Ok folks should we use questions or not

[Debi1967]

It seems that the entrance questions have become a contentious idea to some.

This is what is being brought up for contention

This list of questions will be used as part of the process to bring in new members. These standard questions will eliminate candidates from feeling like they are going through an inquisition to get into our forum.
Tell us your position on abortion. Please express your position in detail.
Tell us your position on homosexuality. Please express your position in detail.
Is there anything disagreeable to you in the Nicene Creed? If so, please explain.
Apostolic Christians generally hold Tradition equal to Scripture. What is your position on this?
We have been given two new commandments from our Lord in the New Testament. Please tell us how you apply these two commands in your life.This is a Poll to see if we are going to use questions or not of applicants that are new to the forum once we close up membership registration.

ETA the wiki discussion thread about this
http://www.christianforums.com/t5880161-wiki-conservative-christians-standard-questions-for-new-members.html

[MrJim]

Oh no not another poll, please not another, I can't take it AAHHHAAAAHHHHHHH~~~~

[Hentenza]

Why questions? Anyone can answer anything? Look at politicians. They can answer questions with whatever every one wants to hear. To me, proof is in the pudding. I, of course, voted no to questions.

[Debi1967]

Oh no not another poll, please not another, I can't take it AAHHHAAAAHHHHHHH~~~~
ROFl didn't you know this is the age of polls and wikis ????? :D

I am seriously just trying to get what what the congregational consensus is that is all

[MrJim]

ROFl didn't you know this is the age of polls and wikis ????? :D

I am seriously just trying to get what what the congregational consensus is that is all

Can't we flip a coin, or do that rock/paper/scissor thing? Bet on a ball game, draw the highest card, arm wrestle, anything faster?

[CyberPaladin]

Can't we flip a coin, or do that rock/paper/scissor thing? Bet on a ball game, draw the highest card, arm wrestle, anything faster?
Knife Fight !!! Knife Fight!!! Knife Fight!!!

[Debi1967]

Knife Fight !!! Knife Fight!!! Knife Fight!!!
you guys are killing me over here :D

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Oh no not another poll, please not another, I can't take it AAHHHAAAAHHHHHHH~~~~
Ditto! ^_^

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Knife Fight !!! Knife Fight!!! Knife Fight!!!
:doh: ^_^

[MrJim]

Knife Fight !!! Knife Fight!!! Knife Fight!!!

That could be interesting, but have to do it like those old westerns~Indian style with one hand tied to the other person's hand so it's close...

...ya take that paladin stuff seriously ;)

I got a Randall Made (http://www.randallknives.com/) catalog in the mail a couple weeks ago...

[nyj]

It's a MB. Life is complicated enough.

No.

[Debi1967]

Truth be told I voted Yes just to be supportive of my Sister Lisa

On the other hand I do have some serious reservations abut using questions myself.... shhh nobody tell Lisa I said that :D

This should have been also put to a vote before the wiki was started in my opinion.

[Greenthumb]

No I do not think we should grill future members. We didn't have to do anything to get in here but post that we wanted to join. So why should others? I also don't think that membership should be closed. It's like GM said...we are not an elite club that only so many members can join and then only if you meet the requirements. It's enough that they agree to the wiki. I agree with Hentenza...anyone can make up the right answer to a question. Sorry if this sounds like a rant. :o :sorry:

[Debi1967]

No I do not think we should grill future members. We didn't have to do anything to get in here but post that we wanted to join. So why should others? I also don't think that membership should be closed. It's like GM said...we are not an elite club that only so many members can join and then only if you meet the requirements. It's enough that they agree to the wiki. I agree with Hentenza...anyone can make up the right answer to a question. Sorry if this sounds like a rant. :o :sorry:
GreenThumb you rant on as much a you want in my threads ;)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

No I do not think we should grill future members. We didn't have to do anything to get in here but post that we wanted to join. So why should others? I also don't think that membership should be closed. It's like GM said...we are not an elite club that only so many members can join and then only if you meet the requirements. It's enough that they agree to the wiki. I agree with Hentenza...anyone can make up the right answer to a question. Sorry if this sounds like a rant. :o :sorry:
I agree...:) I voted no also. I think it's enough to have people vouch for them. Even doing that is kinda elitist. :sorry:

[CyberPaladin]

Let's see Lady trekki and Greenthumb vs. Lisa well there is only one thing to say.
Cat Fight!!! Cat Fight!!! Cat Fight!!!

[magdiel]

I say no questions also.

Lady i am starting to think that too...
Even doing that is kinda elitist. :sorry:

I will go with what ppl want... no vote, a member, or several members to ask someone in.
but a questioneer is not what I want!

[magdiel]

Cyber I was going to quote you in a response, but am allowing you to edit that now :)
You are a dear but... :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Let's see Lady trekki and Greenthumb vs. Lisa well there is only one thing to say.
Cat Fight!!! Cat Fight!!! Cat Fight!!!
You nut! ^_^

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Cyber I was going to quote you in a response, but am allowing you to edit that now :)
You are a dear but... :)
Not me!! :D

[Greenthumb]

Let's see Lady trekki and Greenthumb vs. Lisa well there is only one thing to say.
Cat Fight!!! Cat Fight!!! Cat Fight!!!
Meow!! :P

[CyberPaladin]

In all serouisness I think that letting people look through someone's post history and have little bit of time to ask the person any questions not anwsered in there past post or ask question about there pervious post should be sufficient.

[Greenthumb]

GreenThumb you rant on as much a you want in my threads ;)
Thanks. :D But watch out...once I start you might not be able to stop me! ;) :P ^_^

[magdiel]

Let's see Lady trekki and Greenthumb vs. Lisa well there is only one thing to say.
Cat Fight!!! Cat Fight!!! Cat Fight!!!

Not me!! :D
:D Too funny!
:hug:

[CyberPaladin]

Madgiel I meant it as a joke if you really are offend let me know and I will remove it.

[magdiel]

:D lolMeow!! :P

[magdiel]

Madgiel I meant it as a joke if you really are offend let me know and I will remove it.
Not offended :hug: :D
I love a joke, if I thought otherwise I would pm you.

:hug: :hug: :hug:

[desmalia]

I'm glad this poll was started (even though it's yet another poll!!). I don't particularly care if there are questions for new members or not, so long as everyone is treated equally, whether Catholic, Fundamentalist, or anyone else. I do think that new members should be willing to agree to the Conservative wiki statement before being accepted as a new member. There should be some sort of standard.

[~free~]

No I do not think we should grill future members. We didn't have to do anything to get in here but post that we wanted to join. So why should others? I also don't think that membership should be closed. It's like GM said...we are not an elite club that only so many members can join and then only if you meet the requirements. It's enough that they agree to the wiki. I agree with Hentenza...anyone can make up the right answer to a question. Sorry if this sounds like a rant. :o :sorry:I agree, I voted no. Good rand GT ;) I would never feel welcome to join this forum if I got drilled before I could. I did nothing to be a member of this forum, I don't think it's fair to deny new members...to be like Jesus, in my opinion, would be to deny no one.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Meow!! :P
ROFL!! ^_^

*hiss, hiss*

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/5296/flyingcatfighttk3.jpg

[desmalia]

I agree, I voted no. Good rand GT ;) I would never feel welcome to join this forum if I got drilled before I could. I did nothing to be a member of this forum, I don't think it's fair to deny new members...to be like Jesus, in my opinion, would be to deny no one.Hang on though. Does that mean the ultra-liberals, the universalists, the wiccans, etc are welcome to be members here now? Let's not forget, we're talking about membership, not just discussion.

[~free~]

Hang on though. Does that mean the ultra-liberals, the universalists, the wiccans, etc are welcome to be members here now? Let's not forget, we're talking about membership, not just discussion.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Just that, to become a member, I dont' think it's necessary to go through the third degree and then leave it to the 'authorities' to decide if they meet requirements. I didn't have to answer these questions. Would I have joined if I had to? No. I would feel I didn't belong in a place where I had to "apply" to be a member.

[No Swansong]

I think a simple sign in log in which one affirms the definitions and rules that we use should be sufficient. Should it be discovered later that this was abused the member can be removed.

[Greenthumb]

Hang on though. Does that mean the ultra-liberals, the universalists, the wiccans, etc are welcome to be members here now? Let's not forget, we're talking about membership, not just discussion.
No, I don't think that is what free was saying. And I understand your concern. But we can't stop people from posting in here. And without the enforcement of denominational icons how can anyone of us be certain that we are who we say we are. I think 'policing' of those who don't agree with the wiki and post or cause trouble anyway can be done if and when someone causes a problem. If we keep trying to plug the holes to keep them out, eventually we'll plug all the holes and nobody will be allowed in. Again...just my opinion.

[Hentenza]

I think a simple sign in log in which one affirms the definitions and rules that we use should be sufficient. Should it be discovered later that this was abused the member can be removed.

That's the way I was thinking. :thumbsup:

[ContentInHim]

In all serouisness I think that letting people look through someone's post history and have little bit of time to ask the person any questions not anwsered in there past post or ask question about there pervious post should be sufficient.

This is my response also!

I think a simple sign in log in which one affirms the definitions and rules that we use should be sufficient. Should it be discovered later that this was abused the member can be removed.

We need to get those procedures spelled out, but I agree with this also!

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

No, I don't think that is what free was saying. And I understand your concern. But we can't stop people from posting in here. And without the enforcement of denominational icons how can anyone of us be certain that we are who we say we are. I think 'policing' of those who don't agree with the wiki and post or cause trouble anyway can be done if and when someone causes a problem. If we keep trying to plug the holes to keep them out, eventually we'll plug all the holes and nobody will be allowed in. Again...just my opinion.
Well said GT! :thumbsup:

[Greenthumb]

I think a simple sign in log in which one affirms the definitions and rules that we use should be sufficient. Should it be discovered later that this was abused the member can be removed.
Yes...that's what I've been trying to say in all my wordiness. :)

[CyberPaladin]

Hang on though. Does that mean the ultra-liberals, the universalists, the wiccans, etc are welcome to be members here now? Let's not forget, we're talking about membership, not just discussion.
They aren't welcome to become members however if we continue to use just a sign list there is no way we can really stop them from joining and it would be very easy for them to screw up some things like mod. elections.

I think this whole issue of membership is being made into a bigger deal than it should be with standard questionares. Also I think voting is being made out to be a bigger deal than it will be most members will probably vote others in without even asking a question or looking at post if the person is friends with someone established here on the board and as far as it goes with anyone I have no intentions of intergating them about there beliefs a troll or someone who quickly changes beliefs will just tell you what you want to hear that's why I think looking at there post history and other members encounters with them are the way to go.

[Sothron]

I am torn. I voted yes but I do not want anyone to be excluded unless they obviously just are here to cause trouble (Rochir comes to mind) or have no intentions to actually fellowship with conservative Christians. So questions could help if they are answered honestly. If they are not then I would suggest that their fruits will reveal themselves to all of us and they can be asked to stop posting or stick to the debate subforum.

[CyberPaladin]

I am torn. I voted yes but I do not want anyone to be excluded unless they obviously just are here to cause trouble (Rochir comes to mind) or have no intentions to actually fellowship with conservative Christians. So questions could help if they are answered honestly. If they are not then I would suggest that their fruits will reveal themselves to all of us and they can be asked to stop posting or stick to the debate subforum.
Sothron 2 problems one we don't have any policy to remove members and two currently the way the wiki is written nonmembers can only debate limitedly at the mods discretion.

[Lisa0315]

Truth be told I voted Yes just to be supportive of my Sister Lisa

On the other hand I do have some serious reservations abut using questions myself.... shhh nobody tell Lisa I said that :D

This should have been also put to a vote before the wiki was started in my opinion.

Too late! Feel my vengence!!! :P

j/k! I don't care whether we have questions or not. If y'all want open membership, that is fine as well. Polls and wikis are just a way to find out what people think. They are not binding until the fat lady sings, err... and that AINT me!

Now, we did have a poll that said that the CCC wanted closed membership, so, how are we going to handle that? Sponsorship only? That is cool. The main thing is to set up some way to keep the peace.

Having laws of citizenship is not being elitist. That would be like saying that the USA not allowing everyone in is being elitist. It is simply about protecting our peace here, nothing else.

Lisa

[Debi1967]

Too late! Feel my vengence!!! :POh No *debi goes running in the other direction quaking with fear* :D

[Simon_Templar]

I think the questions idea is unnecessarily complicated and involved.

Simply require that an applicant for membership make a statement of agreement with the rules. Then hold a vote by the members. During the vote members are free to do whatever research they want on the person, if they feel they need more info.
I would probably have a minimum number of posts requirement just to prevent people from making socks deliberately to come in and cause trouble.

[Lisa0315]

I think the questions idea is unnecessarily complicated and involved.

Simply require that an applicant for membership make a statement of agreement with the rules. Then hold a vote by the members. During the vote members are free to do whatever research they want on the person, if they feel they need more info.
I would probably have a minimum number of posts requirement just to prevent people from making socks deliberately to come in and cause trouble.

Many people have their find all posts thingie turned off. What about asking them to post 3 recent posts that best represent their conservative views?

Lisa

[Debi1967]

Many people have their find all posts thingie turned off. What about asking them to post 3 recent posts that best represent their conservative views?

Lisa
I know mine is automatically turned off by Erwin not by any doing of my own. I post in a private section of this board that not everyone can see. So for privacy issues mine was automatically turned off by Erwin.

Next problem, if we allow them to hand choose three posts of their own then we are allowing them to pick and choose what they wish us to see. So iows they can pick what they know we will accept and leave behind what is unacceptable.

[CyberPaladin]

Many people have their find all posts thingie turned off. What about asking them to post 3 recent posts that best represent their conservative views?

Lisa

We could do that although I still don't see why would be so objectionable to having people see your post history for acouple of days.

[Lisa0315]

I know mine is automatically turned off by Erwin not by any doing of my own. I post in a private section of this board that not everyone can see. So for privacy issues mine was automatically turned off by Erwin.

Next problem, if we allow them to hand choose three posts of their own then we are allowing them to pick and choose what they wish us to see. So iows they can pick what they know we will accept and leave behind what is unacceptable.

Which is how we got to standard questions thingie...

New question for the group:

What happens if we accept a new member on 1, 3, or 5 recommendations as the only requirement...then, later that person shows themselves to be not Conservative.

Is it better to allow whosoever will at the beginning or have the ability to vote them out? In the end, what do you think will be the most bloody?

I think membership should not be that easy in the beginning, but very difficult to be thrown out once membership is granted.

Think on this: What if a very, very conservative member for whatever reason makes enemies and gets voted out, not by their lack of conservatism, but due to an unpopularity poll?

All I am saying is those who think it will be better to kick out people rather than make it elitist to get in...I am not sure you have thought about it to the end.

There are three examples: 1) A known liberal who continues to vote in our polls, 2) A known daily faith changer 3) A fundamentalist who wanted to exclude those who hold a Traditional view

We handled those three at the beginning, not allowing membership. However, if we had truly had open membership, then, we would be trying to figure out how to get rid of them. Which is more harmful to our reputation and which will cause the most division here?

What if we find ourselves (with open membership) with more liberals than conservatives and they start voting US out?

This is not as simple as "We will take care of it when it happens". We need to think this through.

Lisa

[CyberPaladin]

Lisa I agree with you that we need to through membership process and need membership removal saved for a last resort.
However I don't think a set of standard questions are going to effectively get the job done. Because if someone is going to lie about being a Conservative Christian or a regular faith switcher then they will probably be able to give us the anwsers we want to hear quite easily.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa I agree with you that we need to through membership process and need membership removal saved for a last resort.
However I don't think a set of standard questions are going to effectively get the job done. Because if someone is going to lie about being a Conservative Christian or a regular faith switcher then they will probably be able to give us the anwsers we want to hear quite easily.

True enough. I am actually leaning towards continuing with semi-open membership. We did handle those three well enough. If we have our Statement of Beliefs, sponsorship/introduction of a new member, that should be enough. I say that we only need one sponsor, though. In Aria's test example, it was simple enough.

Lisa

[No Swansong]

I'm sorry I still don't get why being a member should be hard. There is no reason not to take someone's word for the fact that they agree with our definition and that they will abide by our rules.

Making people stand up to questioning, or scrutinizing their posts is simply unreasonable and quite honestly uncharitable. Besides that who is going to decide that their posts or their answers are "conservative" enough?

[Tonks]

No. You'll see if someone is conservative or not soon enough.

Regarding voting in polls (presumably for moderator elections and the like) it will, likewise, be pretty clear who voting is a "member" and who is not.

Just my ducats.

[MrJim]

I voted maybe 'cause ContentInHim looked so lonely in there...

[ContentInHim]

((((((((MrJim)))))))))))) TY - I'm not lonely anymore!

:D

[Debi1967]

I voted maybe 'cause ContentInHim looked so lonely in there...
hey you are throwing off the poll results :D

[Debi1967]

((((((((MrJim)))))))))))) TY - I'm not lonely anymore!

:D
ok, well I guess then can overlook it :D *debi looks the other way and says to herself she sees nothing and knows nothing* :D

[MrJim]

:)

[ContentInHim]

GRRR the smiley won't take! Stupid CF editor! So I'll try another!

:cool:

[soblessed53]

Why questions? Anyone can answer anything? Look at politicians. They can answer questions with whatever every one wants to hear. To me, proof is in the pudding. I, of course, voted no to questions.


But wouldn't the questions help to establish a 'standard' whereby a poster's position,can more easily be judged? True they can say anything,but if members have a fixed idea on what those standards are, wouldn't it make it easier to spot a 'phony'? Just seems so IMHO.

For instance I know for a fact that an Ultra-Liberal Pro-Choice,pro-Homosexual,has been posting here,and I thought this was supposed to definitely be prohibited in the Conservative Christians forum? :scratch:

[Debi1967]

But wouldn't the questions help to establish a 'standard' whereby a poster's position,can more easily be judged? True they can say anything,but if members have a fixed idea on what those standards are, wouldn't it make it easier to spot a 'phony'? Just seems so IMHO.

For instance I know for a fact that an Ultra-Liberal Pro-Choice,pro-Homosexual,has been posting here,and I thought this was supposed to definitely be prohibited in the Conservative Christians forum? :scratch:
Bring this to the attn of the mods

[NewGuy101]

But wouldn't the questions help to establish a 'standard' whereby a poster's position,can more easily be judged? True they can say anything,but if members have a fixed idea on what those standards are, wouldn't it make it easier to spot a 'phony'? Just seems so IMHO.

For instance I know for a fact that an Ultra-Liberal Pro-Choice,pro-Homosexual,has been posting here,and I thought this was supposed to definitely be prohibited in the Conservative Christians forum? :scratch:
Well if they were posting as liberals they would have been caught. They wont be able to play their games for long.

[Miss Shelby]

Who cares if ultra libs post here? I thought they were just prohibited from voting on our polls and stuff. Are we locking them out entirely?

[CyberPaladin]

Who cares if ultra libs post here? I thought they were just prohibited from voting on our polls and stuff. Are we locking them out entirely?

Miss Shelby we aren't locking them out entirely the thing is that as our wiki rules stand now there is no actual policy to stop people who are not Conservative Christians from joining all we have is an open signup list for membership.

[Hentenza]

But wouldn't the questions help to establish a 'standard' whereby a poster's position,can more easily be judged? True they can say anything,but if members have a fixed idea on what those standards are, wouldn't it make it easier to spot a 'phony'? Just seems so IMHO.

For instance I know for a fact that an Ultra-Liberal Pro-Choice,pro-Homosexual,has been posting here,and I thought this was supposed to definitely be prohibited in the Conservative Christians forum? :scratch:

Hi soblessed,

I can certainly understand your concern, but I honestly believe that merely accepting the views listed as conservative in our wiki should be enough to join. Those that lie and then attempt to spread a liberal agenda will be easily spotted and dealt with accordingly.

We should accept new members on faith just like Jesus accepts us on faith. The proof of the new member's truthfulness will be attested by their posts just like our faith in Jesus is evidenced by our works.

If you believe that a poster has committed a violation, then you should report it so that action can be taken.

God Bless

[soblessed53]

Hi soblessed,

I can certainly understand your concern, but I honestly believe that merely accepting the views listed as conservative in our wiki should be enough to join. Those that lie and then attempt to spread a liberal agenda will be easily spotted and dealt with accordingly.

We should accept new members on faith just like Jesus accepts us on faith. The proof of the new member's truthfulness will be attested by their posts just like our faith in Jesus is evidenced by our works.

If you believe that a poster has committed a violation, then you should report it so that action can be taken.

God Bless


Hi Hentenza,oh I do agree a phony will soon be found out,I was just thinking of a literal 'line' they cross making things easier,but you are probably right about it not being really neccessary. God's Blessing on You as well. :) :wave: