Defining "Fellowship" and "Debate"

[GreenMunchkin]

Hey, everyone. I know we're all tired of rules and rule-making, but I suppose it's a necessary evil given the babyness of the forum.

We're having some problems with reports because the terms "fellowship" and "debate" are currently too nebulous and open to arbitrary interpretation so, I know it's a hassle, but I think this is something we need to sort out.

This forum is wonderful, but this one issue is becoming something of a recurring problem.

So, please can we discuss it? If we hash it out then add it to our wiki, we can all start fellowshipping with our feet on solid ground and have some definitive parameters for what is, and isn't, reportable and how to manage the reports. Am sorry about all of this :hug:

[Hentenza]

Absolutely!! Fellowship and debate need better definitions. I am currently looking through other forums to see if someone already has a good definition that we can work from. No reason to re-invent the wheel. So far, site wide rules do not have definitions for these terms. If anyone knows of one please post it here.

Thanks for opening this thread GM.:wave:

[GreenMunchkin]

Thanks, Hen :hug: I was a little worried it was presumptuous of me.

Someone posted a wonderful exaple a bit ago... it was something like "fellowship is defined as listening to another person's opinion; debate is defined as wanting others to listen to yours..." or something like that.

Even that's a little up in the air, but it could be a solid framework that we could elaborate on?

[Hentenza]

Yes, it was Jim47 and I just bumped it. The thread is here.

http://foru.ms/t5994537-proposed-defination-of-fellowship-post.html

[GreenMunchkin]

Ok, so altered to fit CC, it would read as:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

[Criada]

:) Looks good!

[Hentenza]

LOL! I was doing the same thing in the other thread. Can we close the other thread so that people like me don't get confused?

I need another cup of coffee.^_^^_^

[GreenMunchkin]

LOL! I was doing the same thing in the other thread. Can we close the other thread so that people like me don't get confused?

I need another cup of coffee.^_^^_^Hehe, I just said the same thing in the *other* thread :D

Great minds, Hen :hug:

I was just thinking maybe we could discuss it in this one because this one is about defining "debate", also, whereas the other only defined "fellowship"... but tis up to you which we close, cos having 2 threads open is silliness :hug: If you just report one of my posts from either thread, we can have it closed :)

[Hentenza]

Hehe, I just said the same thing in the *other* thread :D

Great minds, Hen :hug:

I was just thinking maybe we could discuss it in this one because this one is about defining "debate", also, whereas the other only defined "fellowship"... but tis up to you which we close, cos having 2 threads open is silliness :hug: If you just report one of my posts from either thread, we can have it closed :)

Definitely!! Can someone with mod powers close the other thread?

[Tonks]

I'm so happy this thread has started :clap: (even though I know it can be a hassle to continually define things).

Just a tip or two when it comes to getting those evil debate posts in a report. Generally, if they are debate by a non-member they should be deleted. The reason I said generally is this: on many occasions a somewhat debative question can resurrect a thread, become a teaching moment, or spin a discussion in an entirely new direction. In short, a debative post can sometimes be a teaching moment.

Of course, there are those who abuse the grace that is shown and such posts should be removed most quickly. I always suggest mods look at a borderline debative post in context (by reviewing the posts around the reported post) to see where the conversation goes.

Could it be deleted by rule? Yes. Should it be...well, that is where moderator discretion comes in to play. Likewise, I always prefer a request for edit (if feasible / reasonable) because it allows 1) staff to highlight a rule violation and 2) allows the person to ask, perhaps, a genuine question in a better manner.

I know sometimes other areas loosely allow (sometimes officially, sometimes not) a "clarifying question / quasi-debative post" if they truly didn't understand a response.

If people are trollish or whatever...they should be dealt with swiftly.

Conservative Christianity (be it theologically or politically) can be an intimidating thing to encounter...we're often more set in our ways / have faith in the "correctness" of our position etc. Many folks come to explore and learn (and hopefully we can convince them of the Truth of our position). We're here to fellowship with likeminded folks and be protected from those who think that we're some sort of bizarre abberation. We're also called to provide the lost a map in the hopes that the Truth will enrich their walk.

I always say that moderation is more art than science...and I guess the above are just nuggets of received wisdom picked up along the way.

I know it really didn't have much to do with the definitions...just something to think about, I suppose. Forgive the rambling.

[LivingLifeHisWay]

Looks good! :thumbsup:

[Debi1967]

Ok, so altered to fit CC, it would read as:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.
I like this :thumbsup:

[GreenMunchkin]

k, so the people that have seen our definition of Fellowship think that's coolio :) Yay! We can tweak it in this thread if and when people have concerns, do you think? But it's a decent start :) Thank you, Baptist Forum.

Onto the Debate definition... this one feels a little more complicated...

I'm so happy this thread has started :clap: (even though I know it can be a hassle to continually define things).

Just a tip or two when it comes to getting those evil debate posts in a report. Generally, if they are debate by a non-member they should be deleted. The reason I said generally is this: on many occasions a somewhat debative question can resurrect a thread, become a teaching moment, or spin a discussion in an entirely new direction. In short, a debative post can sometimes be a teaching moment.

Of course, there are those who abuse the grace that is shown and such posts should be removed most quickly. I always suggest mods look at a borderline debative post in context (by reviewing the posts around the reported post) to see where the conversation goes.

Could it be deleted by rule? Yes. Should it be...well, that is where moderator discretion comes in to play. Likewise, I always prefer a request for edit (if feasible / reasonable) because it allows 1) staff to highlight a rule violation and 2) allows the person to ask, perhaps, a genuine question in a better manner.

I know sometimes other areas loosely allow (sometimes officially, sometimes not) a "clarifying question / quasi-debative post" if they truly didn't understand a response.

If people are trollish or whatever...they should be dealt with swiftly.

Conservative Christianity (be it theologically or politically) can be an intimidating thing to encounter...we're often more set in our ways / have faith in the "correctness" of our position etc. Many folks come to explore and learn (and hopefully we can convince them of the Truth of our position). We're here to fellowship with likeminded folks and be protected from those who think that we're some sort of bizarre abberation. We're also called to provide the lost a map in the hopes that the Truth will enrich their walk.

I always say that moderation is more art than science...and I guess the above are just nuggets of received wisdom picked up along the way.

I know it really didn't have much to do with the definitions...just something to think about, I suppose. Forgive the rambling.No, this is a great post, and incredibly helpful... now it's just a question of how to frame it all and put it in our wiki.

I really like the idea of allowing people clarifying questions, because it could foster healthy discussion, and also, people may genuinely not understand what we've been saying. We mustn't shut down people being inquisitive, or wanting to understand as that's a wonderful thing.

Ok, so if a non-member violated the no-debating rule, and it's agreed that it's a violation, they'll receive an RFE as opposed to a hard-line staff delete.

Now we just need to actually define "Debate"... :sorry:

[Debi1967]

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debate

Noun1.apologia - a formal written defense of something you believe in strongly
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologia

Polemics
1. The art or practice of argumentation or controversy.
2. The practice of theological controversy to refute errors of doctrine.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polemics

Hope these definitions help....

[rmw8855]

Isn't debate anything that is not fellowship?

[Hentenza]

Isn't debate anything that is not fellowship?

Yep! That's the way I see it.

Maybe we can add that debate is only allowed in the CC Debate sub-forum.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Debate is arguing or pressing your opinion onto others. "Making" them see things your way.

*shrug* I don't know. I hate to debate! ^_^

[Sothron]

As long as we can eliminate the snarky comments from a certain person from a certain board *cough* which is the cause of most of the unrest on this board then I am fine. It is sad that we have to get this legal just to have harmony on this board but I for one am tired of having certain posters from other boards feeling free to insert jabs at the posters here.

I do not do that on their board and I would appreciate the respect. Please define "fellowship" and "debate" to include the banning of any kind of snarky remarks that exist simply to cause unrest or bad blood.

[Debi1967]

As long as we can eliminate the snarky comments from a certain person from a certain board *cough* which is the cause of most of the unrest on this board then I am fine. It is sad that we have to get this legal just to have harmony on this board but I for one am tired of having certain posters from other boards feeling free to insert jabs at the posters here.

I do not do that on their board and I would appreciate the respect. Please define "fellowship" and "debate" to include the banning of any kind of snarky remarks that exist simply to cause unrest or bad blood.
I guess we had better make a BAITING rule as well then.

[Tonks]

Yep! That's the way I see it.

Maybe we can add that debate is only allowed in the CC Debate sub-forum.

Unfortunately it is not always as black and white as that. Trust me (you'll see it).

Semper Reformanda (http://foru.ms/t6021633-semper-reformanda-forum-specific-rules.html) has rules similar to the above.

Likewise, I like the manner in which TCL (http://foru.ms/t5674902-master-rule-list-subject-to-change.html) speaks of non-members etc:

TCL members would like you to know that they welcome questions about such things as what is Lutheranism, how it differs or is the same as other groups of Christians, and how should one understand Martin Luther and his writings. Lutherans have always been about proclaiming the gospel. The name that they gave themselves was actually "Evangelical" while the Roman Catholic church called them "Protestant" and "Lutheran." Lutherans have adopted those terms for them not as the original labels of derision but as badges of honor.

We would like you to visit TCL to learn more of the orthodox catholic Christian faith. Many people have many false impressions of what we believe and our practices. We would welcome a chance to share the faith.

Likewise, I'll throw a bone (http://foru.ms/t5678783-obob-forum-rules-v20.html) to the Romish folks (like me):

This forum is open to those who accept the teachings of the Church, for debate, discussion, and fellowship. It should be noted that acceptance is different from agreement. Catholics may not agree with certain teachings, but they assent to those teachings as a lamb would assent to the gentle prodding of the shepherds crook. It is hoped that through dialogue, those who agree and those who struggle can learn from each other and grow to better understand the truths of our beautiful faith.
Non-Catholics are also welcome to join us in fellowship. They are encouraged to ask questions. They are not allowed to give advice, or advocate positions, which run contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.I think that the bolded parts might be able to be rewickered for CCC in light of how we undertake the "outreach" part of the mission.

Dunno, just some thoughts. The Baptists have some good rules too.

[Sothron]

I guess we had better make a BAITING rule as well then.

Yes, I think a no baiting rule would neatly catch those posts who have a negative intent but can scape by between the crack of "fellowship" and "debate".

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

As long as we can eliminate the snarky comments from a certain person from a certain board *cough* which is the cause of most of the unrest on this board then I am fine. It is sad that we have to get this legal just to have harmony on this board but I for one am tired of having certain posters from other boards feeling free to insert jabs at the posters here.

I do not do that on their board and I would appreciate the respect. Please define "fellowship" and "debate" to include the banning of any kind of snarky remarks that exist simply to cause unrest or bad blood.

I guess we had better make a BAITING rule as well then.

I think baiting can actually be apart of the definition of debate. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

Hmm... I'm not sure something is either or. Is there middle ground between fellowship and debate?

As to baiting - how would we define that? Am sorry to be so pesky, but it's the only way to prevent this from cropping up again and again.

[Debi1967]

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.I still like this, it is clear easy to understand and concise. Simple for everyone, therefore no one can come back and say they did not understand something.

[Debi1967]

Hmm... I'm not sure something is either or. Is there middle ground between fellowship and debate?

As to baiting - how would we define that? Am sorry to be so pesky, but it's the only way to prevent this from cropping up again and again.
You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum.
a. This includes deliberately reposting a post, thread, image or anything else that has been removed by a staff member for a breach of forum rule.This used to be an old rule we had that included baiting

You will not intentionally make posts that would induce other members to break the rules

[Tonks]

I think that there is such thing as theological fellowship. I may not be able to answer a question but I can certainly agree with a post...and perhaps ask a question about points I don't understand.

Other than that I think that it looks pretty good.

[Debi1967]

I think that there is such thing as theological fellowship. I may not be able to answer a question but I can certainly agree with a post...and perhaps ask a question about points I don't understand.

Other than that I think that it looks pretty good.
Questions are always welcomed and agreeance is always welcomed

[GreenMunchkin]

You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum.The only problem with this it is there are a few people who when they post here, our collective hackles are raised. I don't think there's any denying that. So for some, just the presence of those individuals is enough to disrupt the peace and harmony... even if there's been no actual rule break and we need to be aiming for absolute consistency.

I think this is kind of an unprecedented situation so our rules may have to be more nuanced but regimented in some ways.

[Debi1967]

The only problem with this it is there are a few people who when they post here, our collective hackles are raised. I don't think there's any denying that. So for some, just the presence of those individuals is enough to disrupt the peace and harmony... even if there's been no actual rule break and we need to be aiming for absolute consistency.

I think this is kind of an unprecedented situation so our rules may have to be more nuanced but regimented in some ways.
You will not intentionally make posts that would induce other members to break the rules

[Hentenza]

Unfortunately it is not always as black and white as that. Trust me (you'll see it).

Semper Reformanda (http://foru.ms/t6021633-semper-reformanda-forum-specific-rules.html) has rules similar to the above.

Likewise, I like the manner in which TCL (http://foru.ms/t5674902-master-rule-list-subject-to-change.html) speaks of non-members etc:

TCL members would like you to know that they welcome questions about such things as what is Lutheranism, how it differs or is the same as other groups of Christians, and how should one understand Martin Luther and his writings. Lutherans have always been about proclaiming the gospel. The name that they gave themselves was actually "Evangelical" while the Roman Catholic church called them "Protestant" and "Lutheran." Lutherans have adopted those terms for them not as the original labels of derision but as badges of honor.

We would like you to visit TCL to learn more of the orthodox catholic Christian faith. Many people have many false impressions of what we believe and our practices. We would welcome a chance to share the faith.

Likewise, I'll throw a bone (http://foru.ms/t5678783-obob-forum-rules-v20.html) to the Romish folks (like me):
This forum is open to those who accept the teachings of the Church, for debate, discussion, and fellowship. It should be noted that acceptance is different from agreement. Catholics may not agree with certain teachings, but they assent to those teachings as a lamb would assent to the gentle prodding of the shepherds crook. It is hoped that through dialogue, those who agree and those who struggle can learn from each other and grow to better understand the truths of our beautiful faith.
Non-Catholics are also welcome to join us in fellowship. They are encouraged to ask questions. They are not allowed to give advice, or advocate positions, which run contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.I think that the bolded parts might be able to be rewickered for CCC in light of how we undertake the "outreach" part of the mission.

Dunno, just some thoughts. The Baptists have some good rules too.

I am answering Matt but this is for everyone.:wave:

OK, fair enough. This is what we already have in our rules.

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

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

[Debi1967]

Does this then leave it up to the situation and the mod in the situation to determine this? Yes it does. However with the new system we have we can evaluate better because we can ask the person directly what they meant in that situation. That will be the information that you have then tender your judgement upon.

[GreenMunchkin]

You will not intentionally make posts that would induce other members to break the rulesHmm... still terribly open to arbitrary interprtation, maybe, sis. This one is tricky...

[Hentenza]

Does this then leave it up to the situation and the mod in the situation to determine this? Yes it does. However with the new system we have we can evaluate better because we can ask the person directly what they meant in that situation. That will be the information that you have then tender your judgement upon.

Hi Debi,

Is still too broad. I sure would like to tighten it some. Baiting should definitely be better defined. I'll post something in a while.:wave:

[Debi1967]

Hmm... still terribly open to arbitrary interprtation, maybe, sis. This one is tricky...
We can define it better if we work together on it can't we?

My brain is fuzzy I am sorry they have me back on high doses of pain maintenance meds again. It slows down my thinking and reactionary processes. I am trying the best I can to remember how the old rule was actually worded. It just isn't fully coming to me.

[Tonks]

When we had the "no baiting" rule I think I saw it used a grand total of less than five times in a year. It is way too hard to enforce. Besides, any baiting posts are usually outright flames. That or they fall under the harassment rule, at times.

[Debi1967]

When we had the "no baiting" rule I think I saw it used a grand total of less than five times in a year. It is way too hard to enforce. Besides, any baiting posts are usually outright flames. That or they fall under the harassment rule, at times.
Well then they must have used it on me all five times in a year....And they used it when something was questionable trust me so I complained that it was being misused by staff.

[GreenMunchkin]

We can define it better if we work together on it can't we?

My brain is fuzzy I am sorry they have me back on high doses of pain maintenance meds again. It slows down my thinking and reactionary processes. I am trying the best I can to remember how the old rule was actually worded. It just isn't fully coming to me.Am sorry you're having to take the meds again, Debi :hug: But it's nice to have you back :)

Do you think "baiting" is clearly definable? Cos I was thinking about it, and I think baiting is itself a very subjective thing. What is seen as baiting to one person and will set them off is just a standard post to someone else...

[Tonks]

Well then they must have used it on me all five times in a year....And they used it when something was questionable trust me so I complained that it was being misused by staff.

Really? Interesting. I never really figured out how to apply it. Point taken...I just have zero idea how to word such a thing.

[Debi1967]

Really? Interesting. I never really figured out how to apply it. Point taken...I just have zero idea how to word such a thing.
How it should be applied in reality is when someone is skimming the rules themselves and inciting others to go over the line and rule infract themselves. Like someone we know well in theology, my sister perhaps, who consistently is on the edge of the rules herself but consistently is hitting the report button when people react to her skimming the rules. She is inciting them to a fury and then wonders why she is getting the reaction she is getting from them but expects that because she has stayed on the line and carefully not crossed it, it is alright for her but not alright when people react.

That is baiting and she knows she baits and because it is no longer a rule infraction does it without any regret.

[Sothron]

How it should be applied in reality is when someone is skimming the rules themselves and inciting others to go over the line and rule infract themselves. Like someone we know well in theology, my sister perhaps, who consistently is on the edge of the rules herself but consistently is hitting the report button when people react to her skimming the rules. She is inciting them to a fury and then wonders why she is getting the reaction she is getting from them but expects that because she has stayed on the line and carefully not crossed it, it is alright for her but not alright when people react.

That is baiting and she knows she baits and because it is no longer a rule infraction does it without any regret.

That is a great example. We have already seen those kinds of posts on this board where someone *cough* says something that is rude or insensitive, elicits a response and lo and behold! a report pops up on the reactions to the original negative post.

Cut out the original bad seed and the bad fruit it spawned simply will not exist.

[Debi1967]

Am sorry you're having to take the meds again, Debi :hug: But it's nice to have you back :)

Do you think "baiting" is clearly definable? Cos I was thinking about it, and I think baiting is itself a very subjective thing. What is seen as baiting to one person and will set them off is just a standard post to someone else...
I hope so because i think that is where a lot of our problems come from, people baiting and being antangonistic. ( I know I spelled that wrong) However i have to lay back down whatever you all decide is fine by me so you all have my vote no matter what it is ....

Love you all
Debs

[Lisa0315]

Hey, everyone. I know we're all tired of rules and rule-making, but I suppose it's a necessary evil given the babyness of the forum.

We're having some problems with reports because the terms "fellowship" and "debate" are currently too nebulous and open to arbitrary interpretation so, I know it's a hassle, but I think this is something we need to sort out.

This forum is wonderful, but this one issue is becoming something of a recurring problem.

So, please can we discuss it? If we hash it out then add it to our wiki, we can all start fellowshipping with our feet on solid ground and have some definitive parameters for what is, and isn't, reportable and how to manage the reports. Am sorry about all of this :hug:

Thank the Good Lord in Heaven that you are doing this! Please, carry on...

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Suggestion...If we are having a hard time coming up with a definition, then, start two word lists: One for fellowship and one for debate. Then, pull from those lists of words to create the definitions.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Guys,

I don't think that there is a definition of baiting that is specific. It seems that in most cases a moderator is going to have to make a judgment call. However, under our present moderator protocol, three opinions are required which is a good thing.
The best definition for the negative connotation of baiting that I can come up with is "a post designed to elicit a rude response or to create ill will among the forum members and therefore, creating an unpleasant atmosphere".
Thoughts?

[GreenMunchkin]

Guys,

I don't think that there is a definition of baiting that is specific. It seems that in most cases a moderator is going to have to make a judgment call. However, under our present moderator protocol, three opinions are required which is a good thing.
The best definition for the negative connotation of baiting that I can come up with is "a post designed to elicit a rude response or to create ill will among the forum members and therefore, creating an unpleasant atmosphere".
Thoughts?Best definition I've ever seen it for it... and yet completely unenforcable because the reportee could simply claim they meant it well, and oftentimes, an ostensibly "baity" post may be genuinely be well-intentioned. It really is too subjective a thing to quantify and legislate against.

I just don't think a baiting rule is workable. We may just have to agree that we're probably gonna be baited cos so many people disagree with us... but that we're each responsible for our own reaction and we just have to rise above intentional baiting.

Sounds good in theory, no? :sigh:

[Lisa0315]

I know this is tough, guys, but I sure do appreciate y'all working on it. You do not know this, but this is an answered prayer. Okay, now you do know! :D

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Best definition I've ever seen it for it... and yet completely unenforcable because the reportee could simply claim they meant it well, and oftentimes, an ostensibly "baity" post may be genuinely be well-intentioned. It really is too subjective a thing to quantify and legislate against.

I just don't think a baiting rule is workable. We may just have to agree that we're probably gonna be baited cos so many people disagree with us... but that we're each responsible for our own reaction and we just have to rise above intentional baiting.

Sounds good in theory, no? :sigh:

You are absolutely correct. Any definition will not really be enforceable, however, it does give us a start point to make a determination based on the context of the thread and the other responses. I believe that having the definition in our rules will also educate the prospective poster of what we think it is.

Yep! Theory is one thing, practice is another.:sorry:

[GreenMunchkin]

You are absolutely correct. Any definition will not really be enforceable, however, it does give us a start point to make a determination based on the context of the thread and the other responses. I believe that having the definition in our rules will also educate the prospective poster of what we think it is.

Yep! Theory is one thing, practice is another.:sorry:Ooh, well, that's a good point, Hen! Tonks said something similar about what sort of impact a "baity" post has on a thread... if someone reports what they feel is baiting, we can check the thread, and if that one post de-railed the thread or instigated fisticuffs, then it would need deleting... but if one person felt it was baity and no-one else even raised an eye-brow, it'd be a NV. Whadayareckon?

[Hentenza]

Ooh, well, that's a good point, Hen! Tonks said something similar about what sort of impact a "baity" post has on a thread... if someone reports what they feel is baiting, we can check the thread, and if that one post de-railed the thread or instigated fisticuffs, then it would need deleting... but if one person felt it was baity and no-one else even raised an eye-brow, it'd be a NV. Whadayareckon?

Yes, I agree. It also gives us the option to throw a mod hat and warn the posters.

[GreenMunchkin]

Yes, I agree. It also gives us the option to throw a mod hat and warn the posters.:eek: It feels like we're making progress :D

So how about something like:

"No baiting.

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting."

[3girls2dogs]

I think you guys are doing a fantastic job, and I applaud your efforts. These rules sound great to me.

[Lisa0315]

:eek: It feels like we're making progress :D

So how about something like:

"No baiting.

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting."

Excellent! I happen to think that is extremely workable and actionable. Good job!:thumbsup:

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Excellent! I happen to think that is extremely workable and actionable. Good job!:thumbsup:

LisaOk :) Ok, after this post, will get our Fellowship definition and our Baiting definition and put them in one post so we can see it all together... then we still need to work out what we're gonna do with the Debating definition. But we're getting there so tis all good :)

[Criada]

:eek: It feels like we're making progress :D

So how about something like:

"No baiting.

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting."
:)

[GreenMunchkin]

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If people are happy with those, we can start working on defining debating...? :swoon: :D

[£amb]

Golly gee....looks like the mods and soon-to-be mods are taking over...:)

Ya'll are doin' a fine job and I tend to agree with anything that sounds good! I'm such a sucker...:D

[3girls2dogs]

Looks good to me, GM. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

Golly gee....looks like the mods and soon-to-be mods are taking over...:)

Ya'll are doin' a fine job and I tend to agree with anything that sounds good! I'm such a sucker...:D:blush: Sorry if it looks that way, Lamby :hug: I just thought this was important cos it keeps cropping up again. and again. and. again. Tis sucky. Sorry if am being all gun-ho about it, though :hug:

Looks good to me, GM. :)Thank you, my love :hug::hug:

I suspect we've all been procrastinating, actually, because "debating" is the hardest one :D

Sooo... "debating"... moo? :scratch:

[Hentenza]

How about this for definition of debate.

"Presenting or discussing views not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs."

Thoughts?

[Criada]

Succinct!
:)
Which is always good!

[GreenMunchkin]

How about this for definition of debate.

"Presenting or discussing views not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs."

Thoughts?Perfect!! Wow. Yah, so this is why you write most of our rules :P

Wow... ok, have we done it? :eek: Hen, dare you to start the poll getting everyone's votes on our 3 definitions... :ebil:

[Hentenza]

Perfect!! Wow. Yah, so this is why you write most of our rules :P

Wow... ok, have we done it? :eek: Hen, dare you to start the poll getting everyone's votes on our 3 definitions... :ebil:

Lets put it all together first and see if anyone else has other ideas. I think we should wait for the evening posters before starting a poll.
Would you do us the honor of putting it all together?:hug:

[GreenMunchkin]

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok! What does everyone think?

[Hentenza]

I think that looks great!!:thumbsup:

[Tonks]

Looks good. I think, in time, it will also be easier to distinguish earnest, if poorly worded, questions from debate.

I commend the moderators (and mods to be) as well as CCC members on this. Good job.

[3girls2dogs]

Looks good :clap:

[£amb]

Sorry if it looks that way, Lamby :hug: I just thought this was important cos it keeps cropping up again. and again. and. again. Tis sucky. Sorry if am being all gun-ho about it, though :hug:



Oh no! I'm far from offended or anything...:) I applaud anyone who has the talent to hash out the details and can do all the thinking for me will get major hugs from me...:hug: I'm excited that it is in the process of being created so our forum can don sails and enjoy our some what smoothe sailing...:D

[geocajun]

Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Hello,
I think this needs some polishing - debating consists of exchanging arguments, and arguments consist of both a premise and a conclusion. This is distinct from something which is merely a claim.

Thus "I think games are fun" is not a debate - it is merely a claim, with no support.
"I think games are fun because they are intellectually stimulating" is an argument because it has both a premise and a conclusion.

If the next person said "I disagree that games are fun, as I do not find them at all intellectually stimulating" now we have an argument of premise, and thus a genuine debate is taking place.

With that said, do you think there is any way to tune up the above proposed definitions to match what is the common understanding of the terms?

[GreenMunchkin]

Hello,
I think this needs some polishing - debating consists of exchanging arguments, and arguments consist of both a premise and a conclusion. This is distinct from something which is merely a claim.

Thus "I think games are fun" is not a debate - it is merely a claim, with no support.
"I think games are fun because they are intellectually stimulating" is an argument because it has both a premise and a conclusion.

If the next person said "I disagree that games are fun, as I do not find them at all intellectually stimulating" now we have an argument of premise, and thus a genuine debate is taking place.

With that said, do you think there is any way to tune up the above proposed definitions to match what is the common understanding of the terms?Thanks for having a looksee :)

Humm... generally I'd agree with you, except the premise is different in this case because the default setting is, to extend your example, a website that has as its central tenet that games aren't fun... so anyone who then argues the opposite is automatically debating the fundamental trait of the site.

Your example goes on the premise that there is no pre-existing foundational system or purpose.

[Jim47]

Hello,
I think this needs some polishing - debating consists of exchanging arguments, and arguments consist of both a premise and a conclusion. This is distinct from something which is merely a claim.

Thus "I think games are fun" is not a debate - it is merely a claim, with no support.
"I think games are fun because they are intellectually stimulating" is an argument because it has both a premise and a conclusion.

If the next person said "I disagree that games are fun, as I do not find them at all intellectually stimulating" now we have an argument of premise, and thus a genuine debate is taking place.

With that said, do you think there is any way to tune up the above proposed definitions to match what is the common understanding of the terms?


Geo hit the nail square on the head with this, and in fact of it isn't changed to inlcude this every claim of debate will still be subject to intrepration. Besides that, as it is written now its not in harmony with site rules and would not pass the test.

I think once this is done we still need to have our policy manager take a look at it if he has the time.

[Lisa0315]

Here is something from the reports that I think needs to be added:

Often in reports, we will say, "But, we were discussing rules". So, why don't we put something in that states what kind of discussions non-members may participate in. In other words, if we are discussing rules, such as this one, non-member input is not welcome in any way.

If it is a "Venting" thread, then, non-member participation is unwelcome.

So, maybe a list of the types of threads should be listed:

For Fun? Okay to post
Rule Making? Not okay
Venting? Not okay
Questions? Very okay
Invitation to Discuss? Okay

Let the OP define what kind of thread it is. Maybe identify them with symbols below:

Thumbs Up? Non-members can post
Thumbs Down? Members only please

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Geo hit the nail square on the head with this, and in fact of it isn't changed to inlcude this every claim of debate will still be subject to intrepration. Besides that, as it is written now its not in harmony with site rules and would not pass the test.

I think once this is done we still need to have our policy manager take a look at it if he has the time.

Jim,
We already had MNPhysicist over here in another thread, and he told us that forum rules supercede site wide rules. We are free to just about come up with any rule we want.

Lisa

[Jim47]

if we are discussing rules, such as this one, non-member input is not welcome in any way. This would work Ok


If it is a "Venting" thread, then, non-member participation is unwelcome. This wouldn't, its too open and posters will not always know that the thread is about venting.

So, maybe a list of the types of threads should be listed:

For Fun? Okay to post Yes, Ok
Rule Making? Not okay Yes, Ok
Venting? Not okay Won't work
Questions? Very okay Yes, Ok
Invitation to Discuss? Okay Yes, Ok

Let the OP define what kind of thread it is. Maybe identify them with symbols below: Won't work

Thumbs Up? Non-members can post I don't think we can expect visitors to read icon signs .
Thumbs Down? Members only please

[Jim47]

Jim,
We already had MNPhysicist over here in another thread, and he told us that forum rules supercede site wide rules. We are free to just about come up with any rule we want.

Lisa



Site rules still previal when we make forum rules. That is Erwin's rule and it will not be changed unless he changes it.

[Lisa0315]

if we are discussing rules, such as this one, non-member input is not welcome in any way. This would work Ok


If it is a "Venting" thread, then, non-member participation is unwelcome. This wouldn't, its too open and posters will not always know that the thread is about venting.

So, maybe a list of the types of threads should be listed:

For Fun? Okay to post Yes, Ok
Rule Making? Not okay Yes, Ok
Venting? Not okay Won't work
Questions? Very okay Yes, Ok
Invitation to Discuss? Okay Yes, Ok

Let the OP define what kind of thread it is. Maybe identify them with symbols below: Won't work

Thumbs Up? Non-members can post I don't think we can expect visitors to read icon signs .
Thumbs Down? Members only please

I think it would work and this is why. If a mod knows the signs, then, a mod can come in and say, "I'm sorry, but this is a Venting thread. See the Thumbs Down sign? Non-members are not allowed to post in this type thread."

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Site rules still previal when we make forum rules. That is Erwin's rule and it will not be changed unless he changes it.

Did this change in the last couple of days? Because if it did, I am not aware of it. I am serious. I can show you where MNPhysicist caught a lot of heat over in the Support thread over it. This is when we were discussing that controversial rule a few days ago due to The Rochir Effect. He even double checked with Erwin on it.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

How about changing the definition to the following:

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion which are not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.

[Jim47]

I think it would work and this is why. If a mod knows the signs, then, a mod can come in and say, "I'm sorry, but this is a Venting thread. See the Thumbs Down sign? Non-members are not allowed to post in this type thread."

Lisa


If you intend to do this without reporting then I would say Ok, but what happens when the poster protests? If you turn it into a report we have a fight without much hope of winning. This is jiust too much rules in my opinion. We can not make rules to cover every situation and totally exclude visitors. The site wide rules prohibit it.

[Nicki4Christ]

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok! What does everyone think?
This looks Great!!, Will this become a poll? I would like to see this go forward. I was off line since Friday, and was playing catch up today, It looks like we really need to have these rules in force, the sooner the better.

[Lisa0315]

If you intend to do this without reporting then I would say Ok, but what happens when the poster protests? If you turn it into a report we have a fight without much hope of winning. This is jiust too much rules in my opinion. We can not make rules to cover every situation and totally exclude visitors. The site wide rules prohibit it.

You need to check this with MNPhysicist, Jim. I am sorry, but I don't believe that is true. We cannot prohibit anyone from entering our forum, but we can prohibit which parts of our forum and which threads they can enter. We could in fact create a place solely for fellowship with non-members and the General CCC Forum would be off limits.

There are other forums who are doing this, you know. OBOB, unless I was misinformed, has set up parameters of who can post and where. I am going to go check that right now because I have not read it for myself.

Lisa

[Nicki4Christ]

How about changing the definition to the following:

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion which are not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.

I like this definition . But maybe keeping the wording about the sub forum, being open for everyone regarding debate?

[Hentenza]

I like this definition . But maybe keeping the wording about the sub forum, being open for everyone regarding debate?

I'm sorry Nicki. I meant to keep the sentence including that but only posted the definition itself.:sorry:

[Nicki4Christ]

I saw your wording as 'changing the ''definition'' after I posted the above, so it was my bad :sorry:. It looks good!! are we going to get to move on this? Or are we at a stand still?

[GreenMunchkin]

I don't understand why this has become so complicated?

The whole point of CC is that we shouldn't have to *defend* our position... that isn't the same thing as not allowing non-members to post. I don't really understand what the problem is... :(

[Lisa0315]

Y'all are not at a standstill. I threw some change in, but y'all can move forward with what you have. I do think adding something in about "where" non-members can post might be beneficial.

[Lisa0315]

I don't understand why this has become so complicated?

The whole point of CC is that we shouldn't have to *defend* our position... that isn't the same thing as not allowing non-members to post. I don't really understand what the problem is... :(

I know what "debate" is in CCC. You know what "debate" is in CCC. The problem is that non-members have a valid point when they say, "But that wasn't debate. I was just expressing my opinion". In almost any other Congregation, what has been reported in CCC would be ruled as NV. Thus, our bad rep, and thus our need for these incredibly wonderful definitions.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

I know what "debate" is in CCC. You know what "debate" is in CCC. The problem is that non-members have a valid point when they say, "But that wasn't debate. I was just expressing my opinion". In almost any other Congregation, what has been reported in CCC would be ruled as NV. Thus, our bad rep, and thus our need for these incredibly wonderful definitions.

LisaBut then *anything* can be justified by its just being an opinion. If someone comes in and says abortion is fine - or whatever, cos I know we've wiki'd that - and we report them for debating, do they get away with it simply because they then say "Hey, just my opinion. No debate intended"?

[Hentenza]

For the sake of clarity, here is what I propose.

Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion which are not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.

[Lisa0315]

But then *anything* can be justified by its just being an opinion. If someone comes in and says abortion is fine - or whatever, cos I know we've wiki'd that - and we report them for debating, do they get away with it simply because they then say "Hey, just my opinion. No debate intended"?

I know. I know. I am just playing devils advocate here.

What no one seems to understand and what no one else is having to deal with are these subtle devices that are presented under the guise of fellowship but are actually provocation. "They" know what they are doing. I wasn't convinced of that initially. Now, I am.

That is why what y'all are doing here is so important. We need something that is so concrete that there is no room to wiggle around it.

Lisa

[Jim47]

I am re-opening this discussion thread, but it must mot be taken into a poll until I have verified that it is acceptable to Erwin.

[Jim47]

Bump

[Lisa0315]

Well, here is the man of the hour right now.

Are forums autonomous or not? Can rules be made about who can post and where within a forum?

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

MN, advice, please, this is becoming untenable.

[mnphysicist]

There was confusion over one of Erwins latest posts. FSR rules and policies can still supercede site wide rules. What he wanted to prevent, was fsr's from affecting site wide rules. Ie, states cannot mandate things that affect the federal governments rules and processes, just as the reverse is true. It is complementary to the earlier guideline, not in conflict with it. We are revising the guidelines as we speak.

In a nutshell, subforums are autonomous, but they cannot nullify the 5 principles, nor can they enter the jurisdiction of the site wide ones. Ie, a fsr can give guidance on FSB's, not on site wide bans. A more formal write up is on the way. (probably later this week)

The earlier post by Jim as far as complexity was right on the mark. I see you want to provide protection, but care is needed, as too complex a set of criteria can be really confusing, and could create ill will, when non is intended. There is a balance though.

[GreenMunchkin]

MN, do you see anything in the below post that would even *begin* to cause problems?

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok! What does everyone think?

[jameseb]

Look.. the rules here are no more strict than they were with the old congregation forums - it's my opinion and belief that simply having the word "conservative" embedded in this congregation's name is the real root of the opposition here.

[mnphysicist]

Hmmm

No problem with the rule from a site wide point of view.

From an implementation point of view, I think you may run into significant headaches.

There are many that hold part or all of the same beliefs as a CC member, but may not be members of CC. I think by restricting debate to membership, rather than beliefs, you may be preparing to shoot yourself and your staff in the foot. I predict issues in operating with such a rule set. (I could be wrong though) Please explain why you are choosing membership, rather than beliefs? You might convince me otherwise. :)

[jameseb]

For one, there's isnt a conservative Christian icon. ;) But that still wouldn't work as one can be any of the other branches of faith and still be conservative.

For the purposes of understanding, let's just say that the roll call is the faith icon for this forum.

[GreenMunchkin]

Hmmm

No problem with the rule from a site wide point of view.

From an implementation point of view, I think you may run into significant headaches.Less than we've had so far? Pfft, there isn't enough Ibuprofen in the world...

There are many that hold part or all of the same beliefs as a CC member, but may not be members of CC. I think by restricting debate to membership, rather than beliefs, you may be preparing to shoot yourself and your staff in the foot. I predict issues in operating with such a rule set. (I could be wrong though) Please explain why you are choosing membership, rather than beliefs? You might convince me otherwise. :)Well, if you keep in mind, that to be a member, all someone has to do is read our statement of beliefs, agree, and sign in. So we're about as open as possible in that respect.

We can't know someone's beliefs unless they affirm our wiki... which is why we have a debate sub-forum. That way everyone at CF or 4U or whatever it is can come here and debate. But the main forum is designed to be a place where we don't have to actively *defend* our beliefs.

[Hentenza]

Hmmm

No problem with the rule from a site wide point of view.

From an implementation point of view, I think you may run into significant headaches.

There are many that hold part or all of the same beliefs as a CC member, but may not be members of CC. I think by restricting debate to membership, rather than beliefs, you may be preparing to shoot yourself and your staff in the foot. I predict issues in operating with such a rule set. (I could be wrong though) Please explain why you are choosing membership, rather than beliefs? You might convince me otherwise. :)

MN,
We are a collection of different denominations that hold to the conservative belief. Ours is not as simple as a single congregational forum like Baptist, or Catholic, etc. As a matter of fact, we are the closest to Erwin's old vision of uniting all Christians. We are doing that successfully.

Now, we need some help from you and staff to make this forum successful. The rules that we are suggesting are reasonable and merely define what fellowship is and who can debate in this forum. That is reasonable. We are not, in any way, attempting to exclude ANYONE from fellowship or outreach.

The site wide rules say that congregational forum have the right to be autonomous. We are attempting to do exactly that within the site wide rules of this forum. The proposed rules are no different than what I have seen in OBOB, Baptist forum, etc. We are trying to make this place a safe place for us.

I am asking for the support of management to make this happen. We continue to loose membership and now a mod because of the unreasonable requirements being levied against us. We need your help and encouragement instead of your criticism.

In Christ
Henry

[Hentenza]

For the sake of clarity, here is what I propose.

Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion which are not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.



Ok guys lets get back on topic. the above is what I am suggesting. Thoughts please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GreenMunchkin]

Ok guys lets get back on topic. the above is what I am suggesting. Thoughts please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I agree, and most of the members who have seen it agree, so I say we get it done.

Truth is, Hen, we're gonna be the ones enforcing it. Think you'll find it workable? Speaking for myself, I certainly do.

[Hentenza]

I agree, and most of the members who have seen it agree, so I say we get it done.

Truth is, Hen, we're gonna be the ones enforcing it. Think you'll find it workable? Speaking for myself, I certainly do.

Yes, I think we can. I happen to agree with Tonks in that we have a good working foundation and we can always change wording as our forum develops and we gain some working experience with the present rules.

[jameseb]

Ok guys lets get back on topic. the above is what I am suggesting. Thoughts please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Very nicely done, but....


Speaking from experience in contentious forums, the definition of "debate" leaves a whole lot of room for wiggling around the rules and resulting in more strife.

Might I suggest that we simply define debating, for the purposes of this forum, as any post that is not fellowship in nature, nor is an honest question asked of the congregation.

[GreenMunchkin]

Ok... so you feel there's nothing between fellowship and debate? We sort of touched on that earlier on. I feel instinctively there's some wiggle room there, but for the life of me I don't know what it is or how to define it.

But its being simply either or feels very, very hardline, somehow.

I guess the question is, do we start off hardline and gradually soften as and when, or do we keep it more gentle now and toughen up as and when? Am tempted to err in favour of the latter, I think :scratch:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Ok... so you feel there's nothing between fellowship and debate? We sort of touched on that earlier on. I feel instinctively there's some wiggle room there, but for the life of me I don't know what it is or how to define it.

But its being simply either or feels very, very hardline, somehow.

I guess the question is, do we start off hardline and gradually soften as and when, or do we keep it more gentle now and toughen up as and when? Am tempted to err in favour of the latter, I think :scratch:
Keep it gentle and toughen up later if necessary. That way nobody can say we didn't try. :)

[mnphysicist]

For one, there's isnt a conservative Christian icon. ;) But that still wouldn't work as one can be any of the other branches of faith and still be conservative.

For the purposes of understanding, let's just say that the roll call is the faith icon for this forum.

:thumbsup:

Very simple, no problems at all, when viewed in that light. Yes, go ahead and use members of CC if you so desire. I think a link to an explanation, perhaps even parts of this thread would help members understand, should they run into a violation. That was the issue I was seeing, folks will be upset and misunderstand. When you put it in the frame of a congregational safe haven, it makes complete sense.

[Lel]

Hmmm

No problem with the rule from a site wide point of view.

From an implementation point of view, I think you may run into significant headaches.

There are many that hold part or all of the same beliefs as a CC member, but may not be members of CC. I think by restricting debate to membership, rather than beliefs, you may be preparing to shoot yourself and your staff in the foot. I predict issues in operating with such a rule set. (I could be wrong though) Please explain why you are choosing membership, rather than beliefs? You might convince me otherwise. :)

Ok... so you feel there's nothing between fellowship and debate? We sort of touched on that earlier on. I feel instinctively there's some wiggle room there, but for the life of me I don't know what it is or how to define it.

But its being simply either or feels very, very hardline, somehow.

I guess the question is, do we start off hardline and gradually soften as and when, or do we keep it more gentle now and toughen up as and when? Am tempted to err in favour of the latter, I think :scratch:

If there is wiggle room, I assure you Lel will find it. :P

[jameseb]

:thumbsup:

Very simple, no problems at all, when viewed in that light. Yes, go ahead and use members of CC if you so desire. I think a link to an explanation, perhaps even parts of this thread would help members understand, should they run into a violation. That was the issue I was seeing, folks will be upset and misunderstand. When you put it in the frame of a congregational safe haven, it makes complete sense.

Thanks, Ron.

I agree a clear explanation so that there are no misunderstandings would a very good idea. I'm kinda hoping a wordsmith will come along and propose an articulate way of definining this clearly for all to understand... *hint hint somebody* ;)

Thanks again for your input. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

Ok, what is it we need a clear explanation of? Hen's our resident wordsmith, but I'll have a go, too.

[jameseb]

But its being simply either or feels very, very hardline, somehow.

It's simple, and not hard-line. It makes the decision easier for staff... believe me when I say, if this isn't done, be prepared for more strife. I'm so speaking from experience with this.

It makes the rule clear as day really. One can be hard-line whichever way the rule is written. However, with it being more simplistic, there is less room for people trying to skirt the rules and rile up everyone. This would actually allow staff to handle it with more grace and leniency IMO.

[jameseb]

Ok, what is it we need a clear explanation of? Hen's our resident wordsmith, but I'll have a go, too.




The very, very rought draft:

For the purposes of the CCC forum, forum membership serves as the "faith icon" for this forum.

This should make it easier for us to adopt guidelines and rules that other congregation forums have.

[GreenMunchkin]

The very, very rought draft:

For the purposes of the CCC forum, forum membership serves as the "faith icon" for this forum.

This should make it easier for us to adopt guidelines and rules that other congregation forums have.Incidentally, where did this "CCC" thing come from? :D Tis CC ;)

Ok... I know you said that's a rough draft, but that's pretty succinct and perfectico. Can we just keep that one? Gwaaaan :P

But about the debate/fellowship issue. I honestly honestly feel like we don't have to say one everything is either or, but I still can't work out why, so if you think that'll make things easier, assuming people agree, am happy to go with that, with the option of loosening it up further down the line if needs be.

[Joykins]

I hesitated to post this, but decided to do so...I know I am not a member, so I know you may not care for my opinion here... but as a guest I find it more difficult to determine what I can post if the rule restricts me to fellowship and questions only.

It is much easier to know I cannot debate, or cannot say things that would put Conservative Christians on the defensive. This is your home and I am a guest. As a guest I would like to be able to discuss (in some depth) things I have in common with Conservative Christians, and out of respect, reserve my disagreement for other forums where debate is allowed. Under rules restricting me to fellowship and questions only, I'm unsure exactly how much of this I can post.

I understand there have been some problems with people causing trouble and I don't want to get in the way of a good solution to that.

[GreenMunchkin]

I hesitated to post this, but decided to do so...I know I am not a member, so I know you may not care for my opinion here... but as a guest I find it more difficult to determine what I can post if the rule restricts me to fellowship and questions only.

It is much easier to know I cannot debate, or cannot say things that would put Conservative Christians on the defensive. This is your home and I am a guest. As a guest I would like to be able to discuss (in some depth) things I have in common with Conservative Christians, and out of respect, reserve my disagreement for other forums where debate is allowed. Under rules restricting me to fellowship and questions only, I'm unsure exactly how much of this I can post.

I understand there have been some problems with people causing trouble and I don't want to get in the way of a good solution to that.No, am glad you posted, Joy. That's a big help, thank you :hug:

So for non-members, the clearer the rules, the better.

[jameseb]

I hesitated to post this, but decided to do so...I know I am not a member, so I know you may not care for my opinion here... but as a guest I find it more difficult to determine what I can post if the rule restricts me to fellowship and questions only.


Hi Joykins,

If that rule is officially adopted, it will be the same rule that is in place for practically all other congregation forums --- Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.

It shouldn't be any more confusing or limiting than the already established congregation forums. I hope that helps explain it better. :)

[Hentenza]

The very, very rought draft:

For the purposes of the CCC forum, forum membership serves as the "faith icon" for this forum.

This should make it easier for us to adopt guidelines and rules that other congregation forums have.

Hi Eric,

I am trying to understand the need for this statement. Maybe I am just dense but our membership is open to anyone who accepts our statement of beliefs. Why is that not sufficient? Even if we have the above statement, the only way to know who is a member or not is by checking the list.
OK, maybe we have been working on this for too long today cause this is flying right over my head.^_^^_^

[Joykins]

Hi Joykins,

If that rule is officially adopted, it will be the same rule that is in place for practically all other congregation forums --- Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.

It shouldn't be any more confusing or limiting than the already established congregation forums. I hope that helps explain it better. :)

Oh, I know it is the same rule. However, each forum has their own spin on it, some read "fellowship" as "anything short of trying to deconvert people" and others read it as "talk about cats and beverages only."

[jameseb]

Incidentally, where did this "CCC" thing come from? :D Tis CC ;)

You know, good question! I've just seen everyone using "CCC" so I naturally followed suit, though wondering why it was't just CC. =P



Ok... I know you said that's a rough draft, but that's pretty succinct and perfectico. Can we just keep that one? Gwaaaan :P

Haha, sounds good! :D


But about the debate/fellowship issue. I honestly honestly feel like we don't have to say one everything is either or, but I still can't work out why, so if you think that'll make things easier, assuming people agree, am happy to go with that, with the option of loosening it up further down the line if needs be.

Certainly! And whatever the congregation here thinks is right. I'm just adding my opinion on it based on my experience in the Politics forums... and I'm seeing a lot of what happened there happening here too.

[jameseb]

Hi Eric,

I am trying to understand the need for this statement. Maybe I am just dense but our membership is open to anyone who accepts our statement of beliefs. Why is that not sufficient? Even if we have the above statement, the only way to know who is a member or not is by checking the list.
OK, maybe we have been working on this for too long today cause this is flying right over my head.^_^^_^


Hey Hen,

Perhaps I'm a bit confused or lost; last I'd heard our membership was closed. However, things do change pretty quick around CF/4U these days.

I'd just offered the alternative definition as a way of simplifying it so as to not leave much room for guessing. If we nail down a clear definition of "fellowship" (which I honestly believe to be pretty self-explanatory) then it would definitely leave no wiggle room for the kind of "debates" we've been seeing in some of the report threads.

[GreenMunchkin]

You know, good question! I've just seen everyone using "CCC" so I naturally followed suit, though wondering why it was't just CC. =PPerhaps the naysayers and black-ballers weren't talking about us, then... :ebil: We's stealthy.



Certainly! And whatever the congregation here thinks is right. I'm just adding my opinion on it based on my experience in the Politics forums... and I'm seeing a lot of what happened there happening here too.Religion and politics... le sigh. Yikes. Into the breach much?!

I want to see what Hen thinks about it, all, actually. Partly cos he's gonna be enforcing the rules, too, and partly cos he's sooper insightful.

[Tonks]

I understand the frustration about things not being "crystal clear" but, frankly, I think that the rules are pretty explicit as constituted. This is when it flips from codified rules to how a moderator, er, moderates. For comparision, here is the Baptist forum rule outlining debate. I'm not sure that every case under the sun needs to be considered...

Rules:

1. All are welcome to come post in the Baptist forum for friendship, fellowship, and conversation, but debate is limited to Baptists only.
Debate is definied as an informal or formal discussion of
opposing viewpoints. "Teaching posts" will be considered debate.

[jameseb]

Oh, I know it is the same rule. However, each forum has their own spin on it, some read "fellowship" as "anything short of trying to deconvert people" and others read it as "talk about cats and beverages only."


Hmmm. I might be losing you somewhere then... I thought you felt CC's rules were causing you confusion, but if your concern is emphasized by the "spin" on "fellowship", then I'm sure that might cause forum wide confusion.

I might have missed one if we already have it, but I think we're still working on a clear definition of what "Fellowship" will mean as it pertains to CC.

[Hentenza]

Hey Hen,

Perhaps I'm a bit confused or lost; last I'd heard our membership was closed. However, things do change pretty quick around CF/4U these days.

I'd just offered the alternative definition as a way of simplifying it so as to not leave much room for guessing. If we nail down a clear definition of "fellowship" (which I honestly believe to be pretty self-explanatory) then it would definitely leave no wiggle room for the kind of "debates" we've been seeing in some of the report threads.

Whew! I'm glad I am not the only going crazy. :D

Here is rule 4 of our current rules.
Confirmed members are listed. Any new member wishing to become a member of the congregation must be added to the confirmed list before being able to vote or debate. We also add an exception to this rule that the staff/members have discretion (on a case-by-case basis) to allow limited debate with non-members when outreach is the goal.

As you can see there is no mention of closed membership. Maybe we should add a statement stating how to become a member.:doh:

So, where would the statement that you drafted go?

[jameseb]

Religion and politics... le sigh. Yikes. Into the breach much?!.


Yeah, I hear you on that. Unfortunately, and judging by many questions I've seen posed to CC, our forum name is drawing some attraction to those with more a politic frame of mind.

As far as my beliefs go... hey, Christianity did wonderfully in pagan Rome. I see no need to mix politics and religion.

[GreenMunchkin]

This is all getting quite nebulous again, so here's what we're working with:

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion which are not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eric, you can edit my post, so edit it where you see changes necessary, and we'll go from there?

[Tonks]

The more simple the rules the better...and the less room for confusion. I like the Baptist approach...

just my ducats.

[Hentenza]

Ok, here is what we have so far. What else do we need?


Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion which are not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I am going to bed now so I'll see you guys tomorrow.:wave:

[jameseb]

This is all getting quite nebulous again, so here's what we're working with:

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion which are not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eric, you can edit my post, so edit it where you see changes necessary, and we'll go from there?



Okay, my brain is starting to become floppified (my word :P) so I'm just going to things continue to evolve here without any more interference.

As for the above, I like it. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

The more simple the rules the better...and the less room for confusion. I like the Baptist approach...

just my ducats.Me too. Except I don't think they're being raked over the coals for not having a definition for "debate" and "fellowship" so ours probably can't be quite as simple. Gonna go back a few pages and re-read exactly what you copied from theirs, though.

[jameseb]

The more simple the rules the better...and the less room for confusion. I like the Baptist approach...

just my ducats.


Just one last thought from me for tonight,

I agree. Simple and clear. It's a beautiful thing. :)

[Hentenza]

Guys,

No one can ever deny that me and GM are not in the same page since we are both posting the same thing seconds apart.^_^^_^

And she is beating me to the punch every time.^_^^_^^_^^_^:P

[geocajun]

Can a "debate" take place if a person posts one thing and no one response to it?
IOW, can a person "debate" all by themselves with just one post?

[GreenMunchkin]

For comparision, here is the Baptist forum rule outlining debate. I'm not sure that every case under the sun needs to be considered...

Rules:

1. All are welcome to come post in the Baptist forum for friendship, fellowship, and conversation, but debate is limited to Baptists only.
Debate is definied as an informal or formal discussion of
opposing viewpoints. "Teaching posts" will be considered debate. Huh. Actually, that's pretty spot on, too. Between that and our Fellowship definition, that's all the bases covered.

[GreenMunchkin]

Can a "debate" take place if a person posts one thing and no one response to it?
IOW, can a person "debate" all by themselves with just one post?If they're disagreeing with the forum's tenets, I think so.

[Debi1967]

Can a "debate" take place if a person posts one thing and no one response to it?
IOW, can a person "debate" all by themselves with just one post?
If their intent is to debate doctrine then yes a post can be made that can be assessed as debate.

IE. Mary is not the mother of God and here is why ect.....

This subject is meant to debate the Motherhood of Jesus and for no other purpose.

If the person asked the question
Why do you believe that Mary is the Mother of God?
Then this person would be asking for information about doctrine and would be subject to our rules of having to listen to the answers but not debating the answers given, if they were truly seeking. If this was not a seeker and a rouse and then they went about debating the answers given to them they would would be violating the rules.

[Criada]

Can a "debate" take place if a person posts one thing and no one response to it?
IOW, can a person "debate" all by themselves with just one post?
Not within the technical definition of debateing.
But - I think that this sort of posting would be caught under the "baiting" section, if it were posted to *cause* debate.

[Hentenza]

This is all getting quite nebulous again, so here's what we're working with:

Fellowship:

It is not debate.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.

It is not apologetics.
Someone who isn't a member of CC may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal or political issues.

It is not answering questions.
Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about <insert subject>? Only members of CC can offer an opinion about that. A non-member of CC may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. Neither may non-members offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.

It is not teaching
If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member of CC may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members (those from any other forum) they may not give instruction in the Conservative Christians Forum.

Earnest questions are always welcome, from anyone.

It is
Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No baiting:

Baiting is defined as someone posting with the intention of negatively derailing the thread. Should a post be reported for baiting, staff will review the relevant discussion subsequent to the reported post. If the thread has become antagonistic, the offending post will be deleted. If, however, the post has had no impact upon the discussion, no action will be taken.

Members of CC are encouraged to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they see a post they feel is possibly baiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Debating:

Only CC members may debate in CC's main forum. CC's Debate Sub-forum, however, is open to everyone.

Debating is defined as presenting or discussing views that contain both a premise and a conclusion which are not consistent with the Conservative Christians forum statement of beliefs.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eric, you can edit my post, so edit it where you see changes necessary, and we'll go from there?

Is this ready to go? Do we need changes?