Rules for the new progressive section

[tall73]

In our recent poll a progressive sub-forum was voted. Progressive Adventists please use this thread to form your sub-forum rules through whatever process you agree to. They may then be added to the wiki. Thank you.

[icedragon101]

1. for fellowship and discussion of Like minded people
2. non progressives can ask only ask questions.
3. no comments by non progressive unless, in response to a question asked.
4. Any personal attack, by non-progressive will result in a 30 day ban from posting in the progressive sub. subforum

[abrokendream]

ok question for now, what is a progressive person, i think that will clear up the issue a lot.

[StormyOne]

i would prefer that anyone can ask a question, and that there be no ban UNLESS someone flames someone else. Otherwise, the less rules the better....

[DrStupid_Ben]

i would prefer that anyone can ask a question, and that there be no ban UNLESS someone flames someone else. Otherwise, the less rules the better....
I agree. As progressive-minded people we can take a more liberal approach to allowing other people to post, just no flaming.

abrokendream, I would suggest reading some of the many threads around here on the subject, each one more confusing than the next. lol

[StormyOne]

I agree. As progressive-minded people we can take a more liberal approach to allowing other people to post, just no flaming.

abrokendream, I would suggest reading some of the many threads around here on the subject, each one more confusing than the next. lol
I am officially making the motion that we have ONE rule here, No flaming. Which means we can discuss any and everything. I would also like to see maybe a procedure under that one rule saying in effect that before a person pushes the button to report a comment, that they at least attempt to talk to the person they think is flaming privately first. Perhaps its a misunderstanding that can be cleared up without a mod getting involved. Then if resolution is not possible privately, report the person.... can't we do that?

[Sophia7]

I am officially making the motion that we have ONE rule here, No flaming. Which means we can discuss any and everything. I would also like to see maybe a procedure under that one rule saying in effect that before a person pushes the button to report a comment, that they at least attempt to talk to the person they think is flaming privately first. Perhaps its a misunderstanding that can be cleared up without a mod getting involved. Then if resolution is not possible privately, report the person.... can't we do that?

I agree with keeping the rules simple. Just to clarify, when you say that we can discuss anything, do you mean that we should allow debate? This has traditionally been a fellowship-only sub-forum, but I wouldn't be opposed to letting anyone post anything here, including debate and including non-Progressives and non-Adventists, as long as they don't violate the general CF rules. I guess that would kind of defeat the purpose of the Debate sub-forum, though. I was originally in favor of turning this into the Debate sub-forum anyway, but I voted for all of the proposed sub-forums just because so many people wanted all of them, and I didn't see it as that big a deal either way. I was just thinking that since some people want to prohibit certain topics in the Debate sub-forum, if they get their way in the voting when those issues come up, we could still allow all topics to be discussed/debated here.

[StormyOne]

I agree with keeping the rules simple. Just to clarify, when you say that we can discuss anything, do you mean that we should allow debate? This has traditionally been a fellowship-only sub-forum, but I wouldn't be opposed to letting anyone post anything here, including debate and including non-Progressives and non-Adventists, as long as they don't violate the general CF rules. I guess that would kind of defeat the purpose of the Debate sub-forum, though. I was originally in favor of turning this into the Debate sub-forum anyway, but I voted for all of the proposed sub-forums just because so many people wanted all of them, and I didn't see it as that big a deal either way. I was just thinking that since some people want to prohibit certain topics in the Debate sub-forum, if they get their way in the voting when those issues come up, we could still allow any topics to be discussed here.
so can it be both? debate and progressive? If it can, then why not let it be discussion/fellowship/debate as well as progressive? I wouldn't mind that at all...

[Sophia7]

I don't see why not. It could still be called Progressive and allow much more freedom than the main SDA forum or the TSDA sub-forum.

[StormyOne]

I don't see why not. It could still be called Progressive and allow much more freedom than the main SDA forum or the TSDA sub-forum.
then that is what I would vote for, like to see, or work towards that goal... what needs to be done?

[Sophia7]

If we can reach a consensus on our rules quickly, maybe we can even take a vote and sticky them so that we can start implementing them as soon as possible. It will still take some time before the Debate sub-forum can be created, and I think that's where most of the controversy will be in making rules. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of reports coming in on people for debating in the main SDA forum. I think it would help to alleviate some of the tensions and reduce the mods' workload if we gave everyone a place for open discussion and debate.

[StormyOne]

okay. So I guess we need to wait for other people to weigh in or do you create a poll to vote on the options?

[Sophia7]

then that is what I would vote for, like to see, or work towards that goal... what needs to be done?

I would suggest that we make a poll here in the sub-forum and take a vote. We would have to leave the poll open for at least four days, maybe even a week since this sub-forum is not a high-traffic area. We could also post a link to the poll in the main forum to encourage all of the Progressives to vote. I think we should limit voting to those who self-identify as non-Traditional, Evangelical, or Progressive Adventists.

Here is what I propose for a rule statement:Welcome to the Progressive Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum. This sub-forum is open to everyone–all Seventh-day Adventists, other Christians, and non-Christians. We invite fellowship, questions, discussion, and respectful debate from anyone on any topic, as long as posters comply with Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules).CF rules will always prohibit flaming, I'm sure, even if they change in the wiki process, but we could add something specific about flaming if you want.

Please feel free to make suggestions for wording this, and if we can reach an agreement, I'll make a poll.

[StormyOne]

I would suggest that we make a poll here in the sub-forum and take a vote. We would have to leave the poll open for at least four days, maybe even a week since this sub-forum is not a high-traffic area. We could also post a link to the poll in the main forum to encourage all of the Progressives to vote. I think we should limit voting to those who self-identify as non-Traditional, Evangelical, or Progressive Adventists.

Here is what I propose for a rule statement:Welcome to the Progressive Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum. This sub-forum is open to everyone–all Seventh-day Adventists, other Christians, and non-Christians. We invite fellowship, questions, discussion, and respectful debate from anyone on any topic, as long as posters comply with Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules).CF rules will always prohibit flaming, I'm sure, even if they change in the wiki process, but we could add something specific about flaming if you want.

Please feel free to make suggestions for wording this, and if we can reach an agreement, I'll make a poll.

sounds good as it is.... create a poll and let's get this ball rolling....

[abrokendream]

The reason i put the question farward, what is progressive in one persons mind might or might not be progressive in another persons opinion, and as progressive people, i believe that we should have the openmindedness to accept and understand the human nature of diversity. This is further affected by my personal limitations in understanding, which i am convinced we all have. I, as a newbie therefor suggest that the forum be open, as suggested above, to all comment excluding flaming.
My humble opinion.

[DrStupid_Ben]

The reason i put the question farward, what is progressive in one persons mind might or might not be progressive in another persons opinion, and as progressive people, i believe that we should have the openmindedness to accept and understand the human nature of diversity. This is further affected by my personal limitations in understanding, which i am convinced we all have. I, as a newbie therefor suggest that the forum be open, as suggested above, to all comment excluding flaming.
My humble opinion.


That's a good point. I was just being silly before. Everyone that has identified as a progressive, or in this sub-forum, has a different reason and also has a different opinion of what progressive means to them.

The basic definitions that we have is that traditional is agreeing with all 28 fundamentals, and progressive is disagreeing with one or many of the 28. However these are pretty limiting definitions. They don't take into account views on women in ministry, homosexuality, abortion, worship styles, health, animal rights, environmental issues, ideas of church structure and hierarchy etc ...

For instance, I have noticed that a number of traditional Adventists on this forum hold conservative views like perfection. To my knowledge this is not an issue dealt with in the 28 fundamentals.

Being a progressive or traditional is not soley about doctrinal preferences. For me a major factor is that I don't subscribe to the conservative viewpoint on most political and social issues. This puts me at odds with a number of Adventists I know.

Not everyone who is progressive here is so because of their political views. Some, like icedragon, prefer to identify as evangelical rather than progressive. (I think that the Adventist church is an evangelical church anyway - the mainline church that is)

I would hope that someone who believes in the 28 fundamentals, but has different political or social views could be welcomed to the progressive sub-forum to discuss.

[StormyOne]

just waiting for the poll.....

[sentipente]

Here is what I propose for a rule statement:
Welcome to the Progressive Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum. This sub-forum is open to everyone–all Seventh-day Adventists, other Christians, and non-Christians. We invite fellowship, questions, discussion, and respectful debate from anyone on any topic, as long as posters comply with Christian Forums Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules).CF rules will always prohibit flaming, I'm sure, even if they change in the wiki process, but we could add something specific about flaming if you want.

Please feel free to make suggestions for wording this, and if we can reach an agreement, I'll make a poll.

The wording is fine and that is the only rule we need here. Law-abiding people always require the fewest rules. Let's set up the poll and vote it into operation.

[Sophia7]

OK, I'll set up the poll. Sorry it took me a while. I couldn't get on all afternoon yesterday, and then CF was down until today.

[Sophia7]

The basic definitions that we have is that traditional is agreeing with all 28 fundamentals, and progressive is disagreeing with one or many of the 28. However these are pretty limiting definitions. They don't take into account views on women in ministry, homosexuality, abortion, worship styles, health, animal rights, environmental issues, ideas of church structure and hierarchy etc ...

Yes, those definitions are quite limiting. They were imposed on us when the sub-forums were created, just as a way of simplifying the process of determining who should post where. I think getting rid of such restrictive definitions by opening up this sub-forum to everyone is a good idea.

[sentipente]

It just occurred to me. Are the voting restrictions for the main forum also in force for the sub-forums?

[Sophia7]

It just occurred to me. Are the voting restrictions for the main forum also in force for the sub-forums?

Good question. I don't know. I just made the poll and indicated that voting would be open to all who consider themselves non-Traditional or Evangelical or Progressive Adventists. I had forgotten about the date restriction in the main forum. Does it matter here?

[Sophia7]

Here is a link to the poll:
http://foru.ms/t5939294-progressives-please-vote-on-new-rules.html

[NightEternal]

This is not what I agreed to when I said I wanted a Progressive subforum.

[sentipente]

There is no way to restrict who reads the sub-forum and the truly "devoted" Trads won't post here by their own choice. However, make your case. The vote has not been taken.

[Sophia7]

Yes, I really doubt that many of them would want to argue in the PSDA sub-forum. Oh, and flaming will not be tolerated under any circumstances, whether the rule proposal passes or not.

[tall73]

I am not sure why the poll would apply here. Have your say Senti.

[sentipente]

I am not sure why the poll would apply here. Have your say Senti.
I am concerned about my vote. It is the vote that is restricted. I have been having my say (and more).

[tall73]

I am concerned about my vote. It is the vote that is restricted. I have been having my say (and more).

We will have to get some CF clarification, but at one time I thought sub-forums, especially those deriving from divisions, would be able to make their own rules.

I imagine the traditionals want that as much as we do.

We could always start yet another poll on the question :)

But I think your vote would count.

[Sophia7]

If we can make our own rules for our sub-forum, I don't see why we can't make our own eligibility requirements for voting.

[reddogs]

Yes, I really doubt that many of them would want to argue in the PSDA sub-forum. Oh, and flaming will not be tolerated under any circumstances, whether the rule proposal passes or not.

If I can study and discuss with Stormy at BSDA and we still love each others as christian brothers, I dont see why you would think that anyone would not want or should be shut out of the 'PSDA sub-forum'. Everyone should be allowed in, but PSDA views or concerns would be the norm, just as if you went to a enviromentalist, Obama for President, or gay and lesbian, etc.. forum, everyone could give their thoughts on the matter, but the issues would be what would concern enviromentalist, Obama for President, or gay and lesbian, etc...

[sentipente]

If I can study and discuss with Stormy at BSDA and we still love each others as christian brothers, I dont see why you would think that anyone would not want or should be shut out of the 'PSDA sub-forum'.
Read her post again, reds. That's not what she said.

[reddogs]

Read her post again, reds. That's not what she said.

But thats what the issue concerns that she is talking about, rules governing who, what and how...get a little java and you'll be fine....;)

[sentipente]

get a little java and you'll be fine....;)
Under the circumstances I am glad you did.

[reddogs]

Under the circumstances I am glad you did.

Get the decaf so you dont get 'overwrought'...:)

[sentipente]

Get the decaf so you dont get 'overwrought'...:)
Now, you just lost me with that word.

[reddogs]

Now, you just lost me with that word.

Well you can put in or substitute its verbal cousin, "Agitated"....;)
agitate

One entry found for agitate. Main Entry: ag·i·tate http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?agitat01.wav=agitate'))
Pronunciation: 'a-j&-"tAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -tat·ed; -tat·ing
Etymology: Latin agitatus, past participle of agitare, frequentative of agere to drive -- more at AGENT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agent)
transitive verb
1 a obsolete : to give motion to b : to move with an irregular, rapid, or violent action [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e storm agitated the sea>
2 : to excite and often trouble the mind or feelings of : DISTURB (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/disturb)
3 a : to discuss excitedly and earnestly b : to stir up public discussion of
intransitive verb : to attempt to arouse public feeling <agitated for better schools>
synonym see SHAKE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shake), DISCOMPOSE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discompose)
- ag·i·tat·ed·ly adverb
- ag·i·ta·tion http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?agitat02.wav=agitation')) /"a-j&-'tA-sh&n/ noun
- ag·i·ta·tion·al http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?agitat03.wav=agitational')) /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

[sentipente]

Ah! Is that the reason you prefer to go with the decaf?

[reddogs]

Ah! Is that the reason you prefer to go with the decaf?

Got to keep the flow to the mind on a even keel.........:eek:

[sentipente]

Got to keep the flow to the mind on a even keel.........:eek:
I see. Thankfully, I don't have that problem. At least, not yet.

[reddogs]

I see. Thankfully, I don't have that problem. At least, not yet.

Well sometimes 'no java' means 'no flow' so have a cup......;)

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I am officially making the motion that we have ONE rule here, No flaming. Which means we can discuss any and everything. I would also like to see maybe a procedure under that one rule saying in effect that before a person pushes the button to report a comment, that they at least attempt to talk to the person they think is flaming privately first. Perhaps its a misunderstanding that can be cleared up without a mod getting involved. Then if resolution is not possible privately, report the person.... can't we do that?

Two rules: no flaming and no baiting/provoking/harassing or inciting others to flame. If a person says STOP IT we BACK OFF. Doesn't mean you have to "back down" (e.g. change your position or view to accomodate); it merely suggests we all recognize when the line on "shoving down the throat" has been crossed and cease to cross it any further at that point.

[sentipente]

Two rules: no flaming and no baiting/provoking/harassing or inciting others to flame. If a person says STOP IT we BACK OFF. Doesn't mean you have to "back down" (e.g. change your position or view to accomodate); it merely suggests we all recognize when the line on "shoving down the throat" has been crossed and cease to cross it any further at that point.
Agreed

[StormyOne]

Two rules: no flaming and no baiting/provoking/harassing or inciting others to flame. If a person says STOP IT we BACK OFF. Doesn't mean you have to "back down" (e.g. change your position or view to accomodate); it merely suggests we all recognize when the line on "shoving down the throat" has been crossed and cease to cross it any further at that point.
I can live with that.....:thumbsup:

[RC_NewProtestants]

Thinking about the resent trend of complaints and reporting by the Traditional SDA subgroup it might be best for us to create rules which restrict their reporting tendencies in the Progressive forum.

I see Night's desire to be free from their harassment in the Progressive forum yet I think we must offer a type of Adventism that is not restrictive in area's of inquiry or differing points of view. Thus we want the forum open to people capable of reasonable dialog.

So I think we should restrict the use of the Report button to those who are not known members of the Traditional SDA subforum.

Something like:

In order to freely express views on the Progressive SDA Sub-forum those known members of the Traditional SDA forum shall not have any report violations addressed by moderators if said report is about a post in the Progressive SDA sub-forum.

What do you think?

[StormyOne]

Thinking about the resent trend of complaints and reporting by the Traditional SDA subgroup it might be best for us to create rules which restrict their reporting tendencies in the Progressive forum.

I see Night's desire to be free from their harassment in the Progressive forum yet I think we must offer a type of Adventism that is not restrictive in area's of inquiry or differing points of view. Thus we want the forum open to people capable of reasonable dialog.

So I think we should restrict the use of the Report button to those who are not known members of the Traditional SDA subforum.

Something like:

In order to freely express views on the Progressive SDA Sub-forum those known members of the Traditional SDA forum shall not have any report violations addressed by moderators if said report is about a post in the Progressive SDA sub-forum.

What do you think?
hmmmm possibly.... so what you are suggesting is that a TSDA cannot come to the progressive subforum, interact in a discussion, read something they don't like and then report it?

[RC_NewProtestants]

hmmmm possibly.... so what you are suggesting is that a TSDA cannot come to the progressive subforum, interact in a discussion, read something they don't like and then report it?

Well not quite as the can come to the Progressive sub-forum, they can interact in a discussion, they can also read what they don't like but they cannot report it. In other words they would have no standing in regards to the reporting of violations real or imagined.

[StormyOne]

Well not quite as the can come to the Progressive sub-forum, they can interact in a discussion, they can also read what they don't like but they cannot report it. In other words they would have no standing in regards to the reporting of violations real or imagined.
fair enough.... i could live with that too...

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Something like:

In order to freely express views on the Progressive SDA Sub-forum those known members of the Traditional SDA forum shall not have any report violations addressed by moderators if said report is about a post in the Progressive SDA sub-forum.

What do you think?
Excellent idea. Wording is a little awkward but the idea is great.

[Sophia7]

I'm not sure if we're even allowed to make that kind of a rule. That may go beyond the scope of our autonomy. Anyway, if a Traditional comes in and reports something that's not a rule violation, that should be pretty easy for the mods to determine. I don't really think it's necessary to limit what they can report.

[Sophia7]

Anyway, if a Traditional comes in and reports something that's not a rule violation, that should be pretty easy for the mods to determine.

On second thought, I just read some of the reports, and I think they're ruling some things violations that are not violations at all. Still, I don't think we have the power to make a rule that prohibits certain groups from reporting things.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I'm not sure if we're even allowed to make that kind of a rule. That may go beyond the scope of our autonomy. Anyway, if a Traditional comes in and reports something that's not a rule violation, that should be pretty easy for the mods to determine. I don't really think it's necessary to limit what they can report.
Yes it might be hard to work into the mod's way of doing things but as it is now they will post a report over something that is meant to be humorous. They often use reports as a means of harassment. Such as recently happened to me when I said to red that I am only an amateur psychologist but he may have delusions of grandeur consult your local doctor.

Apparently that was bad enough to need to be edited out because apparently amateur psychologists are real and delusions of grandeur is also a real psychological diagnostic entity. Of course neither of those things are true but apparently to the humor impaired it is a serious flame of some sort.

But I do think that even if a TSDA does not interact on the Progressive sub-forum they will likely still make reports particularly along the lines of something being a flame against TSDA or against the Adventist church. so we should probably think of those possibilities now as we do know the TSDA's tend to be report happy.

[Sophia7]

Yes, some TSDAs (not all) do tend to be trigger-happy with the report button. Mods should be able to tell the difference between something that one person takes offense at (though it may not be a rule violation) and an actual flame. Maybe that's too much to hope for right now.

[sentipente]

It is obvious that some TSDAs are not only offended by progressive thought, they also would like to legislate humor and general English usage that is beyond literal usage out of existence.

(I edited this post from "the TSDAs" to "some TSDAs" because someone would certainly have objected to "the TSDAs" as being an attack on ALL TSDAs.")