Derails from NG101 thread

[Tonks]

Hey guys. Julio started a thread today discussing his concerns with all the attacks he's receiving lately, and looking for advice as to whether he should remain a mod. And a number of members posted some wonderful words of encouragement for him. Since that whole thread was deleted, I think it would be great if we could use this thread to rally behind him and show him some encouragement for when he returns from his exams.

(And Jim, if there is any way to resurrect the responses to him in that deleted thread and paste them here, that would be wonderful. Thanks.)

Julio, I'm praying for you. I enjoy having you as a mod here. If you choose not to continue with it, I respect that also. Whatever you do, you have my support. I am sorry you are being so attacked and slandered on these forums right now. There is nothing Christ-like about these people's behavior. I admire you for standing for God's truth even while you encounter so much abuse. Consider it all joy, brother. :hug:

You're missing the point entirely. As indicated in his election Q&A by both Theology Admins...NG101 has had a history of continual problems in the Theology section since he joined the site. You folks elected him with full knowledge of this - and this is your right.

After a series of issues I received a request from my staff to contact the ET staff to address some of NG101's behavior in the Theology Forums. I pushed it over to the ET Admins and it was pushed down the appropriate chain of command on the ET side.

Things went screwy when he decided to post the contents of the PM sent to him in a thread where he decided to play the martry card. Beyond the fact that he didn't have permission to post the ET staff member's PM openly - he certainly did not have my permission to post the PM...a large chunk of which included my original remarks to his Admins.

I don't care if CCC elected him with no dissenting votes...he still must follow the site rules. He can post whatever he likes in CCC and the members / ET staff can deal with him.

When he begins to cause trouble again in my forums it is out of ETs hands - regardless of who elected him. Many people participate in Discussions on Homosexuality with no problem - saying much the same things as NG101 does. It is not what you say, but how you say it.

He wanted to be a moderator and so he is expected to act like a moderator - to include not posting PMs etc because he feels targeted. In my PM to the ET Admins I asked that this be handled staff-to-staff as I think that there was just a misunderstanding as to how mods are expected to post. It was not any of us that decided to post the private PMs and cry wolf.

This is a problem of his own making.

[desmalia]

I was well aware of the friction that has gone on in the other forums, and I believe the other members that voted for him here were also well aware. It's not a secret! The difference is that we support his desire to speak the truth boldly and honor his convictions regarding Scripture. He can be a little rough around the edges and I have no doubt that this will soften as he gets a little older. However it is no excuse to beat him up over and over. I don't blame him for starting that thread that was deleted here. Perhaps he should have asked for permission before quoting the PM's, but he did take the time to remove names so it was still anonymous. I don't blame him for feeling like he's being ganged up on. If he's going to be treated that way, he should be allowed to seek a little support and encouragement from his friends in this forum.

I respectfully ask that you not turn this thread into another debate as it is meant to be a postive one, and we already have a debate going in another forum about this. Thanks.

[Tonks]

In case anyone wonders, here are the procedures that I followed:

Staff Chain of Command (http://foru.ms/t5729467)

Internal Staff Protocol (http://foru.ms/t5671396-wiki-forums-internal-staff-protocol.html)
Staff Disciplinary Issues


All staff discipline should be done by the immediate manager: Discipline of mods and supermods goes to Team Leaders. Discipline of Admins and Superadmins goes to the CEO via the Review Committee as he sees fit.

Documentation is private and stored in the HR file, but will be revealed to electors during recall or re-election. Documentation is retained if a staff member transfers. Appeals to the following will be sent to the site chaplain and CEO.

Counseling - Direct managers should send a counseling PM as official documentation and change request for a disciplinary issue.

Reprimand - Direct managers should send a Letter of Reprimand after two counseling PMs, or in the case of an egregious issue. Staff have the right to appeal any Letters of Reprimand to next level of staff. If they appeal the LOR, there must be open and full communication during the appeal giving staff the same right to a defense any member would be given. If a staff member receives two LORs within one year, the Standard Removal Procedure begins.

Standard Removal Procedures - Mods, Supermods, and Admins may be removed by the Recall Process (http://www.christianforums.com/t5679901-wiki-recall-of-moderators.html). Superadmins are removed by the CEO.

Emergency Removal Procedures - Serious problems including but not restricted to: threats of harm, site hacking, release of personal information (of members or staff), stalking or harassment - can result in the decision for immediate and unconditional removal from staff. This decision is made by admin (in the case of a mod/supermod) or CEO (in the case of an admin or superadmin).

Regarding the confidentiality issue, this is addressed in the Confidentiality Statement for Staff (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?t=5689833-wiki-wiki-confidentiality-statement-for-staff.html):

All current and new staff agree as part of CF Staff to maintain confidentiality and not divulge any information regarding these areas (shown below) to non staff:

Superadministrator Support Requests (including IP checks)
Staff Away Notifications
Recovery Team (this forum is private)
Reporters names (for all reports)
Information seen by staffers which members have hidden
Private Staff Forums (including old Staff forums)
PM's received from members (with the exception of PMs in connection with a report, which become part of the public record of that report)
Personal information of staff or members (email, name, phone, IM, location)
Information forwarded to or discussed by the pastoral counseling team
Any future developments in CF which are private/confidential in nature are also included in this confidentiality statement.

Please note: 1st violation of this rule will result in a letter of counsel administered by the staff members supervisor. If counsel has not effectively corrected the problem the next course of action will be removal from staff with a consensus vote from the staff members team.

[Tonks]

I was well aware of the friction that has gone on in the other forums, and I believe the other members that voted for him here were also well aware. It's not a secret! The difference is that we support his desire to speak the truth boldly and honor his convictions regarding Scripture.

Your desire for him to "speak the truth boldly" does not extend across every forum of the site. The concerns of those who elected him are irrelevant when it comes to actual rules violations elsewhere on the site.

At any rate, staff is handling this now.

ETA: you'll also note that my name, too, is on the list of members of this particular forum

[Tonks]

Well, maybe R. considers that a "fellowship post".

I'm getting pretty upset that NG is in trouble for posting conservative opinion and being a mod trainee and other mod trainees on the liberal side are permitted to post their opinions without any problem. We conservatives get flamed as fundamentalists all the time - quite frankly I just put on my flameproof Armor of God and march on though I used to report such posts fairly frequently.

If the liberal side of the church is permitted to have mods who spout flames at conservatives, why is the conservative side of the church not permitted the same courtesy? :scratch:

Once again, it had nothing to do with his opinion but the manner in which he stated his opinion and the fact that he is expected to follow the rules a bit better than the rest of the membership.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

[Melethiel]

Well, maybe R. considers that a "fellowship post".

I'm getting pretty upset that NG is in trouble for posting conservative opinion and being a mod trainee and other mod trainees on the liberal side are permitted to post their opinions without any problem. We conservatives get flamed as fundamentalists all the time - quite frankly I just put on my flameproof Armor of God and march on though I used to report such posts fairly frequently.

If the liberal side of the church is permitted to have mods who spout flames at conservatives, why is the conservative side of the church not permitted the same courtesy? :scratch:
He's allowed to post conservative opinions. Many people do, and never run afoul of the mods. And, despite his comments about the "liberal Theology mods," a large number of us are actually quite conservative. Both Tonks and myself are listed as members of this forum.

The problem is the rules. There are certain rules in place for certain Theology forums, which have been drawn up by the members of those forums. NG chooses to flagrantly disregard them. Defending the Gospel and conservative opinions does not extent to disregarding the rules at will. This is particularly troublesome when he has the moderator icon - as a moderator, he is sworn to uphold the rules.

As for the "witch hunt" statements - we were initially discussing this in private. He chose to make it public.

[Jim47]

Tonks and Mel are right. NG has never been chastised for defending the gospil. What he chooses to do is to flame and harass those who have different beliefs then he does. Telling them they are not Christians and the like.

No one is ever criticized for defending the gospil, but we also don't have to walk on other people to do that. The rules for this site guarentee equeal posting privledges to all.

Also, I just moved his report back to ET reports.

[Tonks]

It appears that the original report regarding NG101 based on his post has been moved back to the report queue and closed and will be discussed in the ET HQ. Since my comments are part of the report record I will reproduce them here so that all may see what touched this off (from my end).

[Tonks]

Good evening,

As indicated above I'm the individual that originally contacted the Ecumencial Team leaders regarding NewGuy101. Many of the comments in the OP were mine. Here is the original PM that I sent (I'll further explalin my concerns in the next post so that this is not too long):


Good evening.

I'm sending this to all the ET Admins as I'm not sure who handles what anymore...I suspect that it is in the lane of my Protestant brethren.

I'm, likewise, not sure what the staff chain is for dealing with issues from staffers from other teams. That being said, I'd appreciate it if one of the Admins could speak to one of your trainees, NewGuy101.

NG101 has a long, long history in the Theology forums - particularly in the Discussions about Homosexuality subforum of CP&E of trouble. His targets are routinely Liberal Christians (who he declares either "not Christian" or folks that worship some other God) and Christians that are either 1) struggling with the sin of homosexuality or 2) openly homosexual.

He has been under several forum specific bans from Theology and there is at least once under the old system where I banned him from the entire site for a month or more due to a rapid accumulation of Infractions.

There were several issues right after 777 wherein I asked him to knock it off and things went dark. He's recently come back on net with some issues. The relevant reports, which Theology finds troubling - if not outright violations - are linked below.

Report 1 (http://foru.ms/t5991833-debates-on-homosexuality-newguy101-08-27-2007.html)

Report 2 (http://foru.ms/t5993530-debates-on-homosexuality-newguy101-08-28-2007.html)

Report 3 (http://foru.ms/t5993902-debates-on-homosexuality-newguy101-08-27-2007.html)

Report 4 (http://foru.ms/t5997362-debates-on-homosexuality-newguy101-08-28-2007.html)

Likewise, in his election Q&A (http://foru.ms/t5790602) in CCC I addressed the issue of his previous behavior in Theology.

My remarks (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=37244063&postcount=36):


I'd like to echo Melethiel's remarks regarding the number of reports that have passed through Theology's gates in the recent past.

It is pretty clear that you have the votes so I welcome you, wish you luck, and pray for fair moderation. On the same token, if I see the word "homos" again or continued ripping on WWMC / liberal Christians in any of the Theology forums I'm going to be exceptionally displeased as I believe that it is inappropriate for staff members to post in such a manner.

His response (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=37247967&postcount=37):


It wont occur, I actually didn't think it was regarded as derogatory.

Fundie is short for fundamentalist...

Homo short for homosexual....

Theology would, of course, prefer to handle this matter staff-to-staff without making an issue of things. We request that you make NG101 aware of our concerns and provide guidance and counseling as we hold staff to a higher standard...even though we (myself definitely included) stumble from time to time.

pax vobiscum,
Matt

[Tonks]

My PM was based upon several issues - some of which were observed by myself. There was a request from one of Theology's supermoderators to contact the ET leaders based upon a reoccurance of behaviors we'd seen from NewGuy101 in the past. That request generated the PM that you see above.

I received a PM from Jim47 indicating that he would be handling the situation. My response to him was this (there was more than 1 person in the "To" field):


Thanks, all. Wasn't sure what the proper process was.

Matt

My last contact with Jim47 on the matter (prior to reading this dicussion) was this:


Three more...

http://foru.ms/t6004915-debates-on-h...8-30-2007.html (http://foru.ms/t6004915-debates-on-homosexuality-newguy101-08-30-2007.html)

http://foru.ms/t6005018-debates-on-h...8-30-2007.html (http://foru.ms/t6005018-debates-on-homosexuality-newguy101-08-30-2007.html)

http://foru.ms/t6005791-debates-on-h...8-30-2007.html (http://foru.ms/t6005791-debates-on-homosexuality-newguy101-08-30-2007.html)


Likewise, I received a PM (titled: concerns about a mod in training) out of the blue from a supermoderator from another team (not Theology or Ecumencial) who indicated - and I'll paraphrase since I haven't asked permission to post the PM - that they had received several PMs from their members who expressed concern about NG101 being a mod in training. The reason that I was on the PM was, as stated, because I was involved in the discussion about NG101 becoming a moderator in the CC forum (and there were open reports in the Theology queue).

I have no viz on the concerns as I didn't ask.

Likewise, I think that NG101 has suffered from what I can only call "The Rochir Effect (http://foru.ms/t6006075-i-am-a-moderator-yet.html)" as there were comments in our reports from members wondering whether things posted in our forums were proper. Much of the confusion was due to the trainee status, I think. I don't think, however, that such a situation excuses anything. As I indicated in the Rochir thread, and in his mod app Q&A that remarks when when has a staff badge it carries a bit of a "staff imprimatur."

Under the old rules NG101 had several issues following the rules...which led to FSBs which he violated at will...which, among other things (three infractions in 1-2 months) which led to a month-long ban from the site.

Regarding the OP, per my posted PM I never asked for any real prescriptive action other than that NG101 be talked to. To be honest, I probably would have said much the same things regarding the proper manner in which to post.

Regarding NG101's remarks about being "muffled" and not allowed to "defend the Scriptures..." please spare me the martyr complex as that has nothing to do with the current situation.

Moderation, particularly, in a debate forum is a continual game of "not that rock." If I got spun up about every post I found critical of my theology and posted mere "drive by" throughts I'd come into some serious staff contact as well (as my record just after joining CF will indicate...). The point is that there are many people that debate in Discussion on Homosexuality that share much of NG101's thoughts / theology...yet they manage to post in a manner which does not result in continual staff contact, FSBs etc. It is not what you say, but how you say it...a fact which seems lost in this current situation.

My remarks regarding WWMC / Liberal Christians had nothing to do with him posting in WWMC...but his remarks about WWMC and Liberal Christians in the Theology area.

Lastly, NewGuy101 was entirely incorrect in posting Jim47's PM in the CC area in support of his "defense" / complaint. This is entirely inapropriate behavior for staff - even a trainee and needs to be corrected...and quickly.

I have no problem if this thread is returned to public view or if my various PMs are shown.

m

[Tonks]

Lastly, and I just sent this to the relevant parties involved...there seems to be some confusion as to what Theology actually requested. The report due to the posting of the counseling PM / ET internal stuff is out completely outside my lane. Whatever happens is the ecumencial team's decision.

Below is the PM that I sent regarding what I would like to *see* happen (and was written before I knew that the report had been moved back). So, this is the beginning and end of Theology's concerns. You are, of course, free to discuss, PM me with questions etc etc...but we were not seeking the removal of NG101.

Hello all,

Time out. I never wanted NG101 to be subject to a recall or be removed from staff. We all make mistakes...all I wanted was to ensure that he posted within the Theology forum rules.

The reports were already worked (at least from Theology's end). It was the beginning, in our view, of a pattern that we had seen from NG101 in the past - an inability to follow the most basic rules.

All I (we) wanted was to ensure that NG101 will abide by the following when posting in the Discussions on Homosexuality forum:

B. Debates on Homosexuality
No accusing someone of not being a christian
No off topic posts
No unsupported accusations of discrimination

Actions taken by ET due to the moved report are in your lane. I'm going to post this in the report thread and I consider the matter closed from our end.

I, personally, think that the report thread should be moved back and worked per normal. I'd like my comments to remain.

Matt

[GreenMunchkin]

This is not the place for this, Tonks.

[Tonks]

This is not the place for this, Tonks.

That's not really a decision for you to make as I'm a member of this forum as well. If you're going to throw up these "threads of support" you should at least know what I actually asked.

I expect a bit more, frankly, from a mod-to-be.

[Lisa0315]

This is not the place for this, Tonks.

You know what? I agree. This is supposed to be CCC's support thread for NewGuy. It is not supposed to be staff's defense of the actions against him. I am going to go edit my post here, and I am going to ask Tonks and Jim to do the same. NewGuy should be able to come back and see this thread and know that we still love him and support him whether he is a mod or not, whether he has broken rules or not.

I am glad you said that. :thumbsup:

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

That's not really a decision for you to make as I'm a member of this forum as well. If you're going to throw up these "threads of support" you should at least know what I actually asked.

I expect a bit more, frankly, from a mod-to-be.

No, Tonks. GreenMunchkin is right. There is a place for staff to make their case. NewGuy deserves a thread in which his co-members are showing their love to him...especially now. Would you edit your posts? I know you are a member and you do not have to do it. I am just asking "pretty please".

Lisa

[Tonks]

You know what? I agree. This is supposed to be CCC's support thread for NewGuy. It is not supposed to be staff's defense of the actions against him. I am going to go edit my post here, and I am going to ask Tonks and Jim to do the same. NewGuy should be able to come back and see this thread and know that we still love him and support him whether he is a mod or not, whether he has broken rules or not.

I am glad you said that. :thumbsup:

Lisa

I'm not editing my post(s). This whole thread was based on a false premise and lack of information. Your support is misguided as I never asked him to be removed - merely follow the rules. As a moderator I expect you to understand this fact.

My posts don't violate any rules and will not be removed. Period.

[Tonks]

Would you edit your posts? I know you are a member and you do not have to do it. I am just asking "pretty please".

Lisa

No. Full Stop.

[Lisa0315]

I'm not editing my post(s). This whole thread was based on a false premise and lack of information. Your support is misguided as I never asked him to be removed - merely follow the rules. As a moderator I expect you to understand this fact.

My posts don't violate any rules and will not be removed. Period.

I know you have not broken any rules. I know that. I wasn't saying that at all. I do not support what NewGuy did, but I do support him as a person. He is our brother. He has fallen. Let's lift him up. Action is required on this. I understand that, and I support you and Jim. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. At the same time, that does not mean that we cannot have a thread that is PURELY to love our brother. He needs that now more than ever.

Lisa

[Tonks]

Here is the relevant bit from the OP. I'd like you to explain where, exactly, I attacked him. This entire thread was started on a false premise based on a lack of information.

Hey guys. Julio started a thread today discussing his concerns with all the attacks he's receiving lately, and looking for advice as to whether he should remain a mod.

[Lisa0315]

Here is the relevant bit from the OP. I'd like you to explain where, exactly, I attacked him. This entire thread was started on a false premise based on a lack of information.

[/color][/size]

I didn't read that as staff was attacking him. I understood that to be in regards to the reports made against him.

Lisa

[Jim47]

I know you have not broken any rules. I know that. I wasn't saying that at all. I do not support what NewGuy did, but I do support him as a person. He is our brother. He has fallen. Let's lift him up. Action is required on this. I understand that, and I support you and Jim. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. At the same time, that does not mean that we cannot have a thread that is PURELY to love our brother. He needs that now more than ever.

Lisa



I can agree with that, as long as someone doesn't try to justify what he did, that would be wrong.

My PM to him was to try to get him to listen and to council him. I am still willing to do that, but he has to be a willing recipient and listen.

[Tonks]

I know you have not broken any rules. I know that. I wasn't saying that at all. I do not support what NewGuy did, but I do support him as a person. He is our brother. He has fallen. Let's lift him up. Action is required on this. I understand that, and I support you and Jim. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. At the same time, that does not mean that we cannot have a thread that is PURELY to love our brother. He needs that now more than ever.

Lisa

I support NG101 too as I don't want him removed. I, however, don't need a thread where staff is dragged through the mud to support "a member" when the entire premise of the thread is incorrect.

NG101 is my brother, he erred, should be spoken to, and then we'll lift him up. Frankly, at least NG101 has been mostly up front in his original thread...this thread is full of nothing but half-truths about assumed circumstances.

I'd expect a bit of perspective and guidance from the titular leader of the forum, Lisa.

[Tonks]

I didn't read that as staff was attacking him. I understood that to be in regards to the reports made against him.

Lisa

I'd prefer if you, as a mod of the CC area, note that the threads were not "attacks" on his views but actual rule violations.

This is where mod stewardship and pastoral guidance comes in...you have to be willing to rise above the fray.

[Lisa0315]

I support NG101 too as I don't want him removed. I, however, don't need a thread where staff is dragged through the mud to support "a member" when the entire premise of the thread is incorrect.

NG101 is my brother, he erred, should be spoken to, and then we'll lift him up. Frankly, at least NG101 has been mostly up front in his original thread...this thread is full of nothing but half-truths about assumed circumstances.

I'd expect a bit of perspective and guidance from the titular leader of the forum, Lisa.

I am not the titular leader of this forum. I am just a mod. If anyone is that, I suppose it would be Jim or Sophia, right?

I don't want to argue with you. I just happen to disagree on what this thread is about.

He is wrong. No one is arguing that. However, why don't we just let this go for now? Your side of the story is going to come out. You have the evidence to back it up.

It just feels wrong to me, Tonks. It feels like kicking a dog or something.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

That's not really a decision for you to make as I'm a member of this forum as well. If you're going to throw up these "threads of support" you should at least know what I actually asked.

I expect a bit more, frankly, from a mod-to-be.I just replied to your pm, and I thought we were getting somewhere. So I'm gonna wait to see if you recant this unnecessarily combative statement.

This thread is solely about giving him some support. Everything else should be moved to a thread for officially discussing his future as a mod.

[Tangeloper]

As for the "witch hunt" statements - we were initially discussing this in private. He chose to make it public.

Since I made one of the "witch hunt" statements I would like to clarify something. I was unaware of him posting the private messages. I don't think that was a good decision on his part.

As for the liberal MEMBERS (and some mods, btw) of this forum who delight in mocking conservatives, and continually post things that are rude and "flaming", and have signatures that attack conservatives -- I have seen a LOT of that going on, and these people are NEVER taken to task for it that I am aware of (I've only been here a short while, but I've seen many things like this already).

Conservatives are constantly accused of being prejudiced, bigoted, etc... within our society because we choose to defend our deeply held religious beliefs without mincing words. I've learned over the years to employ different methods of debate in order to try my hardest to avoid directly attacking an individual. BUT, despite trying my hardest, and being diplomatic, and reasonable, I still get these charges thrown at me. (Even when my statements are CLEARLY not ad hominem attacks.)

The truth really, honestly is that there are some liberals (and yes others, too) that are SO afraid of thinking that differs from their own that they see "flames" everywhere they look. Mere words seem to cause these people no end of consternation, and they instantly try to silence their opposition with charges of racism, flaming, rudeness, "unfairness", etc... etc...

Well, I'm done ranting about this (this post is long enough already).

I'll post an observation/opinion to end this post:
Isn't it odd that those who are scared of conservative thinking are the ones who decide to live their lives not in accordance with our views (i.e. Conservative Religious morals)? And, isn't it odd that conservatives who hold scripture and the Lord as the highest authority continue to turn their cheeks on a daily basis only rarely striking out (reporting) those who flame them??? Which is the group that practices REAL tolerance???

[JoeWill]

Possibly the answer is to make a change the original post that some people felt they have to respond to?

[Lisa0315]

I'd prefer if you, as a mod of the CC area, note that the threads were not "attacks" on his views but actual rule violations.

This is where mod stewardship and pastoral guidance comes in...you have to be willing to rise above the fray.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I know they were rule violations. I was the one who pointed it out that the revelation of confidential PM's had occurrred.

I have kept out of this, tried to remain neutral on this, but what I am seeing is that the members I represent are getting more and more upset. I knew they were going to be. I am trying to soothe this situation and while you are fully in your rights, in a way, you are stirring the pot here.

So, while you have expectations of me, I also have some for you. I expect you as a Senior Staff member to set the example here. While you expect me to rise above the fray, I expect you not to be in the middle of it.

Tonks, You are going to have your "day in court". There is just no need to try the case here at this moment in this place.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Possibly the answer is to make a change the original post that some people felt they have to respond to?That entire thread was trashed, Joe. This thread is a completely different thing. Completely different.

[Lisa0315]

Possibly the answer is to make a change the original post that some people felt they have to respond to?

Gosh, please do. I would forever be in your debt. In fact, if you, as the OP would like to close this thread and start another PURELY support thread, I will be happy to assist you with that.

Lisa

[MrJim]

I just replied to your pm, and I thought we were getting somewhere. So I'm gonna wait to see if you recant this unnecessarily combative statement.

This thread is solely about giving him some support. Everything else should be moved to a thread for officially discussing his future as a mod.

I agree with GM & Lisa on this stuff.

I read the reports, while they may be rule violations I agreed with NG on what he said, probably would have said same if in his shoes, right or wrong.

But hey it's always something around here:doh:

[Letalis]

Really, removal from staff is a matter for the members to decide.

[Tonks]

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I know they were rule violations. I was the one who pointed it out that the revelation of confidential PM's had occurrred.

I have kept out of this, tried to remain neutral on this, but what I am seeing is that the members I represent are getting more and more upset. I knew they were going to be. I am trying to soothe this situation and while you are fully in your rights, in a way, you are stirring the pot here.

In re: the bolded part. I'm also a member of this forum as well (I'm even "the list"). As such, you represent me as well even when there is some daylight between us.

So, while you have expectations of me, I also have some for you. I expect you as a Senior Staff member to set the example here. While you expect me to rise above the fray, I expect you not to be in the middle of it.

Tonks, You are going to have your "day in court". There is just no need to try the case here at this moment in this place.

Lisa

To begin with, I don't require a "day in court" as all I asked was that someone follow forum guidelines. Had this remained private and NG101 followed the agreement that he signed this thread never would have happened.

So...this begs the question, Lisa, coming from a member of the forum which you moderate, why does brother Julio need to be lifted up? As indicated...we have no problem whatsoever with his theology / political views / whatever.

[Tonks]

Really, removal from staff is a matter for the members to decide.

Which I never asked for, by the by.

[Melethiel]

Guys, step back for a minute. You too, Tonks.

I understand that this thread was supposed to be a support thread for NG - regardless of his wrongdoing and his own fault in causing the current situation, it is a stressful thing to be raked over the coals, particularly during exam times. I also know, from personal experience, that being under outside stress (such as exams) can cause a person to do or say things they will later regret. However, from our end, we have no wish to have motives impugned to us which simply aren't there, and WILL defend ourselves. As such, I'm willing to remove my posts, and encourage Tonks to do so as well, IF the other posters in this thread will correct their posts to reflect the facts of this situation.

[MrJim]

It would seem if we wanted imput from admin we'd asked for it. Yeah, pack up your comments and start your own trial thread if you are bent on having a trial here~it's not what this thread is for.

If you think you need to "educate" us then PM the info or start your "truth" thread elsewhere.

[Lisa0315]

In re: the bolded part. I'm also a member of this forum as well (I'm even "the list"). As such, you represent me as well even when there is some daylight between us.



To begin with, I don't require a "day in court" as all I asked was that someone follow forum guidelines. Had this remained private and NG101 followed the agreement that he signed this thread never would have happened.

So...this begs the question, Lisa, coming from a member of the forum which you moderate, why does brother Julio need to be lifted up? As indicated...we have no problem whatsoever with his theology / political views / whatever.

Because he was very down and depressed when he left to go take his exams. Because when he returns, he is going to find out that he has made a serious error that may mean his removal from staff before he even got started. Because our brother has done something wrong and needs to know that while we cannot accept his behavior, we can forgive him and still love him.

We walk a fine line here, Tonks. While I know when I am speaking from a member's perspective, others may see my comments as more official and from staff. The same can be said about your posts.

I could even take the stance that you are calling me and Greenmunchkin to task here in public when it is supposed to be via private PM. True?

It is really not fair for you to continue issuing statements that are questioning our posts from a staff perspective and then you turn around and say that you are posting as a member.

We are all members, and there are several of us who are also staff or almost staff. They are not mutually exclusive which you have pointed out.

I am currently acting in three roles here...I am acting as a member. I am acting as a moderator. I am acting as a Christian. Which role do you think takes precedence in this situation?

My Lord has commanded me to love my brother. My staff duties tell me to walk a fine line so that I do not cause harm or allow others to cause harm. My membership duties are to voice my opinion without breaking any rules.

Have I, in your opinion, fulfilled all of these roles?

Lisa

[Tonks]

^^ I can agree with that pending corrective action in the entire thread (ref. Mel's post)

(the forum moderator should really split out the off topic posts into a separate thread). Protocol (http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=staff_protocol#faq_staff_protocol_off_topic)

[Tonks]

double

[Tonks]

Have I, in your opinion, fulfilled all of these roles?Lisa

Most of them but not all. The same could be said for me.

[Lisa0315]

Thank You Mel and Tonks. If the OP will please edit the first post, then, I will split this thread to move the discussion regarding the issues to another thread. Then, this one can be just a support thread for NewGuy.

Lisa

[Rochir]

Likewise, I think that NG101 has suffered from what I can only call "The Rochir Effect (http://foru.ms/t6006075-i-am-a-moderator-yet.html)" as there were comments in our reports from members wondering whether things posted in our forums were proper. Much of the confusion was due to the trainee status, I think. I don't think, however, that such a situation excuses anything. As I indicated in the Rochir thread, and in his mod app Q&A that remarks when when has a staff badge it carries a bit of a "staff imprimatur."



The "Rochir Effect"? LOL, is that good or bad? Could you explain? (even though such woud be OT in this thread maybe. Maybe PM me please?:))

[Lisa0315]

The "Rochir Effect"? LOL, is that good or bad? Could you explain? (even though such woud be OT in this thread maybe. Maybe PM me please?:))

:ebil: The Rochir Effect! :ebil:

I have no idea what it means either...^_^

Lisa

[Rochir]

:ebil: The Rochir Effect! :ebil:

I have no idea what it means either...^_^

Lisa

In any case - it sounds cool!:tutu: Like the Genesis Wave or Occram's Razor!:tutu:

[Freedom&Light]

I hate to break it to you, but I think it's something one suffers from. ^_^ ^_^

But you did set precedence, so it's aptly named!

[Rochir]

I hate to break it to you, but I think it's something one suffers from. ^_^ ^_^

But you did set precedence, so it's aptly named!

LOL, but what IS IT??? If I'm suffering from something named after me, I wanna know what it IS so I can warn my friends!!!!:angel:

Sorry... totally derailing this thread :swoon:

[Lisa0315]

LOL, but what IS IT??? If I'm suffering from something named after me, I wanna know what it IS so I can warn my friends!!!!:angel:

Sorry... totally derailing this thread :swoon:

The Rochir Effect: Fellowshippy Posts that are reported and leads to other Fellowshippy Posts that are reported...^_^

I may get shot for this...Maybe no one will recognize me since I am in disguise today.

Lisa

[Rochir]

The Rochir Effect: Fellowshippy Posts that are reported and leads to other Fellowshippy Posts that are reported...^_^

I may get shot for this...Maybe no one will recognize me since I am in disguise today.

Lisa

Nice disguise!

LOL I'm beginning to think this might be analogue to the Butterfly Effect - Rochir posts a tiny non-essential post and mayhem ensues threatening the existence of FU as we know it!:tutu:

[GreenMunchkin]

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

Thanks.

[MrJim]

...

[GreenMunchkin]

What's to get back to. There's a whiny mod wanting his pound of flesh, there's militant libs that do what they can to disrupt things, and a daily to weekly fight about stuff that keeps this place from being anything but a battleground.

From the homo libs to the cultic mormons/jws attempting to be validated, what a cesspool we swim in, so let's get back to the topic.I personally think this entire thread should be trashed cos it's not adding anything, or clarifying anything. But assuming that's not possible, I don't like seeing it turn into a clapping Rochir on the back for his similarities with NG thread, while remaining a flogging NG thread.

Not acceptable.

[NewGuy101]

I personally think this entire thread should be trashed cos it's not adding anything, or clarifying anything. But assuming that's not possible, I don't like seeing it turn into a clapping Rochir on the back for his similarities with NG thread, while remaining a flogging NG thread.

Not acceptable.
Yep, because I purposefully go to the WWMC forum to cause trouble that's why.

[GreenMunchkin]

Yep, because I purposefully go to the WWMC forum to cause trouble that's why.You've never done that :hug:

Naw, the similarities are that you're both "controversial" mods because of "controversial" posts prior to modding. I don't like you being raked over the coals for it while Rochir is clapped on the back for it. The double standard was not ok.

[NewGuy101]

You've never done that :hug:

Naw, the similarities are that you're both "controversial" mods because of "controversial" posts prior to modding. I don't like you being raked over the coals for it while Rochir is clapped on the back for it. The double standard was not ok.
That's like all of CF. But then again this is a liberal website pushing perversions and so called evangelism.

Atleast Rochir had the liberals in her side, I didn't even have the awesome conservative mods in my side.

[Lisa0315]

That's like all of CF. But then again this is a liberal website pushing perversions and so called evangelism.

Atleast Rochir had the liberals in her side, I didn't even have the awesome conservative mods in my side.

I really resent that. You were not disciplined because of your flames but because you gave out confidential information. That is just not fair and I am tired of hearing about it.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

That's like all of CF. But then again this is a liberal website pushing perversions and so called evangelism.

Atleast Rochir had the liberals in her side, I didn't even have the awesome conservative mods in my side.You really feel that way? :( Am sorry, dude. Explain how, please? Maybe we can do better if it happens to someone else :( Am sorry.

[NewGuy101]

I really resent that. You were not disciplined because of your flames but because you gave out confidential information. That is just not fair and I am tired of hearing about it.

Lisa
I already stated the purpose of my violation of confidential information that's beside the point that I didn't even think it was confidential information. I'm surprised YOU didn't even get that. I guess asking for advice is a sin too.

[NewGuy101]

You really feel that way? :( Am sorry, dude. Explain how, please? Maybe we can do better if it happens to someone else :( Am sorry.
this..

I really resent that. You were not disciplined because of your flames but because you gave out confidential information. That is just not fair and I am tired of hearing about it.

Lisa

need more of an explanation?

[Lisa0315]

I already stated the purpose of my violation of confidential information. I'm surprised YOU didn't even get that. I guess asking for advice is a sin too.


I didn't even have the awesome conservative mods in my side.


That is not asking for advice. This is a flame against me and the other staff.

If your teammates had not been on your side, it would have gone alot worse for you. If not for your team, a second chance would not have been offered to you.

You need to quit blaming staff for what you did.

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

That is not asking for advice. This is a flame against me and the other staff.

If your teammates had not been on your side, it would have gone alot worse for you. If not for your team, a second chance would not have been offered to you.

You need to quit blaming staff for what you did.

Lisa
Show me where exactly I blamed the staff for what I did? My thread is more than clear about my actions. Don't play word games with me lisa.

And I quit, my reasons are more than clear if you read my thread about resignation.

[Lisa0315]

Show me where exactly I blamed the staff for what I did? My thread is more than clear about my actions. Don't play word games with me lisa.

And I quit, my reasons are more than clear if you read my thread about resignation.

You said we were not on your side and you said it in a snarky way. The only reason that THIS thread exists is because it was split from your support thread. We fought and argued against anyone who came in and slammed you. We begged them to edit their posts, and this split is the result of that. We wanted you to come back and only see support for you here in CCC. That is what your TEAM was doing.

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

You said we were not on your side and you said it in a snarky way. The only reason that THIS thread exists is because it was split from your support thread. We fought and argued against anyone who came in and slammed you. We begged them to edit their posts, and this split is the result of that. We wanted you to come back and only see support for you here in CCC. That is what your TEAM was doing.

Lisa

Yeah...this thread proves your point.

You're missing the point entirely. As indicated in his election Q&A by both Theology Admins...NG101 has had a history of continual problems in the Theology section since he joined the site. You folks elected him with full knowledge of this - and this is your right.

After a series of issues I received a request from my staff to contact the ET staff to address some of NG101's behavior in the Theology Forums. I pushed it over to the ET Admins and it was pushed down the appropriate chain of command on the ET side.

Things went screwy when he decided to post the contents of the PM sent to him in a thread where he decided to play the martry card. Beyond the fact that he didn't have permission to post the ET staff member's PM openly - he certainly did not have my permission to post the PM...a large chunk of which included my original remarks to his Admins.

I don't care if CCC elected him with no dissenting votes...he still must follow the site rules. He can post whatever he likes in CCC and the members / ET staff can deal with him.

When he begins to cause trouble again in my forums it is out of ETs hands - regardless of who elected him. Many people participate in Discussions on Homosexuality with no problem - saying much the same things as NG101 does. It is not what you say, but how you say it.

He wanted to be a moderator and so he is expected to act like a moderator - to include not posting PMs etc because he feels targeted. In my PM to the ET Admins I asked that this be handled staff-to-staff as I think that there was just a misunderstanding as to how mods are expected to post. It was not any of us that decided to post the private PMs and cry wolf.

This is a problem of his own making.

In case anyone wonders, here are the procedures that I followed:

Staff Chain of Command (http://foru.ms/t5729467)

Internal Staff Protocol (http://foru.ms/t5671396-wiki-forums-internal-staff-protocol.html)
Staff Disciplinary Issues


All staff discipline should be done by the immediate manager: Discipline of mods and supermods goes to Team Leaders. Discipline of Admins and Superadmins goes to the CEO via the Review Committee as he sees fit.

Documentation is private and stored in the HR file, but will be revealed to electors during recall or re-election. Documentation is retained if a staff member transfers. Appeals to the following will be sent to the site chaplain and CEO.

Counseling - Direct managers should send a counseling PM as official documentation and change request for a disciplinary issue.

Reprimand - Direct managers should send a Letter of Reprimand after two counseling PMs, or in the case of an egregious issue. Staff have the right to appeal any Letters of Reprimand to next level of staff. If they appeal the LOR, there must be open and full communication during the appeal giving staff the same right to a defense any member would be given. If a staff member receives two LORs within one year, the Standard Removal Procedure begins.

Standard Removal Procedures - Mods, Supermods, and Admins may be removed by the Recall Process (http://www.christianforums.com/t5679901-wiki-recall-of-moderators.html). Superadmins are removed by the CEO.

Emergency Removal Procedures - Serious problems including but not restricted to: threats of harm, site hacking, release of personal information (of members or staff), stalking or harassment - can result in the decision for immediate and unconditional removal from staff. This decision is made by admin (in the case of a mod/supermod) or CEO (in the case of an admin or superadmin).

Regarding the confidentiality issue, this is addressed in the Confidentiality Statement for Staff (http://foru.ms/t5689833-wiki-wiki-confidentiality-statement-for-staff.html):

All current and new staff agree as part of CF Staff to maintain confidentiality and not divulge any information regarding these areas (shown below) to non staff:

Superadministrator Support Requests (including IP checks)
Staff Away Notifications
Recovery Team (this forum is private)
Reporters names (for all reports)
Information seen by staffers which members have hidden
Private Staff Forums (including old Staff forums)
PM's received from members (with the exception of PMs in connection with a report, which become part of the public record of that report)
Personal information of staff or members (email, name, phone, IM, location)
Information forwarded to or discussed by the pastoral counseling team
Any future developments in CF which are private/confidential in nature are also included in this confidentiality statement.

Please note: 1st violation of this rule will result in a letter of counsel administered by the staff members supervisor. If counsel has not effectively corrected the problem the next course of action will be removal from staff with a consensus vote from the staff members team.

Your desire for him to "speak the truth boldly" does not extend across every forum of the site. The concerns of those who elected him are irrelevant when it comes to actual rules violations elsewhere on the site.

At any rate, staff is handling this now.

ETA: you'll also note that my name, too, is on the list of members of this particular forum

He's allowed to post conservative opinions. Many people do, and never run afoul of the mods. And, despite his comments about the "liberal Theology mods," a large number of us are actually quite conservative. Both Tonks and myself are listed as members of this forum.

The problem is the rules. There are certain rules in place for certain Theology forums, which have been drawn up by the members of those forums. NG chooses to flagrantly disregard them. Defending the Gospel and conservative opinions does not extent to disregarding the rules at will. This is particularly troublesome when he has the moderator icon - as a moderator, he is sworn to uphold the rules.

As for the "witch hunt" statements - we were initially discussing this in private. He chose to make it public.

Tonks and Mel are right. NG has never been chastised for defending the gospil. What he chooses to do is to flame and harass those who have different beliefs then he does. Telling them they are not Christians and the like.

No one is ever criticized for defending the gospil, but we also don't have to walk on other people to do that. The rules for this site guarentee equeal posting privledges to all.

Also, I just moved his report back to ET reports.

Should I go to "my discipline" thread?

[Lisa0315]

Yeah...this thread proves your point.

You are not listening!

This thread is NOT your support thread. There was another thread and all of these posts were in there. However, Jim, myself, and all the CCC members fought to get people to edit, and you know what? We talked them into it. You have a thread that is nothing but support. This is not it. These are all the posts that were removed from your support thread.

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

You are not listening!

This thread is NOT your support thread. There was another thread and all of these posts were in there. However, Jim, myself, and all the CCC members fought to get people to edit, and you know what? We talked them into it. You have a thread that is nothing but support. This is not it. These are all the posts that were removed from your support thread.

Lisa
You talking about the thread that Jim deleted because of my confidantiality mishap? I didn't see much Mod support there...that's how this was created.

[Lisa0315]

http://foru.ms/t6012936-support-for-newguy101.html

This is the Support Thread. Have you even seen this?

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

http://foru.ms/t6012936-support-for-newguy101.html

This is the Support Thread. Have you even seen this?

Lisa
Sure did..

Just to let you all know a little bit whats going on.

NG made a serious mistake by posting confidential PMs without permission. That was why that thread was closed and deleted. The report will I guess be moved back to ET reports once its been cleaned up.

Whether or not he will remain to be trained as a moderator or not is to be seen yet. Its quite clear that he has a problem in obeying rules. I will make this quite clear, no one had taken away his right to defend the gospil as he claims. That is only a ploy to obtain sentiment from all of you.

Instead of returning the PM to me and discussing like he should have, he chose to use it to as his defence, but since when is it a good idea to break rules to defend one's self? There are proper ways to do anything, this was not proper and had no one's interest at heart but his own.

We can use this thread to discuss this, but my timehere will be a little less for the next day or so as I have some priate recreation and fun planned for a change.


I've removed all of the derails (http://foru.ms/t6019758-derails-from-ng101-thread.html) from this thread (most of which were my posts) so that this may be a support thread only.

I've also let Lisa know that I did this.

m

I posted at the end of that thread if you didn't notice. I got support from the normal people I do there like always.

[Lisa0315]

Look at the edits in here, brother. Read between the lines. We were fighting tooth and nail in here over you and we won. Those other posts in the other thread are what got moved after we convinced people that this needed to only be a support thread for you. We didn't allow them to hash out the rights or wrongs about what you did.

THAT is why I was offended and hurt by what you just said.

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

Look at the edits in here, brother. Read between the lines. We were fighting tooth and nail in here over you and we won. Those other posts in the other thread are what got moved after we convinced people that this needed to only be a support thread for you. We didn't allow them to hash out the rights or wrongs about what you did.

THAT is why I was offended and hurt by what you just said.

Lisa
Can we NOT make this into a bigger mess this is going to be already? Maybe I'll get banned this time. And again if you read my resignation Lisa, I didn't say it was ALL of the mods.

[Lisa0315]

Sure did..





I posted at the end of that thread if you didn't notice. I got support from the normal people I do there like always.

Do you know why Tonks said that she let me know? It was because I was in there fighting over you like a mother tiger. I wasn't the only one either. So, go ahead and act like that if you want.

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

Do you know why Tonks said that she let me know? It was because I was in there fighting over you like a mother tiger. I wasn't the only one either. So, go ahead and act like that if you want.

Lisa
I seriously think you are missing point of what I'm saying.

[Lisa0315]

Can we NOT make this into a bigger mess this is going to be already? Maybe I'll get banned this time. And again if you read my resignation Lisa, I didn't say it was ALL of the mods.

Right...Whatever. I am done.

Lisa

[Lel]

Remember, you can support a person and not always support their actions too. I'm sure you're aware of the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin." It's not worth hating an action, but people can support you and still say "that action was not right."

Perfection isn't required. A willingness to reevaluate an action when others say it's not a right action is.

[NewGuy101]

Right...Whatever. I am done.

Lisa

:sigh:

[GreenMunchkin]

:hug::hug::hug:

Hugs for everyone. We're family, we are :hug:

[Hentenza]

Remember, you can support a person and not always support their actions too. I'm sure you're aware of the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin." It's not worth hating an action, but people can support you and still say "that action was not right."

Perfection isn't required. A willingness to reevaluate an action when others say it's not a right action is.

Lel,

You are wise beyond your years.:thumbsup:

[NewGuy101]

:hug::hug::hug:

Hugs for everyone. We're family, we are :hug:
Sigh...this feels like 5th grade all over again.

But I do appreciate the hug...so :hug: back.

[GreenMunchkin]

Sigh...this feels like 5th grade all over again.

But I do appreciate the hug...so :hug: back.I know, bro. It's so incredibly easy to misunderstand one another when all we can see is the written word. If we were all in person, we'd understand what each other was saying :hug:

Lisa, Julio, I do think a few of the posts on this page should be deleted, though... it's better that the discussion be contained in the rules sub-forum rather than spill out into this thread.

Shall we all edit? :)

[NewGuy101]

Remember, you can support a person and not always support their actions too. I'm sure you're aware of the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin." It's not worth hating an action, but people can support you and still say "that action was not right."

Perfection isn't required. A willingness to reevaluate an action when others say it's not a right action is.
I see my point has been missed again. Alright...

[Lisa0315]

:sigh:

Don't give me sad faces.

Here is the deal. You cannot be a mod and post in that style. Okay? You have to choose one or the other. You chose and we all respected that.

However, it is not right and not fair for you to act like people were not on your side because they were and still are.

You had to choose. You made your choice, so you shouldn't be putting a hate-on for staff because they reacted exactly the way they are supposed to.

You post from your heart and you preach what you feel is right. Okay. Good enough. There are going to be people who are going to be offended, and they are going to report you. That is the price you pay for the liberty to post as you do. You have the liberty to do that. Reporters have the liberty to report you. Staff has to abide by the rules. It is not about favorites or liking someone or whatever. I had to cite MrJim not long ago and it just about killed me, but it is what I had to do. MrJim did not hold it against me and you shouldn't be holding it against anyone for doing their jobs.

That is what I am angry about. There is not a single staff person here who did not support you in your decision, and the thing about it that you do not seem to appreciate is the fact that it was CCC mods who convinced other staff to LET IT be your decision. I imagine that the reason you still have your tools is because there are people who are hoping you will change your mind.

BTW, do you think I have had an easy time of it as a newbie mod? I have been reamed a new one more than once, let me tell you. However, things got considerably better when I received a pointed PM from Tonks about my own arrogance. You know what? Tonks was on the money. Do you think I am angry with Tonks for being that straight with me? No, I greatly appreciated it once I got over being mad about it.

NG, I wish that Tonks would send you a PM cuz this is on you, not on anyone else and you need to stop acting like it is the fault of the Liberals, the fault of staff, or the fault of the devil.

Do your THANG! Then, take your medicine. People are going to respect that. They are not (at least, I am not) going to respect someone who violates rules and then blames it on the Liberals and the Liberal site and the Liberal mods. Pahlease!

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I know, bro. It's so incredibly easy to misunderstand one another when all we can see is the written word. If we were all in person, we'd understand what each other was saying :hug:

Lisa, Julio, I do think a few of the posts on this page should be deleted, though... it's better that the discussion be contained in the rules sub-forum rather than spill out into this thread.

Shall we all edit? :)

Yeah, I will edit but I cannot right now. I would do this in PM, but (as you know) I don't like the PM system anymore. If I am going to get reported, then, I want the report public.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Seriously, am gonna close this thread if it carries on like this.

Am moving all these posts to the appropriate thread.

[NewGuy101]

Don't give me sad faces.

Here is the deal. You cannot be a mod and post in that style. Okay? You have to choose one or the other. You chose and we all respected that.

However, it is not right and not fair for you to act like people were not on your side because they were and still are.

You had to choose. You made your choice, so you shouldn't be putting a hate-on for staff because they reacted exactly the way they are supposed to.

You post from your heart and you preach what you feel is right. Okay. Good enough. There are going to be people who are going to be offended, and they are going to report you. That is the price you pay for the liberty to post as you do. You have the liberty to do that. Reporters have the liberty to report you. Staff has to abide by the rules. It is not about favorites or liking someone or whatever. I had to cite MrJim not long ago and it just about killed me, but it is what I had to do. MrJim did not hold it against me and you shouldn't be holding it against anyone for doing their jobs.

That is what I am angry about. There is not a single staff person here who did not support you in your decision, and the thing about it that you do not seem to appreciate is the fact that it was CCC mods who convinced other staff to LET IT be your decision. I imagine that the reason you still have your tools is because there are people who are hoping you will change your mind.

BTW, do you think I have had an easy time of it as a newbie mod? I have been reamed a new one more than once, let me tell you. However, things got considerably better when I received a pointed PM from Tonks about my own arrogance. You know what? Tonks was on the money. Do you think I am angry with Tonks for being that straight with me? No, I greatly appreciated it once I got over being mad about it.

NG, I wish that Tonks would send you a PM cuz this is on you, not on anyone else and you need to stop acting like it is the fault of the Liberals, the fault of staff, or the fault of the devil.

Do your THANG! Then, take your medicine. People are going to respect that. They are not (at least, I am not) going to respect someone who violates rules and then blames it on the Liberals and the Liberal site and the Liberal mods. Pahlease!

Lisa


Hey GreenMunchkin should I even bother responding to this? Because it just seems like an emotional outburst to me.

[Lisa0315]

Hey GreenMunchkin should I even bother responding to this? Because it just seems like an emotional outburst to me.

Fine. Emotionally charged outburst that doesn't have anything to do with the tea in China. Yep. Nothing you need to listen to or pay attention to. Nope, not at all. :doh: Why did I even bother...

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

Fine. Emotionally charged outburst that doesn't have anything to do with the tea in China. Yep. Nothing you need to listen to or pay attention to. Nope, not at all. :doh: Why did I even bother...

Lisa
I have told you more than enough times I don't blame the liberals, staff, or anyone for my actions. I knew exactly what I was doing besides the violation of the confidential agreement when I was seeking for advice. What I did say is that I didn't see support from Mods (not all of them, GM you have always supported me) based on a liberal system this website rules are based on.

I told you already, enough with emotion and more of the reason.

[Criada]

Please folks, take a step back from this...
Go away for a bit and calm down, eh.
Because this won't solve anything - and you are going to say things you will regret.

God bless you.
:hug: :hug:

[NewGuy101]

Please folks, take a step back from this...
Go away for a bit and calm down, eh.
Because this won't solve anything - and you are going to say things you will regret.

God bless you.
:hug: :hug:
I agree, being emotionally charged doesn't help anyone.

[GreenMunchkin]

Hey GreenMunchkin should I even bother responding to this? Because it just seems like an emotional outburst to me.

Fine. Emotionally charged outburst that doesn't have anything to do with the tea in China. Yep. Nothing you need to listen to or pay attention to. Nope, not at all. :doh: Why did I even bother...

LisaRight, the Support thread is free of arguments now :)

The thing is, y'all are on the same "side". You're rubbing each other up the wrong way at the moment but if either of you needed help, you know you'd both do whatever you could to help.

Julio, ok, I wasn't overly keen on Lisa's post... but I do know she was reaching out to you and even if you don't like the post, Lisa is your sister and deserves kindness, yes? :hug:

And, Lisa, Julio is entitled to feel hurt. You know we both can relate. Telling him you're tired of it was bound to stir things up, but he's your brother and deserves kindness :hug:

You're both good people who want the best for this forum... you just have different methods. But that's a good thing, not a bad one :) Tis definitely not something to argue about :hug::hug::hug:

More hugs for anyone who needs one :hug:

[NewGuy101]

Right, the Support thread is free of arguments now

The thing is, y'all are on the same "side". You're rubbing each other up the wrong way at the moment but if either of you needed help, you know you'd both do whatever you could to help.

Julio, ok, I wasn't overly keen on Lisa's post... but I do know she was reaching out to you and even if you don't like the post, Lisa is your sister and deserves kindness, yes?

And, Lisa, Julio is entitled to feel hurt. You know we both can relate. Telling him you're tired of it was bound to stir things up, but he's your brother and deserves kindness :hug:

You're both good people who want the best for this forum... you just have different methods. But that's a good thing, not a bad one Tis definitely not something to argue about

More hugs for anyone who needs one :hug:
Yes, she is my sister and I love her. I just think she is misunderstanding what I'm saying.

And this is beyond me being hurt, more like dissapointed.

[GreenMunchkin]

Yes, she is my sister and I love her. I just think she is misunderstanding what I'm saying.

And this is beyond me being hurt, more like dissapointed.I reckon, if you're willing, would you take a minute to write out what you're thinking and feeling?

Cos from the outside, it looks like you're angry with Lisa, and Lisa is trying to say she was actively defending you, but I don't think that's what you're questioning.

But it's all become quite emotionally charged and confusing, so if you're willing to explain your side, we can all start from scratch and then make things better :) Better = good :clap:

[tulc]

That's like all of CF. But then again this is a liberal website pushing perversions and so called evangelism.

LOL! Seriously, I NEVER get tired of hearing this! :D
tulc(so...you back now?) :)

[Hentenza]

Julio,

You are my brother in Christ and I love you. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. You zealousness for Christ is an asset to you, but you are not going to get people to listen to you by chastising them. People are funny that way. People, for the most part, are sure that what they think is the right thing. Julio, we have been in some down in the dirt discussions in debate sections of this website. You know that what I am saying is right. Some people come here to show what they know instead of trying to learn.

Look, all of us here at CC have supported you. We agree with your message and we elected you as mod because we agreed with your message. You would not have stood a chance otherwise. The problem is not the message but the way the message is delivered. There is a difference between putting the message out there and pushing the message. People don't respond to push but some of them night actually read and ponder. Those are the ones that we need to reach. The others will either figure it out eventually or they won't. But is you do your part, no one can say that the message was not delivered. Jesus told the apostles to do exactly that. Those that listened became part of His church and those that didn't the apostles shook the dirt off their sandals.

Julio, blaming the staff and this site is not the answer. We need people with the right message to fight for what is right. We need you to understand that what you are experiencing is not personal but something that you have to work on. We are here to offer you ALL of our support.

Ok, I've said enough, now is up to you.

Your brother in Christ
Henry

PS. I posted this in the other thread while all the post were being moved so I just c&p here.

[NewGuy101]

Julio,

You are my brother in Christ and I love you. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. You zealousness for Christ is an asset to you, but you are not going to get people to listen to you by chastising them. People are funny that way. People, for the most part, are sure that what they think is the right thing. Julio, we have been in some down in the dirt discussions in debate sections of this website. You know that what I am saying is right. Some people come here to show what they know instead of trying to learn.

Look, all of us here at CC have supported you. We agree with your message and we elected you as mod because we agreed with your message. You would not have stood a chance otherwise. The problem is not the message but the way the message is delivered. There is a difference between putting the message out there and pushing the message. People don't respond to push but some of them night actually read and ponder. Those are the ones that we need to reach. The others will either figure it out eventually or they won't. But is you do your part, no one can say that the message was not delivered. Jesus told the apostles to do exactly that. Those that listened became part of His church and those that didn't the apostles shook the dirt off their sandals.

Julio, blaming the staff and this site is not the answer. We need people with the right message to fight for what is right. We need you to understand that what you are experiencing is not personal but something that you have to work on. We are here to offer you ALL of our support.

Ok, I've said enough, now is up to you.

Your brother in Christ
Henry

PS. I posted this in the other thread while all the post were being moved so I just c&p here.
Henteza, I have deep respect for you. But I haven't seen the support of the staff you state. That's why i quit and I made it more than clear I am done. Also I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, I don't know where you are getting the hint of that. Unless you are seeying something that I am not, then show me.

I've also made it more than clear I'm not blaming anyone for my actions. I don't want to have to keep repeating myself but I have stated it several times. If you want me to support rules that push for perversions, I will never give up my biblical convictions.

[Hentenza]

Julio,
First, let me reiterate that I also have the out most respect for you. The zealousness and commitment that you show for the Lord is refreshing.

Now, I went through both this thread and the disciple thread in HQ to attempt to show you that staff only wants to help you and do not mean for you to compromise your values in any way. The message that ALL of them have expressed is the same that I expressed in my last post. It's not the message but just the way is being delivered. Everyone wants you to stay in your position but take instruction in how to better deliver the same message.

Please take the time to read the quotes below. I tried to isolate what the main message to you is. I pray that this helps.

Your Brother in Christ
Henry



From this thread.

Once again, it had nothing to do with his opinion but the manner in which he stated his opinion and the fact that he is expected to follow the rules a bit better than the rest of the membership.


He's allowed to post conservative opinions. Many people do, and never run afoul of the mods.


[quote=Jim47;38386404] NG has never been chastised for defending the gospil. What he chooses to do is to flame and harass those who have different beliefs then he does. Telling them they are not Christians and the like.


I do not support what NewGuy did, but I do support him as a person. He is our brother. He has fallen. Let's lift him up. Action is required on this. I understand that, and I support you and Jim. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. At the same time, that does not mean that we cannot have a thread that is PURELY to love our brother. He needs that now more than ever.
Lisa


My PM to him was to try to get him to listen and to council him. I am still willing to do that, but he has to be a willing recipient and listen.


I support NG101 too as I don't want him removed. I, however, don't need a thread where staff is dragged through the mud to support "a member" when the entire premise of the thread is incorrect.

NG101 is my brother, he erred, should be spoken to, and then we'll lift him up. Frankly, at least NG101 has been mostly up front in his original thread...this thread is full of nothing but half-truths about assumed circumstances.



Remember, you can support a person and not always support their actions too. I'm sure you're aware of the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin." It's not worth hating an action, but people can support you and still say "that action was not right."

Perfection isn't required. A willingness to reevaluate an action when others say it's not a right action is.


From your discipline thread in HQ.


From JAS4Yeshua
Since he is still a trainee, and we serve a God of Grace, I think that, if he is willing to learn and to change, then we should show him grace as well, and give him another chance to amend his behavior and learn from those who have more experience.


From Tonks
I think that:

1) He should not be removed from staff at the present time and

2) He should be told what is expected.

We all stumble from time to time - Lord knows recently that I've done it more than most.

Our brother is both not with out fault recently and is hurting.

We can all go a long way to solving both those problems.



From Tishri1
Still we are here only to offer loving counsel and should you decide you do indeed feel led to moderate our support will be there to help you ok?

From Freedom&Light
My only concern is if he can be on a team with members with whom he has a patchy history, and who he has publicly said are not Christians.


From Synger
The trouble I've seen with Newguy (and myself at times, admittedly) is that he has said it so many times before that he just wants to cut to the chase. And the rules are pretty specific about HOW you express your disagreement with someone. It's not that he can't hold the opinions he has, or even that he can't speak up about them. It's that he tends to post contrary to the rules of civil discourse in HOW he posts his opinions.

From BelindaP
I think Newbeliever is fairly rough around the edges. He seems to think that toning down his style is the same as caving theologically. If he can be made to see that one may debate vigorously and without compromising--and yet stay within the rules--there may be hope for his modship. I can make some recommendations for who would be a good debate coach.

OOps. she got your name wrong!!

From Flaglady
However, I would like to echo Tish's words and assure this poor young chap that, despite what it seems and feels like, we're not out for a public flogging. I've been through that as I'm sure many of us have in one way or another and it's not pleasant to see a whole thread putting you under the microscope. You're our brother in Christ and we love you - "warts and all"! First be very assured of that.


From Tishri1
Yes Jo and Jim I agree but can we think about letting him keep his staff Icon and continue his staff training along side his probation:thumbsup: he needs incentive as well as boundaries

From Jim47
I am very happy with all the posts in this thread and am very thankful to all for expressing their concerns and their willingness to support and train NG. We'll have to see what happens, but now I do have to ask a question. How are we going to decide what to do?

From Jim47
I will help NG in any way I can, just as I offered before, my hand of friendship is still extended, but I need to see his willingness to change this and put it in the past. Once thats accomplished this will all be water under the damm. :)

From Jim47
Why not take a week or two to think about it, all we need is to see a willingness on your part and all will be well.

[NewGuy101]

I think we should post everything in context. Some people in this forum seem to have a problem with that.


This thread will be used to discuss whether Newguy101 should be a moderator for the Conservative Christian forum or not, "and" to determine what if any dicipline should be given for breaking confidentiality and posting a PM I had sent him for counciling.

He replied to me and said that he dodn't have time to discuss the PM with me, but he did find time to post without permission.

Here is the report that was generated by his posting my PM to him.
http://foru.ms/t6010979

You will find several links to reports on him in the PM I sent him.



Link to a report from TCL where he tells a Lutheran Pastor and TCL member to quit posting, please also look at the discussion thread linked to the report.
http://foru.ms/t5861519-lcms-wels-els-lcc-newguy101-08-07-2007.html

Should he be a Mod For now, this is what we should consider.

If he continues to be a Mod, can he mod from the middle with out flaming others? And can he change from being a Crusader to a being Moderator(two very different callings IMO) and not go after members even when they attack him? He needs to allow the system to work meaning obey and enforce the rules in as peaceful a way as possible.


Second part of the issue:
His choice to post PMs instead of reply to them is another wrong, confidentiality was written into the forum rules even before he took a mod possition so he broke a big rule whether or not he signed agreement upon coming on staff.

I'm pretty tired and have been stressed the last few days, so I will close here for now.


I only quoted Jim since this seems to be main the problem. Well actually it's MY problem. Protocol in this website is hypocritical since scripture, conservatives, and others can be called names but the perverses homosexuals cannot be. Those calling themselves christians here who daily attack the bible cannot be rebuked, this is what they call my "flaming." And that is the problem. I don't like playing semantics but that's where the real issue lies.

[Hentenza]

I think we should post everything in context. Some people in this forum seem to have a problem with that.



I only quoted Jim since this seems to be main the problem. Well actually it's MY problem. Protocol in this website is hypocritical since scripture, conservatives, and others can be called names but the perverses homosexuals cannot be. Those calling themselves christians here who daily attack the bible cannot be rebuked, this is what they call my "flaming." And that is the problem. I don't like playing semantics but that's where the real issue lies.

Julio,

What context? This is not a debate. I am trying to tell you that you are only focusing on the negative. The statements from staff that I posted are real. Sure, people were angry when you decided to break confidentiality and post private PMs, so what did you expect? Staff members are human, have feelings, and get angry. Just like you do. Do you think you are the only one that has gotten in trouble for a poor posting style or an angry post? I hate to break it to you but most of us have been there and done that. I pray to God everyday that He gives me the words to make a difference in someones life because I fail miserably some times.

Look, if God is calling you away from this site, then fine, obey. But if you are letting only the negative influence you then you are missing the love unselfishly being offered to you.

The decision is yours.

Your brother in Christ
Henry

[NewGuy101]

Julio,

What context? This is not a debate. I am trying to tell you that you are only focusing on the negative. The statements from staff that I posted are real. Sure, people were angry when you decided to break confidentiality and post private PMs, so what did you expect? Staff members are human, have feelings, and get angry. Just like you do. Do you think you are the only one that has gotten in trouble for a poor posting style or an angry post? I hate to break it to you but most of us have been there and done that. I pray to God everyday that He gives me the words to make a difference in someones life because I fail miserably some times.

Look, if God is calling you away from this site, then fine, obey. But if you are letting only the negative influence you then you are missing the love unselfishly being offered to you.

The decision is yours.

Your brother in Christ
Henry
Your right, this isn't a debate. I will stop addressing the issue since those of you who choose to support the staff here cannot see past the real issue which is the perverse rules in this website. If you think it's beacuse I'm being selfish, then let it be. The rules here pervert the Gospel, it's that plain in simple. That's how you get terms such as "flaming" when I call liberals who say the bible is wrong hypocrites.

[Hentenza]

Your right, this isn't a debate. I will stop addressing the issue since those of you who choose to support the staff here cannot see past the real issue which is the perverse rules in this website. If you think it's beacuse I'm being selfish, then let it be. The rules here pervert the Gospel, it's that plain in simple. That's how you get terms such as "flaming" when I call liberals who say the bible is wrong hypocrites.

Ok, Julio. No bad feelings. See you around the board.

Good Bless

[NewGuy101]

Ok, Julio. No bad feelings. See you around the board.

Good Bless
God Bless Hentenza.