Strike 3 Rule Poll

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.

[GreenMunchkin]

Yep. Yep yep yep.

[Hentenza]

Yes, it looks good.

[Macrina]

Yes, especially if we can PM the offender with this:

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1185211631-1176059810452.b.jpg

[Criada]

^_^

Voting yes. But praying we won't have to use it much.
(Though praps we could send the cat to people anyway...:D)

[JimfromOhio]

Its not perfect but I can live with baseball's example of strikes.:D Go RED SOX !!!! :thumbsup:

[Greenthumb]

Yes...but I hope we don't have to use it very often.

[Tonks]

Macrina,

This is the appropriate visual device:

http://209.85.12.232/4676/73/emo/sign.gif (javascript:emoticon('(ban)'))

[Nicki4Christ]

Yep,

[Jim47]

Is there a reason why we are not using the ET ban protocal? It gets very confusing when we have multiple protocal to follow :doh:

http://foru.ms/t5965634-wiki-et-single-forum-ban-protocol.html

#1 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38003239&postcount=1) http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/report.gif (http://foru.ms/report.php?p=38003239)
ET Single Forum Ban Protocol


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

To be used when a Congregational Area SUB-forum has no protocol developed of its own to effectively handle the would be "serial rules violator" That means the member has already proven through many violations already that he is not there to do anything but stir the pot and upset the apple cart;)....It is only after many violations already that you will want to proceed in this direction :thumbsup:

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


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



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

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

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


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

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

[Debi1967]

Is there a reason why we are not using the ET ban protocal? It gets very confusing when we have multiple protocal to follow :doh:

http://foru.ms/t5965634-wiki-et-single-forum-ban-protocol.html

#1 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38003239&postcount=1) http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/report.gif (http://foru.ms/report.php?p=38003239)
ET Single Forum Ban Protocol


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

To be used when a Congregational Area SUB-forum has no protocol developed of its own to effectively handle the would be "serial rules violator" That means the member has already proven through many violations already that he is not there to do anything but stir the pot and upset the apple cart;)....It is only after many violations already that you will want to proceed in this direction :thumbsup:

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


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



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

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

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


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

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

I would like to know why we are not using site wide protocol either?

[Lisa0315]

Is there a reason why we are not using the ET ban protocal? It gets very confusing when we have multiple protocal to follow :doh:

http://foru.ms/t5965634-wiki-et-single-forum-ban-protocol.html

#1 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38003239&postcount=1) http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/report.gif (http://foru.ms/report.php?p=38003239)
ET Single Forum Ban Protocol


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

To be used when a Congregational Area SUB-forum has no protocol developed of its own to effectively handle the would be "serial rules violator" That means the member has already proven through many violations already that he is not there to do anything but stir the pot and upset the apple cart;)....It is only after many violations already that you will want to proceed in this direction :thumbsup:

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


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




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

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

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


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

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


Well, I would say that it was because I didn't know about this. I have been searching the forums for different protocol and I have been putting them in the "Borrowed Items" Sticky. I just hadn't run across the ban protocol before.

In fact there were two discussions. This all began in the now infamous thread in which we were discussing not allowing guests to report. At that time, I suggested the Strike 3 Rule not aware that there was already a protocol in place. No one (staff) said, "Hey, we already have something for this", but instead were very encouraging that we should proceed. So, again, I didn't mean to step on any toes. I just didn't know about it.

We did have a great deal of discussion and many Admins rang in to say this was an extremely fair policy to have. Ours is actually alot more lenient than the one above. The quickest that they would get a 24 hour ban under normal circumstances would be if they received 3 strikes in a 72 hour period. Then, they would receive grace, and only after a second set of 3 stikes would we move to the next level of ban. Finally, if someone is persistantly causing trouble, a one year ban (not permanant) can be given and can be appealed directly in ET/CCC after just six months. All bans are appealable anyway at the upper level.

I am sure that members do not care if we stick to the regular ET protocol. I would think most folks just want a system.

What do you think about me closing this poll at least temporarily and starting a new one so members can vote to use the existing one or use the Strike 3 one? I am fine with it either way, and if it will make it easier for other staff, I will make sure everyone understands that.

Lisa

[Tonks]

I would say that CCC is choosing not to use that specific protocol due to this clause:

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

I also happen to think that what CCC came up with is much more fair - the ET rules are far too quick to trigger bans. All forums must harmonize with what it takes to enact a site-wide ban (but not a SWB triggered by violations of a FSB). CCC is allowed to create their own protocol for FSBs if they (we) so choose.

[Debi1967]

Lisa and Jim
If we have admin support for this newer way of doing the ban system it may be that they are looking to try it out here to see if it works. Iows we are the guinea pig.

Maybe the old way seems easier to follow but this way does have more of the values of forgiveness and charity instilled in it, while at the same time having more structure.

It doesn't put a restriction on that it has to be the same offense done three times in 72 hours just that it is 3 offenses in 72 hours. If someone has that many offenses in that amount of time maybe it is good for them to take a leave of absence for awhile from posting because obviously something that we cannot deal with is going on and should probably be addressed by the poster. Maybe in this amount of time away from posting they will have time to reflect on that and take care of it.

Then this gives the poster the ability to come back and sort of start anew. One problem that a lot of posters complained about before with the old system was that it inadequately dealt with people. The reason being is if the came back and made even the smallest mistake then they could be banned again, this time for longer than the first time. So they might have corrected the problem that we were having with them before but now they felt like they were tagged or marked by staff, as if staff was looking for them to mess up again. And then so on and so forth until they had finally perm banned the poster.

This might be a way to make it more equal for both sides of the equation without someone saying that staff is out to get them.

Just remember guinea pig. :D

[Macrina]

I didn't know there was an existing protocol.

If, as Tonks pointed out, ours is permissible given the existence of the other, then I would prefer the one we have developed.

However, if it conflicts with existing policy, we should use the one that is there already.

I hope, though, that provision will be made so that we may try this one out.

[Tonks]

I didn't know there was an existing protocol.

If, as Tonks pointed out, ours is permissible given the existence of the other, then I would prefer the one we have developed.

However, if it conflicts with existing policy, we should use the one that is there already.

I hope, though, that provision will be made so that we may try this one out.

From my read the CCC developed policy does not conflict with site-wide policy at it only applies to this forum. Again, I happen to think the CCC policy is inherently more fair. I have substantial issues with the ET policy regarding a year-long FSB (in general) and, specifically with the process to get a Y-L-FSB under the ET policy...or, more pointedly, what happens if staff cannot get to 75%. I think it is highly improper to say (basically) "well, we couldn't get enough people to agree to ban you for a year...so we're just going to ban you for six months instead." That type of policy sets off lots of alarm bells for me. The proper procedure, I think, would be to step back if the vote fails and then reassess options.

At any rate, those are just some of my criticisms.Of course, I'm only speaking as a member of CCC as I don't have a staff vote in any case (except for possible appeals).

[Criada]

I like our one...

[Jim47]

Lisa and Jim
If we have admin support for this newer way of doing the ban system it may be that they are looking to try it out here to see if it works. Iows we are the guinea pig.

Maybe the old way seems easier to follow but this way does have more of the values of forgiveness and charity instilled in it, while at the same time having more structure.

It doesn't put a restriction on that it has to be the same offense done three times in 72 hours just that it is 3 offenses in 72 hours. If someone has that many offenses in that amount of time maybe it is good for them to take a leave of absence for awhile from posting because obviously something that we cannot deal with is going on and should probably be addressed by the poster. Maybe in this amount of time away from posting they will have time to reflect on that and take care of it.

Then this gives the poster the ability to come back and sort of start anew. One problem that a lot of posters complained about before with the old system was that it inadequately dealt with people. The reason being is if the came back and made even the smallest mistake then they could be banned again, this time for longer than the first time. So they might have corrected the problem that we were having with them before but now they felt like they were tagged or marked by staff, as if staff was looking for them to mess up again. And then so on and so forth until they had finally perm banned the poster.

This might be a way to make it more equal for both sides of the equation without someone saying that staff is out to get them.

Just remember guinea pig. :D



In all actulality the proposed protocal here is much harsher then the already approved ET ban protocal. In the first place our protocal isn't for minor offences at all. Its only for those who cause major problems like MezzaMorta did, and when someone completely ignores staff requests to quit violating rules.

So if you're really looking to show grace the propsed ban here is not the way to go.

[Criada]

:scratch:

:(

[Tonks]

From my perspective, as a member of CCC (not a CF staffer) this, below, is a complete non-starter for me...as I've mentioned above:


5th Violation

Ban Committee will form- reviewed by all available ET Area staff with 6 months or more experience.
Vote taken on a year long FSB- taken by all available ET Area staff that have this minimum 6 months experience. All members of this ban committee will have equal voting power. The vote to move to a FSB of one year, will have to be approved by a 3/4 majority.
No 3/4 majority-If a 3/4 majority can not be had then the FSB will automatically be issued for a period of 6 months, and a PM with clear a warning that any continued infraction after that will result in a year long FSB.The "can't decide on a year ban so we're just going to give a 6 month ban" is ridiculous. I think that the CCC protocol should be applied to any poster not just troublemakers. This means CCC members and guests alike.

I desire an explantion of how the ET protocol is more fair / less harsh other that just a statment that to the effect.

[Jim47]

From my perspective, as a member of CCC (not a CF staffer) this, below, is a complete non-starter for me...as I've mentioned above:
[/list]The "can't decide on a year ban so we're just going to give a 6 month ban" is ridiculous. I think that the CCC protocol should be applied to any poster not just troublemakers. This means CCC members and guests alike.

I desire an explantion of how the ET protocol is more fair / less harsh other that just a statment that to the effect.



In order to do what you want Tonks we have to re-start the warning infraction system which Erwin did away with, and for that reason I also don't think the protocal proposed in this thread would work either. How would anyone be able to determine of it was the first, 2nd or 3rd offence? :confused:

[Tonks]

In order to do what you want Tonks we have to re-start the warning infraction system which Erwin did away with, and for that reason I also don't think the protocal proposed in this thread would work either. How would anyone be able to determine of it was the first, 2nd or 3rd offence? :confused:

It isn't that hard. When Theology begins to consider a FSB for someone we start a thread in the HQ and lay out the reasons why we're considering a FSB. We provide all reports (whether they are NV or a violation) and any past history of FSBs. Likewise, we have a stickie in the HQ to track FSBs.

There is a record and it is plain to all. I've taken a brief look-see and CCC really doesn't generate that many reports. This really wouldn't be that hard to track. It is, likewise, fully transparent. Moderators also become very familar with who visits their forum, who is reported (and who does the reporting).

Again, just throwing this out there. Even in the ET proposal there is still a cumulative aspect to tracking violations.

[Jim47]

It isn't that hard. When Theology begins to consider a FSB for someone we start a thread in the HQ and lay out the reasons why we're considering a FSB. We provide all reports (whether they are NV or a violation) and any past history of FSBs. Likewise, we have a stickie in the HQ to track FSBs.

There is a record and it is plain to all. I've taken a brief look-see and CCC really doesn't generate that many reports. This really wouldn't be that hard to track. It is, likewise, fully transparent. Moderators also become very familar with who visits their forum, who is reported (and who does the reporting).

Again, just throwing this out there. Even in the ET proposal there is still a cumulative aspect to tracking violations.



Et does the same Matt, but we're not talking about a few fsb's a week, we're talking up to 20-30 reports a day. There is currently no way to keep track of all these, none what so ever.

Granted reports have slowed down for the last 2 days, but this is I'm sure a lull and won't last.

[GreenMunchkin]

Et does the same Matt, but we're not talking about a few fsb's a week, we're talking up to 20-30 reports a day. There is currently no way to keep track of all these, none what so ever.

Granted reports have slowed down for the last 2 days, but this is I'm sure a lull and won't last.CC has been generating 20-30 reports a day? :scratch: We've barely had 20 total, I thought...

[Jim47]

CC has been generating 20-30 reports a day? :scratch: We've barely had 20 total, I thought...



There are 118 altogether and most of those came in hot and heavy :sigh:

[Tonks]

Et does the same Matt, but we're not talking about a few fsb's a week, we're talking up to 20-30 reports a day. There is currently no way to keep track of all these, none what so ever.

That's about par for the course in Theology every day...we sometimes have more.

At any rate, I was merely offering a competing idea. It is up everyone here to decide. I'm not wedded to either option, though I clearly have a preference. I just like that the other was was organically developed by CCC...and if it doesn't work we can always have a do-over. That's all.

[Jim47]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.



Well, if its worked for Theology I'll say we could try it as a test, but I see another problem whitch is why I copied the proposed rules again.

An FSB is by the honor system. How do we keep track of that? And what do we do if the violater does not adhere to the honor system? We didn't incorporate a normal ban and I'm not sure if we could uphold one but I'd say its possible.

[Tonks]

Well, if its worked for Theology I'll say we could try it as a test, but I see another problem whitch is why I copied the proposed rules again.

An FSB is by the honor system. How do we keep track of that? And what do we do if the violater does not adhere to the honor system? We didn't incorporate a normal ban and I'm not sure if we could uphold one but I'd say its possible.

Ah...good point. There is where I was just "assuming." Probably need to add another line to the protocol. When someone in Theology violates a FSB we convert the time remaining into a normal ban. We make it explicit in the PM which issues the FSB that a violation will convert to a site-wide ban. I've seen a few different teams go with this approach and it seems to work well. In the past violating an FSB generally led to an Infraction. This system has a bit more meat to it, I think.

How do I know if someone violated a FSB? Well, generally I've been involved in the discussion which leads to the issuing of a FSB...so I know who is on one (plus we have the FSB log). Also, now that reports etc are open if someone does violate a FSB we generally get a report with the report reason: VIOLATING FSB!!!!! Members are generally much quicker than we are. lol.

[Lisa0315]

I think we should leave the Strike 3 Rules as they are. If someone violates their ban, we will elevate it to the ET team and it will go to the Site Wide Rules.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Warning! Warning! Accounting Geek at work! Warning! Warning!

There are 20 reports per page and 6 pages of Conservative Christian Reports since July 21. That is a total of 120 reports assuming that there is exactly 20 reports per page. Jim's count of 118 is probably the more correct number.

This does not include Archived reports, and I did see a few that we need to finish up. I am going to go work on those now.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

I checked, too. It's 118 total. S'a lot. But, in our defense, most of them were created when things were at their most frenetic... both times. And, quite a few are to close the thread, etc. But it's too many.

It should settle down some from now on.

I agree we need to add something about a normal ban to the protocol, by the way. Something simple.

[Lisa0315]

I checked, too. It's 118 total. S'a lot. But, in our defense, most of them were created when things were at their most frenetic... both times. And, quite a few are to close the thread, etc. But it's too many.

It should settle down some from now on.

I agree we need to add something about a normal ban to the protocol, by the way. Something simple.

Easy enough to do, but I worry about adding stuff during a poll. It doesn't feel right to add stuff after people have voted.

I just feel like this covers FSB's and SWR's will cover violations of FSB's. You know?

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

SWRs? :scratch: Wassat den?

[Criada]

Easy enough to do, but I worry about adding stuff during a poll. It doesn't feel right to add stuff after people have voted.

I just feel like this covers FSB's and SWR's will cover violations of FSB's. You know?

Lisa
Well - only 13 have voted - so it shouldn't be too hard to check everyone is OK with anything added...
:hug:

[Criada]

SWRs? :scratch: Wassat den?
Tis a TLA ^_^ :hug:

[GreenMunchkin]

Tis a TLA ^_^ :hug:Ok. We can add TLAs to the "What?!" pile... :scratch:

[Criada]

Three letter abbreviation!

[Lisa0315]

SWRs? :scratch: Wassat den?


NM

[Jim47]

Would be better to trash this poll and start over, and frankly thats the only way it would stand up to scrutiny

[Lisa0315]

Would be better to trash this poll and start over, and frankly thats the only way it would stand up to scrutiny

Whose scrutiny? :scratch: I thought it had been decided that we can proceed with this.

Lisa

[Jim47]

Whose scrutiny? :scratch: I thought it had been decided that we can proceed with this.

Lisa


All I'm saying is its not right to change what you are voting in the middle of a poll

[Lisa0315]

All I'm saying is its not right to change what you are voting in the middle of a poll

Yeah, I agree. That is what I said that I was uncomfortable with. I feel like we can always add more if needed later. Plus, I think that if it is not covered in FSR's, then, it can default to the Site Wide ones.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and if people want to change their votes to NO so we can add the suggested addendum, that is probably a better way to go about this.

But, please state why you are voting No. That will help us know if you do not want it at all or if you would simply like to add something to it.

Lisa

[Jim47]

But, please state why you are voting No. That will help us know if you do not want it at all or if you would simply like to add something to it.

Lisa


Because I don't think its in line with Erwin's new vision, and its too heavy handed. We should be more open to visitors and opposing beliefs. We're all adults and know that not everyone agrees with us, but isn't that part of the purpose of a Christian forum to discuss things?

The only problem with visitors is that don't engage us in flame wars, but we already have rules for that, so why do we need yet more rules? :confused:

That is of course my view, and I know not everyone shares that, but I like to engage others in discussion in a Christian setting, not in a deabte forum. I don't care that much for debate anymore. I think its all but foolish to believe that we will change someone elses opinion by debate, so whats the purpose :scratch:

[Lisa0315]

Because I don't think its in line with Erwin's new vision, and its too heavy handed. We should be more open to visitors and opposing beliefs. We're all adults and know that not everyone agrees with us, but isn't that part of the purpose of a Christian forum to discuss things?

The only problem with visitors is that don't engage us in flame wars, but we already have rules for that, so why do we need yet more rules? :confused:

That is of course my view, and I know not everyone shares that, but I like to engage others in discussion in a Christian setting, not in a deabte forum. I don't care that much for debate anymore. I think its all but foolish to believe that we will change someone elses opinion by debate, so whats the purpose :scratch:

That's okay, but go ahead and vote so your voice will count, okay?

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Because I don't think its in line with Erwin's new vision, and its too heavy handed. We should be more open to visitors and opposing beliefs. We're all adults and know that not everyone agrees with us, but isn't that part of the purpose of a Christian forum to discuss things?

The only problem with visitors is that don't engage us in flame wars, but we already have rules for that, so why do we need yet more rules? :confused:

That is of course my view, and I know not everyone shares that, but I like to engage others in discussion in a Christian setting, not in a deabte forum. I don't care that much for debate anymore. I think its all but foolish to believe that we will change someone elses opinion by debate, so whats the purpose :scratch:
I agree about debate Jim. Usually the ones here debating are those who come here to troll...for the most part anyway. ;)

[Jim47]

Ok, I voted. I'm the only dissenter, RU happy ;)

[Lisa0315]

Ok, I voted. I'm the only dissenter, RU happy ;)

Well, we a'int all 100% Hen! :D

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

bump

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six mont

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six mont
Lookin good Lisa! :thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

This closes tomorrow night folks. If any of you who haven't voted want to have a voice on this, now is the time...

Lisa