Debate Sub-forum

[GreenMunchkin]

I know the issue of sub-forums came up already, and the majority said nein danke, but recent events have sort of raised the issue of whether we should have a sub-forum for debates.

It's silly of us to pretend that for many of us this isn't a bit of a safe haven from all the ugliness going on "outside", but as things stand, it's leaking in anyway, and there are conservative Christians already saying this isn't the place for them. If people feel like that, we're failing as a group, because *everyone* ought to feel welcome here, let alone Christians, much less Christians who are conservative in their beliefs.

There will always be people who are able to get involved in slanging matches and leave feeling refreshed, while others just fall apart. There will always be people that can handle lively debate, and others who just want to be able to hang out somewhere where their friends are.

Instead of re-writing the forum rules that all but exclude any group of people, I really think we should have a debate sub-forum. The rules of the forum would still apply, but anything contraversial or contentious would be in a different room, leaving the main one safe. Maybe this way means this forum could still work for everyone.

Have made this a poll, but lemme know what you think, also, please? Thank you :hug:

[Lisa0315]

I vote Yes! I need both. I need a place that is peaceful and I need a place that is lively and full of vigorous discussion. I do NOT want them in the same place, and we need a clear line between the two.

That way if someone came into the fellowship area, we could kindly say, "Hey, that is a good point, but let's take that to the debate area so as to not disturb these good folks!"

Or if we were in Debate, and the thread got derailed by levity, we could say, "Y'all are having a good time, but we need to get back to the discussion. Can you take that to the Fellowship area?"

See? No one is hurt. Everyone is served.

Lisa

[Greenthumb]

I didn't want any subforums at first, but having witnessed some goings on today I think we need somewhere to just debate and somewhere to just fellowship. I myself would just like to fellowship. That is what I came to CF for...all those years ago. And I thought that maybe I had finally found a place in congregation where I belonged. I still hope that is here. :)

Lisa...you've said it well...thanks. :)

[CyberPaladin]

I agree we need two seperate areas because you never do know when a discussion is going to turn into a debate and if we aren't going to discuss anything of substance aren't we all just wasting time just patting each other on the back and making small talk.

[Angel4Truth]

Yes and i think it needs to be specifically stated that debate frommembers who are not conservative be limited to that forum so the entire forum doesnt turn into a debate forum.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

If that's what it takes to bring some peace I'm all for it! :thumbsup:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Yes and i think it needs to be specifically stated that debate frommembers who are not conservative be limited to that forum so the entire forum doesnt turn into a debate forum.

Probably a good idea Angel...:thumbsup:

[Simon_Templar]

I voted to discuss it some.

If people really want it then I'm all for making it. I would prefer not to rush into the issue though.

[GreenMunchkin]

I voted to discuss it some.

If people really want it then I'm all for making it. I would prefer not to rush into the issue though.Cool :)

What are your thinkings on it?

[Angel4Truth]

My thoughts : We have already seen non conservative posters debating in the threads here on conservative issues - I just think it would be better to limit non conservatives debating issues to one fora instead of having it everywhere and disrupting discussion between conservative members on issues that concern us.

[GreenMunchkin]

I have to agree.

And something occurred to me. At some point, it's inevitable that the issue of homosexuality is gonna come up. I don't think a single one of us believes it's anything but a sin, but if people can be that vile over an issue as "minor" as female pastors, an issue as fighty as homosexuality would just explode. We need that to be contained so it doesn't poison this entire forum.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I have to agree.

And something occurred to me. At some point, it's inevitable that the issue of homosexuality is gonna come up. I don't think a single one of us believes it's anything but a sin, but if people can be that vile over an issue as "minor" as female pastors, an issue as fighty as homosexuality would just explode. We need that to be contained so it doesn't poison this entire forum.
That's for sure! :doh:

[Simon_Templar]

Cool :)

What are your thinkings on it?
I don't know. It might be handy to have a sub-forum to contain more debate oriented threads. However, I'm not a big fan of turning the main forum into a fluff only forum.

Maybe its a guy thing :) but on most of the forums I partake in, the fellowship threads are kinda boring and I usually just end up ignoring them.

On top of that, we have yet to see what kind of traffic we are going to generate once we are "in the swing of things". Nothing is worse than a forum with very little activity. If we divide things too much, we could turn the place into a ghost town.

[Sophia7]

I think having a debate sub-forum would be a good idea.

[GreenMunchkin]

I don't know. It might be handy to have a sub-forum to contain more debate oriented threads. However, I'm not a big fan of turning the main forum into a fluff only forum.

Maybe its a guy thing :) but on most of the forums I partake in, the fellowship threads are kinda boring and I usually just end up ignoring them.

On top of that, we have yet to see what kind of traffic we are going to generate once we are "in the swing of things". Nothing is worse than a forum with very little activity. If we divide things too much, we could turn the place into a ghost town.I suppose that's the issue... what would the non-debate section then be for. For what it's worth, I think it would still have some debate, but between people who know they can debate one another without it becoming mean. And if we had a debate sub-forum, if things *were* to get nasty, a mod could just move it from the main to the sub, taking all the grr with it. Yay!

As to numbers... you know, I tend to think this forum is gonna keep growing. At the moment it's sort of tucked away, but as conservative Christians carry on feeling disenfranchized at CF, they'll keep coming here. And don't forget, non-Christians will be coming here, also.

I think this is gonna be a high-traffic forum relatively soon, (especially if it's beautiful in atmosphere) so it'd be prudent to have everything in place before then.

Sort of like putting mints on the pillows *before* the people arrive.

(got food on the brain at the moment :P :D)

[Simon_Templar]

I suppose that's the issue... what would the non-debate section then be for. For what it's worth, I think it would still have some debate, but between people who know they can debate one another without it becoming mean. And if we had a debate sub-forum, if things *were* to get nasty, a mod could just move it from the main to the sub, taking all the grr with it. Yay!

As to numbers... you know, I tend to think this forum is gonna keep growing. At the moment it's sort of tucked away, but as conservative Christians carry on feeling disenfranchized at CF, they'll keep coming here. And don't forget, non-Christians will be coming here, also.

I think this is gonna be a high-traffic forum relatively soon, (especially if it's beautiful in atmosphere) so it'd be prudent to have everything in place before then.

Sort of like putting mints on the pillows *before* the people arrive.

(got food on the brain at the moment :P :D)
I've got food on the brain all the time :)

as long as we are not limiting the main forum to fellowship posts only I'm ok with that.

[Angel4Truth]

Simon you misundertood my suggestion , i suggest that NON conservative members limit debate to one fora, not that conservative members couldnt participate in debate with each other on conservative issues.

My suggestion would limit for example what Green brought up. If its not limited you will see a nightmare in any thread where homosexuality is mentioned or abortion or any hot button issue.

Being a congregational fora we need to be able to discuss issues without outside debate but also need fora where interbelief exchanges can occur. they dont need to happen all in the same fora because weve all seen how disruptive that can be.

[GreenMunchkin]

I've got food on the brain all the time :)

as long as we are not limiting the main forum to fellowship posts only I'm ok with that.No, the main forum would be or everything. The sub could be for issues we know up-front are gonna be especially contentious and pastures new for debates that are beginning to turn fighty.

[Hishandmaiden]

I am for a debate subforum.
We, conservatives, are divided only too many issues.
We need a place where we can feel safe in as a whole group.
The membership to this forum had been increasing. I think a debate sub-forum is just right, now.

[Criada]

Voted yes.
Please!!

[Letalis]

Lively discussion is a part of congregation forums. It's a sort of environment we want to foster, not remove and hide away.

Debating by non-conservatives is another matter entirely. I thought we had some rules in place to stop this?

[GreenMunchkin]

That's kind of the issue, bro.

The people were clearly Fundamentalists and they're covered in the wiki, but liberal/conservative/fundamentalist are such fluid labels, they can just claim they are conservative and carry on.

The forum wiki is being re-worded and tweaked, but it'll still always be open to a level of interpretation, so having a sub-forum would be a back-up.

[Angel4Truth]

Letalis , that is what i am calling for , debate to be limited by non conservative members in the conservative forums , not limiting debate BETWEEN conservatives.

The debate forum idea is for those who arent conservatives to debate conservatives for the purpose of keeping the forum from being disrupted like it already has been.

[Letalis]

I'm guessing this is about the women's ordination thread?

[Angel4Truth]

and other posts and heading off potential issues like the homosexuality issue and abortion debates all over the forum

[GreenMunchkin]

I'm guessing this is about the women's ordination thread?Primarily, yeah. But it raised the question as a whole, as female ordination isn't even as contraversial as other topics.

[CyberPaladin]

I'm guessing this is about the women's ordination thread?
Yes women's ordination was the particular subject that brought the subject up but this was problem that was going to be coming up no matter what. And to those that think we can have discussion without debate realize it's very subjective where the line between the 2 is and your always close to having a subject cross the line.

[Lisa0315]

Letalis , that is what i am calling for , debate to be limited by non conservative members in the conservative forums , not limiting debate BETWEEN conservatives.

The debate forum idea is for those who arent conservatives to debate conservatives for the purpose of keeping the forum from being disrupted like it already has been.

Anyone can call themselves conservative. That is why I proposed a unique icon for us that consider this our home. Anyone can come into CC and debate, flame, or cause absolute chaos and feel completely within their rights because they are by their own definition "Conservative". I do not want to exclude anyone, but if we are going to have discussion between Conservatives only with no side forum, then, it is going to be difficult to control.

Go check the Congregation Reports. You will see that there have already been a ton of reports coming from our forum. We are getting a rep fast in here which completely opposes our Love Rule.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Good grief! It's like every post I've ever made is in there! :sigh:

Plus, I can't actually see them. Which ones are they, and for what reasons?

Spite reports. It's sad when people do that.

[Lisa0315]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5743185

This is a poll to see if those who consider CC their home would like to have a unique faith icon.

GM, Yeah, I saw all your reports. LOL! I got one too for saying "Preach it Sister!" How is THAT flaming?

Whatever...

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

And what did Trekki and Greenthumb get reported for?

The pages are blank, so am unable to comment, cos I can't see what's been said, at all.

It's obvious what's happened. hizlamb has been reported and told to edit, so now she's punishing everyone by reporting absolutely everything. There used to be a rule against doing that, actually. Is there still?

[Lisa0315]

And what did Trekki and Greenthumb get reported for?

The pages are blank, so am unable to comment, cos I can't see what's been said, at all.

It's obvious what's happened. hizlamb has been reported and told to edit, so now she's punishing everyone by reporting absolutely everything. There used to be a rule against doing that, actually. Is there still?

Rules? What rules? ^_^

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Rules? What rules? ^_^

Lisa:sigh: You're not far wrong :(

Hey, please could you copy the comments here for all of our reports, please? It's really frustratig not being able to see what we've all apparently done.

Grr.

[Greenthumb]

And what did Trekki and Greenthumb get reported for?

The pages are blank, so am unable to comment, cos I can't see what's been said, at all.

It's obvious what's happened. hizlamb has been reported and told to edit, so now she's punishing everyone by reporting absolutely everything. There used to be a rule against doing that, actually. Is there still?
I got reported? For what? :eek:

[GreenMunchkin]

I got reported? For what? :eek:Pfft. It's hizlamb reporting everyone who disagreed with her. They're all in Ecumenical Reports, but all I see is blank pages.

None of us did a single thing wrong, sis, so don't worry :hug: :hug:

Spite reports :sigh:

[Greenthumb]

Pfft. It's hizlamb reporting everyone who disagreed with her. They're all in Ecumenical Reports, but all I see is blank pages.

None of us did a single thing wrong, sis, so don't worry :hug: :hug:

Spite reports :sigh:
Hmm...hmm...hmm...*buttons lips* :doh: ;)
Oh...um...how do I find the reports? :scratch:

[GreenMunchkin]

http://www.christianforums.com/f638-ecumenical-reports.html

They're all there. Please will you let me know what they say and what they're for? It's sooo frustrating not being able to see anything :(

Was a silly thing to do, though, cos reporting everyone makes it obvious they're spite reports.

[Lisa0315]

Hmm...hmm...hmm...*buttons lips* :doh: ;)
Oh...um...how do I find the reports? :scratch:

Go out to the main page. Go to the Congregation area and look for E Reports. I can't spell it, but you will know it when you see it!

Lisa

[Greenthumb]

Go out to the main page. Go to the Congregation area and look for E Reports. I can't spell it, but you will know it when you see it!

Lisa
Thanks...I found it. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

What do they all say, Greenie?

I just deleted *all* my subscriptions in the hope that'd jog something free and it didn't :sigh:

What are we all meant to have said?

[Greenthumb]

What do they all say, Greenie?

I just deleted *all* my subscriptions in the hope that'd jog something free and it didn't :sigh:

What are we all meant to have said?

Basically we're all flaming. :)

[Lisa0315]

Basically we're all flaming. :)

Yes, we flamed a flamer who flamed a member who asked that he stop flaming until she finally left over the flaming and WE were reported for flaming. ^_^

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

None of us flamed anyone in the least. That's so out of order cos we only have one mod and she's gonna have to go through all of that for no reason. For goodness sake.

Maybe we need to start thinking about some mods, you know. Help relieve the work-load.

[Simon_Templar]

None of us flamed anyone in the least. That's so out of order cos we only have one mod and she's gonna have to go through all of that for no reason. For goodness sake.

Maybe we need to start thinking about some mods, you know. Help relieve the work-load.
I don't wish to exacerbate the situation BUT, its not exactly an example of "a soft answer turneth away wrath" when you start calling people 'pathetic' and telling them that you pity them and your praying for them (in a very condescending tone).

Is that really better than them saying you deny scripture and are going against God because you disagree with their position?

[Lisa0315]

I think Simon and Talitha are good choices for mods!

[GreenMunchkin]

I don't wish to exacerbate the situation BUT, its not exactly an example of "a soft answer turneth away wrath" when you start calling people 'pathetic' and telling them that you pity them and your praying for them (in a very condescending tone).

Is that really better than them saying you deny scripture and are going against God because you disagree with their position?I never called anyone pathetic! And I would *never* tell someone am praying for them as a back-handed way of patronizing them. Ugh. Dude, you don't even know me, so how can you assume something that horrible?

Prayer is sacred and beautiful, and praying for someone who is attacking your friends is hard, so I was trying to stay as calm as possible.

This is ridiculous. So now even praying for people is flaming??

This isn't the forum for me.

God bless. x

[Simon_Templar]

I never called anyone pathetic! And I would *never* tell someone am praying for them as a back-handed way of patronizing them. Ugh. Dude, you don't even know me, so how can you assume something that horrible?

Prayer is sacred and beautiful, and praying for someone who is attacking your friends is hard, so I was trying to stay as calm as possible.

This is ridiculous. So now even praying for people is flaming??

This isn't the forum for me.

God bless. x
well I saw a post in the reports where you did refer to a few people as pathatic. Its easy to lose track of what we are saying and just perceive the offense that others are giving.

And if I were to say the following sentance to you, how would you take it...

You're pathetic, I pity you and I'm praying for you!

to me, that sounds condescending and patronizing. Even if you didn't mean it that way, I think that is how most people would perceive it.

[GreenMunchkin]

Copy it into here.

At no point did I call anyone pathetic.

I repeated I would pray, and told hizlamb once that I pitied her, which I do, as being so angry must be painful.

Kindly copy and paste my calling people pathetic.

[Simon_Templar]

Copy it into here.

At no point did I call anyone pathetic.

I repeated I would pray, and told hizlamb once that I pitied her, which I do, as being so angry must be painful.

Kindly copy and paste my calling people pathetic.
my appologies, when I went back to check it, it was another poster who called Hizlamb, Albion, and John1and1 pathetic.

I had thought it was part of your "I pity you" comment.

[Simon_Templar]

Copy it into here.

At no point did I call anyone pathetic.

I repeated I would pray, and told hizlamb once that I pitied her, which I do, as being so angry must be painful.

Kindly copy and paste my calling people pathetic.
I would point out, however, that its not an issue of being angry or hate filled.

No one in this forum, I would guess, has gone through the last few weeks without having their traditional views denegrated, thrown in their face, being accused of being unloving etc etc etc.
Yet these guys came in here expecting that all conservative view points would be upheld by the forum. Then they discovered that one big issue that they care alot about wasn't and they got exactly the same kind of response that they've been getting at every turn from the rest of the forum.

I maybe acted with more restraint, but I would bet I felt a lot of the same emotion as those people did. I understand exactly how they feel. I came in expecting that this issue would be one on which the forum was divided and so I was ready to not have my view be supported.

To be honest with you, I don't think any of the posts those guys made were hate filled. I think the reaction of many of you was just as big an over reaction to them, as their posts were an over reaction to you.

You guys accused them of being hatefull and rude, honestly that is no different than them accusing you of going against the word of God and thus against God. Both are dependant upon your point of view. From their belief, and mine, what some of you believe IS a rejection of that portion of the scriptures. You disagree, just like they disagree that their ardent defense of their belief was hateful.

[GreenMunchkin]

I'm sorry, but that's just pride talking.

You were mistaken, and instead of just admitting it and letting it go, you're going to drag it all up again.

I'm not playing.

I didn't, and wouldn't, call anyone pathetic.

That's the end of it.

[Simon_Templar]

I'm sorry, but that's just pride talking.

You were mistaken, and instead of just admitting it and letting it go, you're going to drag it all up again.

I'm not playing.

I didn't, and wouldn't, call anyone pathetic.

That's the end of it.
did I not say I was wrong about that?

but you're right on one count. That is the end of it.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

well I saw a post in the reports where you did refer to a few people as pathatic. Its easy to lose track of what we are saying and just perceive the offense that others are giving.

And if I were to say the following sentance to you, how would you take it...

You're pathetic, I pity you and I'm praying for you!

to me, that sounds condescending and patronizing. Even if you didn't mean it that way, I think that is how most people would perceive it.

I was the one who said that (the pathetic part)...and I'm sorry. I was referring to how people were speaking to Mac and the way it sounded to me.

I would point out, however, that its not an issue of being angry or hate filled.

No one in this forum, I would guess, has gone through the last few weeks without having their traditional views denegrated, thrown in their face, being accused of being unloving etc etc etc.
Yet these guys came in here expecting that all conservative view points would be upheld by the forum. Then they discovered that one big issue that they care alot about wasn't and they got exactly the same kind of response that they've been getting at every turn from the rest of the forum.

I maybe acted with more restraint, but I would bet I felt a lot of the same emotion as those people did. I understand exactly how they feel. I came in expecting that this issue would be one on which the forum was divided and so I was ready to not have my view be supported.

To be honest with you, I don't think any of the posts those guys made were hate filled. I think the reaction of many of you was just as big an over reaction to them, as their posts were an over reaction to you.

You guys accused them of being hatefull and rude, honestly that is no different than them accusing you of going against the word of God and thus against God. Both are dependant upon your point of view. From their belief, and mine, what some of you believe IS a rejection of that portion of the scriptures. You disagree, just like they disagree that their ardent defense of their belief was hateful.

They were hateful and rude Simon. I'm not sure how anyone could read some of their statements and not see it as rude.

Let me just say here that I'm sorry for my part in all this and the way I spoke in the one post. I hope you can forgive me and that we will all be able to get past this ugliness.

[Lisa0315]

This may be a problem with the differences in perception between men and women. Most of the women saw it as very rude and very hurtful. Most of the men saw it as proper and not rude at all. Just a thought...

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

This may be a problem with the differences in perception between men and women. Most of the women saw it as very rude and very hurtful. Most of the men saw it as proper and not rude at all. Just a thought...

Lisa
That could be Lisa...I noticed this as well. :)

[Angel4Truth]

*wondering what thread i am in again*

[GreenMunchkin]

We really do need this sub-forum. Really really.

[Lisa0315]

Well, right now, we are at a draw. I know it looks as if we have a consensus, but the math goes somthing like this:

We have at least 5 members who have not yet voted. If they all vote, No, and the Other Votes are split, we essentially have a marginal lead for "Yes". However, we are looking for a consensus which will not leave 40-50% of members unhappy.

I actually think we need a new poll with Yes or No only. We need to write out the pros and cons for each and put it to a polll once more.

It should also be said that polls are NOT binding. They are supposed to only be tools to figure out what the consensus would like to do. Then, we go to the wiki process to hammer out the details.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

We're already over-run with polls, sis.

Wiki-ness has everyone going poll crazy. Even with political elections not everyone votes, so we don't need for every single person to vote to get a concensus. We don't even know who are members, particularly given we're being over-run with people from another forum.

If the numbers remain like this, that's definitely a concensus. Thankfully :D :hug: Otherwise, head go boom.

[Sophia7]

We're already over-run with polls, sis.

Wiki-ness has everyone going poll crazy. Even with political elections not everyone votes, so we don't need for every single person to vote to get a concensus. We don't even know who are members, particularly given we're being over-run with people from another forum.

If the numbers remain like this, that's definitely a concensus. Thankfully :D :hug: Otherwise, head go boom.

I agree. I think there's a pretty clear consensus here. Besides, I voted no in the poll, but since the idea of a second icon has come up, I would support that. So I guess my vote could now be considered a yes with that clarification. :)

[Lisa0315]

Well, I am going to be gone for a week after today. Who can work on making this happen for us?

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

It'll be Letalis who actually creates it :clap:

Then most of these threads can get moved there (hopefully)... yay!

[GreenMunchkin]

That was a yes to the debate sub-forum.

We also need a political sub-forum, as if this is to become a politics forum, that's not what many of us joined for, so a sub-forum would be a good compromise.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I think we all agree we need a sub forum for politics and one for debate. How do we go about getting this done? :confused:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

It'll be Letalis who actually creates it :clap:

Then most of these threads can get moved there (hopefully)... yay!
Letalis...please, please, please can we get those subforums created??? :prayer: :)

[Letalis]

How do those who voted against this proposal feel about it? Would you be willing to accept a subforum for debate?

I'm willing to suspend my own vote to see how things go.

[hazeleyes80]

I didn't get to the poll in time before it closed, but I would have voted "yes" on the proposal for a debate subforum. IMO, this place is in definite need of separate fellowship and debate areas. Some people do just want to fellowship and don't want their posts (or others') to be turned into debates when they were not meant to be debates.

[Sothron]

i would have voted "yes" as well. We need subforums to adequately communicate with other people otherwise we will simply refer them to our ivory tower rules and they in turn would do the same if we tried to discuss with them in their ivory tower.

[CyberPaladin]

My thoughts : We have already seen non conservative posters debating in the threads here on conservative issues - I just think it would be better to limit non conservatives debating issues to one fora instead of having it everywhere and disrupting discussion between conservative members on issues that concern us.

If were going that route I think we are going to need 2 subforums one general and one for CC members only because some times there are things that are going to debated that we aren't going want people outside of conservative christians involved.

[GreenMunchkin]

Letalis, if you read through, a couple of people who initially voted no posted they'd changed their minds. The vote was clearly in favour of yes. And a political is absolutely necessary, otherwise this place will become a democrat vs. repubican forum and that's not what most of us signed up for. Some of us aren't even from America, so it automatically counts us out.

[Albion]

How do those who voted against this proposal feel about it? Would you be willing to accept a subforum for debate?

I'm willing to suspend my own vote to see how things go.

I didn't vote 'no,' but my only reservation was that it puts the cart before the horse. We have yet to decide what "Conservative Christian" is supposed to mean.

So until that is settled one way or the other, it seems to me to be premature to be talking about subforums. We'll have the same problems there, I am guessing, so why not get our bearings here first?

[Macrina]

I tend to shy away from the word "debate" in these contexts. Online, the word all too often seems to be a euphemism for "shredding an opponents sanity through extreme rudeness and antagonism." I know that's not really what it means, but I'm sure you all realize that online debate can get quite ugly.

I don't know what I would really advocate for... I would like to be able to discuss meaningful topics without having to get into a debate. Sometimes I like to just sort of bounce ideas around, not fight tooth and nail for a given position. I hope that, whatever structure is decided upon, there is room for this kind of discussion.

[Letalis]

I didn't vote 'no,' but my only reservation was that it puts the cart before the horse. We have yet to decide what "Conservative Christian" is supposed to mean.

So until that is settled one way or the other, it seems to me to be premature to be talking about subforums. We'll have the same problems there, I am guessing, so why not get our bearings here first?
I think we've settled in for the most part.

[Albion]

I think we've settled in for the most part.

I agree. Since I wrote that, it has been my perception that a lot has settled in and that this forum is becoming one of the more important ones that even those opposed to us want to keep an eye on. For this, everyone here who has worked through some of the initial concerns gets my applause.

[Letalis]

Well, I sent PMs a few days ago to the other members who voted against it but none have responded.

I guess we will have to assume they have no objections.

What should it be called?

[Albion]

Well, I sent PMs a few days ago to the other members who voted against it but none have responded.

I guess we will have to assume they have no objections.

What should it be called?

"Debate (sub)forum?" ;)

[GreenMunchkin]

"Debate (sub)forum?" ;)
Didn't see that coming. I like it! :D

Also, is it just the debate subforum being made, or is it the politics one, also, please?

[Letalis]

Why can't politics go in the debate subforum?

[GreenMunchkin]

Why can't politics go in the debate subforum?For the win :)

[Letalis]

How do others feel about a politics subforum?

I'm not sure if a politics subforum would be necessary.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

How do others feel about a politics subforum?

I'm not sure if a politics subforum would be necessary.
I think it would bring clarification for those who don't like to get into politics, but like to debate about theology. That way they could completely avoid that forum. :)

[CyberPaladin]

I think it would bring clarification for those who don't like to get into politics, but like to debate about theology. That way they could completely avoid that forum. :)
I agree with the idea.:thumbsup:
I think before we start adding it to the wiki though we of course should find out if will be allowed 2 subforums.

[A New Dawn]

How do those who voted against this proposal feel about it? Would you be willing to accept a subforum for debate?

I'm willing to suspend my own vote to see how things go.

I do not feel it is appropriate to have a politics subforum. The politics forum has been reopened and if people want to debate politics there that is fine, but I don't want it here. It absolutely divides, and I don't want the only 'home' forum I have to be divided by politics. The rest of you have home forums, but I don't, and that is how I feel.

[CyberPaladin]

This is also my only "home" forum. I feel some debate is rather healthy for this forum especialy if we keep it confined to subforums and people know what they're going into.

[Lisa0315]

I want a place to debate and a place to fellowship. If we have 25 debate sub forums, I don't care as long as they are separate from fellowship. I just need to be able to "come home" once in awhile where there is lovely friendship and relaxation after a long battle or whatever.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I do not feel it is appropriate to have a politics subforum. The politics forum has been reopened and if people want to debate politics there that is fine, but I don't want it here. It absolutely divides, and I don't want the only 'home' forum I have to be divided by politics. The rest of you have home forums, but I don't, and that is how I feel.

Well...that would take care of it alright. :) I agree with you Dawn, but it's hard to control. Just look at the amount of political threads that have already been started in this forum. :doh: I'm wondering if a wiki rule would be enough to keep it at bay.

[CyberPaladin]

I think trying to exclude political debate is going to create alot of hosility among the members.

[Letalis]

How about starting off with the debate subforum for now.

http://www.christianforums.com/f828

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

How about starting off with the debate subforum for now.

http://www.christianforums.com/f828
Perfect Letalis! :) Thank you.

Who would we need to ask about having the debate threads moved over?

[Letalis]

The staff members of the forum would be the ones to move threads to the subforum.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

The staff members of the forum would be the ones to move threads to the subforum.
Ok...thanks so much. :)

[Voegelin]

Lively discussion is a part of congregation forums. It's a sort of environment we want to foster, not remove and hide away.

In addition there are those who will promote a particular position in the main forum, then immediately claim anyone who states their's is debating and breaking the rules.

Debating by non-conservatives is another matter entirely. I thought we had some rules in place to stop this?

We should. I would like to see an end also to the threads which, in essence, ask conservative Christians when they stopped beating their wives. These threads are usually poised as innocent questions about what conservative Christians think. But they aren't that at all. They are statements disguised as questions.

[Lisa0315]

In addition there are those who will promote a particular position in the main forum, then immediately claim anyone who states their's is debating and breaking the rules.



We should. I would like to see an end also to the threads which, in essence, ask conservative Christians when they stopped beating their wives. These threads are usually poised as innocent questions about what conservative Christians think. But they aren't that at all. They are statements disguised as questions.

LOL! You just have to know how to come back. Tell them, you stopped the moment they admitted there was a God.

Lisa

[Albion]

How do others feel about a politics subforum?

I'm not sure if a politics subforum would be necessary.

This is my view and not directly a response to your post, L.

It is part of our wiki that conservative Christians have a faith that expresses itself in social consciousness. We have already been through all this and I hope very much that old wounds and old complaints are not going to reappear now that we have done a lot to accomodate each other.

Put social issues into a debate subforum or make fellowship a subforum itself, but let's not have things ruled out just as we are making provision for many rooms in this house. I still think subforums are a bad idea but if we have them thanks to the vote of the majority, let's do that and not use the occasion to stifle discussion.

[Letalis]

I don't think there should be any rules against debate, even in the main forum. If a thread turns into a large debate, then move it to the debate subforum.

Other than that, don't delete threads for debating; don't delete posts for debating; don't discourage members from debating.

[Albion]

I don't think there should be any rules against debate, even in the main forum. If a thread turns into a large debate, then move it to the debate subforum.

Other than that, don't delete threads for debating; don't delete posts for debating; don't discourage members from debating.

That sounds very sensible to me.