Should new members join by trust or referral

[Hentenza]

Hi Everyone,

I am making this poll to settle the question of membership requirement. This poll is design to just address the question of the requirement of having 5 members affirm the membership of a new member and the 50 post requirement.
The reason for this poll is the loss of current membership and the potential loss of new members due to the membership process being too strict and/or the perception of being an exclusive club.
The poll does not have an "other" option because it is intended to either keep the requirements or not depicted in rule 4 of the CC rules Wiki.
A 70% margin is required to remove the requirements. If removal of these requirements is voted in, the new potential member is still required to affirm the rules and beliefs of the CC forum.

The poll will remain open for 14 days and only current members are allowed to vote.

Please every member vote. The poll is public and remember that if you don't vote, then don't complain.:)

Let God guide our decisions.

[MrJim]

14 days is so long...

[KarenJoy]

sorry i should not have voted
but becoming a Moderator is easier than joining here
membership here should be based on trust

[HypnoToad]

Why is it required to have 70%? Where did that rule come from?

[MrJim]

wiki so sux

[wikisosux~cool username...]

I don't keep up with the rule changes, I didn't know that the 5 referral thing was official till yesterday when we were working with tavita, and that process seemed so much like a formality anyway...I dunno

[NewGuy101]

No post requirement and no member sponsor

The mods will iron out if someone is being a faker.

[MrJim]

No post requirement and no member sponsor

The mods will iron out if someone is being a faker.

Now that sounds amazingly like something I was talking of about a week ago....
**
Edit: No, I was thinking of the removing member thing...

[Hentenza]

Why is it required to have 70%? Where did that rule come from?

Hi XianJedi,

That is the percentage needed to elect a mod so I figured it would be fair to use. Should we just have a simple majority? Thoughts?

[Hentenza]

14 days is so long...

It will not give anybody the excuse that "I didn't see it" or "the poll was not long enough". :D

[MrJim]

It will not give anybody the excuse that "I didn't see it" or "the poll was not long enough". :D

Yeah I know, but in this day & age two weeks is like a year^_^

[HypnoToad]

Hi XianJedi,

That is the percentage needed to elect a mod so I figured it would be fair to use.
Ok, so where does THAT rule come from? Is that a site-wide rule for all mods, or just something done in CC?

Should we just have a simple majority? Thoughts?
Actually, it sounds like something we need to vote on. It may sound tedious, but this system is new, and we have to put the work in on establishing the rules properly. Now, if there is no vote on what kind of majority is needed, then simple majority should be the default.

[CyberPaladin]

We need some sort of check to keep this place from becoming a zoo.

[Gregged]

No post requirement... Anyone can go and play in the rec room to build up 50 posts in no time, so what does 50 posts prove?!

No member sponsor... Aren't people here going to welcome newbies who don't know anyone, but are looking for a place to fellowship with (possibly) like minded Christians? Don't we have mods to deal with problems?

[Hentenza]

[quote=XianJedi;37899164]Ok, so where does THAT rule come from? Is that a site-wide rule for all mods, or just something done in CC?


From site wide rules for moderator elections.

"8. At the end of the seven days, the votes will be tabulated. Greater than 70% approval (Yes votes) will result in the candidate being elected. This option is chosen over a simple majority (50% +1%) to avoid polarizing the fora. 70% or greater demonstrates a wide degree of acceptance of the candidate."

Actually, it sounds like something we need to vote on. It may sound tedious, but this system is new, and we have to put the work in on establishing the rules properly. Now, if there is no vote on what kind of majority is needed, then simple majority should be the default.

Should we open another poll?

[LivingLifeHisWay]

No post requirement and no member sponsor

The mods will iron out if someone is being a faker.

I agree. Voted the same.

[HypnoToad]

From site wide rules for moderator elections.

"8. At the end of the seven days, the votes will be tabulated. Greater than 70% approval (Yes votes) will result in the candidate being elected. This option is chosen over a simple majority (50% +1%) to avoid polarizing the fora. 70% or greater demonstrates a wide degree of acceptance of the candidate."
Well, we're not voting for Mods, just for people to become members, I think simple majority is fine for this issue.

Should we open another poll?Probably discuss it first, but at some time, yes. We need to settle what kind of majority we need on votes, and also if we want different types of majorities for different kinds of issues. Until we do that, either we need to stop voting on other issues, or just take simple majority on any votes before that.

Personally, what I think is that simple majority is fine for all issues. But if people want a higher percentage, I think 66% (2/3 majority) is sufficient (also for all issues). I don't think we should have different percentages for different types of issues, as it starts making things too complicated for this kind of organization.

[CyberPaladin]

XianaJedi at most I think we need 3 different precentages one for issues, one for mods and if we are going to allow members to be voted out set a precentage when we make that rule.

[CyberPaladin]

My only problem mods having to much power on membership is the problems we could be facing concerning abuse.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

We need some sort of check to keep this place from becoming a zoo.
That's what I was thinking too CP. I see how fast things can get out of control when trolls get on the board.

But I've changed my mind now. Please change my vote to "No post requirement and no member sponsor". I'm sick of this being a point of contention for folks. So much so that they leave the forum. If the trolls come so be it...we can't control everything.

[HypnoToad]

XianaJedi at most I think we need 3 different precentages one for issues, one for mods and if we are going to allow members to be voted out set a precentage when we make that rule.
Well, yeah the Mod percentage is a site-wide rule, so we can't change that.

But for rules and voting out members, I don't think they need to be different.

My only problem mods having to much power on membership is the problems we could be facing concerning abuse.
I don't think we've given Mods any power over membership.

[Hentenza]

Ok guys, I just started another poll to determine what percentage should be used to win or defeat rule changes. I made the poll run for 7 days instead of 14 days so that we can use the results of that poll to evaluate this poll.
I think it is imperative that we get the rules of CC finalized to prevent frustration and endless debates. We don't need that in this already charged climate.:wave:

[CyberPaladin]

Well, yeah the Mod percentage is a site-wide rule, so we can't change that.

But for rules and voting out members, I don't think they need to be different.

I merely thought we might want to go over whether or not we want it to be the same precentage when we make our decsion on the policy of removing people rather than having a more conflict like we are having now.


I don't think we've given Mods any power over membership.
My only concern is with the talk of allowing the mods to handle removal of membership. I know it hasn't been a confirmed policy but it's not sort of power consolidation we should have.

[Tangeloper]

Hi Everyone,

I am making this poll to settle the question of membership requirement. This poll is design to just address the question of the requirement of having 5 members affirm the membership of a new member and the 50 post requirement.
The reason for this poll is the loss of current membership and the potential loss of new members due to the membership process being too strict and/or the perception of being an exclusive club.
The poll does not have an "other" option because it is intended to either keep the requirements or not depicted in rule 4 of the CC rules Wiki.
A 70% margin is required to remove the requirements. If removal of these requirements is voted in, the new potential member is still required to affirm the rules and beliefs of the CC forum.

The poll will remain open for 14 days and only current members are allowed to vote.

Please every member vote. The poll is public and remember that if you don't vote, then don't complain.:)

Let God guide our decisions.
My views on this are in flux somewhat. I think that with the moderators help trolls and accounts that are made precisely to disrupt this thread can be handled pretty easily. I think a lot of people who are truly liberal in their views are quite easy to spot, IMHO. It won't take long for people to expose themselves if they are lying about how they really feel.

So I voted for option #4 no sponsorship, and no post requirements...

[Tangeloper]

I merely thought we might want to go over whether or not we want it to be the same precentage when we make our decsion on the policy of removing people rather than having a more conflict like we are having now.


My only concern is with the talk of allowing the mods to handle removal of membership. I know it hasn't been a confirmed policy but it's not sort of power consolidation we should have.
I agree in regards to the mods being the ones in charge of membership removal. It can't (IMO) be left up solely to the mods. We could end up with problems and accusations if the power to kick people out rested solely in the moderators hands as some kind of a unilateral decision. Just my $.02.

[Lisa0315]

I think I am going to abstain from this vote. I am for whatever the majority wants. I will say that the rule that states that one cannot be a member of WWMC and CCC probably takes care of the concerns I had originally about open membership.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

I think I am going to abstain from this vote. I am for whatever the majority wants. I will say that the rule that states that one cannot be a member of WWMC and CCC probably takes care of the concerns I had originally about open membership.

Lisa

Hi Lisa,

I agree, but sure would like for you to vote since you are a dear member of this forum. It's going to take all of us to make CC comfortable for all of us. Please vote!!!:hug:

[Tangeloper]

A Question:
Is there a way to change one's vote? ;) or just withdraw it? LOL

Dang it I should've waited longer to cast my vote! LOL

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

A Question:
Is there a way to change one's vote? ;) or just withdraw it? LOL

Dang it I should've waited longer to cast my vote! LOL
I hear ya...me too! ^_^

[Lisa0315]

A Question:
Is there a way to change one's vote? ;) or just withdraw it? LOL

Dang it I should've waited longer to cast my vote! LOL

Yeah, you can. Send a PM to Jim47 or Sophia7 requesting that your vote be changed. Your name will still be under wherever you voted before, but the count will change.

I am in training now, but I am not allowed to make these changes yet.

Lisa

[Tangeloper]

Yeah, you can. Send a PM to Jim47 or Sophia7 requesting that your vote be changed. Your name will still be under wherever you voted before, but the count will change.

I am in training now, but I am not allowed to make these changes yet.

Lisa
Thank you for the info, Lisa! I'm going to think on this for a while and then see if my vote needs to change or not! (o;

[zoziw]

I've been thinking about this and it strikes me that it should be sufficient for a person to simply agree with what we have in our wiki in order to be a member.

Given that those who would like to cause trouble here typically can't help themselves when it comes to topics like abortion and homosexuality, it should be relatively easy to pick off the trolls and fakers and get them off the membership list.

If it becomes apparent that people are creating new accounts to become members again and cause more trouble we can look at adding a minimum posting requirement...and we shouldn't be afraid to set it as high as 100 posts, just to keep them busy.

We should also keep the rule about not being a member of WWMC and CC at the same time.

I voted for option 4.

[Hentenza]

Bump

[Debi1967]

Upon further reflection can I change my vote?

I voted for no 50 post requirement and 5 members

I would like to change that to

No post requirement and no member sponsorship....

That would make the tally 1,1,1,12

[Hentenza]

Hi Debi,

Just PM Jim47 or Sophia and they can change your vote. Your name will still appear in the column that you initially voted but it will change the vote count.:)

[Debi1967]

Hi Debi,

Just PM Jim47 or Sophia and they can change your vote. Your name will still appear in the column that you initially voted but it will change the vote count.:)
thanks

[Albion]

We've already voted on this and settled it.

It is very bad for the forum IMO if any member can, in effect, create a re-vote at a moment's notice--and decide how to word the choices, perhaps affecting the outcome.

Am I the only one who would like rules that remain the rules for some time OR at least have some policy on what it takes to amend them? Most organizations have significant requirements about quorums and percentages that make amending possible but not easy or constantly underway.

[Debi1967]

We've already voted on this and settled it. If it passes I will immediately create a new poll to determine how often we can be polled in order to satisfy the thinking of members who don't want to live with the rules. Of course, I will decide how the choices are worded, and everyone will be stuck with that as well as the results.

Does anyone see anything wrong with that?
unfortunately nothing is settled in the world of polls and wikis .... that means that anything can be changed at anytime should the need arise in a forum.

[Debi1967]

I also believe the 5 member rule was never actually voted on but it was brought up in the wiki itself and there it was reached by consensus of those that took part in the wiki itself not of all the members

[Albion]

unfortunately nothing is settled in the world of polls and wikis .... that means that anything can be changed at anytime should the need arise in a forum.

"Need arise" has nothing to do with this. More people--active members, not just nominal ones--have left because of the never-ending disorder here than prospects who turned away because they wouldn't bother with following some easy regulations.

How great would such additions to the forum be in the first place? Anyway, if we have no rules, we also have no self-discipline and I say that because the Wiki situation, etc. applies to every forum and this is the only one that seems to be constantly re-inventing itself. Ironic, isn't it, since being conservative means having some regard for orderliness and that which works?

[Debi1967]

"Need arise" has nothing to do with this. More people--active members, not just nominal ones--have left because of the never-ending disorder here than prospects who turned away because they wouldn't bother with following some easy regulations.

How great would such additions to the forum be in the first place? Anyway, if we have no rules, we also have no self-discipline and I say that because the Wiki situation, etc. applies to every forum and this is the only one that seems to be constantly re-inventing itself. Ironic, isn't it, since being conservative means having some regard for orderliness and that which works?
Albion you do not see me always posting polls and ideas do you?

I would like very much to see some order around here just as much you would however it is within the right of the forum members to do this .....

[Albion]

Albion you do not see me always posting polls and ideas do you?

I don't understand the question. No, I don't see you doing this, but I was responding to your comment that we can't have anything permanent. Sharing a reaction, you might say.

I would like very much to see some order around here just as much you would however it is within the right of the forum members to do this .....

Well, do you see any reason that we cannot pass a rule that binds us to some prescribed mechanism instead of any member being able to create a poll on any change at any time? For example, not revoting within a month. Or making the mods responsible for wording the proposals. There must be something that can be done other than just endless voting on the same things we just decided after a lot of effort.

[Debi1967]

I don't understand the question. No, I don't see you doing this, but I was responding to your comment that we can't have anything permanent. Sharing a reaction, you might say.



Well, do you see any reason that we cannot pass a rule that binds us to some prescribed mechanism instead of any member being able to create a poll on any change at any time? For example, not revoting within a month. Or making the mods responsible for wording the proposals. There must be something that can be done other than just endless voting on the same things we just decided after a lot of effort.
Sorry I thought you were asking me a question to which i answered ...

No actually I would like to see some kind of rule in place that allows the rules to stand and really gives them a chance to work before everyone sees one problem with them and doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt to work.

I think a 3 month minimum at least before we change our rules should be enacted somehow.

Then we can reassess the rules and then have enough input to them to make the accurate changes necessary. I also think that we are not going to be able to please everyone here or that wants to come here and we need to just grasp that concept and deal with it. If we see that it is still a major problem for us then deal with it in due course but constantly changing rules because one or two people cry foul is unwarranted.

[Lisa0315]

I agree Albion. One of the most frustrating things for me in the Support wikis was thinking that we were making progress, and then, out of the blue, one person disagreed and the whole thing got side tracked again.

I think once we have a rule in place, then, we need a time frame before anyone can suggest a revision. However, this needs to be flexible. In other words, if there is some unforseeable problem with the rules that needs to be attended to immediately, we need to at least have the option.

There are always many sides in any issue. We just have to work through them one at a time. Hopefully, if Erwin will stop switching directions, we will eventually get to a point where we do not need to constantly be creating new rules.

Lisa

[Albion]

I think a 3 month minimum at least before we change our rules should be enacted somehow.

Then we can reassess the rules and then have enough input to them to make the accurate changes necessary.

Well, as you'd expect, I sympathize. So we could create a poll to that effect...but then it could be undone by a poll saying that we can change anything every hour. :sigh:

[Hentenza]

I don't understand the question. No, I don't see you doing this, but I was responding to your comment that we can't have anything permanent. Sharing a reaction, you might say.



Well, do you see any reason that we cannot pass a rule that binds us to some prescribed mechanism instead of any member being able to create a poll on any change at any time? For example, not revoting within a month. Or making the mods responsible for wording the proposals. There must be something that can be done other than just endless voting on the same things we just decided after a lot of effort.

So tell me, why do we have such frustration with the rules? Why are we having people leave because of the perception that we have some exclusive club? Heck, even voting rules are not defined.

This is a poll conducted a few weeks ago. Where only a handful of people voted but the vote to just allow people to join instead of having member referrals won by a large margin. Have the rules been changed to reflect this vote? No. Why not?
http://foru.ms/t5880779-new-member-application-poll.html

Look, I am tired of the back and forth polling just like you are. My only goal here is to FINALLY define the finer points of the rules and go on with posting more meaningful topics. Isn't that why we are all here for?

I share your frustration, bro.:hug:

[Debi1967]

Well, as you'd expect, I sympathize. So we could create a poll to that effect...but then it could be undone by a poll saying that we can change anything every hour. :sigh:
We could create a poll about the fact that polls that are open to the public and have a certain percentage of voters are binding and thus with this then have people know that from then on if they pass that poll that all polls would be binding for a certain time frame ....

[Debi1967]

Look we need to make all polls public and we need to make them binding somehow .... This is so we do not go round and round in circles

[Albion]

We could create a poll about the fact that polls that are open to the public and have a certain percentage of voters are binding and thus with this then have people know that from then on if they pass that poll that all polls would be binding for a certain time frame ....

Good thinking, but I see no reason why, under the current situation, some individual couldn't immediate create a poll, slanted perhaps by his wording of the choices and number of them, asking for a vote on having polls open to the public, and/or requiring no specific number of voters, and making the results binding for some other length of time.

In short, virtually NOTHING cannot be altered by a poll put up by anyone, including rules on how, who, and when polling takes place and changes are made.

[HypnoToad]

This is a poll conducted a few weeks ago. Where only a handful of people voted but the vote to just allow people to join instead of having member referrals won by a large margin. Have the rules been changed to reflect this vote? No. Why not?
http://foru.ms/t5880779-new-member-application-poll.html

Well, when I click on that link, the poll doesn't look like it's public - can't see who the people are that voted. We wouldn't have been able to use it regardless.

[Lisa0315]

View Poll Results: Keep or repeal rule 4 in the CC rule's Wiki This poll will close on 2nd September 2007 at 11:51 AMKeep the 5 member sponsor and 50 post requirements http://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar2.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar2-r.gif CyberPaladin (http://foru.ms/u132623)
16.25%Keep the 5 member sponsor and no post requirement http://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar3.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar3-r.gif Albion (http://foru.ms/u93831), Debi1967 (http://foru.ms/u19884), ~*Lady Trekki*~ (http://foru.ms/u176971)
318.75%Keep the 50 post requirement and no member sponsor http://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar4-l.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar4.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar4-r.gif XianJedi (http://foru.ms/u112680)
16.25%No post requirement and no member sponsor http://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar5-l.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar5.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar5-r.gif ContentInHim (http://foru.ms/u179015), FriendsFellowship (http://foru.ms/u143150), Gregged (http://foru.ms/u166477), Hentenza (http://foru.ms/u183084), KarenJoy http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/mod.jpg (http://foru.ms/u71961), LivingLifeHisWay (http://foru.ms/u166836), Macrina (http://foru.ms/u83921), NewGuy101 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/mod.jpg (http://foru.ms/u109621), nyj http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/alpha.jpg (http://foru.ms/u619), Tangeloper (http://foru.ms/u197489), zoziw (http://foru.ms/u8667)
1168.75%Voters: 16.

[Lisa0315]

It didn't post too well, but it is definitely public.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Well, when I click on that link, the poll doesn't look like it's public - can't see who the people are that voted. We wouldn't have been able to use it regardless.

Exactly, which is why I started this poll so that we can finally settle the issue. :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

View Poll Results: Keep or repeal rule 4 in the CC rule's Wiki This poll will close on 2nd September 2007 at 11:51 AMKeep the 5 member sponsor and 50 post requirements http://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar2.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar2-r.gif CyberPaladin (http://foru.ms/u132623)
16.25%Keep the 5 member sponsor and no post requirement http://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar3.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar3-r.gif Albion (http://foru.ms/u93831), Debi1967 (http://foru.ms/u19884), ~*Lady Trekki*~ (http://foru.ms/u176971)
318.75%Keep the 50 post requirement and no member sponsor http://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar4-l.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar4.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar4-r.gif XianJedi (http://foru.ms/u112680)
16.25%No post requirement and no member sponsor http://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar5-l.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar5.gifhttp://www3.foru.ms/images/polls/bar5-r.gif ContentInHim (http://foru.ms/u179015), FriendsFellowship (http://foru.ms/u143150), Gregged (http://foru.ms/u166477), Hentenza (http://foru.ms/u183084), KarenJoy http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/mod.jpg (http://foru.ms/u71961), LivingLifeHisWay (http://foru.ms/u166836), Macrina (http://foru.ms/u83921), NewGuy101 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/mod.jpg (http://foru.ms/u109621), nyj http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/alpha.jpg (http://foru.ms/u619), Tangeloper (http://foru.ms/u197489), zoziw (http://foru.ms/u8667)
1168.75%Voters: 16.
I changed my vote to "No post requirement and no member sponsor"...:sorry:

[Albion]

Exactly, which is why I started this poll so that we can finally settle the issue. :)

Until the next poll, that is.;)

[HypnoToad]

Until the next poll, that is.;)
Well, we COULD have had polls be binding for a set amount of time, but for reasons yet unknown, that poll was shut down.

[Albion]

Well, we COULD have had polls be binding for a set amount of time, but for reasons yet unknown, that poll was shut down.

Yeh, I was surprised about that. Apparently the poster of the OP decided against it and informed the Mods.

But it's not possible to have polls be binding for any time longer than it takes to conclude a new poll voting for a different time frame, you know. If we can't prevent a poll from changing any other part of the rules, we can't make the binding period immune to change either.

[HypnoToad]

Yeh, I was surprised about that. Apparently the poster of the OP decided against it and informed the Mods.

But it's not possible to have polls be binding for any time longer than it takes to conclude a new poll voting for a different time frame, you know. If we can't prevent a poll from changing any other part of the rules, we can't make the binding period immune to change either.
Sure we can.

If we accept the rule that rules are binding for a set amount of time, then the binding rule itself is also bound for that amount of time as well.

[Hentenza]

I think that the second poll that Debi opened was closed by mistake. I pm'd Jim to re-open it.

[Albion]

Sure we can.

If we accept the rule that rules are binding for a set amount of time, then the binding rule itself is also bound for that amount of time as well.

No, it's not. Logically, that may be the case, but only logicallly. There is no actual prohibition against it. If I say that a "new situation" has arisen and we need to think again, we could vote for, say, four months.

[desmalia]

The whole membership thing has gotten really out of hand. I say we just let people in, and if they misbehave, sic Julio on them. Problem solved. :cool:

[Hentenza]

The whole membership thing has gotten really out of hand. I say we just let people in, and if they misbehave, sic Julio on them. Problem solved. :cool:

Or just send the stickman in your siggy. He seems insane enough.^_^^_^:P

[GreenMunchkin]

Trust :wave:

[Lisa0315]

This poll doesn't end for another two weeks. I have a PM from someone who wants to join. What do we do in the interim?

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Let them in :)

The poll has a resounding winner as things stand.

[Lisa0315]

I agree personally since the rule for Liberals has been added. However, that is only 20+ votes out of 120 members and with two weeks to go.

I just do not want to do anything wrong here...

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I think I got the same pm Lisa. She said we're "shutting her out" or some such.

Personally, talk like that just rankles me and especially since it was directed at me.

There were reasons for what was previously decided having to do with people who are not who they say they are. It made sense at the time to have a safety in place to stop the trolls before it became an issue. I guess it's because I've been a moderator before and know what a pain they can be. Ok fine. So now we are having second thoughts about that rule...and I'm ok with that too. It really doesn't bother me one way or another. But now to have someone say I'm "shutting them out" really burns me to be quite frank.

[Lisa0315]

I think I got the same pm Lisa. She said we're "shutting her out" or some such.

Personally, talk like that just rankles me and especially since it was directed at me.

There were reasons for what was previously decided having to do with people who are not who they say they are. It made sense at the time to have a safety in place to stop the trolls before it became an issue. I guess it's because I've been a moderator before and know what a pain they can be. Ok fine. So now we are having second thoughts about that rule...and I'm ok with that too. It really doesn't bother me one way or another. But now to have someone say I'm "shutting them out" really burns me to be quite frank.

Well, we all know better than that about you. Don't let it bother you. :hug:

Many of us have spent hours that should have been spent on family, work, or church, so an infrequent poster will just have to understand that we are still working the bugs out. If they don't understand that...well, the door swings both ways.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

I think I got the same pm Lisa. She said we're "shutting her out" or some such.

Personally, talk like that just rankles me and especially since it was directed at me.

There were reasons for what was previously decided having to do with people who are not who they say they are. It made sense at the time to have a safety in place to stop the trolls before it became an issue. I guess it's because I've been a moderator before and know what a pain they can be. Ok fine. So now we are having second thoughts about that rule...and I'm ok with that too. It really doesn't bother me one way or another. But now to have someone say I'm "shutting them out" really burns me to be quite frank.:hug: :hug: :hug: If she knew you she'd never think that, mama. So let's give people a chance to get to know us, as opposed to the rules we wrote when we were all feeling lost and threatened. :hug: :hug: :hug:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

:hug: :hug: :hug: If she knew you she'd never think that, mama. So let's give people a chance to get to know us, as opposed to the rules we wrote when we were all feeling lost and threatened. :hug: :hug: :hug:
:hug: :hug: :hug: Thank you for that GM. :) Have truly missed you around here my dear. :hug: :hug: :hug:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Well, we all know better than that about you. Don't let it bother you. :hug:

Many of us have spent hours that should have been spent on family, work, or church, so an infrequent poster will just have to understand that we are still working the bugs out. If they don't understand that...well, the door swings both ways.

Lisa
And thank you too Lisa. :hug::)

Whew...I think this name change and some of the reactions to it are gettin to me! :doh:

[GreenMunchkin]

:hug: :hug: :hug: Thank you for that GM. :) Have truly missed you around here my dear. :hug: :hug: :hug:Have missed you, too :hug: I was thinking, actually, that we can use you and I as an example. We're close, and you know I love you, but as a now non-member, I feel completely unwelcome here, and I keep checking the Ecumenical Reports to see if I've been reported for being a non-member. I know you, so I know you'd never want anyone to feel that way, but the forum's set-up has that affect, and any prolific member of the forum automatically looks like a proponent of that set-up. Know what I mean?

[Hentenza]

Have missed you, too :hug: I was thinking, actually, that we can use you and I as an example. We're close, and you know I love you, but as a now non-member, I feel completely unwelcome here, and I keep checking the Ecumenical Reports to see if I've been reported for being a non-member. I know you, so I know you'd never want anyone to feel that way, but the forum's set-up has that affect, and any prolific member of the forum automatically looks like a proponent of that set-up. Know what I mean?

I've only known you for a short while but you left a hole when you left. As far as I am concerned all you have to do is say the word and every one here will welcome you back with open arms. I don't think that you will be seeing your name in the reports section any time soon.:hug::hug:

[GreenMunchkin]

I've only known you for a short while but you left a hole when you left. As far as I am concerned all you have to do is say the word and every one here will welcome you back with open arms. I don't think that you will be seeing your name in the reports section any time soon.:hug::hug:Aww, dude! :hug: I don't even know how to respond to something that lovely. It made me cry a little :D *silly woman* Thank you very, very much :hug:

The only thing is, I still can't support the rules, and it'd feel very unintegrityish (real word. IT IS.) to be a member again. But if the rules become more loving, and less grrr, will be back in a heart-beat. Contentious threads notwithstanding, this was my very favourite part of CF :) Thank you so so much for your loveliness. You totally made my day :hug::hug:

[NewGuy101]

Have missed you, too :hug: I was thinking, actually, that we can use you and I as an example. We're close, and you know I love you, but as a now non-member, I feel completely unwelcome here, and I keep checking the Ecumenical Reports to see if I've been reported for being a non-member. I know you, so I know you'd never want anyone to feel that way, but the forum's set-up has that affect, and any prolific member of the forum automatically looks like a proponent of that set-up. Know what I mean?
I can assure you I will always welcome you here with open arms by me. You were one person here I thought we couldn't afford to lose because of all your help to structure this forum.

[NewGuy101]

Aww, dude! :hug: I don't even know how to respond to something that lovely. It made me cry a little Thank you very, very much

The only thing is, I still can't support the rules, and it'd feel very unintegrityish (real word. IT IS.) to be a member again. But if the rules become more loving, and less grrr, will be back in a heart-beat. Contentious threads notwithstanding, this was my very favourite part of CF :) Thank you so so much for your loveliness. You totally made my day :hug::hug:
Then help change them through the democratic process which is in place now.

[GreenMunchkin]

I can assure you I will always welcome you here with open arms by me. You were one person here I thought we couldn't afford to lose because of all your help to structure this forum.Thank you, also, bro :hug::hug: Say, how are you finding the nearly-officially-modding? :D

Then help change them through the democratic process which is in place now.I'm not entitled to as a non-member, but if am granted, like, temporary honorary membership or something, am veddy happy to pitch in :)

[kittystrawberry]

I vote no to post requirement and no member sponsor. When I gave this url to one of my friend, I refused to tell her what my username is. When I go on a message board, I like my privacy. I only send two christian friends to this site a couple years ago. The other one had a very bad feeling about this site and refused to join it. As for anyone else, I don't send them here. I don't want anyone stalking my every post because they know me so well. I don't want everyone of my friends knowing which site I go on.

[Tangeloper]

I vote no to post requirement and no member sponsor. When I gave this url to one of my friend, I refused to tell her what my username is. When I go on a message board, I like my privacy. I only send two christian friends to this site a couple years ago. The other one had a very bad feeling about this site and refused to join it. As for anyone else, I don't send them here. I don't want anyone stalking my every post because they know me so well. I don't want everyone of my friends knowing which site I go on.

Hi Kitty, it's nice to meet you!

Just FYI: I didn't see you on the member list. Only members of the Conservative Christian Sub-Forum are allowed to vote in our polls.

If you would like to become a member of the CC forum please read the rules sticky, and then if you agree, we'd love to see you sign up on the "Sign-in Thread" (Also stickied at the top).

I hope you have a good night!
~~ Tangeloper


PS -- These member rules are only for this specific board -- not site-wide! Just to make sure you understand the discussion and all. There are no such rules like this for the main forum! :)

[Albion]

This poll doesn't end for another two weeks. I have a PM from someone who wants to join. What do we do in the interim?

Lisa

Why is this so hard? You propose their name to the membership and see if 5 people will sponsor them.

A rule doesn't change the minute a poll is put up about altering it.

[Tangeloper]

Why is this so hard? You propose their name to the membership and see if 5 people will sponsor them.

A rule doesn't change the minute a poll is put up about altering it.

[Note: This is not directed at you Albion, just that your post addressed this as well...]

I see the Sign-in thread is open again (after being closed and having a "final" membership list) and all requirements for membership were taken out of the rules sticky yesterday by Sophia.

So, now we have completely free and open membership again??? No 5 sponsors, no post minimums -- this has already been changed and yet, here is this poll!!! Plus, we have sponsorship threads in the main forum.

This is really a mess people -- is there not a way to prevent the rules from getting changed every few days???

I personally try to help people who are not members and vote in the polls and such (like I did above) know how they can join, but I can't keep track from one day to the next whether they need sponsors or not!

Now, we've sponsored several members in and all of a sudden new members can just join up again??? How is that fair to those we put through the process?

I am so confused, and a little bewildered at why this is so hard to fix.... I really wish we could leave the rules as they are for more than a week at a time!

Sorry to vent, but this is really getting to me! I just want to enjoy discussing things with fellow Conservatives and right now there is no discussing except about the rules!

Also, there are about 10-15 Membership lists floating around. Perhaps it would be a good idea for everyone to edit out the old lists they posted so as not to confuse anyone? Just a thought!

[Albion]

[Note: This is not directed at you Albion, just that your post addressed this as well...]

I see the Sign-in thread is open again (after being closed and having a "final" membership list) and all requirements for membership were taken out of the rules sticky yesterday by Sophia.

So, now we have completely free and open membership again??? No 5 sponsors, no post minimums -- this has already been changed and yet, here is this poll!!! Plus, we have sponsorship threads in the main forum.

This is really a mess people -- is there not a way to prevent the rules from getting changed every few days???

I personally try to help people who are not members and vote in the polls and such (like I did above) know how they can join, but I can't keep track from one day to the next whether they need sponsors or not!

Now, we've sponsored several members in and all of a sudden new members can just join up again??? How is that fair to those we put through the process?

I am so confused, and a little bewildered at why this is so hard to fix.... I really wish we could leave the rules as they are for more than a week at a time!

Sorry to vent, but this is really getting to me! I just want to enjoy discussing things with fellow Conservatives and right now there is no discussing except about the rules!

Also, there are about 10-15 Membership lists floating around. Perhaps it would be a good idea for everyone to edit out the old lists they posted so as not to confuse anyone? Just a thought!

Since we have no rules about membership now other than not belonging also to the Liberal forum and needing to ask to be listed as a member...

...maybe we should try chaos for awhile and see how it's working for us. No polls, of course.

[Lisa0315]

Well, maybe we need rules about how new rules will be implemented.

I will start a new thread, but I am in no mood for being accused of being a control freak today, so watch it! ;)

Lisa

[Albion]

Well, maybe we need rules about how new rules will be implemented.

I will start a new thread, but I am in no mood for being accused of being a control freak today, so watch it! ;)

Lisa

It may not be worth your effort. We may be now in the situation of taking each post--from whomever--for what it's worth, whether conservative or liberal, whatever, and going with it. The one and perhaps only 'ace in the hole' that we have as far as retaining any identity is that the overwhelming majority of those here are indeed conservative, by some standard or other, can be counted upon to "handle" through sheer numbers the course of any discussion on ideas or values that comes along on this forum. (This is an idea someone else posted quite a long time ago here that makes more sense to me now).

[Lisa0315]

http://foru.ms/t5960351-wiki-new-rule-protocol-ccc-members-only.html#post37974095

Well, this is not to make a new rule, but to establish guidelines on how we will make new rules. It will be steps that each member should take if they want to add a new rule or change an existing one.

This is intended to end the chaos of having polls not completed, but rules changed, etc.

Lisa

[Albion]

http://foru.ms/t5960351-wiki-new-rule-protocol-ccc-members-only.html#post37974095

Well, this is not to make a new rule, but to establish guidelines on how we will make new rules. It will be steps that each member should take if they want to add a new rule or change an existing one.

This is intended to end the chaos of having polls not completed, but rules changed, etc.

Lisa

I guess I was thinking that since we are not allowed to have rules per the latest development, what's the use in wasting any more energy and time on it?

If the membership rules can be winked away with a sticky even though we are supposedly allowed to make our own rules, what would make us think that any other rule is not going to find the same fate?

Anyway, you do what you think is best; I'm merely thinking you could be torturing yourself for nothing.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Have missed you, too :hug: I was thinking, actually, that we can use you and I as an example. We're close, and you know I love you, but as a now non-member, I feel completely unwelcome here, and I keep checking the Ecumenical Reports to see if I've been reported for being a non-member. I know you, so I know you'd never want anyone to feel that way, but the forum's set-up has that affect, and any prolific member of the forum automatically looks like a proponent of that set-up. Know what I mean?

Ok...let's try this again! I had written a post in response with all my thoughts and then the forum went offline. :doh: That happens to me all the time! :sigh:

Anyway...what I had said was that you are one of the original people who came here and established basic guidelines so anyone who reports you will be in trouble with me. :mad: :hug:

I'm sure your aware of the reasons behind some of the rules and actions taken here on this forum. Since 777 it doesn't feel like the same CF we all knew and loved. I've heard numberous people talk about how they have to defend their beliefs everytime they turn around these days. They feel attacked and on guard in a place that should be a safe haven. Erwins vision for CF changed and that's ok with me. I can understand and be apart of both. But all of that has caused some of the friction here on this forum. You have people here who just want to feel safe again, they are on the defensive and don't completely understand why they feel the way they do. So they want to build walls and it's reflected in our rules. I'd like to help us all get past this myself, but I'm not sure how we're going to do it.

[Lisa0315]

I guess I was thinking that since we are not allowed to have rules per the latest development, what's the use in wasting any more energy and time on it?

If the membership rules can be winked away with a sticky even though we are supposedly allowed to make our own rules, what would make us think that any other rule is not going to find the same fate?

Anyway, you do what you think is best; I'm merely thinking you could be torturing yourself for nothing.

What in the world are you talking about? Is there a new announcement that I haven't seen?

As far as I know, we are still governing ourselves.

Lisa

[Albion]

What in the world are you talking about? Is there a new announcement that I haven't seen?

As far as I know, we are still governing ourselves.

Lisa

I am referring to what Tangeloper wrote in post #80 of this thread--which, when followed up with a check of the stickies, appears to be correct.

What else would you have been referring to yourself in your post #82?

[Hentenza]

I am referring to what Tangeloper wrote in post #80 of this thread--which, when followed up with a check of the stickies, appears to be correct.

What else would you have been referring to yourself in your post #82?

Albion has a very good point. The rule that this poll was addressing has been changed by Sophia. I don't understand that. As far as I understood it the issue is not yet resolved. We see the way the poll is going but is not final yet.:confused:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I see the Sign-in thread is open again (after being closed and having a "final" membership list) and all requirements for membership were taken out of the rules sticky yesterday by Sophia.

So, now we have completely free and open membership again??? No 5 sponsors, no post minimums -- this has already been changed and yet, here is this poll!!! Plus, we have sponsorship threads in the main forum.

This is really a mess people -- is there not a way to prevent the rules from getting changed every few days???


This is our current wiki. Sophia only updates it as it changes...and not every day so it's possible many changes have taken place even if you only see it once. The best thing to do is to check out the wiki itself. Here's the link to it...CC WIKI (http://foru.ms/t5716860-wiki-conservative-christians-forum.html)

Conservative Christians Forum
Conservative Christianity is defined by its allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church on issues of theology and morality. Central to this worldview is the belief that Truth exists objectively and independently of our perception. Truth is unchanging and absolute.

God is Truth. He has revealed His Truth in the person of His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Bible, His written word, and in the Holy Church, which includes all who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, submitting their lives to Him in faith.

"I will bow down toward the temple of thy holiness, and celebrate thy name for thy loving-kindness and for thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." ~Psalm 138:2, Darby
This Forum Affirms:

The Holy Scriptures are inspired, the written Word of God. Scripture is revelation from God given for the instruction of his people in faith, morals, and doctrine. The revelation of scripture is completely reliable and authoritative.
The minimum standard of doctrinal belief in order for a person to be considered a Christian is accurately contained within the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. The doctrines contained within these creeds are the bare essentials upon which Christians must agree. It is understood, however, that even within the creeds there are some differences of interpretation. Specifically, it is allowed in this forum that the term “Catholic Church” can be understood to mean the universal, invisible body of which all Christians are members. The phrase “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” can be understood in a symbolic sense.
Our Christian faith can not be separated from our views on politics and society, or any other area of life. The Conservative Christian worldview holds the following values and views to be necessary expressions of Christian morality based upon Holy Scripture and the established teachings of the Christian Church.
The sanctity of human life. Human life begins at conception and ends when the body can no longer naturally sustain itself. Human life can not be ended prematurely without just cause and just authority to do so. This includes most cases of abortion and euthanasia.
Sexual morality is a fundamental requirement of Christian moral teaching. The Scriptures repeatedly address the topic of traditional sexual morality as a necessary part of our obedience to God and right living. Sexually moral behavior, in Scripture, and in the established teachings of the Church is held to be limited to sex between a husband and his wife. All other sexual activities fall under the heading of sexual immorality and depart from conservative christian teaching and morality.
Sin separates people from God. Thus it is destructive and harmful. Jesus Christ came not only to grant us a way of forgiveness from sin, but also to free us from bondage to sin. Our Lord Jesus Christ has imparted to us the ministry of reconciliation. It is our duty and privilege to teach people the gospel of forgiveness of sins, freedom from sin, and reconciliation to God. Freedom begins with knowing the truth.
Truth and Love are both God's character. All truth can be expressed in love. When addressing others in the forum we should hold ourselves accountable to the belief that all people are created in God's image, and as such deserve a basic level of respect, regardless of their deeds. This is not meant to muzzle honest discourse or comment, but to remind that all truth, must be expressed in love. Therefore, Conservative Christians may not flame visitors but rather seek to reason with them with an attitude of service and love.
Sola Scriptura – Not all conservatives hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As per the forum rules we all acknowledge the inspiration, complete reliability, and authority of scripture. However, some conservative Christians may hold Holy Tradition and the Church to be authoritative, or necessary to proper interpretation of scripture, in addition to the scriptures. Others do affirm Sola Scriptura, and are also welcomed equally on this forum. Neither position is preferred. No rule will be made concerning the views of Sola Scriptura, or the Traditions of the Church. Which position is correct is to be determined by the individual, not the forum.
Biblical Literalism – Not all conservatives hold an absolute literal interpretation of scripture. This may especially be seen in the areas of eschatology and the Genesis creation account."I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." ~Revelation 21:6-8, NASB

The preceding points are held to be true by this forum and its members. Debate which denies or calls into question the aforementioned points will not be tolerated. People who disagree with or question these may visit and ask earnest questions but may not debate these points.

"Conservative Christian", both on CF and in the real world, represents an umbrella term under which many individuals, denominations, churches and other organizations unify in order to forward a common cause. Because of this, and in order to maintain unity on the Conservative Christian forum, posts regarding specific denominational practices and beliefs (eg. baptismal formulae, whether one can lose their salvation, the specifics of what happens at communion, etc...) should be made in the proper denominational or theological forum or discussed in the debate subforum instead of in the main Conservative Christian forum.

General Rules:

Only confirmed members of the CC forum may apply to be moderators of the forum, and only confirmed members of the CC forum are permitted to vote on the applicants.
Confirmed members are listed. Any new member wishing to become a member of the congregation must be added to the confirmed list before being able to vote or debate. We also add an exception to this rule that the staff/members have discretion (on a case-by-case basis) to allow limited debate with non-members when outreach is the goal.
Because of the stark contrast between the Liberal viewpoints vs. Conservative Christian viewpoints, members in this forum can only be a member of one, not both, of these fora.
Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.



Also, there are about 10-15 Membership lists floating around. Perhaps it would be a good idea for everyone to edit out the old lists they posted so as not to confuse anyone? Just a thought!
That's a bit of an exaggeration Tangeloper. I post that list in the sign in thread both in the beginning and the end. Then I've posted it once in the "who can vote" thread. GM was updating it at one point but then she said she didn't want to be a member here anymore so I added a list to the end of that thread. Because the sign in is closed I can no longer change those lists. So the current members list is in the "who can vote" thread. Not sure what to do to change that as I can't edit those other two posts.

Sorry to vent, but this is really getting to me! I just want to enjoy discussing things with fellow Conservatives and right now there is no discussing except about the rules!
:hug: I agree with you. We'll get past this...just hang in there! :hug:

[HypnoToad]

So the current members list is in the "who can vote" thread.
The problem with that is that there's a bunch of lists in that thread, and they're all different.

What's needed is one sticky thread with only one post - the membership list. Have it run by one of the Mods of this forum. Just say, "these are the members, this is who can vote", or whatever explanation is needed. Then list the members, then lock the thread. Then once a week, if needed, that Mod can unlock it, edit the post to update it with new members or delete anyone that has left, and then lock it again.

One sticky thread, with only one post.

[Tangeloper]

AN APOLOGY

OK, First I will apologize for the exaggeration about the member lists. What I was referring to was the fact that there are numerous lists in the Sign-up thread, as well as the "Who can vote thread". I've seen others confused about this as well, but it was some time ago. So, I apologize for that as I realize with the sign-up thread closed there is not much we can do about that.

SUGGESTION FOR MEMBER LIST:
[If I may make a suggestion re: the member list itself -- Perhaps the old thread should be closed and whomever is going to update the list works it like Sophia does the rules sticky (one post with editing only) so that people only need to go to the first post if they want to look at the list?]

ON REPORTS RE: NON-MEMBERS VOTING or SPAMMING CC:
Secondly, GreenMunchkin, the only reason I made the report this morning was because Kitty was VOTING on the rules regarding membership issues in here, and she is not a member of the forum. Seeing as this is a vote on how we will accept members I didn't think it very appropriate that a non-member was voting in the poll. Also, you were a member here before I even was, and as such I think we all pretty much still consider you a member -- you have a problem with the rules and that is the only reason you are not "officially" participating. I don't know why you feel unwelcome here, honestly... Perhaps I have missed rudeness towards you or something in one of the threads?

TRYING TO WELCOME NEW POSTERS IN THE FORUM:
Anyway, whenever I write post about the rules in the CC forum, I always try to be respectful, and I always try to tell the people what they can do to become an official member... On another thread that I commented on about the rules the person was copying and pasting the same message into a bunch of different forums (spamming). That person even thanked me for being respectful, so I don't think making an effort to "self-police" our board and thus, decreasing the work for the mods is a problem, is it? If it is then I'll just keep my mouth shut from now on, and let whatever goes, go...

RULES CHANGES AND SNAPSHOTS:
Regarding the WIKI and rules changes... Now there is no rule in the WIKI about 5 sponsors needed, but we no longer have a sign-up thread! That's what I was talking about regarding the rules snapshot changing and us not being "ready" or prepared to comply with the new rules. Previously the 5 sponsorship rule was posted in the snapshot (8/7/07) before that had a final decision on it, and while we still had a sign-up thread and were accepting open membership! THAT's what I was referring to about the rules changing and making it confusing. I do know that I need to read the rules periodically, but with all the polls going on why are they even up and changing anyway???

Over the weekend we had sponsorship messages up in the main thread, and we had "getting to know you" threads in there as well for several prospective new members. And, now as the rules stand there is no need for those.

NEED TO CREATE A THREAD TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW RULES (as of 8/20/07)
I guess to comply with the new rules established yesterday in the sticky thread we need to open up a new sign-up thread -- or are we going to wait to see what the outcome of this poll is and restrict all memberships until that time? AND, if that is the case then something needs to be said in the "snapshot" because new people come in here all the time and I can't imagine it being very easy for them to realize what is going on if we can't even get it straight!

We have several polls in the forum right now about membership rules, if a poll is binding or not and for how long, and also another poll about how much of a percentage of votes is needed to make a poll binding! :confused:

SNAPSHOTS BEING TAKEN OF A WIKI THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A "ROUGH-DRAFT"
I understand that Sophia takes snapshots at random times (it seems like every 2 weeks?), but there should be a system in place whereby the rules are NOT changed on the WIKI where she takes the snapshot until the debates are settled, and there is a clear decision on these things.

Forgive me if I'm wrong about how it works, but dropping by and taking a snap-shot and changing the rules without some kind of notification or making sure the rules are not still in "rough-draft" form, doesn't seem to be very effective in preventing confusion, ya know? And, if it was requested that she take a new snapshot, why was that done before this poll (and others) were finished (i.e. taking out the rules that were voted on previously).? (The last time this came up on 8/7/07 I was told withing the sign-up thread that Sophia HAD made a mistake, and that she was PM'd about the 5 sponsor thing (to take it out ASAP so we could decide if indeed open membership would end and when), but it never got addressed until yesterday on 8/20/07 -- at least not that I know of.

SUNSHINE LAWS for FORUM RULES?
Heck, we've even got a poll to decide how long the rules should remain in effect! Why say the rules are only last for 3 months and then be up for a review -- that baffles me? Why not just have it that the rules remain in effect indefinitely unless there is a major problem and THEN bring up a discussion and vote -- whenever it become apparent, not at some arbitrary deadline? I see no reason for sunshine laws within an online forum!

KEEPING TRACK OF CHANGES WHILE STILL POLLING
As I said, I try to be welcoming of new members, and it's rather hard when I run across a situation whereby on Sunday evening a member needs 5 sponsors, and then on Monday evening there is no more rule like that! I remember voting in a poll to CLOSE open membership, hence the 5 sponsor thing going into effect. Now I have voted in this poll, but before the voting is even done a snapshot has been taken of the WIKI and there is completely open sign-up again! Why even have the poll??? :scratch:

OK, well I've said my piece.

Perhaps I should either read through the WIKI discussion more, or just ignore the rules altogether, and leave the welcoming and stuff to others...

ANOTHER APOLOGY
I'm sorry if I've overstepped the bounds as far as reporting people or addressing things in threads when they come up. I was only attempting to help keep this place a little saner.

I'm not angry or upset at anyone right now -- I want to make that clear. And I hope no-one is upset by this post, either.

I will admit freely that I am frustrated because I see no cohesion within the group. It truly feels like everyone is trying to herd cats when it comes to deciding once and for all what the rules should be.
WHY AM I SO FRUSTRATED?
I know it'll eventually get settled, but this has really dragged on, IMHO.

Just a little background as to why this feel ridiculous to me -- I used to be very involved in politics and we used to debate and vote on an entire platform for a national party and Presidential campaign platform (and hence the vision of the whole party till the next convention) in the matter of several days with over 500 people voting and debating! For it to keep going back and forth like this when it's just an internet forum really astounds me... So, please forgive me for being frustrated by all of this. And, please know that I'm not meaning to come across as a total (well I can't say that word here!).

In the past in group situations it has pretty much fallen to me a lot of the time to take a leadership role so, I'm just not used to working in a group that is so "open" in this way regarding who decides what... It's just against my nature I guess. I'll pray and work on that though. :)

OK, this was a really long post... Sorry about that - I think I'm all talked out now (if that's possible ^_^ ).

~~ Tangeloper

[Tangeloper]

The problem with that is that there's a bunch of lists in that thread, and they're all different.

What's needed is one sticky thread with only one post - the membership list. Have it run by one of the Mods of this forum. Just say, "these are the members, this is who can vote", or whatever explanation is needed. Then list the members, then lock the thread. Then once a week, if needed, that Mod can unlock it, edit the post to update it with new members or delete anyone that has left, and then lock it again.

One sticky thread, with only one post.
Yep, exactly (see the long post that I just put up... within that mess somewhere is the exact same suggestion! LOL)...

[Lisa0315]

AN APOLOGY

OK, First I will apologize for the exaggeration about the member lists. What I was referring to was the fact that there are numerous lists in the Sign-up thread, as well as the "Who can vote thread". I've seen others confused about this as well, but it was some time ago. So, I apologize for that as I realize with the sign-up thread closed there is not much we can do about that.

SUGGESTION FOR MEMBER LIST:
[If I may make a suggestion re: the member list itself -- Perhaps the old thread should be closed and whomever is going to update the list works it like Sophia does the rules sticky (one post with editing only) so that people only need to go to the first post if they want to look at the list?]

ON REPORTS RE: NON-MEMBERS VOTING or SPAMMING CC:
Secondly, GreenMunchkin, the only reason I made the report this morning was because Kitty was VOTING on the rules regarding membership issues in here, and she is not a member of the forum. Seeing as this is a vote on how we will accept members I didn't think it very appropriate that a non-member was voting in the poll. Also, you were a member here before I even was, and as such I think we all pretty much still consider you a member -- you have a problem with the rules and that is the only reason you are not "officially" participating. I don't know why you feel unwelcome here, honestly... Perhaps I have missed rudeness towards you or something in one of the threads?

TRYING TO WELCOME NEW POSTERS IN THE FORUM:
Anyway, whenever I write post about the rules in the CC forum, I always try to be respectful, and I always try to tell the people what they can do to become an official member... On another thread that I commented on about the rules the person was copying and pasting the same message into a bunch of different forums (spamming). That person even thanked me for being respectful, so I don't think making an effort to "self-police" our board and thus, decreasing the work for the mods is a problem, is it? If it is then I'll just keep my mouth shut from now on, and let whatever goes, go...

RULES CHANGES AND SNAPSHOTS:
Regarding the WIKI and rules changes... Now there is no rule in the WIKI about 5 sponsors needed, but we no longer have a sign-up thread! That's what I was talking about regarding the rules snapshot changing and us not being "ready" or prepared to comply with the new rules. Previously the 5 sponsorship rule was posted in the snapshot (8/7/07) before that had a final decision on it, and while we still had a sign-up thread and were accepting open membership! THAT's what I was referring to about the rules changing and making it confusing. I do know that I need to read the rules periodically, but with all the polls going on why are they even up and changing anyway???

Over the weekend we had sponsorship messages up in the main thread, and we had "getting to know you" threads in there as well for several prospective new members. And, now as the rules stand there is no need for those.

NEED TO CREATE A THREAD TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW RULES (as of 8/20/07)
I guess to comply with the new rules established yesterday in the sticky thread we need to open up a new sign-up thread -- or are we going to wait to see what the outcome of this poll is and restrict all memberships until that time? AND, if that is the case then something needs to be said in the "snapshot" because new people come in here all the time and I can't imagine it being very easy for them to realize what is going on if we can't even get it straight!

We have several polls in the forum right now about membership rules, if a poll is binding or not and for how long, and also another poll about how much of a percentage of votes is needed to make a poll binding! :confused:

SNAPSHOTS BEING TAKEN OF A WIKI THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A "ROUGH-DRAFT"
I understand that Sophia takes snapshots at random times (it seems like every 2 weeks?), but there should be a system in place whereby the rules are NOT changed on the WIKI where she takes the snapshot until the debates are settled, and there is a clear decision on these things.

Forgive me if I'm wrong about how it works, but dropping by and taking a snap-shot and changing the rules without some kind of notification or making sure the rules are not still in "rough-draft" form, doesn't seem to be very effective in preventing confusion, ya know? And, if it was requested that she take a new snapshot, why was that done before this poll (and others) were finished (i.e. taking out the rules that were voted on previously).? (The last time this came up on 8/7/07 I was told withing the sign-up thread that Sophia HAD made a mistake, and that she was PM'd about the 5 sponsor thing (to take it out ASAP so we could decide if indeed open membership would end and when), but it never got addressed until yesterday on 8/20/07 -- at least not that I know of.

SUNSHINE LAWS for FORUM RULES?
Heck, we've even got a poll to decide how long the rules should remain in effect! Why say the rules are only last for 3 months and then be up for a review -- that baffles me? Why not just have it that the rules remain in effect indefinitely unless there is a major problem and THEN bring up a discussion and vote -- whenever it become apparent, not at some arbitrary deadline? I see no reason for sunshine laws within an online forum!

KEEPING TRACK OF CHANGES WHILE STILL POLLING
As I said, I try to be welcoming of new members, and it's rather hard when I run across a situation whereby on Sunday evening a member needs 5 sponsors, and then on Monday evening there is no more rule like that! I remember voting in a poll to CLOSE open membership, hence the 5 sponsor thing going into effect. Now I have voted in this poll, but before the voting is even done a snapshot has been taken of the WIKI and there is completely open sign-up again! Why even have the poll??? :scratch:

OK, well I've said my piece.

Perhaps I should either read through the WIKI discussion more, or just ignore the rules altogether, and leave the welcoming and stuff to others...

ANOTHER APOLOGY
I'm sorry if I've overstepped the bounds as far as reporting people or addressing things in threads when they come up. I was only attempting to help keep this place a little saner.

I'm not angry or upset at anyone right now -- I want to make that clear. And I hope no-one is upset by this post, either.

I will admit freely that I am frustrated because I see no cohesion within the group. It truly feels like everyone is trying to herd cats when it comes to deciding once and for all what the rules should be.
WHY AM I SO FRUSTRATED?
I know it'll eventually get settled, but this has really dragged on, IMHO.

Just a little background as to why this feel ridiculous to me -- I used to be very involved in politics and we used to debate and vote on an entire platform for a national party and Presidential campaign platform (and hence the vision of the whole party till the next convention) in the matter of several days with over 500 people voting and debating! For it to keep going back and forth like this when it's just an internet forum really astounds me... So, please forgive me for being frustrated by all of this. And, please know that I'm not meaning to come across as a total (well I can't say that word here!).

In the past in group situations it has pretty much fallen to me a lot of the time to take a leadership role so, I'm just not used to working in a group that is so "open" in this way regarding who decides what... It's just against my nature I guess. I'll pray and work on that though. :)

OK, this was a really long post... Sorry about that - I think I'm all talked out now (if that's possible ^_^ ).

~~ Tangeloper

I am equally frustrated. If rules cannot be made, and stuck to, how in the world are mods supposed to enforce them. It seems that what was a violation yesterday is not today.

Again, one of the problems I see with the process is that we do not have an established protocol for making the rules in the first place. Some wiki. Some use polls. Some use just threads. People say, "We decided", but no one knows who "we" is.

I have set up a wiki to establish some guidelines to make rules. I wish you guys would participate.

Lisa

[Tangeloper]

I am equally frustrated. If rules cannot be made, and stuck to, how in the world are mods supposed to enforce them. It seems that what was a violation yesterday is not today.

Again, one of the problems I see with the process is that we do not have an established protocol for making the rules in the first place. Some wiki. Some use polls. Some use just threads. People say, "We decided", but no one knows who "we" is.

I have set up a wiki to establish some guidelines to make rules. I wish you guys would participate.

Lisa
I saw that post Lisa, and have already offered a suggestion! It'll take me a while to get used to the WIKI and all, but I'm more than willing to lend my help in trying to quell the anarchy so to speak.

[Lisa0315]

I saw that post Lisa, and have already offered a suggestion! It'll take me a while to get used to the WIKI and all, but I'm more than willing to lend my help in trying to quell the anarchy so to speak.

It was a terrific suggestion, and I already added it to the wiki.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

AN APOLOGY

OK, First I will apologize for the exaggeration about the member lists. What I was referring to was the fact that there are numerous lists in the Sign-up thread, as well as the "Who can vote thread". I've seen others confused about this as well, but it was some time ago. So, I apologize for that as I realize with the sign-up thread closed there is not much we can do about that.

Just a little background as to why this feel ridiculous to me -- I used to be very involved in politics and we used to debate and vote on an entire platform for a national party and Presidential campaign platform (and hence the vision of the whole party till the next convention) in the matter of several days with over 500 people voting and debating! For it to keep going back and forth like this when it's just an internet forum really astounds me... So, please forgive me for being frustrated by all of this. And, please know that I'm not meaning to come across as a total (well I can't say that word here!).

In the past in group situations it has pretty much fallen to me a lot of the time to take a leadership role so, I'm just not used to working in a group that is so "open" in this way regarding who decides what... It's just against my nature I guess. I'll pray and work on that though. :)


~~ Tangeloper

I think we're all frustrated actually. :(

Today I have a raging headache so I'm sorry if I don't post an awful lot about this. I have to mention though that I've also been involved with politics. :) Not to a large degree, but enough to get my fill of it. :doh: :P

Anyway...:hug: :hug: :hug: Thanks for trying to help get this all sorted out Tangeloper.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

The problem with that is that there's a bunch of lists in that thread, and they're all different.

What's needed is one sticky thread with only one post - the membership list. Have it run by one of the Mods of this forum. Just say, "these are the members, this is who can vote", or whatever explanation is needed. Then list the members, then lock the thread. Then once a week, if needed, that Mod can unlock it, edit the post to update it with new members or delete anyone that has left, and then lock it again.

One sticky thread, with only one post.
Good idea...:thumbsup:

[GreenMunchkin]

Ok...let's try this again! I had written a post in response with all my thoughts and then the forum went offline. :doh: That happens to me all the time! :sigh:

Anyway...what I had said was that you are one of the original people who came here and established basic guidelines so anyone who reports you will be in trouble with me. :mad: :hug:

I'm sure your aware of the reasons behind some of the rules and actions taken here on this forum. Since 777 it doesn't feel like the same CF we all knew and loved. I've heard numberous people talk about how they have to defend their beliefs everytime they turn around these days. They feel attacked and on guard in a place that should be a safe haven. Erwins vision for CF changed and that's ok with me. I can understand and be apart of both. But all of that has caused some of the friction here on this forum. You have people here who just want to feel safe again, they are on the defensive and don't completely understand why they feel the way they do. So they want to build walls and it's reflected in our rules. I'd like to help us all get past this myself, but I'm not sure how we're going to do it.Do you know what's really interesting? It's making CC so secret and unattainable that makes people want to come here and get in the mix.

CF is a *mess*, there's no doubt about it, but what started off as genuinely good intentions on all of our behalves turned into a bit of a monster, to the point where our rules are all people see of us, as opposed to seeing who we are.

I just keep thinking back to our saying we wanted to be a light. But we can't do that if we're doing it behind a wall no-one can get over. Our sub-forum is wonderful, because any threads that get icky can just be moved there, and we can still report any post that's unacceptable.

Plus, we still have the rule that members of WWMC can't be members here, and that's exactly right. But the CC has some lovely, wonderful people, and they're being sequestered away unnecessarily. Also, F has bigger problems than this right now :sigh: I don't think many people are that interested in us. Meanwhile, we're wasting all our time arguing about rules while we could be fellowshipping and learning and being kind to people. I just think our rules are very misleading as to the type of people who are members here, and the rules should only ever help a forum, not cause it problems. Once they start causing problems, it's time to scratch them and start again. Ya know? :hug::hug::hug::hug::hug:

AN APOLOGY

ON REPORTS RE: NON-MEMBERS VOTING or SPAMMING CC:
Secondly, GreenMunchkin, the only reason I made the report this morning was because Kitty was VOTING on the rules regarding membership issues in here, and she is not a member of the forum. Seeing as this is a vote on how we will accept members I didn't think it very appropriate that a non-member was voting in the poll. Also, you were a member here before I even was, and as such I think we all pretty much still consider you a member -- you have a problem with the rules and that is the only reason you are not "officially" participating. I don't know why you feel unwelcome here, honestly... Perhaps I have missed rudeness towards you or something in one of the threads?You're so so lovely! :hug: No, no-one has been anything but wonderful :clap: But the amount of reports for the tiniest thing that were pouring out of CC certainly gave the impression that the place was about as legalistic as it was possible to get. It's so no-one's fault. It just developed that way inexplicably.

As to non-members voting... I agree their actually voting is inappropriate, but getting their thoughts is a great idea, because their thoughts do matter. Thing is, we know who wants to come here to troll because they've done it already and we all know their names and how much they hate conservative Christians, but people who come here in good faith... their opinions matter, I think, maybe :)

ANOTHER APOLOGY
I'm sorry if I've overstepped the bounds as far as reporting people or addressing things in threads when they come up. I was only attempting to help keep this place a little saner.You so didn't. That's why the report button is there :hug:

I'm not angry or upset at anyone right now -- I want to make that clear. And I hope no-one is upset by this post, either.

I will admit freely that I am frustrated because I see no cohesion within the group. It truly feels like everyone is trying to herd cats when it comes to deciding once and for all what the rules should be.
WHY AM I SO FRUSTRATED?
I know it'll eventually get settled, but this has really dragged on, IMHO.
*snipped for space*
OK, this was a really long post... Sorry about that - I think I'm all talked out now (if that's possible ^_^ ).

~~ TangeloperIt was a wonderful post, sis :hug:

I think we're all reaching the end of our ropes. There's no denying this all absolutely SUCKS, and it does feel like it's been going on forever, but we have to remember we're all here for Jesus, and that's the most important thing. Cos He's ace :D :hug:

[Lisa0315]

Well, as far as I can tell CCC has had no new report in the last two days.

Lisa

[MrJim]

Well, as far as I can tell CCC has had no new report in the last two days.

Lisa

It's still early....

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

It's still early....
^_^ I like you Mr.Jim. :)

[HypnoToad]

It's still early....
Depends on your time zone.

Since you are obviously saying I don't matter because of my time zone, I'm gonna have to report your post.

[GreenMunchkin]

^_^ I like you Mr.Jim. :)Concur :D Mr Jimminy rawks!

[GreenMunchkin]

Depends on your time zone.

Since you are obviously saying I don't matter because of my time zone, I'm gonna have to report your post.Roflcopter! :D *laughing* :clap:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Depends on your time zone.

Since you are obviously saying I don't matter because of my time zone, I'm gonna have to report your post.
:doh: ^_^

[Hentenza]

Bump

[Hentenza]

bump

[HypnoToad]

So, several people have stated that having a Mod make a sticky thread with just the membership list that can be locked and unlocked for updating is a good idea. Are we going to do it? Do we need a Mod to make the whole thing, or do you want me (or another member) to make it, and just have a Mod sticky and lock it? What'r we doin'?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

So, several people have stated that having a Mod make a sticky thread with just the membership list that can be locked and unlocked for updating is a good idea. Are we going to do it? Do we need a Mod to make the whole thing, or do you want me (or another member) to make it, and just have a Mod sticky and lock it? What'r we doin'?
I went ahead and made a new thread with the current listing. Perhaps one of the mods can now make it a sticky.

Shouldn't be closed, but would be good if it could be locked so nobody else can post in it and yet I can still update it when needed.

[Lisa0315]

I went ahead and made a new thread with the current listing. Perhaps one of the mods can now make it a sticky.

Shouldn't be closed, but would be good if it could be locked so nobody else can post in it and yet I can still update it when needed.

Since I can do it, I will sticky it and let my trainer know. They are moving to on the job training anyway.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Since I can do it, I will sticky it and let my trainer know. They are moving to on the job training anyway.

Lisa
Cool Lisa...:thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

Cool Lisa...:thumbsup:

I am at work right now, so I will probably wait until after I get home.

Lisa

[ContentInHim]

So how does someone become a member at this point?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

So how does someone become a member at this point?
Good question...but I betcha at this point nobody knows. :sorry: :P

[GreenMunchkin]

I think for the time being, providing they aren't a member of WWMC, and they affirm our wiki, they're free to post away. But for the time being, no voting.

Until we're more settled, that should cover it, maybe?

(Hey, mama! :hug:)

[ContentInHim]

I think for the time being, providing they aren't a member of WWMC, and they affirm our wiki, they're free to post away. But for the time being, no voting.

Until we're more settled, that should cover it, maybe?

(Hey, mama! :hug:)
I agree. Until we find out otherwise, let's reassure this fellow that we agree to him posting. :wave:

http://foru.ms/t5969303-how-do-i-become-a-member.html

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I think for the time being, providing they aren't a member of WWMC, and they affirm our wiki, they're free to post away. But for the time being, no voting.

Until we're more settled, that should cover it, maybe?

(Hey, mama! :hug:)
:wave: Hey honey...:hug:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Since I can do it, I will sticky it and let my trainer know. They are moving to on the job training anyway.

Lisa

I am at work right now, so I will probably wait until after I get home.

Lisa

Hey Lisa...just wanted to remind you about this. :thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

It was already stickied, but I did lock it. We have a new member now. Do you wnant me to unlock it so you can add his name, or do you want to do it weekly? Whatever works for you...

Oh, and add Criada and GreenMunchkin back.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

It was already stickied, but I did lock it. We have a new member now. Do you wnant me to unlock it so you can add his name, or do you want to do it weekly? Whatever works for you...

Oh, and add Criada and GreenMunchkin back.

Lisa
You did? :scratch:

This (http://foru.ms/t5968065-current-membership-thread-no-posting-please.html)thread?

Maybe I'm not understanding the terminology...

Sticky is when it's up above in place right?

Locked is when nobody else can post in the thread...but you can still edit your own posts.

Closed is when nobody can post or edit.

Right? :sorry:

[GreenMunchkin]

You did? :scratch:

This (http://foru.ms/t5968065-current-membership-thread-no-posting-please.html)thread?

Maybe I'm not understanding the terminology...

Sticky is when it's up above in place right?

Locked is when nobody else can post in the thread...but you can still edit your own posts.

Closed is when nobody can post or edit.

Right? :sorry:Correctomundo! Except I'm not sure we can edit locked threads...

Gosh, The Fonze was swell :D

[Lisa0315]

You did? :scratch:

This (http://foru.ms/t5968065-current-membership-thread-no-posting-please.html)thread?

Maybe I'm not understanding the terminology...

Sticky is when it's up above in place right?

Locked is when nobody else can post in the thread...but you can still edit your own posts.

Closed is when nobody can post or edit.

Right? :sorry:

Dang it. No, that is not the one. I do not have an option to lock, only close it. I think it is the same thing. I will ask my trainer that.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Okay, try it now. Should I unsticky the other one?

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Correctomundo! Except I'm not sure we can edit locked threads...

Gosh, The Fonze was swell :D
Yeah he was! Ayyyyeeee...:thumbsup: (Can you hear his gravely way of saying that? ;))
Okay, try it now. Should I unsticky the other one?

Lisa
Yep, probably. Hmmm...maybe not. Well, why not? :D We can always look it up later if we have questions right?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

By the way...thanks Lisa. :)

[Tangeloper]

Okay, try it now. Should I unsticky the other one?

Lisa
If I may make a suggestion, I would personally unsticky both the "Who can vote" thread, as well as the "Sign-in" thread (since it is closed).

If we decide to have a new sign-in thread (when the membership poll is finalized, or even until it is) I think it should solely be for new people to sign-up and confirm their adherence and acceptance of the WIKI rules, and when new members are added we could start a "welcoming thread" for everyone to post their welcomes and getting to know you questions and such...

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

If I may make a suggestion, I would personally unsticky both the "Who can vote" thread, as well as the "Sign-in" thread (since it is closed).

Good idea Tangeloper. :) That way there is less confusion.

[Lisa0315]

Okay, I unstickied the old membership list, "Who can vote", but kept it closed. I left the "Sign In" thread stickied but opened it and posted in it.

I just think the Sign In thread needs to be where we can easily direct people there.

Lisa

[Greenthumb]

Hmm...once again I probably voted too late...but at least I've voted with the majority this time. :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Hmm...once again I probably voted too late...but at least I've voted with the majority this time. :)
Better late than never! :thumbsup: Hi GT...:hug:

[Greenthumb]

Hi Trekki! :wave: :hug:

[GreenMunchkin]

Hmm...once again I probably voted too late...but at least I've voted with the majority this time. :)Yay!!

:clap:Greenie voted!:clap:

That means you came back!

Yay!

:hug::hug::hug:

[Criada]

Voted!
No strings - please. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

Voted!
No strings - please. :)Yay!!! :hug::hug::hug:

Criada voted too!

That means you're back properly, too!

:clap:Yay!:clap:

[HypnoToad]

*bump*

[HyacinthBouquet]

:wave:

Does this mean I can post here or I cannot?

[Lisa0315]

[quote=AprilAngel;38169625]:wave:

nm
Lisa

[Lisa0315]

:wave:

Does this mean I can post here or I cannot?

Do you want to become a member? If so, you should go read our Statement and then, if you agree with our beliefs, just go to the Sign In Thread. Then, Trekki will add you.

Lisa

[Nadiine]

I'm sorry you guys, I feel SO stupid sometimes.
But I kinda don't get the Poll options - what they actually mean. DUH.
:sorry: :o

Maybe someone can hold my widdle hand and tell me which option this is: lol :pink:

I think anybody should be able to join here as long as they agree to the Statement of Belief as to what a Conservative Christian is. I'd hate to keep a brand new Conservative outside if they just joined and didn't have 50 posts yet.

I PRAY this section doesn't turn into a free for all where non Conservatives are signing up just so they can manipulate their way around to undermine our worldview and faith. I can get that anywhere outside this area if I wanted it.
:wave: :holy:
thanks alot!
(now that I just spelled out what I think I'd want, I can see which one I need to vote for LOL) bear with me folks - it's been a long day today hehe

[GreenMunchkin]

I'm sorry you guys, I feel SO stupid sometimes.
But I kinda don't get the Poll options - what they actually mean. DUH.
:sorry: :o

Maybe someone can hold my widdle hand and tell me which option this is: lol :pink:

I think anybody should be able to join here as long as they agree to the Statement of Belief as to what a Conservative Christian is. I'd hate to keep a brand new Conservative outside if they just joined and didn't have 50 posts yet.

I PRAY this section doesn't turn into a free for all where non Conservatives are signing up just so they can manipulate their way around to undermine our worldview and faith. I can get that anywhere outside this area if I wanted it.
:wave: :holy:
thanks alot!:hug: Most people think anyone can sign up, providing they affirm our forum's wiki and don't belong to WWMC.

For a while, there was a suggestion that they have to answer questions, be accepted by 5 current members and have a 50-post minimum :swoon:

That's what this poll is about :)

[Criada]

I'm sorry you guys, I feel SO stupid sometimes.
But I kinda don't get the Poll options - what they actually mean. DUH.
:sorry: :o

Maybe someone can hold my widdle hand and tell me which option this is: lol :pink:

I think anybody should be able to join here as long as they agree to the Statement of Belief as to what a Conservative Christian is. I'd hate to keep a brand new Conservative outside if they just joined and didn't have 50 posts yet.

I PRAY this section doesn't turn into a free for all where non Conservatives are signing up just so they can manipulate their way around to undermine our worldview and faith. I can get that anywhere outside this area if I wanted it.
:wave: :holy:
thanks alot!
(now that I just spelled out what I think I'd want, I can see which one I need to vote for LOL) bear with me folks - it's been a long day today hehe
I think you want option 4! :D

[Lisa0315]

I'm sorry you guys, I feel SO stupid sometimes.
But I kinda don't get the Poll options - what they actually mean. DUH.
:sorry: :o

Maybe someone can hold my widdle hand and tell me which option this is: lol :pink:

I think anybody should be able to join here as long as they agree to the Statement of Belief as to what a Conservative Christian is. I'd hate to keep a brand new Conservative outside if they just joined and didn't have 50 posts yet.

I PRAY this section doesn't turn into a free for all where non Conservatives are signing up just so they can manipulate their way around to undermine our worldview and faith. I can get that anywhere outside this area if I wanted it.
:wave: :holy:
thanks alot!

Hi Nadine,
I will give you a summary of events leading up to this poll.

There were a few who were voting in our polls, and just generally being annoying. So, someone came up with a proposal in the wiki to change the membership from open to closed with the 50 post and 5 member sponsorship. Not everyone, including myself, knew that the rules had been resnapped to include this. In the meantime, there were polls and discussion threads talking about should we close membership. Many of us did not realize that it was already closed.

Well, I hope I am telling this right because I think it might be a sticky subject.

So, this poll is still going on, but we have opened membership up again. The only problem I had with open membership was the Liberal Problem. So, once the rule was added that you cannot have dual membership here and in Libbies, I was okay with open membership.

Hope that covers it.

Lisa

[Nadiine]

:hug: Most people think anyone can sign up, providing they affirm our forum's wiki and don't belong to WWMC.

For a while, there was a suggestion that they have to answer questions, be accepted by 5 current members and have a 50-post minimum :swoon:

That's what this poll is about :)
Ok greeny! I didn't know anything about that before.
I think that's what kinda confused me about why those options were offered at all.
Thanks sweety!

[GreenMunchkin]

Ok greeny! I didn't know anything about that before.
I think that's what kinda confused me about why those options were offered at all.
Thanks sweety!Yah, it was a real bone of contention for a while. People left and there were arguments :( But happily, most people agree with you :clap:

[MrJim]

Ok greeny! I didn't know anything about that before.
I think that's what kinda confused me about why those options were offered at all.
Thanks sweety!

You might understand things better if you didn't have a cat on your head:D :D

[Nadiine]

Yah, it was a real bone of contention for a while. People left and there were arguments :( But happily, most people agree with you :clap:
Here's my dealy - AGREE TO THAT STATEMENT OF BELIEF.
The minute anyone is showing signs of attacking what makes one 'conservative', they should quickly be booted IMHO.

I can totally understand why people would upset & concerned about who joins up - the last thing I want are imposters infiltrating this area to work against us slowly from the inside.

I HOPE that if we make it wide open, that quick action would be done if signs are shown where people are violating the agreement.
Everyone doesn't have to think exactly like we do in every single thing, but conservatives are pretty specific minded and pretty much 99% in agreement on issues in general.

I wish people would [ooops wouldn't] just LEAVE so quickly - try to wait & see how it works out first.

[Nadiine]

You might understand things better if you didn't have a cat on your head:D :D
Oh he's fine up there - it's when he mistakes me for his litter box that I start having some problems. :ebil: :swoon:

[Lisa0315]

Yah, it was a real bone of contention for a while. People left and there were arguments :( But happily, most people agree with you :clap:

There was no bone of contention. You were the only one who got mad over it. Everyone else was just discussing the possibilities.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Here's my dealy - AGREE TO THAT STATEMENT OF BELIEF.
The minute anyone is showing signs of attacking what makes one 'conservative', they should quickly be booted IMHO.

I can totally understand why people would upset & concerned about who joins up - the last thing I want are imposters infiltrating this area to work against us slowly from the inside.

I HOPE that if we make it wide open, that quick action would be done if signs are shown where people are violating the agreement.
Everyone doesn't have to think exactly like we do in every single thing, but conservatives are pretty specific minded and pretty much 99% in agreement on issues in general.

I wish people would just LEAVE so quickly - try to wait & see how it works out first.Aww, sis, it was pretty horrd. I left for a while. It was becoming *so* legalistic and counry-clubby. You would have hated it. But it's opened up a lot now and we don't seem to be having any problems :clap:

God definitely owns CC :D

[MrJim]

It was becoming *so* legalistic and counry-clubby.

God definitely owns CC :D

SSHhhhh, I had Lisa set up to caddy for me tomorrow;)

[GreenMunchkin]

SSHhhhh, I had Lisa set up to caddy for me tomorrow;):D I know you reckon it's a wee bit girly, but the atmosphere