Do we want to be able to have members remove and how so

[CyberPaladin]

Since we have started trying to decided what we want to do with accepting new members. It's also time to discuss how we want to go about removing members or if we even want to have that option.

[NewGuy101]

We should definetely have the option. As to the methodology, I don't know.

[HypnoToad]

Yes, we should be able to remove members (a church does have the Scriptural right to excommunicate).

I would think a public poll by other members would be the way to do it.

[SingingElk]

If a person is excessively trollish and troublesome, they we should as a forum be able to remove them. Those that claim they are conservative, then don't adhere to the standards set forth in our Wiki, we should also be able to remove. It is these individuals that tend to cause trouble.

This might be an ancillary issue, but what about non members such as those from the liberal forum posting in our threads? I am talking about the threads that are meant for us such as the one discussing our Wiki.

[CyberPaladin]

Yes, we should be able to remove members (a church does have the Scriptural right to excommunicate).

I would think a public poll by other members would be the way to do it.
If we are going that route we need to have some sort governing policy or procedure to ensure the person being put up actualy should be and that this over pity, anger over an arguement or just plain the fact you dislike them. I doubt with any of the above listed reasins you would get the votes to throw the person out it's just if we have to many threads it's going to be bad. Also what your thoughts % required to vote someone out set 75-80 or should it be higher.

[CyberPaladin]

Also just to make my position clear I was never against us having the option of revoking people's membership I just wanted everyone to feel they could voice there opinion including those that don't support us having the policy at all.

[CyberPaladin]

This might be an ancillary issue, but what about non members such as those from the liberal forum posting in our threads? I am talking about the threads that are meant for us such as the one discussing our Wiki.
That would be an issue of banning someone which falls clearly under the mods responsibilty on this forum.

[SingingElk]

If we are going that route we need to have some sort governing policy or procedure to ensure the person being put up actualy should be and that this over pity, anger over an arguement or just plain the fact you dislike them. I doubt with any of the above listed reasins you would get the votes to throw the person out it's just if we have to many threads it's going to be bad. Also what your thoughts % required to vote someone out set 75-80 or should it be higher.
I think that having a high percentage of votes is a good idea.

How do we ensure that the troll doesn't use or have others use socks to keep himself in?

[nyj]

If a person is excessively trollish and troublesome, they we should as a forum be able to remove them. Those that claim they are conservative, then don't adhere to the standards set forth in our Wiki, we should also be able to remove. It is these individuals that tend to cause trouble.Tread carefully.

Define "trollish and troublesome".

[nyj]

Any system we establish to remove members should have a system of checks and balances, and should IMO only be done under the most extreme of circumstances.

[CyberPaladin]

Any system we establish to remove members should have a system of checks and balances, and should IMO only be done under the most extreme of circumstances.
NYJ that's the whole reason for this thread I want this talked out throughly and narrowed 2 or 3 choices before we put it to a vote.

Also does anyone know if we are allowed to include in our rules the option change to change number of members required for something to pass.
My though is if so we could write rule stating that x number of members are required to practipate in the poll but this subject to a review every 6 months were members may will discuss and vote on whether to adjust and if so by how much.
Also the poll should required to be open a minium of 1 week maybe longer that's just my thought.

[SingingElk]

Troll- A person who goes about spreading hatred and discontent. He posts for the sole purpose of causing trouble.

[HypnoToad]

If we are going that route we need to have some sort governing policy or procedure to ensure the person being put up actualy should be and that this over pity, anger over an arguement or just plain the fact you dislike them. I doubt with any of the above listed reasins you would get the votes to throw the person out it's just if we have to many threads it's going to be bad. Also what your thoughts % required to vote someone out set 75-80 or should it be higher.
Well, sure there should be a governing policy.

I already would expect that someone would have to give reasons why they want someone removed from membership, not "just because".

I don't think the percentage needs to be that high, maybe somewhere around 60 to 70.

[Hentenza]

I personally like the system that the moderators in theology use for a FSB. We can use a variation of that system. The steps would be as follows.
1. A Moderator is contacted that we have a potential member removal. Any one of us can do that.
2. Evidence is presented to the moderator. Acceptable evidence would be a number of posts that establish a pattern. We can discuss how many posts are needed for evidence but my thoughts are that in most cases 4 or 5 suspect posts might be needed but, sometimes less depending on the severity. Of course for trolling we can still use the regular reporting system.
3. The moderator opens a poll describing the action and the evidence is presented.
4. A minimum of at least 20 member votes are needed for the poll to be valid. We can discuss how many members, if any one has other thoughts.
5. A minimum of 75% is needed for a forum ban action.
6. If a ban action is approved, the moderator informs the poster via PM.

Thoughts?

[SingingElk]

We can get the help of a mod. Mods are experienced and know how to best handle the situation. What about members who have joined who are not conservatives. I know of at least one person who has "liberal" as their life view posting in our threads.

What is the forum policy about non members posting in our general discussion threads? It is just a question of curiosity.

[NewGuy101]

We can get the help of a mod. Mods are experienced and know how to best handle the situation. What about members who have joined who are not conservatives. I know of at least one person who has "liberal" as their life view posting in our threads.

What is the forum policy about non members posting in our general discussion threads? It is just a question of curiosity.
No offence but if they follow and post consistantly with the forum guideliness these individuals are considered conservative.

[MrJim]

Isn't this something mods will deal with if they are breaking forum rules~that's what FSB is all about, right?

Unless rules are broken I don't think we just vote to kick 'em off the island.

[NewGuy101]

Isn't this something mods will deal with if they are breaking forum rules~that's what FSB is all about, right?

Unless rules are broken I don't think we just vote to kick 'em off the island.
I think that already has been established the problem is how do we develop a methodology for expulsion?

[MrJim]

I think that already has been established the problem is how do we develop a methodology for expulsion?

Methodology? When rules are broken they are removed via FSB...am I missing something?

Mod Job~what you enlisted for ;)

[tel0004]

I think maybe make it so a moderator is the only person that can start the vote, and 2/3 of the vote is needed.

This would keep people from starting threads just b/c they may not like somebody. If they did want to, they could PM a mod who could start the process.

[NewGuy101]

Methodology? When rules are broken they are removed via FSB...am I missing something?

Mod Job~what you enlisted for ;)

You're simplifying the issue too much. We must take into account how much of the rules are to be broken to remove an individual. Remember that the rules are not absolute in this forum and can be modified daily. Also, being a future mod myself I would be concerned that only I and Lisa would have the power to remove individuals. Do we really want that? I'd rather have a system where the congregation itself gets involved.

[MrJim]

You're simplifying the issue too much. We must take into account how much of the rules are to be broken to remove an individual. Remember that the rules are not absolute in this forum and can be modified daily. Also, being a future mod myself I would be concerned that only I and Lisa would have the power to remove individuals. Do we really want that? I'd rather have a system where the congregation itself gets involved.

Let me guess, another wiki thingy and a poll too, right:swoon:

[zoziw]

Since we have started trying to decided what we want to do with accepting new members. It's also time to discuss how we want to go about removing members or if we even want to have that option.

My suggestions is that I think we should model this after Matthew 18:15-17.

If you see a CC member making questionable posts you should raise the issue by sending them a polite PM pointing out the potential issue.

If the person continues making questionable posts, you should bring it to the attention of the moderators (assuming they haven't already intervened) and if they agree there is a problem they should discuss this with the member making these posts.

If that fails, then the moderators should bring the problem to the attention of all members and we should vote on whether the person's posts are consistent with CC principles. If we vote that they aren't, the person should be put on notice that one more violation will result in their removal from the CC membership list.

A few caveats: this isn't about general CF rules but about whether a member's posts truly reflect those of someone who is a CC; this process shouldn't be used for someone who makes a questionable post, but rather when someone consistently makes posts which are at odds with general CC values and beliefs; if at the moderator stage it is determined that the posts don't violate typical CC views, the process stops and the original complainant is not allowed to make a public post about the issue.

I am not sure what percentage of the membership should be required to have the person removed. We would need to set a minimum percentage of members voting and a minimum percentage of votes in favour of removal.

Feel free to add your suggestions or suggest I am completely out to lunch with respect to the above. :)

[Hishandmaiden]

Do not remove members UNLESS they are really 100% non-conservative in their views.

Members can be 88.88% conservative, and still be conservative.

Conservative christians can agree and disagree on so many different things.

This site is meant to include all conservatives, let's not kick out people based on our own viewpoints, but choose carefully who we do not allow to be a member.

[Lisa0315]

My suggestion on this is that it should be much harder to become a member that to kick someone out.

That said, I do agree that it should be a report record that begins the process. This would not mean multiple reports of the same post or even within the same thread.

Then, mediation between the members when possible.

If mediation is not an acceptable resource, then, a certain number of offenses.

For example, three or more statements in support of abortion may be grounds for moving to dismiss a member.

Five threads in which discussion turns ebil and ugly and the person is the cause.

It should be case by case, but with some standards set up that can be cited.

In other words, I don't think it is wise that voting a person out can be done simply because people get mad at that person. There must be a justifiable cause such as "shown not to be conservative", or "Five Counts of Disturbing the Peace within one month".

I am just making these up, but you see where I am going...

Then, a vote by at least 2/3 of membership with a 70% margin. This means that at lease 2/3 of membership must vote and of that 2/3, 70% must vote that person out.

I would also strongly recommend that the poll does not allow for discussion. In other words, the poll would state the reason the membership was being questioned, and then, the member would have one post in which to defend himself. No other discussion allowed. It should not turn into a fight and I am afraid that back and forth discussion will get ugly.

We need a wiki to set up these basics so that it is enforcable. IOW, no one would have to ask that a member be removed, but it would be left up to the mods to determine that boundaries had been crossed. Then, mediation or a poll would be set up by the mod.

Mediation would be between the pastoral team, the members involved in the disagrement, and the mod if applicable. This would be suggested for conservatives who just cannot get along with the group and disturb the peace of this forum.

Polls would be used for those who are obviously not Conservative.

This is just me sitting here writing ideas. Don't get mad at me. These are just suggestions. It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and I am NOT the fat lady!

Lisa

[nyj]

Is there any possibility that our WIKI can be maintained in a simplistic yet effective manner? Large and bulky does not translate into easy to comprehend. Nor does it equate with useful.

As it stands, there are two ways to lose your membership to this forum:

1. Request to be removed.
2. Register as a Liberal.

Given those two (how many liberals will stay only registered in the Conservative forum and not the Liberal forum?), will a third option really be employed all that often?

I'd say that if we're going to have a three, make it simple:

3. If you've ever been banned from the Conservative forum, or CF in general ... you lose your membership to this forum.

[Miss Shelby]

hey I say we put ^ in charge of our WIKI.


Seriously, I DO think it makes sense. I see a LOT of unnecessary WIKIism where this forum is concerned.

[Miss Shelby]

My suggestion on this is that it should be much harder to become a member that to kick someone out.

That said, I do agree that it should be a report record that begins the process. This would not mean multiple reports of the same post or even within the same thread.

Then, mediation between the members when possible.

If mediation is not an acceptable resource, then, a certain number of offenses.

For example, three or more statements in support of abortion may be grounds for moving to dismiss a member.

Five threads in which discussion turns ebil and ugly and the person is the cause.

It should be case by case, but with some standards set up that can be cited.

In other words, I don't think it is wise that voting a person out can be done simply because people get mad at that person. There must be a justifiable cause such as "shown not to be conservative", or "Five Counts of Disturbing the Peace within one month".

I am just making these up, but you see where I am going...

Then, a vote by at least 2/3 of membership with a 70% margin. This means that at lease 2/3 of membership must vote and of that 2/3, 70% must vote that person out.

I would also strongly recommend that the poll does not allow for discussion. In other words, the poll would state the reason the membership was being questioned, and then, the member would have one post in which to defend himself. No other discussion allowed. It should not turn into a fight and I am afraid that back and forth discussion will get ugly.

We need a wiki to set up these basics so that it is enforcable. IOW, no one would have to ask that a member be removed, but it would be left up to the mods to determine that boundaries had been crossed. Then, mediation or a poll would be set up by the mod.

Mediation would be between the pastoral team, the members involved in the disagrement, and the mod if applicable. This would be suggested for conservatives who just cannot get along with the group and disturb the peace of this forum.

Polls would be used for those who are obviously not Conservative.

This is just me sitting here writing ideas. Don't get mad at me. These are just suggestions. It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and I am NOT the fat lady!

LisaLisa, you are seriously over complicating things. What you're basically describing would only happen in a small percentage (troll)-- of people. So I think we should focus on what people would do honestly. As what you're describing would be a saction against DIShonesty. I think we need to give folks the benefit of the doubt, and THEN decide what to do with trolls or whatever.

Michelle

[Rep Daddy]

3. If you've ever been banned from the Conservative forum, or CF in general ... you lose your membership to this forum. Does a 1 day EBan by Erwin count :-)

[ContentInHim]

Does a 1 day EBan by Erwin count :-)
LOL, I hope not, Steve.

Seriously Tom, several people who would be wonderful members of CC have ban-ishments in their history for being too zealous for Jesus. We might want to give them honorary memberships. :clap:

[No Swansong]

Any system we establish to remove members should have a system of checks and balances, and should IMO only be done under the most extreme of circumstances.
Agreed I have in the past had to ban members and it is never a pleasant thing to do and should be done with utmost caution, charity and deliberation.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

We do need to have the option, and I believe it should be stated in the wiki as soon as possible so that people know what could happen if they do not follow the guidelines.

But, as nyj has stated, this needs to be done under very extreme circumstances.

[soblessed53]

Troll- A person who goes about spreading hatred and discontent. He posts for the sole purpose of causing trouble.


Here is a description,and yes,I sure hope CF will start dealing strictly with them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[soblessed53]

We do need to have the option, and I believe it should be stated in the wiki as soon as possible so that people know what could happen if they do not follow the guidelines.

But, as nyj has stated, this needs to be done under very extreme circumstances.


:thumbsup: I agree! :)