Lets start learning the rules here

[Jim47]

I know everyone here is upset about certain libers posting here and the trouble that has come with it. I have asked Rochir to stop posting here for a while, but I have to ask that, there are no rules that state we can prohibit anyone from posting here. We can limit what they post but I have been seeing a lot of reports with rediculous claims that someone was debating or violated our forum specific rules when all that had been posted was a question or a request. These kinds of posts are within all rules. No one can arbitrariliy prohibit someone else from posting here, and staff will not enforcing rules that do not exhist.


I expect all staff to abide by our rules and too be fair to all, whether that be our own members or visitors. If you are about to become staff then please learn the rules and understand we do not make our own rules, we only enforce the rules given to us.

[jameseb]

Good morning, Jim.

Well, from what I had seen you simply disagreed with other staff member's interpretation of the rules - hey, that happens. I don't think it is malicious intent that members of CCC are out to get anyone though.

As you touched on the point in your post, there's been a lot of threads, reports and posts that have been critical of members here and the forum's rules. With constant intrusions and constant patrolling and reporting of posts here this forum is naturally going to put people on edge and, as a result, their patience is going to be sapped.

Just remember, it is not unChristian to perceive a wrong. However, it is unChristian to be spiteful, impish and rude. We may not always agree on what is wrong, but that doesn't mean we're being uncharitable when we believe there's been a violation of our rules and/or unbecoming conduct in general.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Good morning, Jim.

Well, from what I had seen you simply disagreed with other staff member's interpretation of the rules - hey, that happens. I don't think it is malicious intent that members of CCC are out to get anyone though.

As you touched on the point in your post, there's been a lot of threads, reports and posts that have been critical of members here and the forum's rules. With constant intrusions and constant patrolling and reporting of posts here this forum is naturally going to put people on edge and, as a result, their patience is going to be sapped.

Just remember, it is not unChristian to perceive a wrong. However, it is unChristian to be spiteful, impish and rude. We may not always agree on what is wrong, but that doesn't mean we're being uncharitable when we believe there's been a violation of our rules and/or unbecoming conduct in general.
I agree with you Eric.

Jim...I realize your position is somewhat precarious as a supermoderator and that you have to consider all sides to a matter. But what happened with Rochir wasn't just a one time thing...it was building up. There were warning signs all over the place and it took one of our dearest members leaving for us to get this upset. So take that into consideration when judging this situation as well.

[3girls2dogs]

Just curious, has a thread similar to this been posted on WWMC as well?

[Albion]

I know everyone here is upset about certain libers posting here and the trouble that has come with it. I have asked Rochir to stop posting here for a while, but I have to ask that, there are no rules that state we can prohibit anyone from posting here.

I hardly know what the rules are anymore and I don't have the inclination to study them every day to see which have changed, but I do know this--

The surest way to thwart an intruder is to REFRAIN FROM RESPONDING TO HIS POST.

Alas, this never happens, even when someone asks that we not do that. There are always some of us who will give that person exactly what they want and which we later bemoan--a debate.

So, whatever the rules may be at the moment, the problem with trouble makers and people who should not be here is solvable, easily, but not if we have no desire to stop it by ceasing to play along with what they want.

[Hentenza]

Jim,

Site wide rules provide for the following:

1.5 Forum Autonomy 1.5 Each forum is empowered to elect their own moderators, to establish their own rules regarding decorum, debate, and acceptable subject matter for posting, as well as to determine who may moderate, vote, or participate in their rules-making process. For instance, Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens might choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed, or bar guests from editing their forum-specific wiki.

This has been a problem.

1.9 A member must not harass another member 1.9 A member will not harass another member, either in open forums or in private messages. Harassment is defined as repeatedly and intentionally going out of your way to make another member's experience miserable.

This has also been a problem. The term harassment IS open to interpretation. We in this forum believe that we are being harassed by continued intrusions into our rule making debate threads and polls.

Our forum rule:
Non-Christians and Non-Conservative Christians may post questions and make fellowship posts, but not give answers regarding, or debate, conservative beliefs. Non-members of the forum also may not give advice to posters who come to this forum looking for help and advice.

This has been a problem also. While posting fellowship posts by non conservatives is allowed, posting opinions is not.

I post this, not with the intention of disagreeing with you, but to point to what we perceive rule violations have been.

Peace

[Tonks]

Hi Hentenza,

While broadly I agree with the forum rule regarding debate (I'm a member of CCC too) there has been a bit of inconsistency in applying the rule as any post that is not "fellowship" is not necessarily defined as "debate." The larger problem is, for the rule to work there has to be some sort of reasonable definition as to what "fellowship" is and is not. When fellowship is sort of "I know it when I see it" moderation becomes difficult and problems creep up.

There have also been other issues where in the report thread where the discussion has turned from the actual post to getting to a poster's motives, history, etc and that has been used as a basis for action - instead of an actual violation.

Likewise, there have been some pretty unkind posts by members of this forum that have slid by merely because they represent "conservative opinion." All staff need to be as consistent as they can when enforcing the rules. Sometimes a flame is a flame and members need to be held accountable for their words / actions - even if they are on the forum registry.

Broadly, while CCC can ajudicate the rules as they see fit...a member can appeal that decision. At that point it is a multi-team Admin decision and a lack of consistency in applying rules / applying rules based on a person and not the post will likely cause the decision to be reversed. The forum is autonomous until the point where it bumps up to the staff chain of command. Bans and FSBs can be appealed, too, as of right and there is no manner in which to wiki that right away.

Further, I sometimes see as justification for a decision (be it moderator or member commentary in reports) that I continually see things such as "members want this and my members want that." Well, that is all well and good but part of moderating is setting boundaries on what is acceptable. At times a moderator's role is to go against the flow, step in as staff, and say that something is not correct. Likewise, in the report threads we are to moderate to the rules. Period. We've been elected (we all will be come Jan) as staff so we need to step up and enforce the rules. If there is no flame but "members" think that there is step up and do the right thing...say that the post isn't a flame. Moderators need to do their job.

This is not only about learning the rules but also ensuring that they are applied consistently across different members whatever their belief system is.

I think that sorting out the "what is fellowship" may go a long way to fixing some of the issues...some of the decisions have appeared someone capricious particularly when (directly asked) no one can really define fellowship or debate.

Matt

[Hentenza]

Thanks Matt. I do agree that the definition of fellowship versus debate needs to be better defined. We will work on that and welcome your input. Also, the shortness of staff has also added to the interpretation issues that we have had. The system will probably work considerably better when elected mods from this forum have a chance to agree or disagree on interpretation on the various reports.

Thanks,
Henry

[Tonks]

Once that is defined I think 90% of all issues will go away...and then you'll be left with all the regular issues. lol.

peace.

[Jim47]

I agree with you Eric.

Jim...I realize your position is somewhat precarious as a supermoderator and that you have to consider all sides to a matter. But what happened with Rochir wasn't just a one time thing...it was building up. There were warning signs all over the place and it took one of our dearest members leaving for us to get this upset. So take that into consideration when judging this situation as well.


I only have a few minutes to reply and try to explain myself. But beofre I get started I want to thank Tonks for his post, it pretty well explains what a moderator must look at.

I am well aware that Rochir has caused some problems, but I think most of those problems are in the past. I have been communicating with her and I see a willingness to change and not stir the pot, but what I don't see is a willingness here in CC for anyone to forgive her. As I said above I have asker her to stop posting here at least for a while, again, this is a request. Under forum rules I have no authority to demand that.

The problems I see now are that as Tonks so well explained is that people are judging posts by emotion and a personal vindetta rather then by the rules. As staff I have promised to uphold rules. Rules are my guide and I will uphold them and I will not let personal emotions of love and hate enter into what I do. Moderators must be able to set aside personal issues and go only by the rules. If you wnat to elect Mods by a popularity contest that is your right, but then what lever will you have to use when those mods that you have elected will not uphold the rules that you give them?

I'm not here to win a popularity contest and never will be. My position is one of unselfish service to all members. I Mod something like 6-8 forums, I don't have time to get a count on them, I just try to work reports as they come in to my PM box, right now I am way behind as there are too many to keep up with.

What I am asking for is to read posts by all people wheter they be CC mebers or visitors and look at what is written,, instead of looking at who wrote it and trying to think how we can get their post deleted and work out a plan to revoke all posting privledges. All I see anymore is a witch hunt and I will not be part of that. I will uphold the rules but not work out some persoanl vindetta on anyone.

If I have time I will try to catch up with other questions tonight, so keep them coming.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I only have a few minutes to reply and try to explain myself. But beofre I get started I want to thank Tonks for his post, it pretty well explains what a moderator must look at.

I am well aware that Rochir has caused some problems, but I think most of those problems are in the past. I have been communicating with her and I see a willingness to change and not stir the pot, but what I don't see is a willingness here in CC for anyone to forgive her. As I said above I have asker her to stop posting here at least for a while, again, this is a request. Under forum rules I have no authority to demand that.

The problems I see now are that as Tonks so well explained is that people are judging posts by emotion and a personal vindetta rather then by the rules. As staff I have promised to uphold rules. Rules are my guide and I will uphold them and I will not let personal emotions of love and hate enter into what I do. Moderators must be able to set aside personal issues and go only by the rules. If you wnat to elect Mods by a popularity contest that is your right, but then what lever will you have to use when those mods that you have elected will not uphold the rules that you give them?

I'm not here to win a popularity contest and never will be. My position is one of unselfish service to all members. I Mod something like 6-8 forums, I don't have time to get a count on them, I just try to work reports as they come in to my PM box, right now I am way behind as there are too many to keep up with.

What I am asking for is to read posts by all people wheter they be CC mebers or visitors and look at what is written,, instead of looking at who wrote it and trying to think how we can get their post deleted and work out a plan to revoke all posting privledges. All I see anymore is a witch hunt and I will not be part of that. I will uphold the rules but not work out some persoanl vindetta on anyone.

If I have time I will try to catch up with other questions tonight, so keep them coming.
Well, I appreciate that you are doing your job. That's not in question at all. You do a great job Jim and I think I've let you know that. :)

You may have a point in that we need to forgive. But I cannot force myself to trust. I don't trust her posts anymore...and I've yet to see an apology. Ever. Which is fine as I'm not so sure she's sorry.

Time heals all wounds.

[GreenMunchkin]

Jim, am sorry, but I found that post actually quite hurtful. We are following the mandate of the site-wide rules, so how have we decided to elect people by way of some sort of "popularity contest"?

Where have we tried to revoke anyone's posting privileges?

There haven't been any witch-hunts. This isn't about Rochir, but I'll mention her in context as an example.

You say you and she have been communicating, and she's showing a willingness to change and not stir the pot. That's wonderful, but she's only expressed that to you. We aren't mind-readers so we wouldn't know that anything is gonna change. Some of us have also gone across to the "Bridge the Gap" thread in WWMC to fellowship even *after* all this has happened and to express to Rochir that once we've all had some time, things will improve. But you may not have known that.

It seems to me you're very angry and I'd like to know why, please?

EDIT: I read her apology in ET HQ. If everyone else was to see it they may understand a little better, too. Am I allowed to copy it here so people can read it?

[Sothron]

I agree with GM. How can you castigate the moderators here for following the rules? How can you expect the posters here to know you had some kind of Glasnost with the biggest problem poster this board has seen? Telepathic osmosis? :P

Frankly considering their posting history I do not see why a FSB would be out of the question. You are known by your fruits after all. Until I see some kind of sincere apology and actual positve posts from said person I see no reason whatsoever to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Criada]

I think you are generalizing in your accusations, Jim!
Rochir is my sister and friend, and certainly forgiven as far as I am concerned.
And perhaps no more in need of forgiveness than many of us, anyway.
As to mods being elected via a popularity contest - frankly, that is what an election is!!

God bless you. :)

[Jim47]

As I said before, Rochir won't coming back right away. She feels pretty hurt and still doesn't understand why so many have found fault with her. She did apologize in ET HQ, its there for everyone to read, but she doesn't want to break her promise to not post here untill we have told her its Ok.

FSBs are for staff to decide, not members. Right now we have no reason to seek one. She has repented, why is it we can't forgive?

I would also like to pint you to our preamble written within the rules. You can find this at the botton of every page in the rules link

0. PREAMBLE

Foru.ms is an ecumenical, on-line Christian community, which freely welcomes all people, regardless of creed or country to participate in fellowship through its unique medium.

We, the Foru.ms community, extend to all members the hospitality of open, free discussion and interaction through its forums. We expect all members to extend the right hand of fellowship to all other members, always posting in good faith, seeking first to understand before being understood, being slow to take offense, being quick with grace and forgiveness in the desire to maintain the fellowship of open discussion.

This is a Christian community, founded by Christians and influenced primarily by the Christian desire to reach out to all peoples with the good news of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior. To that end the Christian members of Foru.ms are expected to reflect the light and love of God in all they do and say; all members are always expected to treat each other, as they themselves would expect to be treated.

By becoming a member of this site, you agree to follow the rules of this site. These rules apply to all communications made on this site, including but not excluding: posts in the forums (including automatically generated sections of posts such as signatures, custom user titles, and avatars), reputation comments and blessings, reports, private messages, and posts in the chatbox and IRC. These rules apply to all members of this site, including members of Foru.ms Staff. If you do not follow these rules, your posts may be edited or deleted. Continued rule breaking may result in a suspension or ban. If you are younger than 13, your parent or guardian must provide written consent for you to become a member of this site.

Foru.ms Rules Ver 1.2
28 July 2007
12:30AM CDT

[Sothron]

Jim, if someone slapped you in the face with a trout for six days straight and on the seventh day said "Oh I'm sorry, I'll try to stop" to someone besides yourself how likely would you be to believe them?

Her posting behavior coupled with no apology on this board is of the same treatment to the posters here. Posting should be considered a privilege, not a right. Same with courtesy and respect. She has to earn those things back not simply be handed them.

[Criada]

Um - to be fair - she can't apologise on a board she has been asked not to post on!
Or someone would doubtless report her! :(

Also - in my view this discussion needs to be more general, rather than picking holes in one person, who isn't allowed to defend herself. Is not really acceptable!!

[3girls2dogs]

There are more to those rules than just the preamble.

[GreenMunchkin]

Hello,

I just want to say I am truly sorry forthe mess I have caused by my involvement in the CC forum. I really messed up there because I perceived an injustice in some of the posts in that forum.

The situation should have been handled in a different way, I know now. As I am new to the role of a moderator, I ask that you forgive me my foolish beginner's mistake and please let me try and become more unbiased and "pporfessional" in how such problems should be dealt with.

Again, I am sorry for the mess I made, and for any hurt caused for CC, WWMS and the ET!:|

That's her apology and I responded to her from our perspective.

Look, let's not focus on all of this anymore, k? She's agreed to give us some space, so now we can concentrate on making CC beautiful. Some people are ready to forgive, some will need more time, and that's ok :) But let's stop poking at it now and just breathe for a bit :hug:

[Jim47]

Um - to be fair - she can't apologise on a board she has been asked not to post on!
Or someone would doubtless report her! :(

Also - in my view this discussion needs to be more general, rather than picking holes in one person, who isn't allowed to defend herself. Is not really acceptable!!


Exactly :) here is her apology

http://foru.ms/t6034980-im-sorry-for-the-mess-i-have-caused.html

[Criada]

That's her apology and I responded to her from our perspective.

Look, let's not focus on all of this anymore, k? She's agreed to give us some space, so now we can concentrate on making CC beautiful. Some people are ready to forgive, some will need more time, and that's ok :) But let's stop poking at it now and just breathe for a bit :hug:
:hug: :hug:

[Jim47]

There are more to those rules than just the preamble.


Thats correct, have you read them? :)

[3girls2dogs]

Thats correct, have you read them? :)
Yes, I have read them all, several times. I don't normally go around making baseless accusations. I appreciate your concern for my knowledge of the rules. Have you read them all? Because you keep focusing on just the preamble, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge the rest of them.

[Hentenza]

Rochir has my forgiveness and respect.:hug::hug::hug::hug:

[Jim47]

Yes, I have read them all, several times. I don't normally go around making baseless accusations. I appreciate your concern for my knowledge of the rules. Have you read them all? Because you keep focusing on just the preamble, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge the rest of them.



Read'em many times. Perhaps you should give up on mind reading ;)

[jameseb]

Oh c'mon.

Someone comes over here stirring up trouble, finally people here get a little miffed...then some of our members and those stirring the pot all accuse the CCC of being harsh, unforgiving Pharisees.

Please, do not try to force confusion between forgiveness and responsibility. It really grinds my nerve when I'm told that I am not forgiving and loving like Christ simply because I state someone did wrong.

Besides, I've seen enough mocking of this forum and its members by certain people, who also sit on their bums at IIDB and make fun of and ridicule us, to know the difference between honest misunderstandings and purposeful impishness.

[jameseb]

Read'em many times. Perhaps you should give up on mind reading ;)


Jim, seriously... I don't get this reply at all - you were just chastising members here for their feelings about Rochir and yet here you are giving some smart lip to one of our own members. I'm really, really confused by this.

[GreenMunchkin]

Jim, seriously... I don't get this reply at all - you were just chastising members here for their feelings about Rochir and yet here you are giving some smart lip to one of our own members. I'm really, really confused by this.I am, too :( Sorry if this overly girly, but I've had a really crappy day, and I don't like what's happening here. It's very confusing.

[Jim47]

Jim, seriously... I don't get this reply at all - you were just chastising members here for their feelings about Rochir and yet here you are giving some smart lip to one of our own members. I'm really, really confused by this.


This is exactly the whole problem here. Everyone is trying to read into a post what they think people are saying and then assign guilt. That isn't a conservative quality at all and I was simply drawing attention to that. As much as we like to think we can read people's minds we can not. Did I make my point yet? :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Rochir has my forgiveness and respect.:hug::hug::hug::hug:
I forgive her too, but she's going to have to earn my respect I'm afraid. I would tell that to anyone...I'm not just picking on Rochir.

[Letalis]

Have we lost focus? What purpose do rules serve if they're unable to maintain order?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

This is exactly the whole problem here. Everyone is trying to read into a post what they think people are saying and then assign guilt. That isn't a conservative quality at all and I was simply drawing attention to that. As much as we like to think we can read people's minds we can not. Did I make my point yet? :)
Jim...perhaps this is not the time to try to make this point. Ya think maybe you should back off a bit? You may or may not know it, but your comments have been hurtful to those of us who have tried really hard to keep this forum together the past few days. Your posts seem accusatory rather than helpful. :(

[ContentInHim]

Have we lost focus? What purpose do rules serve if they're unable to maintain order?
Not worth the ether they're "printed" on, apparently. :(

What good is a CCC if we can't determine who and how we "fellowship". FWIW, while I can accept Rochir's sort of apology (It's the currently trendy half-apology that makes it our fault that we were offended - very popular with senators and professional athletes), I've read her posts for several years and we will undoubtedly offend her again just because we exist, have values and standards that are NOT understood by liberals and will post such. :(

[jameseb]

This is exactly the whole problem here. Everyone is trying to read into a post what they think people are saying and then assign guilt. That isn't a conservative quality at all and I was simply drawing attention to that. As much as we like to think we can read people's minds we can not. Did I make my point yet? :)

If that was your point, than my apologies.

However, if I'm understanding your point correctly, you seem to believe those who differ with you on the interpretation of the rule are "mind reading". I wouldn't say that at all - again, if that was your suggestion.

To me the rule at the center of this is as clear as night and day - and while some may think it's being used too harshly I would like to simply ask, who's the one pushing the boundaries of the rule?

I've had enough experience around the congregation and political forums---particularly the political forums---to recognize true and honest parley. While you may think people are trying to clad this forum in a protective and stifling shield of protection, I simply see what I've experienced time after time after time again --- the unfortunate position of being pushed against the ropes and tested, and finally having to enforce stricter rules to re-establish peace and harmony.

[Jim47]

Jim...perhaps this is not the time to try to make this point. Ya think maybe you should back off a bit? You may or may not know it, but your comments have been hurtful to those of us who have tried really hard to keep this forum together the past few days. Your posts seem accusatory rather than helpful. :(


How have we tried? By trying to make it the most exclusive forum on foru.ms? We're already there.

All we do is keep creating more rules and finding more reasons to exclude visitors. This is no longer a congregational forum. Its a secret society.

[GreenMunchkin]

How have we tried? By trying to make it the most exclusive forum on foru.ms? We're already there.

All we do is keep creating more rules and finding more reasons to exclude visitors. This is no longer a congregational forum. Its a secret society.Explain how, please?

[jameseb]

Someone want to nominate me for CCC moderator? :P By the sound of it, we're going to need a few extra hands.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

How have we tried? By trying to make it the most exclusive forum on foru.ms? We're already there.

All we do is keep creating more rules and finding more reasons to exclude visitors. This is no longer a congregational forum. Its a secret society.
Hmmm...I don't see it that way. What's so secret? And how is it exclusive? All people have to do is agree to the wiki and sign up. :scratch:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Someone want to nominate me for CCC moderator? :P By the sound of it, we're going to need a few extra hands.
I do, I do!! :clap: :D

[ContentInHim]

How have we tried? By trying to make it the most exclusive forum on foru.ms? We're already there.

All we do is keep creating more rules and finding more reasons to exclude visitors. This is no longer a congregational forum. Its a secret society.
Actually, the posting today from PsychoMonkey proved that we are NOT the most exclusive congregation. He posted a critical post, was reported, NV, post stayed and his other posts which showed interest in the situation were responded to cordially! No one threw him out because he was not a member. :scratch:

[jameseb]

I do, I do!! :clap: :D

lol, thank you, thank you. :D Now what do I do? :P

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

lol, thank you, thank you. :D Now what do I do? :P
I don't know. *shrug* :D

Guess I gotta put up a poll and discussion thread. But you were already in training right? For what forum? :scratch:

[GreenMunchkin]

lol, thank you, thank you. :D Now what do I do? :PPlease be serious about being a mod here :cry:I think we need some help.

[jameseb]

I don't know. *shrug* :D

Guess I gotta put up a poll and discussion thread. But you were already in training right? For what forum? :scratch:

Yes; well, actually, I've all ready passed my test so I'm a moderator just waiting for his new moderator tags. The note has been passed on to Owl.

I'm moderating Political Conservatives right now. I would be happy to also moderate this forum as well.


Please be serious about being a mod here :cry:I think we need some help.


Yes, I'm definitely being serioius. I don't mind helping at all. :)

[Jim47]

I met a liberal athesist on this forum a month or so ago. He was reported for his post. It wasn't combatant at all and he caused no harm whatsoever. I shared a few Pms with him and we got to be friends. I then asked him if he would do a bible study with me and he said he would. He didn't know what to study on so I suggested that we begin with Genesis to which he agreed.

Sadly he has forgotten me and is no longer returning my PMs, but now with how we are making all the exclusive rules I nor anyone else will ever have that chance to witness again. So you see, I am sad.

As I sad before, rules will not fix things, never will. The only thing that will fix this forum is if we change our hearts to start showing a little love and forebearance. Everyone keeps claiming we can make any rules we want, but that is not true. I just got off the phone with ET's Admin. It just won't work.

Has anyone bothered to read the site rules, or more importantly Erwin's preamble? We can make additional rules, but they have to be within those guidleines. This is the premamble only, not the whole rules.

. PREAMBLE

Foru.ms is an ecumenical, on-line Christian community, which freely welcomes all people, regardless of creed or country to participate in fellowship through its unique medium.

We, the Foru.ms community, extend to all members the hospitality of open, free discussion and interaction through its forums. We expect all members to extend the right hand of fellowship to all other members, always posting in good faith, seeking first to understand before being understood, being slow to take offense, being quick with grace and forgiveness in the desire to maintain the fellowship of open discussion.

This is a Christian community, founded by Christians and influenced primarily by the Christian desire to reach out to all peoples with the good news of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior. To that end the Christian members of Foru.ms are expected to reflect the light and love of God in all they do and say; all members are always expected to treat each other, as they themselves would expect to be treated.

By becoming a member of this site, you agree to follow the rules of this site. These rules apply to all communications made on this site, including but not excluding: posts in the forums (including automatically generated sections of posts such as signatures, custom user titles, and avatars), reputation comments and blessings, reports, private messages, and posts in the chatbox and IRC. These rules apply to all members of this site, including members of Foru.ms Staff. If you do not follow these rules, your posts may be edited or deleted. Continued rule breaking may result in a suspension or ban. If you are younger than 13, your parent or guardian must provide written consent for you to become a member of this site.

Foru.ms Rules Ver 1.2
28 July 2007
12:30AM CDT

[GreenMunchkin]

Yes, I'm definitely being serioius. I don't mind helping at all. :)Lisa just resigned so we need you to mod here, Eric. I'm still untrained and Hen's poll doesn't close for a little while. We really need your help.

[jameseb]

I met a liberal athesist on this forum a month or so ago. He was reported for his post. It wasn't combatant at all and he caused no harm whatsoever. I shared a few Pms with him and we got to be friends. I then asked him if he would do a bible study with me and he said he would. He didn't know what to study on so I suggested that we begin with Genesis to which he agreed.

Sadly he has forgotten me and is no longer returning my PMs, but now with how we are making all the exclusive rules I nor anyone else will ever have that chance to witness again. So you see, I am sad.


Hey Jim,

I just don't see that being a problem here. Take a look at Grizzly who's been posting over here - he's liberal (at least I think so) and an atheist yet the fellowship in that thread has gone great.

[jameseb]

Lisa just resigned so we need you to mod here, Eric. I'm still untrained and Hen's poll doesn't close for a little while. We really need your help.


Lisa resigned?? :(

[GreenMunchkin]

Lisa resigned?? :(Just a few minutes ago.

[jameseb]

Just a few minutes ago.


Where was this posted at?

[GreenMunchkin]

Where was this posted at?It wasn't. She pmed Hen and I to let us know. She felt like she didn't have a choice, and I don't blame her :(

[Letalis]

What??

[Letalis]

What happened?

[jameseb]

Nooo, no no no no... PLEASE, Lisa, don't you dare leave! Begging here!

[GreenMunchkin]

What happened?4 threads to look at: "Define Debate and Fellowship"; "Learn the Rules" both in CC; a report on BelindaP in Ecumenical Reports and an Apology thread in ET HQ, except she was made to edit her post :(

All of that combined will tell you how unbelievable this all is.

[jameseb]

I started a thread asking her not to go.