New member application Poll

[NewGuy101]

Any individual who wants to become a member of this forum with full privileges should be approved by

1) Just be allowed to join

2) 3 current members

3) 5 current members

[GreenMunchkin]

I see the sense in option 2, but it's uncomfortable-making. And we have our sub-forum now so anything contentious can go in there... I don't know. It's between 1 and 2 for me. 1 means we could have tension - although, we create enough of that on our own - and 2 makes us really unwelcoming but safeguards some stuff. That being said, the sub-forum is open to everyone (I think?) so fisticuffs could just go in there...

[NewGuy101]

I see the sense in option 2, but it's uncomfortable-making. And we have our sub-forum now so anything contentious can go in there... I don't know. It's between 1 and 2 for me. 1 means we could have tension - although, we create enough of that on our own - and 2 makes us really unwelcoming but safeguards some stuff. That being said, the sub-forum is open to everyone (I think?) so fisticuffs could just go in there...
I agree with you to an extent. I think it's odd that we got a free ride in but other individuals have to tested. I think we should let the mods handle those who are faking being CCs.

[CyberPaladin]

I voted for 5 members. The I believe we need to vote people in is if we continue to let anyone sign eventualy people we will end up with nonconservative christians members. The reason why I choose 5 was because considering our numbers are 60 and growing if you can't get 5 members vote you in I would say the problem is with applicant either they're beliefs really are liberal or there beliefs have been swaying so much that we can't get a clear line on them.

[MrJim]

:doh: should've made the poll public...

[magdiel]

:doh: should've made the poll public...
If the poll is not public it cannot be valid. IMO
Non members can vote this way and no one would know.

[NewGuy101]

Opps, I should have made the poll public. I don't know if I could have this poll closed so I can make another one.

[Hentenza]

Newguy, I agree with the other folks here that the poll needs to be public. Also, I think there should be other options between just be allowed to join and 3 members needed. I don't particularly think that we ought to make it so hard for people to join that we loose the ability to gain new members. I really wouldn't have a problem with someone being recommended by a member in good standing versus having to go through a whole membership process. Just my thoughts.:)

[Lisa0315]

Opps, I should have made the poll public. I don't know if I could have this poll closed so I can make another one.

See if Jim can fix it for you. :)

Lisa

[magdiel]

Newguy, I agree with the other folks here that the poll needs to be public. Also, I think there should be other options between just be allowed to join and 3 members needed. I don't particularly think that we ought to make it so hard for people to join that we loose the ability to gain new members. I really wouldn't have a problem with someone being recommended by a member in good standing versus having to go through a whole membership process. Just my thoughts.:)
Thats sounds like a great option to add!

[JimfromOhio]

In my opinion, everyone is a member automatically until their "real" views will be posting elsewhere that contradicts the membership rules. That is when we can remove a member, not before.

[NewGuy101]

See if Jim can fix it for you. :)

Lisa
I PMed Sophia

[nyj]

In my opinion, everyone is a member automatically until their "real" views will be posting elsewhere that contradicts the membership rules. That is when we can remove a member, not before.So we can have a ton of threads in our forum exposing the faux Conservatives? That's a bad idea.

If someone comes in and establishes a reputation as being reliable and courteous, finding 5 members who vouch for them seems to be a reasonable request. No extra questionnaires, or anything silly.

This list will be used a couple times a year (for voting polls) ... but a few trolls who sneak on have the potential to sway certain elections. That's why I requested the 5 vouchers, to keep things honest ... but not too extreme.

[Hentenza]

If someone comes in and establishes a reputation as being reliable and courteous, finding 5 members who vouch for them seems to be a reasonable request. No extra questionnaires, or anything silly.



Are you saying that they would have to establish their reputation outside of this forum first? Mind me, I don't particularly disagree just looking for clarification.

[nyj]

Are you saying that they would have to establish their reputation outside of this forum first? Mind me, I don't particularly disagree just looking for clarification.Well, the other rule is that they can only be members after making 50 posts in here. Mind you, that's hard (if not impossible) to enforce ...

I'd say that people will establish their reputation on CF, outside this forum and inside it. I wouldn't put any qualifications on how we felt comfortable in adding them to the rolls.

When you want to vote in an election, you just can't go to any polling station and vote. You need to demonstrate that you're a member of that community (ahead of time) where the polling place is. Similar principle, sorta.

[nyj]

Upon reflection: Since we have the "You can either be a member in the Conservative Forum, or the Liberal Forum ... not both", essentially people will have to choose. We'll let them make the decision for us. As long as the Liberal Forum maintains a member list, we won't have to worry about it. We can probably ax all of the "these criteria need to be met prior to membership here" (including the 50 posts, 5 vouchers, questionnaire, and by a certain deadline).

[JimfromOhio]

So we can have a ton of threads in our forum exposing the faux Conservatives? That's a bad idea.

If someone comes in and establishes a reputation as being reliable and courteous, finding 5 members who vouch for them seems to be a reasonable request. No extra questionnaires, or anything silly.

This list will be used a couple times a year (for voting polls) ... but a few trolls who sneak on have the potential to sway certain elections. That's why I requested the 5 vouchers, to keep things honest ... but not too extreme.

It is not up to me to "vote" on assumption of who I think they are "conservative" unless I know them from their posts around CF. I rather rebuke and discuss of those who fall out of Conservative's views and possibly voted them out than to voted them NOT to be members.

[magdiel]

Ya'll are making good points.
One thing for sure, no list of questions to join IMO!!!

I am not sure what to approve/vote, I am inclined to say anyone join, certain amount of posts considered ( and then if they prove not conservative on a basic level membership could be revoked, and to a member in good standing vouching for them)

I don't know. I do understand the ppl that want 3 ppl vouching for them.

I want this to be a forum of fellowship. Debate about certain things is welcome as long as it is about conservative issues. Other issues that cross bountries can be taken in the debate subforum here.

I am sorry about not taking a firm stance now about this issue. Will look for more feedback and may decide later. :sorry:

[nyj]

I rather rebuke and discuss of those who fall out of Conservative's views and possibly voted them out than to voted them NOT to be members.If I say something that you don't think is "conservative enough", I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and let you rebuke me. I know what my positions are, I could care less what you think. This forum is supposed to be for discussion of the things we have in common, and we already know that we're not going to agree on all matters. It shouldn't be for browbeating people who we have suddenly discovered or decided aren't conservative enough for us.

Know what I'm saying?

[Greenthumb]

Newguy, I agree with the other folks here that the poll needs to be public. Also, I think there should be other options between just be allowed to join and 3 members needed. I don't particularly think that we ought to make it so hard for people to join that we loose the ability to gain new members. I really wouldn't have a problem with someone being recommended by a member in good standing versus having to go through a whole membership process. Just my thoughts.:)
Once again...I agree with Hentenza. :)

[JimfromOhio]

If I say something that you don't think is "conservative enough", I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and let you rebuke me. I know what my positions are, I could care less what you think. This forum is supposed to be for discussion of the things we have in common, and we already know that we're not going to agree on all matters. It shouldn't be for browbeating people who we have suddenly discovered or decided aren't conservative enough for us.

Know what I'm saying?

That's the issue. We need definite CLEAR agreement on "Conservative" agenda in order to have an accountability without doubt, confusion and strife.

[Hishandmaiden]

I choose option 1.
Or I choose option 4.

Get new members to fill in a kind of questionaire of various issues, something like this:

Qn1)
What is your stand on abortion?

A) I am against it, it is murder, to me. It is forbidden under all circumstances.
B) I am against it, it is murder, to me. However, under the circumstances where a mother's life is threatened, I allow it.
C) I am against it, it is murder, to me. However, if a person wants to abort a child, I respect his or her choice.
D) I am against it, but it is not murder to me. I just do not like the idea of abortion.
E) I am all right with abortion. It is not murder to me. I think it is everyone's choice whether they want to abort a child or not.
F) I am all right with abortion. I think those people who are against abortion are narrow-minded and old-fashioned.

A will get 6 points, B 5 points, C 4 points, D 3 points and F 1 point.

We will list down a list of issues with a varieties of options, and ask member to write down their choice on them.

At the end, we will include a point range. Out of 100 points, etc...

70-100 -- Very conservative. Forum is just right for you.
50-70 -- We will allow you to post here, you are quite conservative.
30-50-- Not quite conservative, but not very liberal. You are allowed to post here so long as you do not disrupt our harmony here or introduce destructive doctrines.
0-30 -- What are you doing here, go to the liberal forum, now! Just joking. To be honest, though, you are welcomed to fellowship, but refrain from debating here.

[NewGuy101]

I still haven't heard a word from sophia about resetting the poll.

[Tonks]

Hey NG,

There is no way to turn a closed poll into an open one or vice versa. All I can do is close the poll / thread and then you'd have to start a new one.

Likewise (for general knowledge) folks can request that a mod switch their vote. We can update the vote counts but we can't move (in a public poll) a member's name from one option to the other.

[NewGuy101]

Hey NG,

There is no way to turn a closed poll into an open one or vice versa. All I can do is close the poll / thread and then you'd have to start a new one.

Likewise (for general knowledge) folks can request that a mod switch their vote. We can update the vote counts but we can't move (in a public poll) a member's name from one option to the other.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding the situation correctly Tonks but all I'm asking for is for a reset since this poll isn't closed. In either case if it can't be reset please just close the thread and I will make another poll.

[Tonks]

Ah, by closed I meant "non-public..." I can't turn it into a public poll. That I have no ability to do.

I'll close the thread / poll so you can start a new one.