New Rule Proposal

[Lisa0315]

This rule is used in Women's Discussions and allows for positive discussion within a fellowship thread. I have customized it a bit to make it fit to CCC ideals.

The reason for suggesting this rule change is to better define what fellowshipping and debating are, and what kinds of discussion are allowed between members and non-members.

Old Rule #5: 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

Proposed Rule #5: Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-Members may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.
Fellowship can include respectful discussion on non-controversial topics. Discussion is defined as seeking to understand a different viewpoint. Debate is defined as seeking to make someone else understand your viewpoint.
Controversial topics that cannot be discussed by Non-CC members are: Pro-Choice, Homosexuality, or Bible Inerrancy.


This discussion thread will be open for three days, then, will go to a poll. Please comment on any wording additions, changes, or deletions.

At the end of the discussion, the proposed Poll question will be:

Should we change Rule #5 as stated in the OP of the Poll Thread? Yes or No

[HypnoToad]

I don't think it's necessary at all. The "new" version doesn't really give any more information than what is already stated clear enough in the current wording of the specific rule, or stated elsewhere in the current Wiki.

Further, it's not a even a "new" rule anyway, simply re-wording without changing any substance. It shouldn't need to even go through this process.

[Lisa0315]

I don't think it's necessary at all. The "new" version doesn't really give any more information than what is already stated clear enough in the current wording of the specific rule, or stated elsewhere in the current Wiki.

Two other members have suggested a rule change. This was because of a report here in CCC. The problem was that a non-member posted something that was perceived as debating. The mod had to make a judgement call based on perception of what the non-member intended. Admins came in. There was generally disagreement over the call that the mod made.

I am just trying to avoid this kind of issue in the future.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

The new wording still leaves it open to interpretation, and I doubt any wording will ever eliminate that.

Still, it's not a "new" rule. There is no change of substance. It's not a new meaning of the rules, you are only trying to clarify what the rule has always meant. I don't see the need to put it through the "new rule" process. Those who have commented in the Wiki on the new wording don't see any problems with it, so just change it and let's move on.

[Letalis]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this wording. I preferred this:

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

Debate/discussion by non-conservatives can take place in the Debate subforum. Not in the main forum.

[Lisa0315]

The new wording still leaves it open to interpretation, and I doubt any wording will ever eliminate that.

Still, it's not a "new" rule. There is no change of substance. It's not a new meaning of the rules, you are only trying to clarify what the rule has always meant. I don't see the need to put it through the "new rule" process. Those who have commented in the Wiki on the new wording don't see any problems with it, so just change it and let's move on.

I am going by the book on this even if the book hasn't yet been published. Whether you agree or not, I feel this is necessary for more reasons than I care to list. :)

Lisa

[Letalis]

Still, it's not a "new" rule. There is no change of substance. It's not a new meaning of the rules, you are only trying to clarify what the rule has always meant.
Actually, the wording in the OP allows for a lot more "debate" type posts by non-conservatives than the current rule.

[Lisa0315]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this wording. I preferred this:

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

Debate/discussion by non-conservatives can take place in the Debate subforum. Not in the main forum.

It was my understanding that Non-Conservatives are not allowed to Debate or Discuss even in the Debate Sub-Forum.

Lisa

[Letalis]

It was my understanding that Non-Conservatives are not allowed to Debate or Discuss even in the Debate Sub-Forum.

Lisa
I thought that was one of the reasons to create the forum.

[Lisa0315]

I thought that was one of the reasons to create the forum.

If I remember correctly, it was to separate debate from fellowship because at one time there were members who wanted this to be fellowship only.

Lisa

[HypnoToad]

I thought that was one of the reasons to create the forum.
See, I had thought the same thing, only to later find out it was just for CC members.

I don't like the way it's set up. I believe all CC-only discussions, debate or otherwise should be left in the common area. If there's a debate subforum, it should be where a non-member can debate something with members.

If we are "going by the book" - there is no rule in the Wiki that debates among only CC members must be put in a separate subforum.

[GreenMunchkin]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this wording. I preferred this:

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

Debate/discussion by non-conservatives can take place in the Debate subforum. Not in the main forum.That is the current wording as of a few hours ago. It just needs to be codified :)

I thought that was one of the reasons to create the forum.It was. Debate sub-forum is open to everyone. Otherwise it would be moot, no? :scratch:

[Lisa0315]

This rule is used in Women's Discussions and allows for positive discussion within a fellowship thread. I have customized it a bit to make it fit to CCC ideals.

The reason for suggesting this rule change is to better define what fellowshipping and debating are, and what kinds of discussion are allowed between members and non-members.

Old Rule #5: 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

Proposed Rule #5: Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-Members may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.
Discussion and Debate are only allowed by Non-CC members in the Debate Sub Forum. Discussion and Debate are not allowed by non-members on controversial topics.
Controversial topics that cannot be discussed by Non-CC members are: Family Planning, Homosexuality, or Bible Inerrancy.


This discussion thread will be open for three days, then, will go to a poll. Please comment on any wording additions, changes, or deletions.

At the end of the discussion, the proposed Poll question will be:

Should we change Rule #5 as stated in the OP of the Poll Thread? Yes or No

[Lisa0315]

That is the current wording as of a few hours ago. It just needs to be codified :)

It was. Debate sub-forum is open to everyone. Otherwise it would be moot, no? :scratch:

No, Greenie. You are taking this into your own hands and that is not how this forum is supposed to work. Only two people that I am aware of have agreed to this change that you are saying needs to be coded.

I am trying to incorporate your idea as well as clarifying things here.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

No, Greenie. You are taking this into your own hands and that is not how this forum is supposed to work. Only two people that I am aware of have agreed to this change that you are saying needs to be coded.Oh for pete's sake. As we discussed, and as you agreed, it was an alteration of the wording, and not the premise. This here is an entirely separate discussion. Back off, Lisa.

I am trying to incorporate your idea as well as clarifying things here.

LisaI'm sorry, you'll have to clarify which was *my* idea.

[HypnoToad]

That is the current wording as of a few hours ago. It just needs to be codified :)

It was. Debate sub-forum is open to everyone. Otherwise it would be moot, no? :scratch:
But IS IT open to everyone?

I know for a fact there was a debate in there started by a non-member, that has been deleted. I never saw a reason why. It was there one day, vanished the next.

And I have seen other people comment that the debate subforum is CC-only.

[HypnoToad]

Back off, Lisa.

Let's try and keep it nice, please. :pray:

[Lisa0315]

Oh for pete's sake. As we discussed, and as you agreed, it was an alteration of the wording, and not the premise. This here is an entirely separate discussion. Back off, Lisa.

I'm sorry, you'll have to clarify which was *my* idea.

There is no need to get snippy, Greenie. When I agreed to that, it was before the report became so convoluted. This is necessary.

Your idea or you seconded it, I don't remember. I just remember it was in the Protocol rather than in an open thread. Protocol is not even in CCC, but over in the wiki, so I was asking both of you to bring it here for discussion. When you didn't and things happened as they did in the report, I got advice from upper staff. This was the suggestion and for all to see and discuss.

If y'all don't like the idea that is fine. Have I ever gotten upset when members didn't like my ideas? I haven't and I won't, but I am not going to be told "Back off!" like I am some meat-eating T-rex out to get you. That was uncalled for.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

But IS IT open to everyone?

I know for a fact there was a debate in there started by a non-member, that has been deleted. I never saw a reason why. It was there one day, vanished the next.

And I have seen other people comment that the debate subforum is CC-only.Really? No, it's totally open to everyone. That was it's whole purpose. It's why we can loosen up all our membership rules, cos anything that starts crossing a line can just get moved there.

How do we clarify that? Cos not everyone reads the wiki. Unless we created a sticky in there stating it's for everyone... that's possible. Do you think that would clear it all up?

[HypnoToad]

Really? No, it's totally open to everyone. That was it's whole purpose. It's why we can loosen up all our membership rules, cos anything that starts crossing a line can just get moved there.

How do we clarify that? Cos not everyone reads the wiki. Unless we created a sticky in there stating it's for everyone... that's possible. Do you think that would clear it all up?
Well I've said before I'm against having ALL debates put into a subforum. I firmly believe, if we are to have a debate subform, it should be strictly for non-members to start a thread if they want to debate members. Debate that is among CC-members only should be left in the common area.

[Lisa0315]

Really? No, it's totally open to everyone. That was it's whole purpose. It's why we can loosen up all our membership rules, cos anything that starts crossing a line can just get moved there.

How do we clarify that? Cos not everyone reads the wiki. Unless we created a sticky in there stating it's for everyone... that's possible. Do you think that would clear it all up?

That might do it. I still want a rule that says non-CC members cannot debate controversial issues, but I will go with whatever the group wants.

I say that in sincere selfishness, and I admit that. It is because I expect serious reports if we allow debating on those topics.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Well I've said before I'm against having ALL debates put into a subforum. I firmly believe, if we are to have a debate subform, it should be strictly for non-members to start a thread if they want to debate members. Debate that is among CC-members only should be left in the common area.Ahh, ok. This is getting complicated :help: Your way makes sense. Oh, except, if we do it that way, I think someone is bound to ask why, given there's a whole debate forum... but, if it's where anyone can debate the conservative viewpoint, that makes sense. I think? Getting brain freeze again.

Good thing it came up, though, because it looks like there's no agreed understanding as to its purpose and there definitely needs to be.

[Greenthumb]

I always thought the debate subforum was for all debate...CC to debate with non-CC and CC members to debate one another. If I remember correctly...some of the debates in the past became heated even among members. Hmm...um...where am I going with this? :scratch: :o Oh...yeah. If we have debate in the main section for CC members, will those threads get moved if they turn feisty? Or will we just clean them up and leave them in the main forum? (Not that I'll be debating...just curious is all).

[HypnoToad]

What do you mean by "feisty"? As long as there's no rule violations, there's no need to move them. Deal with violations in debate threads the same as violations in all threads.

[MrJim]

The rules ain't been around long enough to be old rules, how 'bout we just sorta cruise along here for a few days before changin' stuff again?

:tutu:
^ no clue what this smilie means

[jameseb]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this wording. I preferred this:

Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

Debate/discussion by non-conservatives can take place in the Debate subforum. Not in the main forum.


Well, obviously I'm in agreeance (yes that really is a word) with that. ;)

[Lisa0315]

Okay, can we stick to the discussion regarding the rule proposal in the OP?

Please state if you agree and why or why not. Please make some suggestions on how we can improve the proposed rule.

Please remember that the cause for this is a report that our rules did not really cover, at least not as fairly as I would hope to make them.

I am trying to add some language that would state if ANY discussion from outsiders is allowable or not. We need to make this more actionable for mods.

Fellowshipping is a very gray word that can mean alot of things to alot of people. So, is debate and discussion. Help me customize the language specific to the forum needs.

Lisa

[Criada]

Um - I though anyone could post in the debate forum...
if not, I think we should change it so that they can.

Also - am a little worried about the list of 'controversial topics'. For two reasons -

1. If we have strong beliefs on these issues, surely we need to be able to defend them, without getting defensive and refusing to talk about them. Cos - it is important that others know why we believe what we do - rather than saying "we're right., you're wrong - if you disagree we'll report you!"

2. Why just these three?? We can't make a list of everything that we think is controversial - so why try?


Colossians 4:5-7
5Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

[Lisa0315]

Um - I though anyone could post in the debate forum...
if not, I think we should change it so that they can.

Also - am a little worried about the list of 'controversial topics'. For two reasons -

1. If we have strong beliefs on these issues, surely we need to be able to defend them, without getting defensive and refusing to talk about them. Cos - it is important that others know why we believe what we do - rather than saying "we're right., you're wrong - if you disagree we'll report you!"

2. Why just these three?? We can't make a list of everything that we think is controversial - so why try?


Colossians 4:5-7
5Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Well, at the time, I was concerned about a recent report in which the person was cited for debating.

Honestly, I think that Regular Forums should be Fellowship and Debate Forums should be Debate. Let whomever wants to debate with us come. We have Truth on our side.

But, that's just me.

Lisa

[Nadiine]

This rule is used in Women's Discussions and allows for positive discussion within a fellowship thread. I have customized it a bit to make it fit to CCC ideals.

The reason for suggesting this rule change is to better define what fellowshipping and debating are, and what kinds of discussion are allowed between members and non-members.

Old Rule #5: 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

Proposed Rule #5: Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts only. Non-Members may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.
Fellowship can include respectful discussion on non-controversial topics. Discussion is defined as seeking to understand a different viewpoint. Debate is defined as seeking to make someone else understand your viewpoint.
Controversial topics that cannot be discussed by Non-CC members are: Pro-Choice, Homosexuality, or Bible Inerrancy.


This discussion thread will be open for three days, then, will go to a poll. Please comment on any wording additions, changes, or deletions.

At the end of the discussion, the proposed Poll question will be:

Should we change Rule #5 as stated in the OP of the Poll Thread? Yes or No


I kind of agree with Criada - if we don't allow any exchange of WHY we believe something, then it becomes "we say so" and can't defend why it is we hold that belief. (where some biblical witnessing could be used in support)??

My only worry is in shutting out much discourse where we become the dominant worldview where everyone has to just listen to us & that's it.
It's important and necessary to do in some threads/sections, but if we enforce our view too dominantly, we run the risk of abandoning & isolating ourselves for the sake of trying not to get as many reports as other sections.

Decisions can be hard - that's alot to weigh out.

Just some input for thought - I see both sides of this one.

[Lisa0315]

Okay, well this thread is supposed to run for three days. Does anyone want to attempt to write a rule that will address the things that has come out of the discussion? I will take a stab at it.

Proposed Rule #5: Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts in the Regular area of CC forums. Non-Members may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice. Non-members may discuss and debate in the CC Debate Sub Forum.

[Letalis]

Looks good to me. :)

[Criada]

:thumbsup:

[JimfromOhio]

Sounds good.

[Lisa0315]

:wave: Lurk up there all you want R, but do not post. This is not a fellowship thread.

Lisa