "second" registration and put ANY duplicate registration.

I'm serious, I've seen people sign up again and again just to start up where they left off with the fighting (like no one would know it was them).

Sarah, we probably need to split up the newbie/bible study rules, because I would like to hear some EGW quotes on some of the bible study questions I would have.

What do you think?

Maybe we could just say "the newbie section will be sola scriptura, but the bible study section will include some of the writings of Ellen G. White."

??

Hmmm. If you think about it, what is the purpose of this subform to a Newbie? If fellowship can be in the main forum and the subforums, then is it not really aimed more towards Bible study in general?

I guess the more I think about it I can see the difference, though. Between a planned study and an inquiry from a newbie. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to be able to quote EGW even in these threads, since this is supposed to be aimed at adventists, right?

:scratch: If that makes sense...

Sarah, we could ask that all "newbie" questions be thread-titled to reflect that. Something like "NEW: What do Adventists teach about death?"

For the bible study we could have "STUDY: What is a soul?"

I started to say "BS" for bible study. That wouldn't work.

Hm. Or we could just title all the study ones "Study:". That way it minimizes the rules the newbies have to keep track of. ;) In most cases it'll be a planned thing for the studies, right? So it should be easier to keep track of them if they have Study infront of them.

*lol* @ BS, by the way.

Oh...and I think it's very important that our newbie/bible study section be Adventists only since it's not a debate area?

What do you guys think?

Maybe say "this section is reserved for new Adventists, and teenagers that want to have "hang out" threads without the fear of seeing debate."

"The bible study threads are open to all Adventists, but the material discussed here will be more advanced."

??

ADD-ON we could also ask that any Adventist teens that want to hang out, could start their threads with "TEEN: How many Adventists here are under 18?" etc.


I totally agree with it being all Adventist. We have areas where non-SDAs can go and post already, and even where they can debate..so there is no need for them to be there. :) I would like to hear others' opinions about this, though.

As for the teen part, I'm not so sure, Sis. They can go to any SDA section, apart from the debate one, and get the same thing. I don't honestly think it's going to be a bad environment once all of this is sorted out.

Personally, I'd like to see it aimed at All New Adventists and those who seek Bible study. Even if the topic is a bit more advanced for a newbie, it's their choice if they wish to go into it. What about sub-titling them with a sort of..level? Like "Advanced" or "Beginner", something like that. So that as soon as someone goes in they can decide if they're up for it or not. :)

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Any threads started by a person that are a continuation of a currently locked thread will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated in our forum either.

I mean, seriously, do we need threads hanging around where someone proclaims satan is their LOVER? And if those threads are locked by mods, it should NOT be okay just to start another thread to keep it up!

I agree with the idea that threads started as a continuation of the last shouldn't be allowed. It completely makes the idea of closing a thread pointless. The act of doing so will result in a violation immediately, assuming it is clear the person understood what they were doing. I'm sure this could easily be seen.

We need to go further than this!

In one post a graphic description of a sexual act was given. There are teens that come into our forum, and they should never see repulsive stuff like this!

I suggest that if someone does this they should get a FSB for at least 1 month. And repeat offenders will be baned from the forum permanently.

I don't care if it's a confession of what had happened. Stuff like that doesn't need to be spoken of in a public forum. Again, teens come here.

I resent the reference to teens. ;) In today's society, what was written in the post you're referring to is practically PG!

Regardless, shouldn't inappropriate subject matter be part of a general rule? I don't think it's needed to have any special treatment, like immediate FSBs. I think it can be treated just as other violations are. With a warning and a violation point. If they do this repeatedly, they are handled with the FSBs appropriately. Also, if thi