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

[tall73]

Due to a voted resolution in the Seventh-day Adventist forum we have restarted the wiki process here. This thread details that agreement:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5709683

Here is the old, now obsolete, wiki.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5674237-wiki-seventh-day-adventists.html

According to the agreement we now have an agreed upon set of guidelines for wiki editing:

1. All changes need to have discussion and consensus. To ensure this each proposed addition, or any counter-proposals, will be voted on prior to adding. After an initial discussion period to form the poll options a poll will run 4 days. Polls will be public. The votes of those who are not Seventh-day Adventist contributors will not be counted.

2. The process will begin with the big items first such as forum/sub-forum organization, who can debate, etc. and then move to specific rules.

3. Any changes made without the process outlined in point 1 will be rolled back.

Ideas from the old wiki can still be proposed and voted on, but the desire is to start the process fresh with some guidelines in place.

-----------------------------------
Voted wiki items:
-----------------------------------

Welcome to the Seventh-day Adventist Forum. In accordance with the intent of Foru.ms, the SDA Forum is open to everyone–Adventist Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians. All general Foru.ms Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) apply in the SDA Forum and sub-forums. In addition, all posters are expected to observe the following forum-specific rules:

1. Main SDA Forum

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

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

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

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

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

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

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

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

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. (Renumbered from 2.15 to 2.14)

Sub-Forums

3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum

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

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

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

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

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

4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventists Sub-forum

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html).

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.

The Progressive Adventist sub-forum is an independent section with its own rules and staff. The rules for this forum are found at the Progressive Adventist Wiki:
http://foru.ms/t6096110-wiki-progressive-adventists.html

[tall73]

Since the guidelines call for formation of the big items first, such as who may debate, and what forum/sub-forums will be used I will get the ball rolling on those discussions.


Welcome to the Seventh-day Adventist Forum. In accordance with the intent of Christian Forums, the SDA Forum is open to everyone–Adventist Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians. All general Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) apply in the SDA Forum and sub-forums. In addition, all posters are expected to observe the following forum-specific rules:


Any objection to this introduction from the previous attempt? Seems fine to me.

I think a simple yes/no vote on it would be sufficient unless someone has an alternative proposal.

[tall73]

We seemed to have some fairly broad consensus on the overall structure --

Main SDA forum for respectful questions giving the official answers,and for fellowship.

Traditional SDA forum for fellowship among those who hold to all 28
Debate/Discussion forum (Turning the old progressive fellowship forum into a debate area).

Do we still want this?

If so we need to vote it up or down, or have some alternative proposals to consider.

[Sophia7]

Welcome to the Seventh-day Adventist Forum. In accordance with the intent of Christian Forums, the SDA Forum is open to everyone–Adventist Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians. All general Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) apply in the SDA Forum and sub-forums. In addition, all posters are expected to observe the following forum-specific rules:

Any objection to this introduction from the previous attempt? Seems fine to me.

I think a simple yes/no vote on it would be sufficient unless someone has an alternative proposal.

I agree with including this in the new wiki.

[Sophia7]

We seemed to have some fairly broad consensus on the overall structure --

Main SDA forum for respectful questions giving the official answers,and for fellowship.

Traditional SDA forum for fellowship among those who hold to all 28
Debate/Discussion forum (Turning the old progressive fellowship forum into a debate area).

Do we still want this?

Yes.

I think everyone was in agreement on this section of the old wiki:

1. Main SDA Forum

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

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

And this one:

3. Traditional Adventist Fellowship

3.1 This sub-forum is for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

3.2 Non-Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists. Debate in this forum is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Adventists.

[DarylFawcett]

Welcome to the Seventh-day Adventist Forum. In accordance with the intent of Christian Forums, the SDA Forum is open to everyone–Adventist Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians. All general Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) apply in the SDA Forum and sub-forums. In addition, all posters are expected to observe the following forum-specific rules:
I vote in favour of the Introduction.

[DarylFawcett]

We seemed to have some fairly broad consensus on the overall structure --

Main SDA forum for respectful questions giving the official answers,and for fellowship.

Traditional SDA forum for fellowship among those who hold to all 28
Debate/Discussion forum (Turning the old progressive fellowship forum into a debate area).

Do we still want this?

If so we need to vote it up or down, or have some alternative proposals to consider.
I think we need to be sure about the structure before we get to any rule proposals, whether taken from the old Wiki, or new proposals.

[tall73]

Just for clarification, we will vote in polls in the Adventist section I would think.

If we try to run several polls here it will get confusing in a hurry;. The guidelines therefore call for public polls options.

We also can't vote until the guidelines are approved for who can vote :(

But we can set up the poll questions and get them ready to be posted as polls.

[tall73]

I think we need to be sure about the structure before we get to any rule proposals, whether taken from the old Wiki, or new proposals.

So would you suggest making the structure....Main, Traditional, Debate

and not define what goes where yet?

Trying to understand how you mean that.

[thecountrydoc]

I vote yes on the intro, and points 3, 3.1, 3.2.

One question: The additional points raised; are we to indicate acceptance or rejection at this point?

YBIC,
Doc

[tall73]

We cannot vote yet!

We don't have the vote finished yet on who can vote. Nor will we vote in this thread. Polls will be posted as soon as we get the options worked out.

So for now we need to form the poll questions that will go up for a vote first. Those should be the overall structure as outlined in the guidelines.

[TrustAndObey]

So the show is finally on the road again, eh?! YaY!

Sarah (IntoTheCrimsonSky) has something she wants put up for vote, so I'll let her know that this is open now so she can post her idea (she has a thread on it in our forum).

I mentioned in the main forum that I thought it would be a good idea if Sophia wrote the new rules as they're added to the wiki, because she's very eloquent with the wording. I don't know if we'd have to vote on that one or not?

Also, I would like to see a rule that bans any attacks on EGW's character as a person. Her writings are one thing, but she's deceased and cannot defend herself against personal attacks.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

How are we going to keep track of everything that gets suggested to add to the wiki?

This is all a little overwhelming, but I think once we start really rolling again, it will flow pretty easily.

[TrustAndObey]

PS Tall, I love the "Take 2" at the end of the title!! :)

[RC_NewProtestants]

I agree with the introduction and the rules reintroduced.

[DarylFawcett]

As far as the forum structure goes, it will probably be as it was stated, except for one thing. I thought I read somewhere that there should still be a separate Progressive type subforum for those who do not hold to all of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church, or did that fall by the wayside?

[tall73]

So the show is finally on the road again, eh?! YaY!

Sarah (IntoTheCrimsonSky) has something she wants put up for vote, so I'll let her know that this is open now so she can post her idea (she has a thread on it in our forum).

I mentioned in the main forum that I thought it would be a good idea if Sophia wrote the new rules as they're added to the wiki, because she's very eloquent with the wording. I don't know if we'd have to vote on that one or not?

Also, I would like to see a rule that bans any attacks on EGW's character as a person. Her writings are one thing, but she's deceased and cannot defend herself against personal attacks.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

How are we going to keep track of everything that gets suggested to add to the wiki?

This is all a little overwhelming, but I think once we start really rolling again, it will flow pretty easily.


Given the guidelines provide for the major issues of who can debate, and the structure first, we should get those out of the way...form up poll questions, etc. and then move to smaller items.

The smaller items will be dependent on the larger ones to some degree.

So for now we have to come up with a poll to approve the intro, if desired (which we can't actually start until two days from now), and come up with a poll on the forum structure.

On the latter we would currently have 2 options it looks like


Option 1
Main forum, fellowship/questions
Traditional
Debate

Option 2
Main forum
Traditional
Progressive
Debate


Once the poll ends on who can vote we can start polls on the large issues in the Adventist section. So before that we need to hammer out the options for each poll.

[TrustAndObey]

Given the guidelines provide for the major issues of who can debate, and the structure first, we should get those out of the way...form up poll questions, etc. and then move to smaller items.

The smaller items will be dependent on the larger ones to some degree.

So for now we have to come up with a poll to approve the intro, if desired (which we can't actually start until two days from now), and come up with a poll on the forum structure.

Now I'm confused. Didn't we do that already? Didn't we vote in your thread about how we handle the wiki (majority vote to add, edit, or delete)?

On the latter we would currently have 2 options it looks like


Option 1
Main forum, fellowship/questions
Traditional
Debate

Option 2
Main forum
Traditional
Progressive
Debate


Once the poll ends on who can vote we can start polls on the large issues in the Adventist section. So before that we need to hammer out the options for each poll.

But Sarah's proposal falls into that very thing. She wants a separate subfora for bible studies (particularly for new Adventists).

[TrustAndObey]

Just so I'm clear, what exactly is up for a vote right now?

The layout of our subforum (and subforas) only?

[DarylFawcett]

Once we know who is allowed to vote from the POLL that is being voted about that, which closes sometime on Monday, all we can do not is wait until we see the results of that POLL.

After the results are in, unless there is further discussion to be held on the proposed Intro, we will most likely need to open up a POLL on the proposed Intro.

Right now we can continue discussion on the main forum and subforums, such as whether or not to add a Bible Study subforum, or however, that one would or should be worded. I am in favour of adding this as another subforum as part of Option #2 or to be added with the current ones in Option #2 as Option #3.

[tall73]

Yes, that is about right Daryl. She can post her idea and it can be one of the options for the sub-forum structure.

We decided guidelines, but we can't vote until we know who can vote!

[tall73]

Option 1
Main forum, fellowship/questions
Traditional
Debate

Option 2
Main forum
Traditional
Progressive
Debate

Option 3
Main forum
Traditional
Progressive
Debate
New Adventist/Bible Study sub-forum

[tall73]

As far as the forum structure goes, it will probably be as it was stated, except for one thing. I thought I read somewhere that there should still be a separate Progressive type subforum for those who do not hold to all of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church, or did that fall by the wayside?

I don't really know if there needs to be a separate progressive sub-forum.

It was not that busy and most progressives are fine with debate anyway. This seemed to be the consensus among progressives in the old wiki.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Option 1
Main forum, fellowship/questions
Traditional
Debate

Option 2
Main forum
Traditional
Progressive
Debate

Option 3
Main forum
Traditional
Progressive
Debate
New Adventist/Bible Study sub-forum

Wow. Appearently I missed a lot. My idea's already into the suggestions. *lol* Thanks Lainie. I was confused on where I was supposed to post the idea, then ended up busy with stuff.

Okay, so yeah. To clarify..There 'is' a long thread in the main forum area about the New Adventist and Bible study sub-forum. You can see that here: http://www.christianforums.com/t5721573-new-adventists-section.html

To sum it up for those who didn't know, the idea is that we have a section specifically for New Adventists. It would be aimed at having a positive environment where the more basic subjects that a new Christian/Adventist would need to know can be discussed. They can ask questions. It would be a strictly 'non' debate area, too.

When I came into CF's Adventist sections I was looking for this exact thing, and did find it sometimes hard because of the differences in opinions. When you're new to it all, you aren't educated enough to stand on EITHER side of a debate, and you also need to focus on the first steps more than the technicalities which long time Adventists get into.

Also, Doc proposed adding Bible studies to it. This idea is wonderful. It would be intended that the studies are completely Bible based and not doctrinal or based on EGW quotes or anything (from my understanding). An actual, 'proper' Bible study. I think we all could benefit from that, and it'd be a positive addition to the Newbies, too. ^_^

So, obviously I vote for Option 3. Agreed the progressive might not get too many hits, but you never know. It would seem somehow wrong to have a Traditional and leave out Progressive..almost unfair to them.

I guess the Main forum ends up being General Discussion, then? Someone said that it works fine for newbies, but I tend to differ. Having a place titled "New Adventists" serves as a beacon to them, and it could be really neat. :)

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

[TrustAndObey]

You're welcome Sarah. I was afraid your idea would get skipped over before you were able to come back, so I wanted to get it on the table (because I still love your idea).

You are such a polite young lady. You aren't voting against any Progressive members by voting for option 3. It was actually a Progressive's idea to turn that subfora into a debate area (just so you know :)).

Tall, thank you for clearing up my confusion.

So should I just wait on giving my vote until a poll opens up?

[DarylFawcett]

And, even though I hate these labels, it was a Traditionalist who suggested a subforum for the Progressives. :)

[tall73]

So should I just wait on giving my vote until a poll opens up?


Yup

The 4 day period should end tomorrow in the afternoon...not long now :)

[Sophia7]

You are such a polite young lady. You aren't voting against any Progressive members by voting for option 3. It was actually a Progressive's idea to turn that subfora into a debate area (just so you know :)).

Yes, I think all of the Progressives are in agreement that we don't really need a Progressive sub-forum. :)

[TrustAndObey]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5744274-questions-for-sda.html&page=2

That thread is exactly why I think there needs to be standard of no debate in the Main forum (which someone has already suggested).

The poor guy asking the questions is getting hammered with a lot of past disagreements that he doesn't need to be witnessing.

Before I vote on the structure, can someone be sure that "NO DEBATE" is included beside the Main SDA Forum? It's on there for option one, but not for options 2 & 3.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5744274-questions-for-sda.html&page=2

That thread is exactly why I think there needs to be standard of no debate in the Main forum (which someone has already suggested).

The poor guy asking the questions is getting hammered with a lot of past disagreements that he doesn't need to be witnessing.

Before I vote on the structure, can someone be sure that "NO DEBATE" is included beside the Main SDA Forum? It's on there for option one, but not for options 2 & 3.
I completely agree! It gives us a bad impression to knewcomers if we're constantly debating things, too. ;)

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

[DarylFawcett]

As this is only a structural thing, I disagree with "No Debate" being placed there. That should come under the rules discussion for that forum.

[Sophia7]

As this is only a structural thing, I disagree with "No Debate" being placed there. That should come under the rules discussion for that forum.

I agree.

[DarylFawcett]

Only just over four more hours to go before the who can vote on these proposed forum rules POLL closes.

[DarylFawcett]

According to the now closed POLL, this is the winning option:

SDA's that joined before July 4th, including a list of other regulars that bear other icons.
We should be able to proceed now?

[tall73]

Yes we should.

I will go ahead and post a poll regarding the intro statement now in the Adventist section:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5758302

I think the forum structure poll is nearly ready. But I am wondering what the best way to conduct it would be.

Polls allow for multiple selections. Perhaps what we need is to put each potential sub-forum up for a vote, each being one poll option, and people can vote for ALL the ones they want. A majority of voters would be necessary to include the sub-forum.

Otherwise we have to include some very large and confusing poll options like the ones above.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Yes we should.

I will go ahead and post a poll regarding the intro statement now in the Adventist section:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5758302

I think the forum structure poll is nearly ready. But I am wondering what the best way to conduct it would be.

Polls allow for multiple selections. Perhaps what we need is to put each potential sub-forum up for a vote, each being one poll option, and people can vote for ALL the ones they want. A majority of voters would be necessary to include the sub-forum.

Otherwise we have to include some very large and confusing poll options like the ones above.
Or we could do a seperate poll for each of the sub-forum suggestions? That seems somehow less complicated to me, but I'm not the one making them. ;) I wasn't aware you could do a poll that allowed multiple answers to be chosen. I probably would have just chosen one without knowing. *lol*

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

[tall73]

One for each of the options would flood the adventist area though. And when you enable it I think it gives a little warning message that you can pick more than one

[DarylFawcett]

Before creating the actual POLL, can you show us what it would look like here textwise?

[woobadooba]

We have a serious problem here! I would like to see the following rule implemented before we proceed to another rule

Non-SDAs are not allowed to answer questions directed at SDAs. If this occurs, the person guilty for violating this rule will have his/her post deleted. If he persists in doing this he will be banned from our forum.

Also, in threads that are put up for the purpose of asking SDAs a doctrinal question, debate is not to take place.

Furthermore, if a doctrinal question is directed at SDAs it is to be assumed that that person is seeking to find out what SDAs generally believe on the subject. Therefore, if any answer that is given does not concur with our official beliefs it should be noted that it is an opinion, not an official SDA belief.

My reasons for this?

1. the thread has been put up for the purpose of getting an answer to a question, not to debate the options. To debate the options within the thread is to derail the thread. This is not fair to the one that posted it, since he is not looking for a plethora of arguments, but a simple answer to his question.
2. unless it is made known that an answer is not an official belief, anyone could say anything at all and call it SDA. This, of course, would only serve to confuse the one asking the question in that it would leave him in a state of not really knowing what we believe as a Church

This thread speaks volumes about why such a rule is important: http://www.christianforums.com/t5744274-questions-for-sda.html

[DarylFawcett]

One step at a time.

Let's not get too many irons in the fire.

Let us continue to do this in an organized fashion.

Right now we should focus on the structure of the Main Forum and the Subforums.

After that we can begin focusing on the rules for each of these forums as a whole, and then on each one individually, or vice-versa.

[tall73]

Woob, that would come under specifics. We are getting there soon. But the voted guidelines call for us to handle the big items first, including forum organizations.

However, you may want to point out to the person that under the interim rules only Adventists can teach or debate.

[tall73]

Daryl,

I am not sure it would work out. It might be too confusing for folks.

I am going to try to do one with the larger options listed above.

I may not include one with a progressive though since none of the progressives actually saw the need to suggest it.

If we get three options then we may just have a plurality but not a majority, and then would need a run-off. So to avoid that I will just put the two options.

[thecountrydoc]

I realize that I may have overlooked a poll that would define the subforums so if I did please forgive me.

This was posted in an eariler post, and as I understand it these would be the forum and subforum choices to choose from.

Option 1
Main forum, fellowship/questions
Traditional
Debate

Option 2
Main forum
Traditional
Progressive
Debate

Option 3
Main forum
Traditional
Progressive
Debate
New Adventist/Bible Study sub-forum

May I suggest a foruth Option:

Option 4
Main Forum: Fellowship/Questions
Traditional
Debate/Discussion: sub-forum
New Advevtist/New Christian/Bible Study sub-forum

I base this suggestion on the former discussion. (Sorry, but I can't get rid of the italics.) I should also note that to limit the forum topics to option #4 would be less confusing to newcomers also.

Respectfully,
Doc

[DarylFawcett]

I would suggest a POLL to choose between Option #3 and Option #4.

[DarylFawcett]

I feel the POLL that was set up, was set up prematurely, therefore, I suggest we ignore that POLL until we are more agreed here on what the two options should be. Either that, or we should place all the options in a POLL and go with the majority, as was done with the various choices in the who can vote POLL.

[tall73]

As to the other type, that poll only worked by accident. If we want multiple options like that we have to have rules drawn up for a plurality.

That one worked because the winning option had not only a plurality but a majority.

[DarylFawcett]

If the POLL was using Options #3 and Option #4 as the two choices in the POLL, then I would be in favour of those two choices to vote on.

If it weren't for what has been posted by others both here and in the POLL discussion, I would have simply voted for the second one on the POLL list and left it at that, however, from the posts I have read, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on those two choices in the POLL.

[tall73]

I had a mod delete the poll.

It looks like we do indeed need more clarification on the options.

So let's get to clarifying.

[tall73]

I think we need to go back to the "vote for all options that apply" format. The poll will specifically say they need to vote for every option they want to see go into effect.

Let's put the following sub-forum options:

traditional
progressive
discussion/debate
New Adventist/ Bible Study

Any sub-forum that doesn't get 50 percent of total voters does not get put in.

Otherwise we have a mess of options and probably a plurality.





Here is what it would look like if we are fair across the board in listing every single combination...

1. No sub-forums

2. Traditional

3. Discussion and debate

4. Progressive

5. New Adventists/Bible Study

6. Traditional
Discussion and debate

7. Traditional
Discussion and debate
Progressive

8. Traditional
Discussion and debate
Progressive
New Adventist/Bible study

9.Discussion and debate
Progressive

10. Discussion and debate
New Adventist/ Bible study

11. Discussion and debate
Progressive
New Adventist/Bible study

12. New Adventist/Bible study
Progressive

13. New Adventist/Bible study
Traditional


That would be too many options. Only 10 are allowed.

So at this point, if we want all options on the table, we need to do it as a multi-vote poll with the four basic options, and you need 50 percent of voters to get the sub-forum.

[DarylFawcett]

With multiple choices, it should work.

In other words, as the Main forum is a given, list the subforums in a POLL with an explanation, and leave it up to the VOTERS.

I would list the following subforums:

Traditional
Progressive
Discussion/debate
New Adventist/ Bible Study

Make sure they know that the Main forum isn't in question here, that it is already a done deal.

How does that sound?

[tall73]

Sounds the same as my proposal right above, so I like it :)

However, we need to make it clear that any forum getting over 50 percent of total voters gets in. Any that do not do not get in.

In other words, they are not competing. They are all running on their own in one poll.

[tall73]

Alright...any objections to the above?

[JonMiller]

How is fellowship any different for those who hold all of the 28 (And many in the traditional forum don't now), or those who questoin some of them, or those who disagree with some of them?

With this division of the fellowship portion of our community, I feel that some will be left out (currently it is those who aren't, for some reason, allowed to post in the traditional forum).

If we are limiting discussion so that it can't take place in the main forum (Which I think is a great idea, give a freindly face to the larger community), why have two seperate forums for fellowship then?

How it is currently is that everyone who joins goes to the traditional forum for fellowship when they join (it has all the I'm new threads).

JM

[tall73]

Mjona3,

With the new poll options you will be able to vote for any combination you want, or no sub-forums at all.

[JonMiller]

You are going to make it multiple choice? (Responding to recent idea)

Also, I want the the main forum renamed (or given an announcement) to make it clear that ti isn't for discussion, but is for questions and fellowship.

JM

[tall73]

mjona,

We are going to make it multiple choice, yes. You will vote for ALL the ones you want (which if that is none, that is fine). Only those that get 50 percent of the actual voters will pass.

We are not dealing yet with specific rules for each forum or sub-forum. That comes after the structure according to the voted guidelines at the top of the wiki. Although it could be interpreted more than one way, given the "who can debate" phrase.

At the current the thought has been to vote the sub-forums then come up with rules for them and the main section. Daryl suggested this and we have been working from that, only because to try to have a vote on all the specifics of sub-forums before we even know if we have them is cumbersome. So we have a tentative idea of how things will look, and I think your suggestion will likely be what happens..but first we need to establish the sub-forum structure.

Moreover, once progressive and traditional sub-forums are formed, if they are, the ones who are in those should be the ones to form the guidelines.

[tall73]

Any other objections? Any problems with a multiple choice model?

[thecountrydoc]

These are the ones I would like to vote for.

Main Forum: Fellowship/Questions & non-debate
Traditional
Debate/Discussion: sub-forum
New Advevtist/New Christian/Bible Study sub-forum

Respectfully,
Doc

[tall73]

These are the ones I would like to vote for.

Main Forum: Fellowship/Questions & non-debate
Traditional
Debate/Discussion: sub-forum
New Advevtist/New Christian/Bible Study sub-forum

Respectfully,
Doc


Those will all be options. The poll itself, as with all the polls, will be in the Adventist section. We are setting the poll options now. I wish they had given us our own section to do the wiki and polls together...but they didn't .So we have to keep both of these areas going.

[tall73]

Alright, it seems the multiple choice model takes into account all the issues. I am going to set it up. Hopefully there will be no objections :)

[TrustAndObey]

Do you think we'd have an easier time with this and more turn out if we did the discussions in the forum?

Didn't Stone say that's what we're supposed to do anyway? (I'll have to go check).

[tall73]

Hm...one problem.

There has to be a "no sub-forum" option.

Otherwise if someone doesn't want any sub-forums their vote would not be counted and even if one voted for a sub-forum it would get a "majority" of those who voted.

[tall73]

Do you think we'd have an easier time with this and more turn out if we did the discussions in the forum?

Didn't Stone say that's what we're supposed to do anyway? (I'll have to go check).
It is up to us what process we used according to Erwin, so whatever the mods say doesn't actually matter.

It might help to have it in the Adventist section. Then again it might just make it worse. I don't know at this point. We already have lots of links pointing here, and now to change it will make it even more confusing than it already is.

[TrustAndObey]

It is up to us what process we used according to Erwin, so whatever the mods say doesn't actually matter.

It might help to have it in the Adventist section. Then again it might just make it worse. I don't know at this point. We already have lots of links pointing here, and now to change it will make it even more confusing than it already is.

Tall, just so you know, I don't envy your position here of trying to lead this out...but I DO appreciate it.

Try not to get too frustrated with us. We are a diffi-cult after all. :)

It will get easier once we have one or two polls out of the way. I think we'll fall into a groove and it will flow nicely.

[TrustAndObey]

You're doing a fine job.

[tall73]

I tend to agree that the polls will go fairly smoothly once it is voting on specific rules, up or down.

And I don't know if I am leading it out, but I am wanting to get it rolling.

This is already days and days in and we need to get moving. Thanks for the encouragement :)

[TrustAndObey]

I didn't mean that as in "you've taken over", but more of "you've got it started". Just so it's clear that it wasn't a slam at all.

And you're welcome.

[DarylFawcett]

So far so good.

[tall73]

Yup :)

Alright...next question....

Can we begin to set up some general rules for the main Adventist section, since we know it will be there one way or the other?

[NightEternal]

Many progressives are saying there is no need for a non-traditional subforum. I feel there should be one available. There are times when I want to discuss certain topics with like-minded individuals and not have to deal with TSDA interjections.

I think Icedragon agrees with me on this.

However, if it is decided that there is no need for one, that will be fine. At any rate, I have placed my vote for all of the subforums. It's good to have plenty of options available.

I would have liked to have seen an EGW subforum option as well, where we could openly and freely deal with issues specifically regarding EGW, the SOP and inspiration. That would just complicate things even more for Tall though. :)

[tall73]

yeah I am done adding poll options :)

Besides, that would just come under the debate and discussion.

[DarylFawcett]

As far as I know, another subforum can be added anytime there is a consensus to have one added, therefore, I suggest we leave that open as a later option, after everything else is done and the new rules are decided and in place.

[DarylFawcett]

Yup :)

Alright...next question....

Can we begin to set up some general rules for the main Adventist section, since we know it will be there one way or the other?
I took this from the old wiki:

1. Main SDA Forum

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

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.
I was going to propose the above wording here, however, I noticed that it refers to a subforum that hasn't been decided on yet.
Also, how the rules are proposed for the Main Forum may depend on the result of the POLL regarding the subforums.

[woobadooba]

I took this from the old wiki:
[/font][/size]
I was going to propose the above wording here, however, I noticed that it refers to a subforum that hasn't been decided on yet.
Also, how the rules are proposed for the Main Forum may depend on the result of the POLL regarding the subforums.

Most questions are likely to lead to debate, especially when they are doctrinal. Therefore, rather than limiting questions within the main forum for fear that they might lead to debate, it is better to just revert to T&O's idea to just simply not allow debate to take place in a question thread.

Also, it is a given that when a non-SDA asks a doctrinal question, that that person is looking for an official SDA teaching on the matter. Having said that, question that are directed at SDAs within the main forum must be answered with an official belief of the SDA church. Of course, if there is no official teaching on the subject, then it doesn't really matter.

Also, people that are known as non-SDA are not allowed to answer questions that are directed at SDAs.

[tall73]

We don't really need the debate forum reference. Here is a slight re-working of the above statement.


The Main Seventh-day Adventist Forum is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions regarding Adventist beliefs and practice. Whenever possible, those with questions posed in the Main Seventh-day Adventist Forum are to be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

[NightEternal]

I was just wondering, are the existing threads in the main forum going to be placed in thier proper areas once the new format is established? :scratch:

The reason I ask is that there are still some old, buried threads in the main forum that are apologetic and debate in nature. It would be nice to have them placed in the discussion forum area in case one wants to resurrect them and carry on an old discussion. However, the main forum under the new format will not be the appropriate place to do that.

I just threw more logs onto that pile of wood in your arms, didn't I Tall? ;)

[tall73]

It would be easiest to leave them, and if they are bumped they could be moved then.

[woobadooba]

We don't really need the debate forum reference. Here is a slight re-working of the above statement.


The Main Seventh-day Adventist Forum is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions regarding Adventist beliefs and practice. Whenever possible, those with questions posed in the Main Seventh-day Adventist Forum are to be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.




And what happens when people violate this rule, or any rule for that matter?

I think it was a mistake for Erwin to do away with the warning system, since it makes it too easy for people to violate the rules.

I'm wondering if we can still implement a warning system within our forum for the purpose of discouraging people from taking advantage of a no warning system.

I personally think that forum specific bans should still take place to let people know that incessant rule violations will not be tolerated.

[NightEternal]

Woob, your desire for a dictatorial, Hitler-style, iron-fisted moderated forum is growing tiresome. Give it a rest already.

[woobadooba]

Woob, your desire for a dictatorial, Hitler-style, iron-fisted moderated forum is growing tiresome. Give it a rest already.

Hitler-style?

Night, you are going way over boundaries here. You should never speak to someone in this way. The words that you use are very strong, and have very deep implications. You should know that it is a hate crime to refer to someone as being similar to Hitler.

[Sophia7]

And what happens when people violate this rule, or any rule for that matter?

I think it was a mistake for Erwin to do away with the warning system, since it makes it too easy for people to violate the rules.

I'm wondering if we can still implement a warning system within our forum for the purpose of discouraging people from taking advantage of a no warning system.

I personally think that forum specific bans should still take place to let people know that incessant rule violations will not be tolerated.

Forum-specific bans can still be used when needed. So can sitewide bans. We don't need to make rules about that. And a warning system requires coding by Erwin, so we can't reinstitute it since he has done away with the old system.

[woobadooba]

Forum-specific bans can still be used when needed. So can sitewide bans. We don't need to make rules about that. And a warning system requires coding by Erwin, so we can't reinstitute it since he has done away with the old system.

But how would you have grounds to ban anyone then? And who would be subject to this action, and what kind of behavior would result in bringing it about?

[Sophia7]

But how would you have grounds to ban anyone then? And who would be subject to this action, and what kind of behavior would result in bringing it about?

Good questions. These are some of the things that are being worked out in the general CF wikis.

[NightEternal]

Hitler-style?

Night, you are going way over boundaries here. You should never speak to someone in this way. The words that you use are very strong, and have very deep implications. You should know that it is a hate crime to refer to someone as being similar to Hitler.

Woob, do you ever actually READ what I post? :doh:

I did not say you were smilar to Hitler. I meant that the forum guidelines and rules you desire reflect a Hitler-style that can only be accomplished by dictatorial moderation. I stand by that. If you had your way, we would be banning people left and right for whatever infractions you could dream up. Banning should be a last resort and something that happens VERY rarely except in the most extreme circumstances. It's not a tool to be used in the same cavalier way one would dispense parking tickets.

[woobadooba]

Woob, do you ever actually READ what I post? :doh:

I did not say you were smilar to Hitler. I meant that the forum guidelines and rules you desire reflect a Hitler-style that can only be accomplished by dictatorial moderation. I stand by that. If you had your way, we would be banning people left and right for whatever infractions you could dream up. Banning should be a last resort and something that happens VERY rarely except in the most extreme circumstances. It's not a tool to be used in the same cavalier way one would dispense parking tickets.

Not only are you guilty of a hate crime, but you are now harassing me.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Firstly, sounds great, Tall. Couldn't have worded it better myself. :)

Secondly, guys..careful now. Night, that came off a bit harsh in the first post and the fact you mentioned Hitler at all in relevance to a meathod someone has means that you are in a way suggesting that they are Hitlerish. I saw it too, so it's not a lack of Woob reading it right or being overly offended. ;)

I have seen the need for banning in other forums I have worked in, in the past. It's sad, but needed sometimes. I also found that temporary banning was a good system which often helped..where an I.P or account was banned for a specific amount of time depending on what they did. Often people stop causing problems if they know they'll be knocked off for awhile, and eventually gone for good.

Same goes for the lack of disipline in schools nowadays. I don't know how many kids I knew who would do absolutely anything to be bad, because the worst that would happen in most cases was sitting in the classroom through recess or getting their parents told.

Not that the old methods were good..and I'm rambling now. Point being, without some kind of decent warning system or conditions people don't care what they do as much. But I agree with Sonja, this is probably more to be discussed in the main CF rules rather than just our forum. :)

Anyway, off to bed all.

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

[DarylFawcett]

1. Main SDA Forum

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

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.
Based on what Tall posted, I would now see it showing like this:

1. Main SDA Forum

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions regarding Adventist beliefs and practice.

1.2 Whenever possible, those with questions posed in the Main Seventh-day Adventist Forum are to be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I like the original, there is going to be a debate sub-forum it is already over 50% and the rules should read as an integrated whole. For that matter unless we know what the sub-forms will be I don't want to see us even consider rules for the main forum as it could have to be different if there were no sub-forums.

[NightEternal]

IntoTheCrimsonSky, you have to understand that Woob loves to play the victim.

Regardless, I was not referring to him but the moderation style he wants. It's a moderation style that crushes and bans all who disagree with him. I could have used Castro or Mussolini and it would have worked just as well. If he can't make the distinction I have clearly spelled out, that is his problem. Conversely, where I have not personally called him 'Hitlerish' he seems to have no problems blatantly attacking me personally and calling me 'devilish' in the main forum. You can't get much worse than the Devil, not even with Hitler. He also presumes to speak for others by saying I am not welcome here.

As far as harrassment, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is! :doh:

Anyhow, I am not going to post any more topics until we have the Debate/Discussion forum up and running. One look at Woob's shameful behavior on the main forum will more than explain why.

[TrustAndObey]

So what's on the agenda right now? Are we just waiting for the poll results of Tall's last poll before we discuss what the rules within them will be?

[TrustAndObey]

The votes are in and it looks like we got all four subforums.

I still don't think it will maintain harmony and I really think we should probably just get different forums altogether.

It's a sad state of affairs in our forum right now, that's for sure.

[tall73]

Folks, I was all excited to get to work on this, but given Erwin's recent poll this may all be for nothing. If he rolls things back to the previous state the wiki and our self-determination may go with it.

Since we appear to be at each other's throats as it is perhaps we should wait a bit longer and see what happens.

[tall73]

Erwins clarified that we will still have self-determination.


http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37153032&postcount=815

[tall73]

Here is where I see us at the current time:

1. Agree to wiki guidelines --DONE
2. Agree to who can vote on rules--DONE
3. Agree to Intro statement--DONE
4. Agree on sub-forums--DONE
5. Craft rules for the main SDA section and any GLOBAL rules for all Adventist forums.
6. Craft rules for the main section and the sub-forums- in the case of traditional and progressive, should be done by each group in their own sub-forum rather than the wiki, then put to a vote in their sub-forum. In the case of the others can be done in the wiki.--Next

[tall73]

For the main forum this is what we were considering.

Modifications? Changes?

Put it to a vote?


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

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

[tall73]

I put a new thread directing people here. If no additional feedback is given soon I will post the poll.

[TrustAndObey]

WAIT! I'm here. :)

Tall, I like the proposal. I think it's a good one. You gave visitors the option of no debate or debate.

I'm going to stay on topic and only focus on the rule at hand and I promise I'm not working against anyone in this effort. We all want peace.

But I do have a question. Are we going to vote on the proposed idea and THEN talk about what happens when/if it's violated, or just move on to all the proposed lay-outs and then discuss rules later?

I only ask because if someone keeps violating that proposal, then instead of the mods having to move the threads to the debate section, I think the violator should be punished and their post deleted.

I.E. If a poster DIDN'T put their post in the debate section, then it absolutely should NOT spark any debate....

If they've made their choice of where to ask the question we have to respect that and I do not support "just moving" threads that weren't intended for debate.

[tall73]

Assumedly there would be penalties for debating in the main forum.


Since few are saying much I am going to put up a poll with an up or down vote on the language as it stands.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

For the main forum this is what we were considering.

Modifications? Changes?

Put it to a vote?


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

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

[tall73]

Alright...any global rules that need to be added?

[tall73]

Thanks intotheCrimsonSky.

Do you have suggestions for rules that would affect the whole Adventist area?

[tall73]

Announcement in the main forum:


We now have had the following rules polls for the rules wiki:

1. Introductory statement

2. Sub-forum structure

3. Proposed guidelines for the main Adventist section (now in progress).



We are now to the point where we need to make global rules for the Adventist section. These rules will affect both the main forum and all sub-forums.

Please go to the wiki discussion and propose rules:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5739473&page=10&nw_show=comments

If you want to ban discussion of mustard in the forums (just a silly example) then propose it and we can discuss forming a poll on it.

We also may wish to make our own warning and Forum Specific Ban system since CF does not currently have one. (There is some discussion of making one).

[honorthesabbath]

Each time I click on the link--it just brings me back here. So I guess this is the wiki place.

#1. I'm not sure if this one is appropriate right now, but I would like to see some kind of limit on the number of new threads each person can make in each forum per day -week or month.

Some folks start 2 and 3 new threads each day, it's out of control.

One way to curb this is to have stricter 'off-topic' rules.

I didn't see this thread till just now because if was buried at the bottom of the page because of all the other silly new threads being opened.

#2. I'd like to see firmer rules and more specific language used for the practice of 'inciting', egging on or whatever you want to call what some folks do to provoke to anger. This is a real problem here and much fighting could be avoided if those who do this understand that we are on to them.

#3. Have the right to comment on mod's decisions and actions in the forum which an action is taken. If WE THE PEOPLE have the Constitutional right to comment on our Presidents actions and decisions, why not here?

This is all I can think of right now. Too tired to think--lol. It's late.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Announcement in the main forum:


We now have had the following rules polls for the rules wiki:

1. Introductory statement

2. Sub-forum structure

3. Proposed guidelines for the main Adventist section (now in progress).



We are now to the point where we need to make global rules for the Adventist section. These rules will affect both the main forum and all sub-forums.

Please go to the wiki discussion and propose rules:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5739473&page=10&nw_show=comments

If you want to ban discussion of mustard in the forums (just a silly example) then propose it and we can discuss forming a poll on it.

We also may wish to make our own warning and Forum Specific Ban system since CF does not currently have one. (There is some discussion of making one).

Well, don't I feel silly. :D I just read this post above, then clicked the link and tried to figure out why I ended up back on the same page as I was before. It took a minute or two before I realized it even was the same page, too. :doh:


Thanks intotheCrimsonSky.

Do you have suggestions for rules that would affect the whole Adventist area?

Hmm. Not that I can think of off the top of my head, but I will definately think on it! :)

P.S You can call me Sarah, Tall. ^_^

[honorthesabbath]

Well, don't I feel silly. :D I just read this post above, then clicked the link and tried to figure out why I ended up back on the same page as I was before. It took a minute or two before I realized it even was the same page, too. :doh:




Hmm. Not that I can think of off the top of my head, but I will definately think on it! :)

P.S You can call me Sarah, Tall. ^_^

ROFL--thats exactly what I kept doing Sarah. Now I don't feel so silly.^_^

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

#1. I'm not sure if this one is appropriate right now, but I would like to see some kind of limit on the number of new threads each person can make in each forum per day -week or month.

Some folks start 2 and 3 new threads each day, it's out of control.

One way to curb this is to have stricter 'off-topic' rules.

I didn't see this thread till just now because if was buried at the bottom of the page because of all the other silly new threads being opened.

Hmmm. That could be hard to do, creating a limit of new topics. Other than an actual change in website coding, I'm not sure how it could be done? We certainly couldn't delete threads past the limit without upsetting people.

Nonetheless, I understand your point. I just think it might end up becoming a negative thing.

The suggestion of "off-topic" control is probably the best way..and I can understand it, but on the other hand it's nice to be able to talk of off topic stuff too. :) That's what'll be a benefit to having the Bible study, debate, and specific sub-forums, right?

#2. I'd like to see firmer rules and more specific language used for the practice of 'inciting', egging on or whatever you want to call what some folks do to provoke to anger. This is a real problem here and much fighting could be avoided if those who do this understand that we are on to them.

Agreed. But it needs to be done carefully, or people can too easily blame eachother of doing this..

#3. Have the right to comment on mod's decisions and actions in the forum which an action is taken. If WE THE PEOPLE have the Constitutional right to comment on our Presidents actions and decisions, why not here?

This is all I can think of right now. Too tired to think--lol. It's late.

We couldn't do this before? *dorkily* Still too new to know how that kinda stuff went.

[NightEternal]

#2. I'd like to see firmer rules and more specific language used for the practice of 'inciting', egging on or whatever you want to call what some folks do to provoke to anger. This is a real problem here and much fighting could be avoided if those who do this understand that we are on to them.

What a load of hooey.

I have let this ridiculous charge slide countless times, but no more. I will be calling you on this from now on Honor, until you quit saying it. If any other Progressives want to challenge it, I will leave that to them. For myself, I am going on record as saying you do not know my motivations for anything I post in this forum, so stop pretending you do. I have never posted anything with the intent to 'provoke' or 'incite' anyone, and I am getting very sick of hearing you repeatedly say it. Anything I have posted during our conflicts has been in self-defense and I can go through every single heated exchange I have been involved in with you and prove it.

Your denials of personal responsibility for your own behavior is no longer going to work. Many know very well how nasty and confrontational you have been, so quit with the innocent routine.

I know none of this is going to make a shred of difference to you and you will continue to live in your world of denial and believe whatever you want, but I am done being labeled an 'instigator' by you.

[TrustAndObey]

Well, don't I feel silly. :D I just read this post above, then clicked the link and tried to figure out why I ended up back on the same page as I was before. It took a minute or two before I realized it even was the same page, too. :doh:

http://dustylibrary.home.vol.com/smiles/haha.gifLOL Sarah & Honor, you're not alone! I did the exact same thing and then read you guys did it too. Whew!

Do you have suggestions for rules that would affect the whole Adventist area?

Letalis acts like we can definitely have a warning system in our forum, so I think it would be pretty easy to set the rules to say something like:

1. ALL instances of flaming will be met with a moderator warning. We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to personally attacking another child of God.

We ask that everyone that posts here becomes familiar with the rules, and to respect them.

If you receive 3 moderator warnings for rule violations, our moderation team will issue one 24-hour ban, along with instructions on how to possibly reword your posts in the future.

If your violations continue to accumulate, the following actions will be taken:

If you receive 7 moderator warnings, you will be banned from the forum for one week, as a cooling down period.

14 warnings constitutes a two-week forum-specific ban.

21 warnings, a three-week forum-specific ban.

If you receive more than 21 warnings for rule violations we feel safe in assuming you are not willing to adhere to our forum rules, and will have no other choice but to ban you from participating in discussions in our forum in the future.

**Something like that?**

I have other forum-wide rules I'd like to see implemented but I'm not sure how much you're wanting us to put "out there" right now?

[TrustAndObey]

One rule suggestion of particular importance to me is this one:

If a visitor comes in to ask a question of Adventists, even in the debate section, I do not think a non-Adventist or ex-Adventist should be allowed to answer them.

I've seen that happen more times than I care to count in our forum, and it's so frustrating.

Remember that post not too long ago that said something like "I'm not an Adventist but I feel confident in answering your question because I have studied Adventism in depth in the past...." and then he went on to say some things that just were not true?

That one irked me to no end.

If you take the time to respond to correct something like that, the OP's question gets shoved to the back.

[NightEternal]

I would also like to suggest that inflammitory rhetoric such as 'Babylonians', 'Devilish', 'apostate', 'pretenders', 'evil' and 'offshoots' in reference to Progressive Adventists not be tolerated. If such things want to be said in the Traditional subforum, fine. However, he main board should be carefully monitored for such words.

If anything is meant to 'provoke' or 'incite', it's the use of these descriptors against those who are as much Adventist as anyone else.

I am not yeilding an inch on this one.

[TrustAndObey]

Offshoot isn't really a bad word, though. It certainly doesn't point to satanistic qualities either (like the rest could certainly appear to do).

I think it's tit for tat in there with the generalizations, and I really don't like seeing it come from either side.

Brother Night, I check my pride at the door of the wiki thread because undoubtedly there is going to have to be SOME compromise reached in here at some point.

I'm just saying to pick your battles in here. I have some things I'm unyielding about too, but they haven't really come up yet.

Be careful what you won't yield on because I think we'll exhaust our chances to list those things.

I hope that made sense.

Plus you can't just have a rule limiting those terms from Progressive Adventists, right? It would have to be forum-wide and only when used against other PEOPLE in our forum because most certainly we're going to say "apostate" at some point or other.

It falls under "flaming" in general, and that's what we're planning to have a zero tolerance policy for.

[tall73]

Some wondered why they couldn't find the wiki thread, and thought it might be because of so many threads being made.

1. The wiki thread is NOT in the Adventist section. If you go to the top of the page it will tell you what section you are in.

It is in the congregational wiki section. It is a big pain, but that is what we have for now.

2. We could try moving all wiki discussion to one thread in the main section, but still would need polls for voting.

3. Sorry about all the threads I started lately but most of them have been rule polls or wiki threads to give info on where to find the discussion and even still some can't find it.

[TrustAndObey]

I don't see a problem with starting lots of threads as long as they're not about the exact same thing (that's already against the rules...spamming).

And your threads are absolutely crucial right now Tall. I don't think anyone was talking about yours.

[tall73]

Each suggested rule will need to be voted on. The easiest way, rather than using 50 different polls, would be to use the multi-vote option as we did with the sub-forums, with each measure needing a 50 percent of all actual voters to carry.

Remember, if you want to make a rule make it specific. For instance if you want to limit the number of times someone says "howdy" in the forum then don't just say "we need to limit the number of times someone says "howdy" but say " I propose only being able to say howdy THREE times in a 24 hour period.

General suggestions are fine to get the ball rolling, but if it is not made into a specific item to be voted on then it will not work in a poll. So if you feel strongly about something make a specific proposal that can be voted on.

[tall73]

#1. I'm not sure if this one is appropriate right now, but I would like to see some kind of limit on the number of new threads each person can make in each forum per day -week or month.

If you would like this to go to a vote then please specify a number and how you think it would work.



One way to curb this is to have stricter 'off-topic' rules.


Please draw up some possible language.



#2. I'd like to see firmer rules and more specific language used for the practice of 'inciting', egging on or whatever you want to call what some folks do to provoke to anger. This is a real problem here and much fighting could be avoided if those who do this understand that we are on to them.

Again, draw up some possible language.

Just a note on my personal view of this, we used to have a brinking rule a long time ago on CF. The problem is it always involves reading motives, and that is not always possible. Rules need to on behavior, not intentions, then it is clear when the line is crossed.



#3. Have the right to comment on mod's decisions and actions in the forum which an action is taken. If WE THE PEOPLE have the Constitutional right to comment on our Presidents actions and decisions, why not here?

This is all I can think of right now. Too tired to think--lol. It's late.

There was, previous to the recent reforms, a rule against this, but I am not sure that there currently is. I would have to look.

If there isn't then it is allowed now.

If there is then we can't override CF global rules. So we just need to check what they say.

Right now the computer I am using is lousy so I am just sticking to here but if someone doesn't check after a while I will try to figure out what they current reading is.

In any case there is nothing that we need to do on our end. Either they have allowed it or not. The only thing we would have to do is add language forbidding it if that is what folks want here but it is not in the CF rules.

[tall73]

Letalis acts like we can definitely have a warning system in our forum, so I think it would be pretty easy to set the rules to say something like:

1. ALL instances of flaming will be met with a moderator warning. We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to personally attacking another child of God.

We ask that everyone that posts here becomes familiar with the rules, and to respect them.

If you receive 3 moderator warnings for rule violations, our moderation team will issue one 24-hour ban, along with instructions on how to possibly reword your posts in the future.

If your violations continue to accumulate, the following actions will be taken:

If you receive 7 moderator warnings, you will be banned from the forum for one week, as a cooling down period.

14 warnings constitutes a two-week forum-specific ban.

21 warnings, a three-week forum-specific ban.

If you receive more than 21 warnings for rule violations we feel safe in assuming you are not willing to adhere to our forum rules, and will have no other choice but to ban you from participating in discussions in our forum in the future.

**Something like that?**

I have other forum-wide rules I'd like to see implemented but I'm not sure how much you're wanting us to put "out there" right now?


A. Go ahead and put the ones you have. When we get 10 specific ones ready to vote on we can start a poll.

B. I like the warning leading to FSB idea, but I would personally say that your system is too lenient. When i was moderating theology we had repeat offenders who would get away with way too much. Here is what mine would look like, though this would apply only to personal attacks:

First offense, warning
Second offense, 1 day FSB
Third offense 3 day FSB
Fourth or greater offense, 1 week FSB

My definition of personal attacks would be that it is BOTH a negative statment and was directed at the poster not at the post.

In other words negative statements at a person rather than at ideas, concepts, etc.

If it doesn't have teeth folks will just push right up to the line.


We would need a sticky thread that would list all warnings and FSB'sfor the Adventist section, maintained by the mods.

Failure to comply with the FSB would be referred to the mods for further action within the CF framework (site ban? )

[sentipente]

Honor said she is on to those who post to incite so the onus is on her not to respond in kind. If she does she is being deliberate for she cannot possibly know why a poster used words that are not in themselves offensive. In any case she probably would not be reading those posts anyway.

[tall73]

One rule suggestion of particular importance to me is this one:

If a visitor comes in to ask a question of Adventists, even in the debate section, I do not think a non-Adventist or ex-Adventist should be allowed to answer them.

I've seen that happen more times than I care to count in our forum, and it's so frustrating.

Remember that post not too long ago that said something like "I'm not an Adventist but I feel confident in answering your question because I have studied Adventism in depth in the past...." and then he went on to say some things that just were not true?

That one irked me to no end.

If you take the time to respond to correct something like that, the OP's question gets shoved to the back.

I agree that is tacky,but I would make some alteration.

A. If someone has an inquiry about our beliefs they should be direced to the main forum.

B. If someone wants to debate or discuss our beliefs they shoudl do it in the debate forum.

IN the main forum only Adventists should be able to answer questions about our beliefs. We could add this to the guidelines.

The problem with imposing the same restriction in the debate forum is that it would not allow someone to pose what they think the Adventists practice or belief is to then debate it. I think that should be allowed.

The purpose of the new main forum arrangement is to be a place where official answers should be given.So if it is that kind ofquestion we should steer them there.

[tall73]

I would also like to suggest that inflammitory rhetoric such as 'Babylonians', 'Devilish', 'apostate', 'pretenders', 'evil' and 'offshoots' in reference to Progressive Adventists not be tolerated. If such things want to be said in the Traditional subforum, fine. However, he main board should be carefully monitored for such words.

If anything is meant to 'provoke' or 'incite', it's the use of these descriptors against those who are as much Adventist as anyone else.

I am not yeilding an inch on this one.

That would fall under flaming or personal insults.

However, we need to be careful here. We don't want to limit discussion of offshoots, bad theology, heresy etc.

It should be focused on the topic, not individual posters.

This is why I feel we should define a personal attack as a statement that is BOTH negative AND directed against a poster.

[tall73]

Here is a specific proposal:



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

[sentipente]

An individual can belong to an offshoot but an individual cannot be an offshoot. Offshoots are organizations.

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, I thought I was being lenient too, but I also had the feeling some people would say "cripes....banishment after JUST 21 offenses?!"

So I do like your idea better, and it definitely falls under the category of "stricter rules".

So I go for that.

I also like the addition you suggested about non-Adventists asking questions in the Main Forum, and only Adventists answering them.

[reddogs]

Here is a specific proposal:



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

Tall73,

The Traditional and Progressive sub-forums have lost their usefullness as there is no way to really identify who is the former and who is the latter. With the Main Adventist forum set aside as non-debate, and rules being proposed to prevent personal attacks in the Debate forum the Traditional and Progressive sub-forums will become of no purpose and obsolete. Thus I wish to propose that along with the changes, we put up a vote to phase out the Traditional and Progressive sub-forums in 90 days if the general consensus is that they are no longer needed.

My proposal is to vote on phasing out the TRAD/PROG sub-forums in 90 days with the condition that controls or processes be put in place to stop the rancor and personal attacks that necessitated them in the first place.

Thus I formally propose that we have the following:

1) A NO-DEBATE/STICKY subforum where the formal or official Seventh Day Adventist beliefs could be posted for study so we have a basis from where to start our discussions or studies. (This would allow non-Adventist and Adventists to see our churches beliefs as even some Adventists dont know them, just what they've been 'told'...)

2) Then a MAIN ADVENTIST BELIEF/DISCUSSION AND STUDY forum where the formal or official Seventh Day Adventist beliefs could be gone over and any presentation relating to the beliefs under discussion allowed. (This would allow non-Adventist and Adventists to ask questions about our churches beliefs, everyone can always learn in a true discussion of God's truth)

3) Then finally a GENERAL ADVENTIST THEOLOGY/DEBATE forum where any Adventist beliefs or issues could be analyzed by all and debated. (For those who want break down and scrutinize Adventist theology and beliefs and want to bring in different/fresh viewpoints for everyone to go over.)


4)A vote: I second Tall73's proposal to use those with SDA icons to report, and I will defer to his proposal on this part of the process. In other words, we police ourselves and let the moderators judge the problematic posters....


5) A vote: To agree on phasing out the Traditional and Progressive sub-forums at the end of 90 days if the general consensus feels the controls and processes are working. (So this vote gives us 90 days to gauge if the general consensus feels proposals 1,2,3 and Tall73's #4 policing process is working)


6) A vote: In 90 days a second vote to phase out BOTH the Progressive and Traditional sub-forums.

Respectfully
Red

[honorthesabbath]

May I suggest that here in the wiki rooms we concentrate on the job at hand and dispense with fault finding.We have all publicly stated that we want peace. This is the place to start.

If you have a grip about me--why not pm me with it instead of burdening all these other ppl with your problems.

Now--lets keep working--thank you!

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

B. I like the warning leading to FSB idea, but I would personally say that your system is too lenient. When i was moderating theology we had repeat offenders who would get away with way too much. Here is what mine would look like, though this would apply only to personal attacks:

First offense, warning
Second offense, 1 day FSB
Third offense 3 day FSB
Fourth or greater offense, 1 week FSB

My definition of personal attacks would be that it is BOTH a negative statment and was directed at the poster not at the post.

In other words negative statements at a person rather than at ideas, concepts, etc.

If it doesn't have teeth folks will just push right up to the line.


We would need a sticky thread that would list all warnings and FSB'sfor the Adventist section, maintained by the mods.

Failure to comply with the FSB would be referred to the mods for further action within the CF framework (site ban? )

I think that sounds good, Tall. :) In most cases, someone should learn from 1 offence anyway. If they continue to attack others and/or violate any of the rules then they are sort of asking for a ban, don't you think? I know that if I was actually warned by a mod it would certainly make me reconsider and be more careful. (I'll never forget the time I suggested rebaptism to an Anglican in the New Christians area because they thought their baptism wasn't valid..then got attacked by even a MOD because apparently that's blasphemy. *twitch* So careful now).

Here is a specific proposal:



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

Sounds perfect!

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

That would fall under flaming or personal insults.

However, we need to be careful here. We don't want to limit discussion of offshoots, bad theology, heresy etc.

It should be focused on the topic, not individual posters.

This is why I feel we should define a personal attack as a statement that is BOTH negative AND directed against a poster.

Agreed. What Night mentioned sort of fits into racism/judgement in general. We could have a rule against this?

Something like this, maybe...

Everyone is to treat eachother with respect. Any personal attacks that are offensive to an individual within this forum will result in a warning and/or forum specific ban if this behavior continues.

A personal attack may include name calling, unfair judging of someone's character in a negative sence, baiting another person into an arguement, attacking them for their beliefs, and/or basically treating them in any way as a lesser human being than yourself.

Feel free to play on the words or add to it if anyone wants, this is my first attempt trying to write a "Rule". :)

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Tall73,

The Traditional and Progressive sub-forums have lost their usefullness as there is no way to really identify who is the former and who is the latter. With the Main Adventist forum set aside as non-debate, and rules being proposed to prevent personal attacks in the Debate forum the Traditional and Progressive sub-forums will become of no purpose and obsolete. Thus I wish to propose that along with the changes, we put up a vote to phase out the Traditional and Progressive sub-forums in 90 days if the general consensus is that they are no longer needed.

My proposal is to vote on phasing out the TRAD/PROG sub-forums in 90 days with the condition that controls or processes be put in place to stop the rancor and personal attacks that necessitated them in the first place.

What about just allowing them to go up and if they end up that no one is using them much at all, then we can consider after the 90 days whether to take them down or something? Rather than actually aiming to phase them out..Lets just see how it goes. :)

Thus I formally propose that we have the following:

1) A NO-DEBATE/STICKY subforum where the formal or official Seventh Day Adventist beliefs could be posted for study so we have a basis from where to start our discussions or studies. (This would allow non-Adventist and Adventists to see our churches beliefs as even some Adventists dont know them, just what they've been 'told'...)

Isn't this what our wiki thing is for? :confused: If it isn't, though..then I agree completely.

2) Then a MAIN ADVENTIST BELIEF/DISCUSSION AND STUDY forum where the formal or official Seventh Day Adventist beliefs could be gone over and any presentation relating to the beliefs under discussion allowed. (This would allow non-Adventist and Adventists to ask questions about our churches beliefs, everyone can always learn in a true discussion of God's truth)

^_^ I think that was my intention for the New Adventists/Bible Study sub forum that was voted in. Since it's aimed at newbies it's meant to be sticking to more official subjects and a non-debate Bible study.

4)A vote: I second Tall73's proposal to use those with SDA icons to report, and I will defer to his proposal on this part of the process. In other words, we police ourselves and let the moderators judge the problematic posters....

I think I missed this. o.O Do you have a link to the thread or something? Sounds like a good idea..

[tall73]

Reddogs, I tend to agree with Sarah in that I think it may be good to propose a vote on whether to keep the progressive and traditionals a little ways down the road rather than vote now to phase them out in 90 days. That way we can decide whether they are helpful or not, and since the vote wasn't just taken to uphold them we could get more willingness to take a second look.


I would propose we take a second poll in 30 days to assess their usefulness. By then we may have some broad-based agreement that they are not needed and they could be removed immediately with the current posts being moved into the debate forum.

If, however, a few of you in the wiki like Red's immediate proposal and want to take it to a vote we could.

[tall73]

As to my moderator proposal I think there is a fatal flaw with it.

It took forever just to get people up to speed on the wiki process when we tried the first wiki thread--and ultimately it was less than successful.

Trying to train all of the active Adventists to:

a. find the reports
b. weigh in on the reports by the guidelines
c. record the warning and FSB information in the appropriate stickies,
d. Monitor posters,

etc. seems like a nearly impossible task.

So as much as I like aspects of it, I think we are back to normal mods.

[sentipente]

As to my moderator proposal I think there is a fatal flaw with it.

It took forever just to get people up to speed on the wiki process when we tried the first wiki thread--and ultimately it was less than successful.

Trying to train all of the active Adventists to:

a. find the reports
b. weigh in on the reports by the guidelines
c. record the warning and FSB information in the appropriate stickies,
d. Monitor posters,

etc. seems like a nearly impossible task.

So as much as I like aspects of it, I think we are back to normal mods.
We will always need regular mods but what you see as a flaw is actually a blessing. It means that fewer people will be making contributions but the mods will have additional input to help them in their decisions. This may be more important in the early days. Later this additional input may drop off significantly until it is no longer provided.

[TrustAndObey]

I'm going to sound like a broken record again, but I really think we need mods in here right away.

SassySDA has been nominated and seconded, IceDragon101 has been nominated and seconded, Tall, you've been nominated and seconded. Thecountrydoc has been nominated and seconded.

Sassy, Ice and Doc have all expressed wanting to do it, which is important.

That's two Progressives and two Traditionals (if you accept Tall).

I'll have to go back and look but I think Mjona3 also expressed wanting to do it, in case you don't want to Tall.

I think we should start looking at our choices, start interviewing them, and get to a consensus. They'll be familiar with the wiki process hopefully, be able to monitor it, and they'll know the minute a new rule was voted in on our main forum.

I think it's also important that we interview them to make sure they get along with EACH OTHER as well.

I just feel naked here. We know there are already rules against flaming, but we're still seeing it. I'd like to see some serious change and this is the quickest way to do it, I feel.

Anybody agree with me?

[sentipente]

Things would be sooo much smoother if people stopped viewing this as "church" but as a place to hang out together with other humans.

[TrustAndObey]

It's a place to hang out together WHILE we talk about our beliefs. I don't consider it church but it might as well be a bible study group. No?

It's unfortunate that we need moderation for such things, but we do.

[sentipente]

It's a place to hang out together WHILE we talk about our beliefs. I don't consider it church but it might as well be a bible study group. No?

I can work with that.

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, here's the thread where moderators have been discussed:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5807905-who-wants-to-be-a-mod.html

At the end of that thread I did a tally of who all has been nominated and seconded at this point.

[NightEternal]

May I suggest that here in the wiki rooms we concentrate on the job at hand and dispense with fault finding.We have all publicly stated that we want peace. This is the place to start.

If you have a grip about me--why not pm me with it instead of burdening all these other ppl with your problems.

Now--lets keep working--thank you!

When you stop publicly assuming that you know the motivations of we Progressives for what we post, I will stop publicly calling you on it. Public comments will get a public response.

And spare us the 'no names were mentioned' excuse. You have only been using that as a cop-out and justification for saying outragerous, hateful things. We all know very well who you are talking about.

[NightEternal]

I am still wondering if it possible to have locked subforums. Only registered users could take part and the discussions would not be able to be seen unless you were actually involved in the subforum. This would avoid offending the more sensitive forum members unneccesarily and would also avoid voyeurism and gossip concerning topics being discussed.

Is this possible?

[sentipente]

This would avoid offending the more sensitive forum members unneccesarily and would also avoid voyeurism and gossip concerning topics being discussed.


This happens already but I don't think that lock forums is the answer. It would require some software engineering that is outside of the authority of this forum. A strict application of the rule against inflammatory language should be sufficient. If you were to go to the other sub-forum then post a negative reaction in your sub-forum then the penalties would be more severe, or accelerated, than if you were reacting to a post within a sub-forum you are allowed to post in. A post in the Prog sub-forum that says, "Did you see what those %%22## Trads posted? ###$$$^&**" would eliminate the need for warnings.

[tall73]

Night, perhaps starting your own forum just for progressives would be helpful. It takes about 15 minutes and is free (ad-driven).

Just a suggestion for your short-term discussion needs.

[NightEternal]

Hmm. I just might do that.

It's not just for my own personal needs though Tall. I am trying to accomodate those who seem to be so overly-offended by the topics we want to deal with.

[TrustAndObey]

I don't think you need to lock the Progressive forum. I've posted in there one time and that was only because I got a PM to greet a visitor.

In and out....lickity split.

I don't spy over there either. In fact, to be real honest, I don't give it much thought at all and I don't mean that in a hateful way. You guys deserve your privacy as much as we do ours.

[TrustAndObey]

It looks like the poll about the no-debate Main section is going to pass with flying colors.

I think we should discuss rules of conduct in the Main Forum at this point.

I've already stated that I totally disagree with "moving" any thread(s) from the Main Forum to the debate area if it gets heated. If we do that, then there's no consequence for making threads in there BECOME debate threads.

Any comments that teeter towards debate, in my opinion, should be deleted and the poster should be cited with a rule violation.

[sentipente]

If there is no debate in the Main Forum where can Adventists discuss the merits of Prune Juice, for example?

[TrustAndObey]

The debate forum.

[sentipente]

The debate forum.
Now I am confused. I thought we had four forums only and the two debate forums were segregated. If there the main forum is no debate there is nowhere where Adventists of all stripes can discuss a non-religious topic.

[TrustAndObey]

The Main Forum is for fellowship and visitor questions (unless a visitor so chooses to pose a question IN the debate section).

The first impression (the Main Forum) will not be a place for debate at all.

The debate section can be where Trads/Progs debate together or where visitors debate with us...so if prune juice is a hot topic, it should have its own thread in the debate section. If someone doesn't want to debate it, they can post it in the main forum or in one of their prospective Trad/Prog sections.

Did that help?

[sentipente]

But if Trad and Progs can't mix in the debate forums there is no place for them to debate anything together.

[TrustAndObey]

I just stated that the debate section is where Trads and Progs can debate together or with visitors.

They can mix.

They just cannot debate in the Main Forum.

[sentipente]

I just stated that the debate section is where Trads and Progs can debate together or with visitors.

They can mix.

They just cannot debate in the Main Forum.
What are you calling the Debate section. I see no provision for such a section. I see

Main Section - No Debate
Newbies - No Debate
Traditional - Debate with Traditionals and visitors (except Progressives)
Progressives - Debate with Progressives and visitors (except Traditionals)The one who have the best play of this forum are the non-Adventist visitors who can debate anywhere Debate is allowed.

[TrustAndObey]

This was voted in:

New Adventist/Bible Studies-no debate
Debate/Discussion Forum-debate amongst Trads/Progs and visitors
Tradtional Section-No debate for Traditional Adventists
Progressive Section-No debate for Progressive Adventists
Main Forum-No debate for anyone

There were four subfora voted in, and one Main Forum

[sentipente]

This was voted in:

New Adventist/Bible Studies-no debate
Debate/Discussion Forum-debate amongst Trads/Progs and visitors
Tradtional Section-No debate for Traditional Adventists
Progressive Section-No debate for Progressive Adventists
Main Forum-No debate for anyone

There were four subfora voted in, and one Main Forum
Thanks for the clarification. If the poll mentioned sub-fora then you are correct. I wonder how many have the same view I have.

[TrustAndObey]

I don't know.

[Sophia7]

It looks like the poll about the no-debate Main section is going to pass with flying colors.

I think we should discuss rules of conduct in the Main Forum at this point.

I've already stated that I totally disagree with "moving" any thread(s) from the Main Forum to the debate area if it gets heated. If we do that, then there's no consequence for making threads in there BECOME debate threads.

Any comments that teeter towards debate, in my opinion, should be deleted and the poster should be cited with a rule violation.

I disagree, as I said in the poll thread. If the OP is a non-Adventist, he or she would probably have no clue what would lead to debate. We shouldn't punish that person for starting a thread to was meant to ask a question when others have turned it into a debate. In that case, it should simply be moved. I don't think a blanket penalty is in order on this. It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis whether to move a thread, delete a thread, warn a poster, etc.

[TrustAndObey]

I disagree, as I said in the poll thread. If the OP is a non-Adventist, he or she would probably have no clue what would lead to debate. We shouldn't punish that person for starting a thread