Poll : CA(Congregational Area) Single Forum Ban Protocol

[Tishri1]

I am posting a poll in each forum introducing our CA(Congregational Area)Single Forum Ban Protocol

It is a protocol that each individual forum can use in cases where FSBs(Forum Specific Bans) are needed....

It is not an Area or Site wide Ban protocol just a single congregation's protocol should they choose to use it....

Here is the link to the wiki (http://foru.ms/t5965634-wiki-et-ban-protocol.html#post38013000)and the link to the discussion that follows (http://foru.ms/t5965634&nw_show=comments) please look it over and vote yes I like it or no I dont like it, simple and sweet.....

Your forum can choose to use it or not use it later, right now we just want to know if you like the concept and the wording:thumbsup:

Thanks Everyone for your input,

Love , Tish:hug:

PS PLEASE USE THE WIKI DISCUSSION THREAD FOR YOUR COMMENTS THIS THREAD WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO COMMENTS OK

[IisJustMe]

I am posting a poll in each forum ...Interesting!

Two weeks ago, I posted in most of the congregational forums in support of Erwin's changes. At least a half-dozen mods took action against 3/4 of those posts and closed and /or deleted them, calling it "spam." This was despite the fact I addressed those facts (not really knowing at the time it was a rules violation) by stating I was doing exactly what I did ... just like this thread started out!I

Now the mods use the same tactic to accomplish what they want accomplished, and there is apparently no one to tell them this is "spamming."

Maybe I'll start my own poll, entitled "Is this fair?"

[New_Wineskin]

Interesting!

Two weeks ago, I posted in most of the congregational forums in support of Erwin's changes. At least a half-dozen mods took action against 3/4 of those posts and closed and /or deleted them, calling it "spam." This was despite the fact I addressed those facts (not really knowing at the time it was a rules violation) by stating I was doing exactly what I did ... just like this thread started out!I

Now the mods use the same tactic to accomplish what they want accomplished, and there is apparently no one to tell them this is "spamming."

Maybe I'll start my own poll, entitled "Is this fair?"

You have a valid point . Those who make the rules ( especially christians ) usually consider themselves above their rules .

[BroGinder]

You have a valid point . Those who make the rules ( especially christians ) usually consider themselves above their rules .

Wow! Thats a hard thing to say. I mean I realize there are hypocrites everywhere we go, they are truly the exception to the rule. (no pun intended)

Hypocrisy is not a Godly attribute.

God Bless

[New_Wineskin]

Wow! Thats a hard thing to say. I mean I realize there are hypocrites everywhere we go, they are truly the exception to the rule. (no pun intended)

Hypocrisy is not a Godly attribute.

God Bless

Whether they say it or not , "Do as I say and not as I do" is an idea that people use . They may rationalize it to themselves or they may not even notice that they do it . I have seen people change when they obtain authority . Of course , when it comes to conservative christians , I expect it and would be surprised if I don't see it . I have yet to *not* see it in a conservative christian .

[BroGinder]

It saddens me that anyone tagging themselves as Christians would be anything less than gracious. I mean I know we can sometimes become emotional and react in an un God like manner we are human and do err. However, to be a leader with such an attitude is clearly a shame.

I hope God leads you to a Church that gives you Love and Support and Gracious leadership.

God Bless you

[New_Wineskin]

It saddens me that anyone tagging themselves as Christians would be anything less than gracious. I mean I know we can sometimes become emotional and react in an un God like manner we are human and do err. However, to be a leader with such an attitude is clearly a shame.

I hope God leads you to a Church that gives you Love and Support and Gracious leadership.

God Bless you

It appears to be human nature to consider themselves as hugely important when they obtain the least authority .

I have been *in* the Church at the moment that I was saved . That One Church has the One Leader that is worthy of leadership . I don't need a club proclaiming itself to be a church .

[BroGinder]

As I do not wish to highjack this thread. MAybe we could carry this conversation on in a new thread if you wish. If not thats fine. All I know is a man is not an island unto himself. We need each other, and when we for get that we are no longer part of the Church.

[New_Wineskin]

As I do not wish to highjack this thread. MAybe we could carry this conversation on in a new thread if you wish. If not thats fine.


That would be fine .



All I know is a man is not an island unto himself. We need each other, and when we for get that we are no longer part of the Church.

Well , *I* know that is self contradictory as all groups are islands unto themselves . To belong to such shows that all of them have forgotten it and you say that means that none of them are a part of the Church . That is the nature of dnominationalism .

[Tishri1]

Congregational Area Ban Protocol:
To be used in the SUB-Forums within the Congregational Area ONLY

To be used when a Congregational Area SUB-forum has no protocol developed of its own to effectively handle the would be "serial rules violator"

Effectively using this protocol produces "tough love" no nonsense results, but has in its body the wording needed to apply "grace" as well...


Any Congregational Sub-forum that specifically rejects this policy will not be subject to it, and any Congregational Sub-forum that accepts it should paste a link to it in their forum's Wiki and/or in their FSRs Stickied in their Forum before beginning to apply it.



1st Violation: Send the member a PM that there was a Rule Violation and include a warning that the next violation of this rule will put them at risk* for a 24-48 hour CF ban.
2nd Violation: May Issue a 24-48 hour CF ban* with a PM warning that the next Violation will put them at risk* for a 7 day FSB(Forum Specific Ban).
3rd Violation: May Issue a 7 day FSB ban* and a PM that with the next Violation they will be at risk* of a 2-4 week FSB (for that specific Congregational SUB-forum).
4th Violation: May Issue the 2-4 week FSB* and a warning that the next violation will put them at risk* for a FSB of a whole year (for that specific SUB-forum in the Congregational area) ...**Counsel is also recommended at this point
5th Violation
Ban Committee will form- reviewed by all available ET Area staff with 6 months or more experience.
Vote taken on a year long FSB- taken by all available ET Area staff that have this minimum 6 months experience. All members of this ban committee will have equal voting power. The vote to move to a FSB of one year, will have to be approved by a 3/4 majority.
No 3/4 majority-If a 3/4 majority can not be had then the FSB will automatically be issued for a period of 6 months, and a PM with clear a warning that any continued infraction after that will result in a year long FSB.
E-bans for socks- an immediate e-ban will be given for the creation or use of a sock account to circumvent a forum-wide or site-wide ban

Area Ban-A Warning also that should this member continue his acts of violation in other SUB-forums in the Congregational area, he will be at risk* of an AREA BAN of the entire Congregational area for a year.

Violating a FSB-
A member who violates a FSB at step #1 will receive a 1-day site wide ban.
A member who violates a FSB at step #2 will receive a 7-day site wide ban.
A member who violates a FSB at step #3 will receive a 30-day site wide ban.
Violations of FSBs of any length will result in a SWB of the same length...Bans given for violation of an FSB are not subject to appeal.


* "at risk" was added to insure grace could be applied and yet still leave staff with full authority for those "tough love" cases:thumbsup:

**NOTE about Pastoral Counsel:
After the 4th Violation it is good to seek counsel from the Pastoral Team for your member and yourself to see if any support for changes in behavior can be offered to salvage this person's account. (Also assuming that the staff has been encouraging a change in this member as well). A summary of this person's actions should be brought with a statement from the team. ALSO NOTE THAT PASTORAL STAFF DO NOT BAN THEY COUNSEL ONLY




Please see discussion post #2

snapshot taken 8/27/07

[Tishri1]

Interesting!

Two weeks ago, I posted in most of the congregational forums in support of Erwin's changes. At least a half-dozen mods took action against 3/4 of those posts and closed and /or deleted them, calling it "spam." This was despite the fact I addressed those facts (not really knowing at the time it was a rules violation) by stating I was doing exactly what I did ... just like this thread started out!I

Now the mods use the same tactic to accomplish what they want accomplished, and there is apparently no one to tell them this is "spamming."

Maybe I'll start my own poll, entitled "Is this fair?"

You have a valid point . Those who make the rules ( especially christians ) usually consider themselves above their rules .

Wow! Thats a hard thing to say. I mean I realize there are hypocrites everywhere we go, they are truly the exception to the rule. (no pun intended)

Hypocrisy is not a Godly attribute.

God Bless

Whether they say it or not , "Do as I say and not as I do" is an idea that people use . They may rationalize it to themselves or they may not even notice that they do it . I have seen people change when they obtain authority . Of course , when it comes to conservative christians , I expect it and would be surprised if I don't see it . I have yet to *not* see it in a conservative christian .

It saddens me that anyone tagging themselves as Christians would be anything less than gracious. I mean I know we can sometimes become emotional and react in an un God like manner we are human and do err. However, to be a leader with such an attitude is clearly a shame.

I hope God leads you to a Church that gives you Love and Support and Gracious leadership.

God Bless you

It appears to be human nature to consider themselves as hugely important when they obtain the least authority .

I have been *in* the Church at the moment that I was saved . That One Church has the One Leader that is worthy of leadership . I don't need a club proclaiming itself to be a church .

As I do not wish to highjack this thread. MAybe we could carry this conversation on in a new thread if you wish. If not thats fine. All I know is a man is not an island unto himself. We need each other, and when we for get that we are no longer part of the Church.awe your not talking about lil ol me are you:sigh:

[New_Wineskin]

awe your not talking about lil ol me are you:sigh:

I don't think that Its JustMe mentioned anyone by name .

[Tishri1]

I changed the title because I can see some people are confused by the name and think this is ment to ban folk from all of the Congregational Area and no its just for use in single forums and only if that forum adopts it, or doesnt have one and needs it:wave: