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

[reddogs]

I wonder if members of this forum reserve the right to make condescending generalizations about other communions of faith, like Roman Catholics.

Oh, we can tear to pieces anyone else, we just dont want anyone doing it to us...Castro had the same rule in Cuba....:)

[NightEternal]

Why don't you guys simply write the scripts of all the posts that will appear on this sub-forum and seal it so it won't be contaminated by intelligent human thought?

ROFLOL!!!! ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

Oh my Heaven's, this was brilliant. Senti, you owe me a new flatscreen monitor. This one has been ruined by the drink I just sprayed on it from laughing.

[sentipente]

ROFLOL!!!! ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

Oh my Heaven's, this was brilliant. Senti, you owe me a new flatscreen monitor. This one has been ruined by the drink I just sprayed on it from laughing.
On the other hand Woob thought it needed to be reported for, he claims, "flaming."

[Jim47]

Ok folks, lets keep it civil
"and"

lets knock off the spite reporting. Its not helping matters at all.

Posting in the wiki is a priviledge, one that can be removed if you abuse it.

[DarylFawcett]

As further discussion on the proposed 2.5 and onward rules in one of the POLLS I created are being discussed, I will ask the moderator there to close that POLL and topic.

[DarylFawcett]

I am going to review what has been posted here and based on the various suggestions, edit what I have in that section accordingly.

[woobadooba]

Actually, I made a few minor adjustments to what is posted in the other thread, as some warranted suggestions were made. I will post the revised version here.

[woobadooba]

Revised Version With Some Additions

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of rule violations will be deleted

What this also means is that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread

2.6 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted. For example, referring to satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification.

What this also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.7 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated.

What this means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature

2.8 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condecsneding or derrogatory remark be made about God.

An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.9 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

For examples of a variation of profane language, it would be profane to tell someone to 'Frack' off, or to refer to a person as a 'jackass', or to tell someone that you are tired of their 'freakin' nonsense

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated

It is true that there are bad apples in the church. But that doesn't mean all adventists are like that. To suggest that they are is not only false, it is an insult. What happens within a minority does not constitute what the majoirty is.

2.11 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden.

Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

[DarylFawcett]

I am posting a draft revised list here based on what Woob has listed, what had gone prematurely to a POLL, and what others had posted in relation to these lists:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted as soon as possible.

2.6 A poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will be deleted. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification.

2.8 It is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.9 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

2.10 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derrogatory remark be made about God.

2.11 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.12 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.13 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.14 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act by text or images are forbidden and will not be tolerated.
Note that I have broken this up into as many different rules as possible to make it easier to vote it up or down in a POLL.

Remember that this is only a draft at this time.

[DarylFawcett]

I feel every voice should be heard and acknowledged and placed into the draft and leave it up to the POLL VOTE to either keep and implement it or VOTE to remove it.

[DarylFawcett]

If further changes have been discussed and are to be added or edited into this draft, please post or repost them here.

Every voice should be heard.

By the way, I didn't include the examples in the draft as there were concerns about them and they should really be understood by all of us. If anybody doesn't agree with this, please express those concerns and why.

[RC_NewProtestants]

What is the point of these rules. most do not apply to the main fellowship forum and as such are basically rules for the debate subforum.

They are mostly unnecessary and mainly in the nature of restrictions about what a poster can say. I for one would be embarrassed to have them as rules. The idea of opening the Christian Forums up to atheists etc was so that they can be witnessed to also. The Progressive Sub-forum has created rules that encourage freedom of expression within the CF rules framework and now people are trying to over rule the previous rules as well as the Progressive Sub-forum rules. This has not been a consensus it has been the work of a very few short sighted people.

[DarylFawcett]

One thing you are forgetting though is that everybody can either vote each one of them up or down through the POLL, however, we do not want to go to another POLL prematurely, therefore, we will not rush into a POLL.

After saying this though, if there isn't any further posts or reposts, then a "take 2" POLL will be the next step.

[sentipente]

This has not been a consensus it has been the work of a very few short sighted people.
It is just about time to say adios, goodbye. Freedom is too important to give it up this easily.

[woobadooba]

Daryl, I spent a GREAT DEAL of time revising the rules, and addressing issues that people brought up in relation to them, because they were not as definitive as they should have been when you first posted them.

I am disappointed that you took the liberty to dissect my revision like that. I already told you that you could have just simplified the rules for a poll, and posted an addendum so that people would understand the rules. That is what I did in the revision. I gave the rules, and the meaning of the rules to make it easier for everyone; and you cut it all to pieces, and made rules out of the meaning of the rules.

So basically you took my time and wasted it.

Do not expect me to help you with this anymore.

I don't know if it is an age thing, but this is usually how I get treated by older SDAs. Moriah thinks she has had issues with the church. I've had quite a bit of them myself with the older folk!

I am going to find another forum where there is more respect for younger people that have a desire to be helpful.

[DarylFawcett]

Everybody has a choice to participate here, therefore, if only a few choose to do so, then those few who choose to do so set the stage for what will eventually appear in the POLL.

[DarylFawcett]

Woob and others,

This is still a draft in the working.

I am off to bed now. Will continue tomorrow.

[RC_NewProtestants]

One thing you are forgetting though is that everybody can either vote each one of them up or down through the POLL, however, we do not want to go to another POLL prematurely, therefore, we will not rush into a POLL.

After saying this though, if there isn't any further posts or reposts, then a "take 2" POLL will be the next step.

That is true but when they are poorly written and when they violate other rules already approved a vote on them is really a waste of time or worse yet it will set up one voted rule against another voted rule. I have presented an easy way around this problem by introducing proposals to the main debate area (where ever that may be soon) and having input from the broader forum in the composition of the rules.

[DarylFawcett]

I noticed that the same type of idea or process was posted in another thread in the Main SDA forum, therefore, that will be the next step as a prelude to what may appear in the POLL.

In answer to Woob: I was reading concerns about the addendums, examples, etc., therefore, as some of them looked like rules in their wording, I simply made rules out of some of them, as it is hard to vote an addendum up or down, unless the rule is voted up or down with them.

How about listing the addendums separately at the bottom and referencing them to each proposed rule by rule number such as in 2.5, etc.?

[reddogs]

Revised Version With Some Additions

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of rule violations will be deleted

What this also means is that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread

2.6 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted. For example, referring to satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification.

What this also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.7 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated.

What this means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature

2.8 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condecsneding or derrogatory remark be made about God.

An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.9 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

For examples of a variation of profane language, it would be profane to tell someone to 'Frack' off, or to refer to a person as a 'jackass', or to tell someone that you are tired of their 'freakin' nonsense

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated

It is true that there are bad apples in the church. But that doesn't mean all adventists are like that. To suggest that they are is not only false, it is an insult. What happens within a minority does not constitute what the majoirty is.

2.11 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden.

Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

-2.5, is OK..

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of rule violations will be deleted


-2.6, Need to change to the following:

2.6 Posts that glorify Satan or Satanism will be deleted.

-2.7, Need to change to the following:

2.7 Unmerited sexual content within a post will not be tolerated.

-2.8, Need to change to the following:

2.8 Blasphemy of God is forbidden.

-2.9, Need to change to the following:

2.9 Profane language will not be tolerated

-2.10, Need to change to the following:

2.10 No unnecessary or undue disparaging remarks about Adventists or the SDA church will be allowed.


-2.11, Need to change to the following:

2.11 Referring to SDA doctrines or 28 Fundamental beliefs as cultish, satanic, or devilish will be considered 'flaming' against SDA members and will be handled under the rules against 'flaming'.

[sentipente]

If you don't allow posts that glorify Satan then you take away your ability to convince that individual of the evils of glorifying Satan. It is impossible to effectively counter error without giving it a platform.

[DarylFawcett]

Woob isn't happy over the way I adapted his revisions into the easier for voting format that is being used for these proposed rules when it comes time to use them in a POLL, therefore, I am at a loss on what to do.

Here is what Woob had done:

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of rule violations will be deleted

What this also means is that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread

2.6 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted. For example, referring to satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification.

What this also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.7 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated.

What this means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature

2.8 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condecsneding or derrogatory remark be made about God.

An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.9 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

For examples of a variation of profane language, it would be profane to tell someone to 'Frack' off, or to refer to a person as a 'jackass', or to tell someone that you are tired of their 'freakin' nonsense

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated

It is true that there are bad apples in the church. But that doesn't mean all adventists are like that. To suggest that they are is not only false, it is an insult. What happens within a minority does not constitute what the majoirty is.

2.11 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden.

Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.
Here is what I did:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted as soon as possible.

2.6 A poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will be deleted. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification.

2.8 It is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.9 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

2.10 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derrogatory remark be made about God.

2.11 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.12 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.13 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.14 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act by text or images are forbidden and will not be tolerated.
Which one do you prefer?

I am personally happy to go with the flow, as I only did what I did as I thought that was what the flow wanted.

[DarylFawcett]

I am also just as happy to blend the two together with any further revisions suggested by others here.

[DarylFawcett]

Actually what I did was to partially blend the two together.

[TrustAndObey]

-2.5, is OK..

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of rule violations will be deleted


-2.6, Need to change to the following:

2.6 Posts that glorify Satan or Satanism will be deleted.

-2.7, Need to change to the following:

2.7 Unmerited sexual content within a post will not be tolerated.

-2.8, Need to change to the following:

2.8 Blasphemy of God is forbidden.

-2.9, Need to change to the following:

2.9 Profane language will not be tolerated

-2.10, Need to change to the following:

2.10 No unnecessary or undue disparaging remarks about Adventists or the SDA church will be allowed.


-2.11, Need to change to the following:

2.11 Referring to SDA doctrines or 28 Fundamental beliefs as cultish, satanic, or devilish will be considered 'flaming' against SDA members and will be handled under the rules against 'flaming'.


Rojo, weren't you the one that said the rule suggestions were too vague? You want to make them even more vague?

"No unneccessary or undue disparaging" remarks gives people WAY too much room to say "it WAS due. It WAS necessary".

I don't like that wording AT ALL.

My 2 cents.

[TrustAndObey]

Also, what was the final decision on Red's Sabbath rule suggestion?

It ended up getting the majority, so it should be added to the wiki, right?

[reddogs]

For Darryls version:
"...2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted as soon as possible.

2.6 A poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will be deleted. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification.

2.8 It is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.9 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

2.10 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derrogatory remark be made about God.

2.11 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.12 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.13 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.14 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act by text or images are forbidden and will not be tolerated. ..."
**********************************************************************************




-2.5, simpler is better, keep woobs version:

2.5 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of rule violations will be deleted.

2.6 Redundant


-2.7, Need to simplify to the following:

2.7 Any threads or posts that glorify Satan or Satanism will be deleted.


2.8 Redundant and will not allow valid discussion


2.9 Redundant and confusing, as that is not up to us to decide

-2.10, Need to simpify to the following:

2.10 Blasphemy of God is forbidden.

-2.11, Need to simplify to the following:

2.11 Profane language will not be tolerated

-2.12, Need to simplify to the following:

2.12 No unnecessary or undue disparaging remarks about Adventists or the SDA church will be allowed.


-2.13, Need to simplify to the following:

2.13 Referring to SDA doctrines or 28 Fundamental beliefs as cultish, satanic, or devilish will be considered 'flaming' against SDA members and will be handled under the rules against 'flaming' by the moderators.

-2.14, Need to simplify to the following:

2.14 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act or nature by text or images are forbidden.

[DarylFawcett]

Red's Sabbath rule suggestion?

Are you referring to the one that received a one person majority but didn't achieve the 50%?

If that's the one you are referring to then, as it wasn't set up to work with the 50% or 51% rule suggestion that is now the agreed method, I agree that it should be added into the wiki.

[DarylFawcett]

Seeing that Woob was upset over my effort to both blend and format this for voting in a POLL, does somebody else want to take over doing this?

[reddogs]

Also, what was the final decision on Red's Sabbath rule suggestion?

It ended up getting the majority, so it should be added to the wiki, right?


Correct, it should be added to wiki.....

[TrustAndObey]

Red, I like Daryl's suggestions better.

I do agree that 2.6 is redundant of 2.5 though.

I don't agree with Red's suggestion for 2.12 at all. Not one bit.

Yes, that was the poll I was talking about.

Daryl, don't let one person keep you from doing this. I think you are doing an outstanding job!

[reddogs]

Rojo, weren't you the one that said the rule suggestions were too vague? You want to make them even more vague?

"No unneccessary or undue disparaging" remarks gives people WAY too much room to say "it WAS due. It WAS necessary".

I don't like that wording AT ALL.

My 2 cents.

You need them simple so the moderators can have some leeway, as you would certainly want them to have some 'wiggle' room to discern intent if you got caught breaking a rule....

[DarylFawcett]

I agree with wiggle room for the moderators, but wouldn't that also mean wiggle room or confusion for the other members of the forum?

[DarylFawcett]

Could it be that "wiggle room" is another word for confusion, even possibly amongst the moderators?

[DarylFawcett]

reddogs,

Do I also have your blessing to go ahead and try to piece all of this in another draft format here for further discussion?

[TrustAndObey]

You need them simple so the moderators can have some leeway, as you would certainly want them to have some 'wiggle' room to discern intent if you got caught breaking a rule....

But I'm exactly the type of person you don't want this vagueness for brother Rojo! I'd say "well, the rule says "unnecessary" and *I* felt it was necessary."

You wouldn't have much room, as a mod, for discernment at that point, right?

I have read through a LOT of legal paperwork looking for loopholes, and I know how to spot them, especially when they're THAT glaring.

[TrustAndObey]

EDIT. Sorry for the double post. My computer froze up.

[reddogs]

Seeing that Woob was upset over my effort to both blend and format this for voting in a POLL, does somebody else want to take over doing this?

I think everyone will agree you are doing a excellent job, it is almost finished, just needs a bit of refinement.....

Remember, let the moderators have room to discern as not every 'misstep' is meant as a 'misstep'....or I would have been infractioned to oblivion as a newbie..:wave:

[reddogs]

But I'm exactly the type of person you don't want this vagueness for brother Rojo! I'd say "well, the rule says "unnecessary" and *I* felt it was necessary."

You wouldn't have much room, as a mod, for discernment at that point, right?

I have read through a LOT of legal paperwork looking for loopholes, and I know how to spot them, especially when they're THAT glaring.

The moderator should take notice and ride you like a flea on a newly washed dog, and bite down through the fur to let em know the owner missed washing out this one flea and they need another flea bath........;)

The doggie will notice and not let the owner let him out of the bath till he is 'flea free'....:)

[DarylFawcett]

reddogs,

As it seems you will obviously be joining Doc as an elected SDA Moderator, do you really want to have to debate a rule with the other moderators simply because the rule is open to interpretation? What if you interpret it one way and Doc interprets it another way?

Shouldn't the rules be worded to avoid this from happening? This is where I agree with what T&O just posted.

[TrustAndObey]

Red, I agree wtih Daryl on this one. If it gives you guys TOO much discernment, that kind of takes away the rules we put in place for you to ENFORCE.

A mod's job is to enforce the rules we come up with, not for them to counsel every person that gets accused of breaking a rule.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Anything that gives you a huge amount of discernment, is going to give the posters on this forum a huge amount of wiggle room.

That's how I see it anyway.

I was promised stricter rules, and that's what I want. I wasn't promised mods that could enforce them as they saw fit every time. A rule is a rule.

If I see it going the other way I will sing like a bird about it every time.

That sounded kind of bossy, but you know what I mean.

[DarylFawcett]

Anyway, I am going to open up my word processor and see if I can come up with a better draft based on everybody's posts here with my own thinking blended there as well. :)

[reddogs]

reddogs,

As it seems you will obviously be joining Doc as an elected SDA Moderator, do you really want to have to debate a rule with the other moderators simply because the rule is open to interpretation? What if you interpret it one way and Doc interprets it another way?

Shouldn't the rules be worded to avoid this from happening? This is where I agree with what T&O just posted.

Do you trust those you voted for, If you do... let them discern, Doc is a solid christian, I think you should trust him a little bit....:)

[DarylFawcett]

I know what you mean, T&O, and will be drafting them again with that in mind.

[reddogs]

reddogs,

Do I also have your blessing to go ahead and try to piece all of this in another draft format here for further discussion?

I see the excellent work and it needs to continue, I hope Doc can come in, give comment and give his support also....

[DarylFawcett]

The thing is, reddogs, that I just may, note that I said just may, depending on my own election results, be joining you and Doc.

I, as a moderator, prefer not to be confused over the enforcing of any of the rules, therefore, I want them to be very clear and not open for all kinds of interpretation and debate among the moderators.

[TrustAndObey]

The thing is, reddogs, that I just may, note that I said just may, depending on my own election results, be joining you and Doc.

I, as a moderator, prefer not to be confused over the enforcing of any of the rules, therefore, I want them to be very clear and not open for all kinds of interpretation and debate among the moderators.

I totally agree with you here. If a report comes in Red, a post has obviously upset someone, and I can't agree to having it sit on the board for a long time while you guys "discern" if it broke the rules or didn't. It should be very CLEAR to begin with in order to alleviate some of the pressure you guys might face.

If you didn't vote for a split, in essence, you voted for stricter RULES. That is what everybody was promised, not just me. We did NOT vote that mods would get to decide if it was a rule violation or not, right?

[reddogs]

The thing is, reddogs, that I just may, note that I said just may, depending on my own election results, be joining you and Doc.

I, as a moderator, prefer not to be confused over the enforcing of any of the rules, therefore, I want them to be very clear and not open for all kinds of interpretation and debate among the moderators.

I will support what I discern as correct, thus I am behind your work 100%, I expect it to continue in all aspects, including as a moderator.

Trust me, if I can work with the 'brethren' on the school board, I can work with 'anyone'.......:)

[reddogs]

I totally agree with you here. If a report comes in Red, a post has obviously upset someone, and I can't agree to having it sit on the board for a long time while you guys "discern" if it broke the rules or didn't. It should be very CLEAR to begin with in order to alleviate some of the pressure you guys might face.

If you didn't vote for a split, in essence, you voted for stricter RULES. That is what everybody was promised, not just me. We did NOT vote that mods would get to decide if it was a rule violation or not, right?

Mods are the judges, and just as the Sumpreme Court intrepret laws and discern/judge, they have to discern/judge......You cannot cover every aspect of a violation with rules (as you said you can find a loophole no matter what the rule), at the end of the day you need someone (hopefully someone wise and respected) to discern or judge. If you dont trust them, then why put them as 'judges' (mods), pick another. But I suspect you do trust those you are voting as 'judges' (mods), so extend that trust to the rules so they can discern........:)

[DarylFawcett]

I see moderators primarily as rule enforcers not as judges.

[DarylFawcett]

I have placed the following into word files:

1 - Both versions (Daryl's and Woob's) of proposed additional rules for the Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums section.

2 - All the rules edited into the wiki that have been voted through so far.

I will now be looking at everybody's posts here for suggested changes and will be once again revising it accordingly. Once I have accomplished this, I will be posting it here for further discussion and possible further revision.

[TrustAndObey]

I see moderators primarily as rule enforcers not as judges.

That's EXACTLY what mods do. They aren't judges.

The only time I see discernment coming into play is if it's unclear if someone intentionally or unintentionally violated one of the rules we put in place.

[reddogs]

That's EXACTLY what mods do. They aren't judges.

The only time I see discernment coming into play is if it's unclear if someone intentionally or unintentionally violated one of the rules we put in place.

So if you absentmindedly broke a rule and it required you to be thrown out, you would accept it and say thanks for enforcing the rules and tossing me out.....

No, of course not, you must have trusted wisemen/wisewomen that can discern and take care of things, not mindless robots. Just like Moses set the wisemen/wisewomen over 10/50/100/1000:


12 Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law in the presence of God.

13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?"
15 Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek God's will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws."
17 Moses' father-in-law replied, "What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." 24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves. Exodus 18 12-26

It is biblical, it is the right course, and the nearest we can get to a 'perfect' system to handle the issues in the forum...

[DarylFawcett]

The wording of the rules shouldn't make any difference when it comes to the moderators judgment of whether the offense was intentional or not.

[reddogs]

The wording of the rules shouldn't make any difference when it comes to the moderators judgment of whether the offense was intentional or not.

But, it gives the moderators a chance for mercy....

Dont box yourself into a catch22, and as sure as I am telling you, it will happen unless you allow for the wisemen to discern.....

I'll deny it if you tell.......;), but Sophia and Thrish gave a little slack and let me 'stumble' a bit without penalty when they saw I meant well but didnt quite understand the rules...

[TrustAndObey]

So if you absentmindedly broke a rule and it required you to be thrown out, you would accept it and say thanks for enforcing the rules and tossing me out.....

It would take me "unintentionally" breaking the rules TWELVE times before I'd get thrown out.

And honestly, I don't think there's any way to unintentionally post a pornographic picture, which is what it takes to get an immediate FSB.

No, of course not, you must have trusted wisemen/wisewomen that can discern and take care of things, not mindless robots. Just like Moses set the wisemen/wisewomen over 10/50/100/1000:

I'm voting in people with flaws Red, not martyrs.

12 Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law in the presence of God.

13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?"
15 Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek God's will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws."
17 Moses' father-in-law replied, "What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." 24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves. Exodus 18 12-26

It is biblical, it is the right course, and the nearest we can get to a 'perfect' system to handle the issues in the forum...

It's a great story, but Moses talked directly with God and was appointed a judge of others. I don't think you or Doc can make that claim.

Red, we were promised stricter rules. It's time to pay up on what you voted for.

The wording of the rules shouldn't make any difference when it comes to the moderators judgment of whether the offense was intentional or not.

If you make a rule as vague as "making unnecessary comments" then sure it changes HOW they can judge. All someone has to do is say it WAS necessary. See what I mean?

I'm all for mercy Red, but there are some things the people of this forum are unwilling to compromise on.

[reddogs]

It would take me "unintentionally" breaking the rules TWELVE times before I'd get thrown out.

And honestly, I don't think there's any way to unintentionally post a pornographic picture, which is what it takes to get an immediate FSB.



I'm voting in people with flaws Red, not martyrs.



It's a great story, but Moses talked directly with God and was appointed a judge of others. I don't think you or Doc can make that claim.

Red, we were promised stricter rules. It's time to pay up on what you voted for.



If you make a rule as vague as "making unnecessary comments" then sure it changes HOW they can judge. All someone has to do is say it WAS necessary. See what I mean?

I'm all for mercy Red, but there are some things the people of this forum are unwilling to compromise on.


Dont let 'extremism' rule the the forum...............
That is how 'extremism' begins, no one is allowed to discern or judge only the heavy handed ruler/rules, Stalin used it, Hitler used it, Castro slowly enforced it, and Sadam wipe out many people with it... My parents saw first hand the terror in the peoples faces as Castro used sham judges/mock trials to enforce rules and execute at his desire. If they tried to 'discern/judge' he replaced them with others more pliable and put those others to be executed.

The rules have to be combined with those you voted as moderators, and together they are what brings justice and correct judgement, seperated they are what brings injustice and much fear or actual harm......

[DarylFawcett]

Here is another revised list that is more of a blend of Woob's and the one I did than ever before:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.6 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted.This also means that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted.For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification. This also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.8 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated. This means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature.

2.9 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derogatory remark be made about God. An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive Satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.10 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.12 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.13 Personal attacks against Ellen G. White will not be tolerated. We realize that the writings of Ellen G. White can and should be scrutinized using Scripture, however, she is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character.
Please look at this list and critique it.

If you suggest any changes, please suggest the change and why.

If you suggest that any of them should be removed from the list, please explain why.

If you suggest any new additions to what is here, I will add them in as separate rule numbers.

[reddogs]

2.6 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted.This also means that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.


-2.6 It needs to allow for it to be "locked or deleted", but if you all are united on it as written, I will support it.



2.7 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted.For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification. This also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).


-2.7 It is a reactionary rule not allowing thoughts or suppositions on issues on Satan, but if you all are united on it as written, I will support it.



2.8 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated. This means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature.


-2.8 It needs to allow for verses that speak against sexual fornication, but if you all are united on it as written, I will support it.



2.9 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derogatory remark be made about God. An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive Satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.


-2.9 Again it needs to allow for examples or suppositions that on issues concerning Satan so thus the part of calling God a liar may not be correct depending on presentation and context, so I cannot support it.



2.10 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.


-2.10 If you all are united on it as written, I will support it.


2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.


-2.11 It is a broad vague rule not allowing thoughts or suppositions on issues with the church and written so poorly I cannot support it.



2.12 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.


-2.12 This is the worst, it allows for others to call us hypocrites for attacking other churches (i.e. 'Babylon', 'Daughthers of Babylon'....) but then being unable to allow a opinion on ours. We all know that in some other churches and from very learned scholars and theologians we are still seen as a 'cult'...I cannot support it.

2.13 Personal attacks against Ellen G. White will not be tolerated. We realize that the writings of Ellen G. White can and should be scrutinized using Scripture, however, she is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character.

-2.13 If you all are united on it as written, I will support it.

[TrustAndObey]

Daryl, those look good.

The only thing I can think of to add is something very general like this.

2.13 We realize that the writings of Ellen G White can and should be scrutinized using scripture. However, Ellen G White is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character. Personal attacks against Ellen G White are not admissable in our forum.

??

[NightEternal]

This is really a lose/lose situation here for Progs. None of the Progressives find these rules accaptable. I don't think it will matter how they are worded. I also don't think they will bother contributing in the formulation of them, as they consider them, as RC out it, 'useless and unnecessary'. Senti is leaving once they are enforced. Stormy doesn't think they are needed either. And I don't know where Ice went, he seems to have dropped off the face of the earth.

And yet, they want to retain a forum format where these very rules will be enforced.

I just don't get it.

I will place my vote against the ones I have issues with, but I know they will be enforced regardless.

[reddogs]

This is really a lose/lose situation here for Progs. None of the Progressives find these rules accaptable. I don't think it will matter how they are worded. I also don't think they will bother contributing in the formulation of them, as they consider them, as RC out it, 'useless and unnecessary'. Senti is leaving once they are enforced. Stormy doesn't think they are needed either. And I don't know where Ice went, he seems to have dropped off the face of the earth.

And yet, they want to retain a forum format where these very rules will be enforced.

I just don't get it.

I will place my vote against the ones I have issues with, but I know they will be enforced regardless.

I am doing my best to warn them, but I only have so many fingers to plug the dike, and the water is pouring through and getting deep.....:eek:

[TrustAndObey]

This is really a lose/lose situation here for Progs. None of the Progressives find these rules accaptable. I don't think it will matter how they are worded. I also don't think they will bother contributing in the formulation of them, as they consider them, as RC out it, 'useless and unnecessary'. Senti is leaving once they are enforced. Stormy doesn't think they are needed either. And I don't know where Ice went, he seems to have dropped off the face of the earth.

And yet, they want to retain a forum format where these very rules will be enforced.

I just don't get it.

I will place my vote against the ones I have issues with, but I know they will be enforced regardless.

Night, I've had my issues with you, but when I see someone say "this will make us unhappy" it makes me unhappy. I know perfectly well what it's like to feel utter hopelessness about the future of this forum.

SO....what can be done? The biggest problem in our forum is personal attacks, we agree on that right?

You guys don't like it any more than we do. So that isn't what you have an issue with I'm sure.

No Christian likes insinuations that God is a liar, so I don't think that's it either.

I know you guys don't want satan exalted over God, so that can't be it.

You all disagree with at least some of the 28 fundamental beliefs but I'm sure you have scripture to back up why you feel that way (that sounded SO snotty and I really didn't intend for it to I swear. For some reason I could hear the voice of my old cheerleader captain as I was typing it).

Which particular ones have RC, Stormy and Senti thinking about leaving? I can't think of any of these rules that they'd have a problem with.

[DarylFawcett]

I will edit it into the last list I posted.

[DarylFawcett]

Should we add a rule clause that will cover some specific concerns in specific sub-forums?

[TrustAndObey]

Well, why can't the Progressives exclude our rules from their subforum? Why does it have to blanket over their space?

I obviously don't like some of their discussions but I never go in THERE because they have a right to talk about what they want to.

I guess if a discussion got started in our debate subforum that was getting dangerously close to the edge of a rule violation, they could invite it into there possibly?

I just need Night to clarify about which rules they're disagreeing with so we can possibly reword some of it.

I still don't agree with giving mods the power you think they should have though Red.

[TrustAndObey]

My boys don't usually want too much to do with ol' mom, but just now I got invited (with big blue eyes) to play Memory with a pretty cute little 4-year-old.

That's something I can't pass up!

Adios!!

[DarylFawcett]

I am going to propose the following as follows:

2.14 The above rules will not supersede any rules in any of the SDA sub-forums.
I will add this proposed rule to the list.

[DarylFawcett]

Here is the new revised list:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.6 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted.This also means that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted.For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification. This also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.8 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated. This means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature.

2.9 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derogatory remark be made about God. An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive Satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.10 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.12 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.13 Personal attacks against Ellen G. White will not be tolerated. We realize that the writings of Ellen G. White can and should be scrutinized using Scripture, however, she is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character.

2.14 The above rules will not supersede any rules for any of the SDA sub-forums.
I am still looking at the critiquing from the previous list.

[NightEternal]

I guess you missed where I posted my comments Trust. Here they are:

I have read the revisioned poll and my original observations remain unchanged.

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

What if the thread ended with accusations or statements about yourself that are untrue and inaccurate? Should the charges go unaddressed just because the thread has suddenly been locked at that time? Does not one have the right to answer the charges and set the record straight for the eyes of the rest of the forum? What if starting a new thread is the only way to do this?

I suppose I can abide by the first stipulation, but not the underlined part. Who decides what topic is 'similar' to the locked one? Will any other topics that might be even remotely related to a locked topic also be locked? Where will this end and how far will it be taken?

Also, why has the thread been locked in the first place? Is it because the thread descended into fighting or was the topic itself too controversial? Who decides what is too controversial to be discussed?

There is no way I can vote in favor of such a vague rule.

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him should constitute satanic glorification.

Are we or are we not trying to be a witness to all sorts of people here? Just because I do not agree with the above said premises, does not mean I have to censor the other person. Truth does not need censorhip and the muzzling of different beliefs to help it. It will stand on its own, shining brightly, and people can make thier own choice when they see the contrast.

I cannot vote for this. It smacks of censorship and the crushing of out free speech.

If a Satanist comes here and begins to pontificate on the virtues of child sacrifice or sex with animals, action should be taken out of respect for the laws of common decency. If a Luciferian or a LaVeyan practitionier wants to dialogue on the main forum (Statanism is an official religion), than as long as they abide by the rules of order, I have no problems dealing with what they believe.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated.

If it is pornography under discussion, I concur. And even though I can appreciate art that is sensual in nature such as works from Michaelangelo or Raphael, I realize others might not have that appreciation.

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

Again, smacks of censorship and the crushing out of open discussion. If this what a person honestly believes, I feel no need of taping thier mouths shut. I don't have to agree with them. The truth of the Bible will stand in striking contrast. This forum is not communist China. Why are we trying to make it thus?

I cannot vote for this one either.

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

I concur with the first part. Not with the underlined part. I have no issues or problems using the term 'freaking' or 'fracking'. Neither do I have issues with 'darn', 'heck' or 'shoot'.

This is absolute, full-blown paranoia. How far do you plan to take this one as well?

Therefore, I cannot vote for this one either the way it is presently worded.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

This one is much too vague. If the disclaimers of 'some' or many' are in the statement, that should be fine. It's ridiculous that this even has to be done, as people should be intelligent enough to figure out it is never the whole SDA organization from the GC president right on down to the church janitor under discussion. :doh:

Who decides what is 'condescending'? What if it is true? What if it is valid according to the person's own personal expreinces in the church?

No way. I cannot vote for this one either.

It is clear this set of rules was rushed through as part of a knee-jerk reaction to the Moriah situation. We can do better than this.

Here is what RC says:

Yes and all of your answer was merely your opinion. And very frankly you have been one of the major offender's in the subjective world of condescending generalizations. If you want to stick all these silly rules in the Traditional forum then take that up with them. But they have no place as rules for all the forums. They have no place for the debate sub- forum or the Progressive sub-forum.

All of this appears to be over emotional Traditionalist SDA's trying to turn the entire SDA Forum into their narrow minded sancturary. If someone comes and starts a thread in the debate sub-forum to glorify satan and we don't have SDA,s here who can argue down that thesis we don't deserve to have our own forum. And frankly those that always want to restrict things tend to produce the least intelligent church members. People who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

There are only some traditionalists who have resorted to this emotionalism. To say there are emotional traditionalists is not a generalization of all traditionalist it identifies those who are being emotional and who are using their emotionalism to make narrow definitions. You might want to check the history of the Christian church if you don't think that restricting views does not create a less intelligent church membership. The Dark Ages are not called that only because of the lack of information about that time period but also because of the ignorance of the population under the restrictions of a totalitarian church.

Stormy:

and therein lies the rub.... in the progressive sub-forum we have agreed no flaming, and basically anyone can discuss anything.... the rules that are being hashed out now would overrule the rules established in the sub -forum.... so why allow each sub-forum formulate their own rules then negate them with the global rules?

Senti:

Do you really think I'll still be here when these new rules come into effect? I have no desire of living in the Christian equivalent of an atheistic communist society.

Only Senti has said he would leave. No one else.

As for thier reasons for bucking these rules, you will have to ask them for a more detailed explanation. I won't presume to speak for them.

[reddogs]

Well, why can't the Progressives exclude our rules from their subforum? Why does it have to blanket over their space?

I obviously don't like some of their discussions but I never go in THERE because they have a right to talk about what they want to.

I guess if a discussion got started in our debate subforum that was getting dangerously close to the edge of a rule violation, they could invite it into there possibly?

I just need Night to clarify about which rules they're disagreeing with so we can possibly reword some of it.

I still don't agree with giving mods the power you think they should have though Red.

If Progressives exclude the main rules, then those rules are null and void and they can allow profanity, sexual content, etc... if they so desire.....

Oh, I'm sure we can find a '1000 loopholes' no matter how the rules are worded........:)

[reddogs]

I guess you missed where I posted my comments Trust. Here they are:

I have read the revisioned poll and my original observations remain unchanged.

2.5 Any threads started by a person that are, either a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to a currently locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

What if the thread ended with accusations or statements about yourself that are untrue and inaccurate? Should the charges go unaddressed just because the thread has suddenly been locked at that time? Does not one have the right to answer the charges and set the record straight for the eyes of the rest of the forum? What if starting a new thread is the only way to do this?

I suppose I can abide by the first stipulation, but not the underlined part. Who decides what topic is 'similar' to the locked one? Will any other topics that might be even remotely related to a locked topic also be locked? Where will this end and how far will it be taken?

Also, why has the thread been locked in the first place? Is it because the thread descended into fighting or was the topic itself too controversial? Who decides what is too controversial to be discussed?

There is no way I can vote in favor of such a vague rule.

2.6 Any threads or posts that glorify satan will not be tolerated. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him should constitute satanic glorification.

Are we or are we not trying to be a witness to all sorts of people here? Just because I do not agree with the above said premises, does not mean I have to censor the other person. Truth does not need censorhip and the muzzling of different beliefs to help it. It will stand on its own, shining brightly, and people can make thier own choice when they see the contrast.

I cannot vote for this. It smacks of censorship and the crushing of out free speech.

If a Satanist comes here and begins to pontificate on the virtues of child sacrifice or sex with animals, action should be taken out of respect for the laws of common decency. If a Luciferian or a LaVeyan practitionier wants to dialogue on the main forum (Statanism is an official religion), than as long as they abide by the rules of order, I have no problems dealing with what they believe.

2.7 Graphic descriptions of a sexual act are forbidden and will not be tolerated.

If it is pornography under discussion, I concur. And even though I can appreciate art that is sensual in nature such as works from Michaelangelo or Raphael, I realize others might not have that appreciation.

2.8 Any doctrine that speaks as though God is going to spare satan, or reconcile Himself to him, is forbidden.

Again, smacks of censorship and the crushing out of open discussion. If this what a person honestly believes, I feel no need of taping thier mouths shut. I don't have to agree with them. The truth of the Bible will stand in striking contrast. This forum is not communist China. Why are we trying to make it thus?

I cannot vote for this one either.

2.9 No profane language will be allowed. This includes other variations of profane words/terms which are intended to be used in the same way. For example, don't tell people to 'Frack off', or use the word 'Freakin' in place of you know what.

I concur with the first part. Not with the underlined part. I have no issues or problems using the term 'freaking' or 'fracking'. Neither do I have issues with 'darn', 'heck' or 'shoot'.

This is absolute, full-blown paranoia. How far do you plan to take this one as well?

Therefore, I cannot vote for this one either the way it is presently worded.

2.10 No condescending generalizations about Adventists or the SDA church will be tolerated.

This one is much too vague. If the disclaimers of 'some' or many' are in the statement, that should be fine. It's ridiculous that this even has to be done, as people should be intelligent enough to figure out it is never the whole SDA organization from the GC president right on down to the church janitor under discussion. :doh:

Who decides what is 'condescending'? What if it is true? What if it is valid according to the person's own personal expreinces in the church?

No way. I cannot vote for this one either.

It is clear this set of rules was rushed through as part of a knee-jerk reaction to the Moriah situation. We can do better than this.

Here is what RC says:

Yes and all of your answer was merely your opinion. And very frankly you have been one of the major offender's in the subjective world of condescending generalizations. If you want to stick all these silly rules in the Traditional forum then take that up with them. But they have no place as rules for all the forums. They have no place for the debate sub- forum or the Progressive sub-forum.

All of this appears to be over emotional Traditionalist SDA's trying to turn the entire SDA Forum into their narrow minded sancturary. If someone comes and starts a thread in the debate sub-forum to glorify satan and we don't have SDA,s here who can argue down that thesis we don't deserve to have our own forum. And frankly those that always want to restrict things tend to produce the least intelligent church members. People who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

There are only some traditionalists who have resorted to this emotionalism. To say there are emotional traditionalists is not a generalization of all traditionalist it identifies those who are being emotional and who are using their emotionalism to make narrow definitions. You might want to check the history of the Christian church if you don't think that restricting views does not create a less intelligent church membership. The Dark Ages are not called that only because of the lack of information about that time period but also because of the ignorance of the population under the restrictions of a totalitarian church.

Stormy:

and therein lies the rub.... in the progressive sub-forum we have agreed no flaming, and basically anyone can discuss anything.... the rules that are being hashed out now would overrule the rules established in the sub -forum.... so why allow each sub-forum formulate their own rules then negate them with the global rules?

Senti:

Do you really think I'll still be here when these new rules come into effect? I have no desire of living in the Christian equivalent of an atheistic communist society.

Only Senti has said he would leave. No one else.

As for thier reasons for bucking these rules, you will have to ask them for a more detailed explanation. I won't presume to speak for them.

I second Nights thoughts on the rules, please adjust the wording at least for the vauge or outright unworkable, such as the words "condescending generalizations". It just doesnt work no matter how you interpret it, please rewrite at least that one........

[DarylFawcett]

These are not the latest ones I posted, therefore, please critique the latest ones.

[TrustAndObey]

Night, you made it impossible for me to quote you line by line, and I don't have a lot of time right now, but I do thank you for reposting it because I hadn't seen it.

I think the first rule (about starting new threads) is aimed more at people that had their own thread locked and then make an identical one or someone else starts a thread on the exact same subject....if the SUBJECT is what got the thread closed.

If it gets heated...and it's bad enough for a mod to lock it....then the best thing to do is just leave it alone until the next day when everybody calms down.

I've had some pretty bad things said to me on the LAST post before a thread got locked and I KNOW how aggravating that is, but if a mod saw the need to lock a thread then I guess we should deal with that and settle the argument later.

The fights within a thread never seem to end, you know what I'm saying? Continuing a fight isn't started a thread similar to a locked thread. In fact, I'd say the subject of the thread is the last thing on people's minds at that point, they're just trying to rescue their own pride.

HOWEVER, you definitely raised a good point, because what if a thread on the subject of oh....having an affair (someone's confession or something) and that thread got locked....and then 2 years later someone else has a similar experience and posts it....they may not know about the first one, and the mods may not remember the first one, etc.

And Night, up until like a month ago we couldn't have any talk of uplifting satan. IN FACT, in one of the report threads for MCW, one of the mods said Erwin's vision does NOT include people doing that, period.

I can get you the link if you'd like.

I'm absolutely positive that we're to witness but not have satanic influences everywhere we look either. Certain topics really do need to be censored. Do we really want someone into beastiality going into great detail here?

Would it help if we didn't make the rules blanket over the Progressive area??

[reddogs]

Night, you made it impossible for me to quote you line by line, and I don't have a lot of time right now, but I do thank you for reposting it because I hadn't seen it.

I think the first rule (about starting new threads) is aimed more at people that had their own thread locked and then make an identical one or someone else starts a thread on the exact same subject....if the SUBJECT is what got the thread closed.

If it gets heated...and it's bad enough for a mod to lock it....then the best thing to do is just leave it alone until the next day when everybody calms down.

I've had some pretty bad things said to me on the LAST post before a thread got locked and I KNOW how aggravating that is, but if a mod saw the need to lock a thread then I guess we should deal with that and settle the argument later.

The fights within a thread never seem to end, you know what I'm saying? Continuing a fight isn't started a thread similar to a locked thread. In fact, I'd say the subject of the thread is the last thing on people's minds at that point, they're just trying to rescue their own pride.

HOWEVER, you definitely raised a good point, because what if a thread on the subject of oh....having an affair (someone's confession or something) and that thread got locked....and then 2 years later someone else has a similar experience and posts it....they may not know about the first one, and the mods may not remember the first one, etc.

And Night, up until like a month ago we couldn't have any talk of uplifting satan. IN FACT, in one of the report threads for MCW, one of the mods said Erwin's vision does NOT include people doing that, period.

I can get you the link if you'd like.

I'm absolutely positive that we're to witness but not have satanic influences everywhere we look either. Certain topics really do need to be censored. Do we really want someone into beastiality going into great detail here?

Would it help if we didn't make the rules blanket over the Progressive area??

So then anyone wanting to avoid a infraction can go in the 'Progressive area' and break every rule you are setting up. That will destroy the integrity and application of the rules to say nothing of the nightmare for the mods.........

[DarylFawcett]

This is the latest revised list that we should be discussing:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.6 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted.This also means that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted.For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification. This also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.8 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated. This means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature.

2.9 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derogatory remark be made about God. An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive Satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.10 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.12 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.13 Personal attacks against Ellen G. White will not be tolerated. We realize that the writings of Ellen G. White can and should be scrutinized using Scripture, however, she is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character.

2.14 The above rules that do not also go against the General Foru.ms Rules will not supersede any rules for any of the SDA sub-forums.
The proposed 2.14 rule simply states that a rule in each sub-forum that doesn't go against the General Foru.ms Rules will not supersede established sub-forum rules. This means that there is a greater responsibility on the part of those involved in those rules.

[sentipente]

According to 2.12 the standard of truth is no longer the Creator and the reality that He has created but the Bible. That is an interesting development. It is amazing what depths fear can take us to.

[reddogs]

This is the latest revised list that we should be discussing:
[/font][/color][/size]
The proposed 2.14 rule simply states that a rule in each sub-forum that doesn't go against the General Foru.ms Rules will not supersede established sub-forum rules. This means that there is a greater responsibility on the part of those involved in those rules.

Then shouldnt it be written this way:

2.14 The above sub-forum rules that do not conflict with the General Foru.ms Rules will not supersede any rules for any of the SDA sub-forums.

But then the question remains, what 'above sub-forum' rule(s) are going against or conflicting with the General Foru.ms Rules? Did I miss something...

[RC_NewProtestants]

Come on you guys. Stop this idea of making all encompassing rules for every Forum and sub-forum. Make rules that go along with the rules already approved for each specific forum. For instance the main fellowship forum is not likely to even have threads locked as it is not going to have discussion it being the fellowship forum.

Now you have abandoned the previous poll that is good, the next step if some want these rules is to apply them to whatever forum or sub-forum they would apply to. Then we don't need disclaimers about a rule does not apply to some other forum.

If these rules are meant for the debate forum then let us propose them for that sub-forum. For instance the one about a locked thread being brought up by a similar topic is a non issue in the debate thread as it is open to all topics related to Adventism, it's history and people and beyond.

If you want to keep the end of the locked thread from being used in a new thread then you could offer a rule that you can't post a copy of a post from locked thread, you can only post the link to the post. I think that is overkill also but at least that way it does not violate are previously approved rules. Someone may have made a vital post in the locked thread. I don't think any of this has even been a problem here. though some have claimed that, it was generally merely their emotional response to thoughts that they think are inappropriate because it questions SDA belief.

[reddogs]

Come on you guys. Stop this idea of making all encompassing rules for every Forum and sub-forum. Make rules that go along with the rules already approved for each specific forum. For instance the main fellowship forum is not likely to even have threads locked as it is not going to have discussion it being the fellowship forum.

Now you have abandoned the previous poll that is good, the next step if some want these rules is to apply them to whatever forum or sub-forum they would apply to. Then we don't need disclaimers about a rule does not apply to some other forum.

If these rules are meant for the debate forum then let us propose them for that sub-forum. For instance the one about a locked thread being brought up by a similar topic is a non issue in the debate thread as it is open to all topics related to Adventism, it's history and people and beyond.

If you want to keep the end of the locked thread from being used in a new thread then you could offer a rule that you can't post a copy of a post from locked thread, you can only post the link to the post. I think that is overkill also but at least that way it does not violate are previously approved rules. Someone may have made a vital post in the locked thread. I don't think any of this has even been a problem here. though some have claimed that, it was generally merely their emotional response to thoughts that they think are inappropriate because it questions SDA belief.

Now I hope it is dawning on everyone, that you cannot solve all issues with rules and codification, at the end of the day the Moderator(s) have to be allowed to discern and 'bridge the gap' between the rules as written and the action/infraction which is being brought before the Moderator(s).

You are futilely trying to fit a square peg (rule) into a every round hole (issue) and cant figure out a way to do it................(some are square holes (simple issues) but others are round hole (complex issues) and brute force wont work, trust me).......

The final solution is to listen to others as everyone's input has a level of merit and helps...:groupray:

[DarylFawcett]

How about wording it this way?

2.14 The above rules will not supersede any rules for any of the SDA sub-forums.
In other words, simply remove "that do not also go against the General Foru.ms Rules" for the obvious reason that no rule here should go aganst the General Foru.ms Rules. :)

[DarylFawcett]

The revised list would now look like this:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.6 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted.This also means that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted.For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification. This also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.8 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated. This means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature.

2.9 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derogatory remark be made about God. An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive Satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.10 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.12 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.13 Personal attacks against Ellen G. White will not be tolerated. We realize that the writings of Ellen G. White can and should be scrutinized using Scripture, however, she is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character.

2.14 The above rules will not supersede any rules for any of the SDA sub-forums.

[reddogs]

The revised list would now look like this:
[/font][/color][/size]

Unless someone has a tremendous burning desire to tweek any of the rules some more, I think we are ready for 'prime time'........:thumbsup:

[DarylFawcett]

I will create a Pre-poll topic and list them there for final discussion before listing them in a POLL.

[DarylFawcett]

Here is the link to the pre-poll discussion thread for these section of rules:

http://foru.ms/t6012628-pre-poll-rules-discussion-26-to-214-before-going-to-poll.html

[DarylFawcett]

This is the latest resulting from the pre-poll topic in the Main SDA forum:

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums

2.6 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted.This also means that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification. This also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.8 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated. This means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature.

2.9 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derogatory remark be made about God. An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive Satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.10 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.12 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.13 Personal attacks against Ellen G. White will not be tolerated. We realize that the writings of Ellen G. White can and should be scrutinized using Scripture, however, she is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character.

2.14 Debate in the SDA forum is limited to those that have the SDA icon. Those without a SDA icon may ask a question or fellowship. They are free to go into any of the Sub-Forums or any part of the SDA forum but need a SDA icon in any type of debate.

2.15 The above rules will not supersede any rules for any of the SDA sub-forums.

[reddogs]

This is the latest resulting from the pre-poll topic in the Main SDA forum:
[/font][/color][/size]

Can you adjust the wording of 2.14 to the following:

2.14 Debate in the SDA forum Debate/Discussion Sub-forum is limited to those that have the SDA icon. Those without a SDA icon may ask a question or fellowship in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. They are free to go into any of the Sub-Forums or any part of the SDA forum and participate according to the rules for the particular section but need a SDA icon in any type of debate in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.


(This allows the Progresive and Traditional Sub-forums to set their own rules as they see fit and doesnt interfere, that is my intent and purpose and you may edit the rule accordingly as needed.)

[RC_NewProtestants]

Can you adjust the wording of 2.14 to the following:

2.14 Debate in the SDA forum Debate/Discussion Sub-forum is limited to those that have the SDA icon. Those without a SDA icon may ask a question or fellowship in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. They are free to go into any of the Sub-Forums or any part of the SDA forum and participate according to the rules for the particular section but need a SDA icon in any type of debate in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.


(This allows the Progresive and Traditional Sub-forums to set their own rules as they see fit and doesnt interfere, that is my intent and purpose and you may edit the rule accordingly as needed.)
Your rule contradicts the previously voted debate subforum rule:
3.2 Other Christians and non-Christians are also allowed to debate respectfully.http://foru.ms/t5739473


Please withdraw the proposal and please pay attention to the previous rules when making rule suggestions.

[DarylFawcett]

Here are the list of rules that have been sent back to the drawing board for further discussion, rewording, deletion, addition, etc.:

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 There will be zero tolerance for creating threads resulting from a locked thread, therefore, any threads started by a person that are a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to the locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

6.3 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.

6.4 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.

6.5 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.6.6 For violations of profanity, or variations thereof, and violations of graphic descriptions of a sexual act, there will be 30 days FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and permanent ban for the third.
Let us begin once again on these proposed section of rules.

[TrustAndObey]

Daryl, what is wrong with the above warnings and FSBs? I thought they were winning in the poll?

[woobadooba]

I propose we put this in a poll. Please note that I have made some changes to the first one, to reflect a greater sense of grace.


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 an FSB.

6.3 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.

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

For every 3 warnings a person gets, an FSB infraction will be recorded.

1) After two infractions, violators will receive a three day FSB.
2) After three infractions, violators will receive a one week FSB.
3) After five infractions, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After ten infractions, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5.) Those who are identified as trolls will be banned permanently from the SDA forum
Warnings/infractions are cumulative. In other words, if you end up getting an FSB, you don't start all over again from a clean slate when your FSB comes to a close. Warnings/infractions will be added to those that you had prior to the FSB.

Every three months rule violators will be assessed on their behavior. For every month that they did not violate any rules prior to this, they will lose 2 infractions (if applicable).

6.5 For blatant violations of profanity, or graphic descriptions of a sexual act, more severe measures will be implemented. There will be a 30 day FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and a permanent ban for the third offense.

'Blatant violations of profanity' is to be understood within the context of a 'flame'. For example, telling someone to 'Frack off' would constitute such a violation.

[DarylFawcett]

Daryl, what is wrong with the above warnings and FSBs? I thought they were winning in the poll?
If you read through the discussion of that Poll/Thread you will discover that the intent was there to close and re-discuss the proposed rules for this section, which probably resulted in people not casting their vote.

What we will, therefore, do in accordance with an added procedure, is to discuss it further here and then send the list to a pre-poll topic in the main SDA forum for possible further tweaking before taking it to a poll.

[DarylFawcett]

I will now look at Woob's post and prepare a revised list here in the format used for both the pre-poll and Poll itsself.

[DarylFawcett]

Here is the newly revised list as changed by Woob:

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 an FSB.

6.3 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.


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


1) For every 3 warnings a person gets, an FSB infraction will be recorded.
2) After two infractions, violators will receive a three day FSB.
3) After three infractions, violators will receive a one week FSB.
4) After five infractions, violators will receive a one month FSB.
5) After ten infractions, violators will receive a one year FSB.
6) Those who are identified as trolls will be banned permanently from the SDA forum.
7) Warnings/infractions are cumulative. In other words, if you end up getting an FSB, you don't start all over again from a clean slate when your FSB comes to a close. Warnings/infractions will be added to those that you had prior to the FSB.
8) Every three months rule violators will be assessed on their behavior. For every month that they did not violate any rules prior to this, they will lose 2 infractions (if applicable). 6.5 For blatant violations of profanity, or graphic descriptions of a sexual act, more severe measures will be implemented. There will be a 30 day FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and a permanent ban for the third offense. 'Blatant violations of profanity' is to be understood within the context of a 'flame'. For example, telling someone to 'Frack off' would constitute such a violation.
It is now time to discuss Woob's proposed list in the above quote.

[DarylFawcett]

If there isn't any discussion here, then shall I create a pre-poll thread in the Main SDA Forum to see if there will be any further discussion there?

[TrustAndObey]

If I understand Woob's proposal right, it will take 30 warnings to get a permanent FSB?

That's WAY too lenient.

In fact, I first mentioned 21 and was told THAT was too lenient and I agree.

[sentipente]

I wonder what would have happened to the protagonists here if Jesus had issued some permanent FSBs?

[woobadooba]

If I understand Woob's proposal right, it will take 30 warnings to get a permanent FSB?

That's WAY too lenient.

In fact, I first mentioned 21 and was told THAT was too lenient and I agree.

I don't think it is too lenient for the simple fact that the warnings are cumulative.

Trust, a permanent ban is very serious! We have to show some mercy here. Come on.

[TrustAndObey]

I don't think it is too lenient for the simple fact that the warnings are cumulative.

Trust, a permanent ban is very serious! We have to show some mercy here. Come on.

I agree it's serious to have a permanent ban, but that's exactly the type of thing I expected when people decided we shouldn't split but have stricter rules.

If someone is disrespectful of our rules THIRTY times they obviously have a problem and should reconsider their chat career.

It's too lenient. AND it's too difficult on our mods to try to keep track of all the warnings.

21 is about as high as I'm willing to go.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I agree it's serious to have a permanent ban, but that's exactly the type of thing I expected when people decided we shouldn't split but have stricter rules.

If someone is disrespectful of our rules THIRTY times they obviously have a problem and should reconsider their chat career.

It's too lenient. AND it's too difficult on our mods to try to keep track of all the warnings.

21 is about as high as I'm willing to go.

Actually, I agree that it's too lenient. I was extremely happy to see the proposal that people could earn some of their points to be taken off. I thought that was wonderful. :) With that system, shouldn't 10 for a permanent be enough?

[TrustAndObey]

If we can earn "good time" then I think 15 is plenty enough rule violations for a permanent FSB. We have some pretty smart mods, so I think they'll be able to tell if someone intentionally violates our rules on purpose.

[sentipente]

We have some pretty smart mods, so I think they'll be able to tell if someone intentionally violates our rules on purpose.Agreed. Anyone who "intentionally violates our rules on purpose" is obviously taking his life in his own hands.

[woobadooba]

If we don't get moving on these FSBs I am going to assume that we have a consensus on them, and put them up in a poll. All of this prolonging of things is not helping us.

If you have suggestions then make them known. Otherwise it will be assumed that you don't have an issue with them.

[tall73]

They cannot go to a poll before the new "pre-poll" discussion in the main forum.

The rushing we have done so far has made more errors and taken more time to correct. So no need to rush.

[tall73]

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (except the traditional and progressive forums which are independent).

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators.This warning will be recorded and counts towards an 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) For every three violations above twelve a one year ban will be earned.
6.4 For violations of profanity, or variations thereof, and violations of graphic descriptions of a sexual act, there will be 30 days FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and permanent ban for the third.

6.5 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 result in a permanent FSB under all registrations.



Here is my slight re-working of the original proposal, with the following changes:

1. Added a note explaining that the system does not operate in the Traditional and Progressive sub-forums.

2. I removed the rule regarding re-posting information from a locked thread, as the rule is not passing and there is no similar Four.ms rule.

3. I removed reference to unintentional rule violations. All violations need a warning. There is not penalty until the third violation. Therefore they have time to reform behavior and familiarize themselves with the rules.

Moderators cannot always know motives or intentions and that is a judgment call we don't need to saddle them with. Rules need to be plain and readily applicable.

4. Corrected confusing wording in a couple spots.

5. I moved the multiple registration to evade an FSB to the end so that it does not interrupt the explanation of the base FSB system.

6. I removed the permanent ban. After a year if they are still flaming it won't take long to get three more violations. Most just plain go away after a year.

I am fine with a perma ban under 6.4 however.

[tall73]

As to expiring warnings...I am not sure about that.

It would seem the warning should expire 3 months after it is issued, rather than at some pre-determned 3 month time. Then when action is being taken the mods can just review the earlier warnings to see if they are expired.

However, time served on a ban should NOT count towards expiration of warnings.

I am not sure we need expiring warnings. But if we do we need to make sure that we track them correctly.

[DarylFawcett]

If the Traditional and Progressive Sub-forums are now independent, then they will need to, either set up their own, go with these proposed ones, or the ones by foru.ms itself.

[tall73]

If the Traditional and Progressive Sub-forums are now independent, then they will need to, either set up their own, go with these proposed ones, or the ones by foru.ms itself.


Correct. That will be up to them, which is the reason for the additional note.

[TrustAndObey]

2. I removed the rule regarding re-posting information from a locked thread, as the rule is not passing and there is no similar Four.ms rule.

It is passing. It's at 61% with the majority being in favor of that rule. Right?

Did you take out the option for a permanent ban or am I reading it wrong?

I think one person should be in charge of editing the wiki, I've always felt that way, and several people have agreed with me.

Maybe we should vote on THAT too?

[tall73]

It is passing. It's at 61% with the majority being in favor of that rule. Right?



Oops, read the wrong one. Yes, that can go back in. However, I think we need to rethink it anyway. Are we only giving warnings for flames and reposts? What about violations of other Adventist rules?



Did you take out the option for a permanent ban or am I reading it wrong?

I made a list of all changes, including that one.



I think one person should be in charge of editing the wiki, I've always felt that way, and several people have agreed with me.

Maybe we should vote on THAT too?Yes, that would need to be voted too.

[sentipente]

Considering the fact that all threads tend to meander and touch on a variety of issues having a rule to forbid anyone from starting a thread with issued found in a lock thread could have a chilliing unexpected effect.

[TrustAndObey]

Oops, read the wrong one. Yes, that can go back in. However, I think we need to rethink it anyway. Are we only giving warnings for flames and reposts? What about violations of other Adventist rules?

Tall, it's winning by majority vote. I am TOTALLY okay that you're back into helping with the wiki and I'm grateful that you are (I mean that sincerely), but just because YOU think it needs to be rethought doesn't mean that the majority does.

But this is exactly why I think one person needs to be in charge of editing the wiki. You read it wrong and changed it all willy nilly without majority consensus.

Honestly it shouldn't have been added yet anyway. The poll isn't closed.

I made a list of all changes, including that one.

I don't see the changes unless you mean that you DID take out the option for a permanent ban? I won't vote for that.

Yes, that would need to be voted too.

Originally a lot of us thought Sophia should do it, but she hasn't been around much lately (and I totally understand why).

Daryl, do you want to start a poll about one person being in charge of editing the wiki?

Can we discuss not making the polls 4 days long anymore? It's too long and there have been WAY too many delays already.

[tall73]

Tall, it's winning by majority vote. I am TOTALLY okay that you're back into helping with the wiki and I'm grateful that you are (I mean that sincerely), but just because YOU think it needs to be rethought doesn't mean that the majority does.

But this is exactly wh