Wiki: Seventh-day Adventist Guidelines Wiki--Take 1

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I like the way you reason things through, ITCS. You will go a long way in life.

Thank you. :) I only try to do the best with what God's given me thus far.

Why are you guys just now starting to see this? This is exactly what we were talking about and warning about as the rules were being voted in! But we were scorned for raising our concerns then, but now you (and others) are beginning to see that what we were saying was true! Why didn't you believe us then?;)

Sometimes it takes a trial period to realize how something will actually work. :) I don't know how many times I've been stubborn about something in the past and it took it failing completely before I realized my train of thought could have been flawed.

Another issue from my experience. I recently posted in contravention of my FSB. I was not contributing to a thread but merely giving a polite recognition of a post from Daryl in which he specifically addressed me alone. Had I realized that the original post was not in the Prog forum I would have immediately blanked the post. However, since the software does not allow posters to delete their posts would it still be considered a violation if someone on FSB inadvertently posts in a forum where the FSB is in effect and immediately edits out his/her comments? The post will still be there but it will be empty?

That's an interesting point. We do know people can make mistakes, and we also know that as Christians we're supposed to allow for grace, right?

I wonder. Instead of leaving it empty, what is everyone's thoughts on the ability to edit a post with an apology before it is worked to be a rv?

If it is a simple mistake..the person could edit their post to say something along the lines of..

"As per my current ban, I apologize for violating it with this post and am therefor deleting the content."

That way when mods are reviewing the report (if one is filed before this is edited in), they can clearly see that the person made a mistake and removed their actual comment to the best they could. :)

If, of course, the report is fully worked and a rv is issued, then I'd say that even if it was a mistake at that point it should be honoured as a rv.

This would give the grace of allowing for a person to accidentally post in a thread and fix their mistake without reprecussions. After all, the point of a FSB is to stop a person from actually posting their thoughts, right? This would just be a standard post without their personal input after it was edited.

[DarylFawcett]

I agree that there needs to be some grace entered into the Section 6 rules on Warnings and FSBs as well as a written rule to cover violators by those who are on FSBs, also with some grace written into it, therefore, I propose we begin the wiki process by taking another look at the Section 6 rules, quoted below, that were voted in:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning will be recorded and counts towards an FSB.

6.2 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.3 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

[DarylFawcett]

Here are the changes in red I would like to propose:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB.

6.2 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.3 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB, the FSB, if determined to be intentional by only one moderator, will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

[DarylFawcett]

The changes in red in both 6.1 and 6.4.2 allows for grace on the part of the moderators.

[DarylFawcett]

If the reports don't keep me too busy, I hope to be able to spend more time here in hopes of tweaking both the Section 6 rules and any others that may also need to be tweaked, however, we should limit our discussion to tweaking one section of rules at a time.

[sentipente]

As written the amendment to 6.4.2 only allows for grace if more than one moderator think the FSB was violated. I don't think that is what you meant to say.

[reddogs]

We have to take into account first time posters who may incorrectly start a thread leading to debate in the Main Forum, or post a thread in the Bible Study, etc...

Also notice the changes I made in 6.4.2....

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB. First time violators can be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.3 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

[sentipente]

That's not bad reds. Instead of "can" use "may."

[DarylFawcett]

Yes, reddogs, your rewording looks good to me with the change of can to may as sentipente suggested.

[reddogs]

Ok, so here it is with the change from 'can' to 'may' in 6.1:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB. First time violators may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.3 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

[Sophia7]

Do you mean forum-wide banning or FSB? In the case of FSBs, PMs are still allowed.

I think that it's programming, after the site changes in 777, but I'm not completely sure.

FSBs have always been simply issued by PM and recorded in a log, even before 777. The coding hasn't allowed for members to be technically blocked from posting in a particular forum due to an FSB. Only sitewide bans can be enforced in that way.

[woobadooba]

I just want to point something out that you guys may not realize. If you set up the warning system in this way you are going to put yourselves into a situation of assumed bias.

In other words, you will make it very easy for yourselves to be judged by others as being unfair in your rulings because they had to pay a penalty for breaking a rule when others didn't. Thus people are going to think you are not being fair.

Right now the FSB system isn't what really needs to be addressed. What needs to be addressed is the actual rules themselves. Make the rules more realistic and less legalistic.

Address them one by one, and in order. Then when you are done you might realize that the FSB system doesn't need to be changed. And if it does, all that would be necessary is to add a penalty for violating it and increasing the amount of warnings that a person must get in order to be subject to it.

Now that's the last piece of advice you will get from me. I have decided to go to a different forum. Hopefully there I won't be treated in the same unloving way that I was treated in here.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Ok, so here it is with the change from 'can' to 'may' in 6.1:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB. First time violators may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.3 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

That does sound good, although I think 2 warnings=2 weeks is too harsh and have from the beginning. I would rather see that raised to maybe 4. Although, if we add in edits that don't require a violation point, that could be okay at 2 violations for 2 weeks. (If that made sense)

Personally, rather than making this open for first timers only (which could create a problem as Woob said)..I'd like to see a RFE added in instead. That gives the mods the option in any case to chose whether it's just a RFE or a RV.

FSBs have always been simply issued by PM and recorded in a log, even before 777. The coding hasn't allowed for members to be technically blocked from posting in a particular forum due to an FSB. Only sitewide bans can be enforced in that way.

Oops. My misunderstanding there. :) Thanks Sophia.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I just want to point something out that you guys may not realize. If you set up the warning system in this way you are going to put yourselves into a situation of assumed bias.

In other words, you will make it very easy for yourselves to be judged by others as being unfair in your rulings because they had to pay a penalty for breaking a rule when others didn't. Thus people are going to think you are not being fair.

Right now the FSB system isn't what really needs to be addressed. What needs to be addressed is the actual rules themselves. Make the rules more realistic and less legalistic.

Address them one by one, and in order. Then when you are done you might realize that the FSB system doesn't need to be changed. And if it does, all that would be necessary is to add a penalty for violating it and increasing the amount of warnings that a person must get in order to be subject to it.

Now that's the last piece of advice you will get from me. I have decided to go to a different forum. Hopefully there I won't be treated in the same unloving way that I was treated in here.
Although I agree that looking over the rules themselves may be necissary, it's also needed to add some things to the FSBs at the moment. :) It's too limiting at just 2 warnings = 2 weeks and nothing more.

As I said above, I'd like an option for RFE's there too.

[reddogs]

That does sound good, although I think 2 warnings=2 weeks is too harsh and have from the beginning. I would rather see that raised to maybe 4. Although, if we add in edits that don't require a violation point, that could be okay at 2 violations for 2 weeks. (If that made sense)

Personally, rather than making this open for first timers only (which could create a problem as Woob said)..I'd like to see a RFE added in instead. That gives the mods the option in any case to chose whether it's just a RFE or a RV.



Oops. My misunderstanding there. :) Thanks Sophia.

3 warnings is what we started with in the last wiki and the majority wanted the 2 warnings so I dont think we should 'change' what was voted. We can 'tweak' how it is enforced and help out newbies and unintentional violations, and that is where we should direct our efforts.

For the RFE we can do the following as it gives mods leeway to keep a violation from being recorded for minor infractions:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB. First time violators or RFE violations may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.3 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

3 warnings is what we started with in the last wiki and the majority wanted the 2 warnings so I dont think we should 'change' what was voted. We can 'tweak' how it is enforced and help out newbies and unintentional violations, and that is where we should direct our efforts.

For the RFE we can do the following as it gives mods leeway to keep a violation from being recorded for minor infractions:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB. First time violators or RFE violations may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.3 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.
I still think we should have a number higher than 2. Always have and always will, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. :P ;)

I like that, however..having it worded with violations after RFE could confuse people since we're saying that they may not actually count as a FSB violation.

What about..

6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB. First time violators or posts deemed only in need of editing may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

Also, do we need a rule that explains a time-limit for RFE's?

"Members who recieve a request for self-edit of a post from a mod have 24 hours to edit their post. If the post is not edited within this time frame, a mod may edit it themselves"

Something like that?

[sentipente]

If a mod has to edit it a warning will automatically be given.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

If a mod has to edit it a warning will automatically be given.
If that is included, then it must be 24 hours after the member viewed the pm. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair incase they just hadn't been online.

[reddogs]

If that is included, then it must be 24 hours after the member viewed the pm. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair incase they just hadn't been online.

I believe that is the norm per the site wide rules, maybe Sophia or Longhair can give us the exact rule.

But, I liked your wording so let me put it up:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)


6.1 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB. First time violators or posts deemed only in need of editing may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.3 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

[sentipente]

If that is included, then it must be 24 hours after the member viewed the pm. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair incase they just hadn't been online.
That is what you original proposal says. They have 24 hours to perform the edit. I doubt the mods will be sitting around counting the minutes hoping to catch someone violating that rule. (wink)

[DarylFawcett]

I am wondering if we should separate the proposed 6.1 rule revision into two parts with the part on RFEs as 6.1 and the part dealing with FSBs as 6.2 and renumbering the other ones accordingly? By doing this though more revision in the wording will probably be necessary.

[reddogs]

I checked on the 24 hr rule with my trainer, and she said it is not really written anywhere, that is just the norm that everyone uses, so we dont need to write that one in....

Here is the rewrite with renumbering:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 First time violators or posts deemed only in need of editing may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB.

6.3 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.4 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.5 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate. Any other comments or tweaking....?

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I checked on the 24 hr rule with my trainer, and she said it is not really written anywhere, that is just the norm that everyone uses, so we dont need to write that one in....

Here is the rewrite with renumbering:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 First time violators or posts deemed only in need of editing may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB.

6.3 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.4 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.5 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate. Any other comments or tweaking....?
That sounds good. :) Two things to mention, though.

My rewording of the 6.1 rule kinda makes it sound like the posts will get the PM..not the posters. *lol* For the life of me I cannot think of how to word it so it comes out right. Any suggestions?

Secondly, during training I realized that we don't have a FSB rule for trolls...trolls fall into the catigory of site-wide, but I believe I was told that it wouldn't hurt to have the site-wide rule at least linked into our wiki. Any thoughts?

[sentipente]

Let it read: "First time violators or posters who make posts deemed . . ."

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Let it read: "First time violators or posters who make posts deemed . . ."
Perfect. :)

[reddogs]

Here is that change, and a way how we can link with site-wide rules:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum), SDA forum mods may also refer to site-wide rules in reports.

6.1 First time violators or posters who make posts deemed only in need of editing may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB.

6.3 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.4 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.5 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate. My questions is, will the including this link to site-wide rules interfere in any way if we add them:

[DarylFawcett]

There already is a link to the Site Rules marked Rules at the bottom of each page, therefore, it shouldn't be necessary to link to those rules.

[DarylFawcett]

Also, most of the rule violations handled by the mods in the reports are under the Site Rule 1.8 on flaming, therefore, I don't even think referring to the site rules is even necessary in our FSRs.

[DarylFawcett]

This is the way I propose the revision of the Section 6 rules should look like:

6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 First time violators or posters who make posts deemed only in need of editing may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB.

6.3 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.4 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.5 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

[reddogs]

There already is a link to the Site Rules marked Rules at the bottom of each page, therefore, it shouldn't be necessary to link to those rules.

I agree, and we use the rules when applicable so not really a issue.......

[reddogs]

This is the way I propose the revision of the Section 6 rules should look like:

Quote:
6 Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum)

6.1 First time violators or posters who make posts deemed only in need of editing may be given a counseling PM rather than a warning by a majority consensus of the three moderators who ruled it a violation.

6.2 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning, if deemed necessary by consensus of three moderators, will be recorded and counts towards an FSB, otherwise, it will not be counted towards an FSB.

6.3 Duplicate registrations under another user-name that has been banned for rule violations, will not be tolerated, and upon discovery by a moderator will result in a six month ban under all registrations.

6.4 Creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rule violation(s), will be deleted, and a warning will be given. What this means is that you can't take a post from such a thread and repost it in a new thread. However, you may continue a discussion on the same subject in another thread as long as the topic itself does not violate any rules.

6.5 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
2) If a person violates the FSB intentionally by consensus of three moderators, the FSB will automatically be restarted from the time of the post in violation of the FSB.
3) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate. [/size][/font]
[/list]

I think they are about ready for primetime, shall we run them by the brethren with a prepoll rule discussion....

[DarylFawcett]

I am ready for it to be taken to a pre-poll discussion in the Discussion and Debate Sub-forum.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I am ready for it to be taken to a pre-poll discussion in the Discussion and Debate Sub-forum.
Me too. :) Sounds good.

[DarylFawcett]

I will create the pre-poll discussion topic and place the latest one here as a quote.

[DarylFawcett]

The pre-poll discussion on the proposed revision of the Section 6 Rules has been created.

Here is the link: Click Here. (http://foru.ms/t6281069-pre-poll-discussion-on-revision-of-section-6-rules-on-warnings-fsbs.html)

[tall73]

I just want to point something out that you guys may not realize. If you set up the warning system in this way you are going to put yourselves into a situation of assumed bias.

In other words, you will make it very easy for yourselves to be judged by others as being unfair in your rulings because they had to pay a penalty for breaking a rule when others didn't. Thus people are going to think you are not being fair.

Right now the FSB system isn't what really needs to be addressed. What needs to be addressed is the actual rules themselves. Make the rules more realistic and less legalistic.

Address them one by one, and in order. Then when you are done you might realize that the FSB system doesn't need to be changed. And if it does, all that would be necessary is to add a penalty for violating it and increasing the amount of warnings that a person must get in order to be subject to it.

Now that's the last piece of advice you will get from me. I have decided to go to a different forum. Hopefully there I won't be treated in the same unloving way that I was treated in here.

It is good advice.

I wish you well Woob.

God bless.

[OntheDL]

You guys have to seriously reconsider this revision.

History has proven when a few men are given the power to determine the fate of others, abuse happens invariably regardless of the original intent.

You (the mods) will leave yourselves open for allegations of bias.

What we need is clearly defined rules, not human discretion which is a recipe for failure.

[tall73]

You guys have to seriously reconsider this revision.

History has proven when a few men are given the power to determine the fate of others, abuse happens invariably regardless of the original intent.

You (the mods) will leave yourselves open for allegations of bias.

What we need is clearly defined rules, not human discretion which is a recipe for failure.

Exactly.

[StormyOne]

so what is happening? a revision of the rules or a tweaking of the FSBs?

[woobadooba]

I think our FSB system ought to be enforced in the progressive forum also, but ONLY for flaming.

We can give that forum the freedom for people to express their doctrinal ideas which differ from the official beliefs, but the flaming has got to stop.

Several people in there continue to boast about how the rules don't apply every time they get reported for flaming in there. It is obvious that these people are abusing their liberty in this way.

If nothing is going to be done about these people that are doing this, then we need to do something about it.

It should be understood that it was by a vote that that forum was given autonomy from our rules, and we have a right to vote to enforce any rule in there that we wish to see implemented.

Again, I say let them teach what they want in there. But something has to be done about the constant flaming. Without law there is anarchy.

Note: Before anyone tries to go off on me, I also admit to being one that has flamed in there. So I am not denying this.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I do agree that the Progressive forum should have some kind of FSB system, although I personally think they should create their own. :)

At this point, myself and the other SDA mods can't even help out in the reports for there, so they have a lot on their hands. A system that can at least deal with repeat flamers could be a benefit.

However, still up to them.

[woobadooba]

I do agree that the Progressive forum should have some kind of FSB system, although I personally think they should create their own. :)

At this point, myself and the other SDA mods can't even help out in the reports for there, so they have a lot on their hands. A system that can at least deal with repeat flamers could be a benefit.

However, still up to them.

Why must it only be up to them when for the most part, non-progressive members are the object of these flames?

Is that really fair?

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Why must it only be up to them when for the most part, non-progressive members are the object of these flames?

Is that really fair?
Fair? Maybe not to us, but it is in principle.

They chose to be seperate, and thusly gained every right to make their own rules..or not.

Think of it this way, if it helps..

If you went to a forum for the first time and were getting flamed, yet the rules did not have anything against it..would you not just walk away from the forum? :) That's really all that can be done in the case of this.

If they feel like flaming others there, that's their choice to have a rule or not..cause it's their forum.

[StormyOne]

I do agree that the Progressive forum should have some kind of FSB system, although I personally think they should create their own. :)

At this point, myself and the other SDA mods can't even help out in the reports for there, so they have a lot on their hands. A system that can at least deal with repeat flamers could be a benefit.

However, still up to them.
the progressive forum operates independently and has opted to use the general forum rules to handing flaming. Please note that was the decision made, and Woob you cannot force your rules on an independent area though you seem to be intent on doing so.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

the progressive forum operates independently and has opted to use the general forum rules to handing flaming. Please note that was the decision made, and Woob you cannot force your rules on an independent area though you seem to be intent on doing so.
But the general rules don't have a ban system, do they? *dorky moment*

And I am agreeing with you, it's all up to you guys. :)

[StormyOne]

But the general rules don't have a ban system, do they? *dorky moment*

And I am agreeing with you, it's all up to you guys. :)yes it does... I read it but I cannot remember the particulars at the moment...

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Found it, actually. http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=staff_protocol#faq_staff_protocol_bans

:)

The congregational area itself has a ban system too, I think.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

There it is. Although you guys would have to vote on using it.

http://foru.ms/t5994755-wiki-sticky-et-ban-protocol.html

[woobadooba]

Fair? Maybe not to us, but it is in principle.

They chose to be seperate, and thusly gained every right to make their own rules..or not.

Think of it this way, if it helps..

If you went to a forum for the first time and were getting flamed, yet the rules did not have anything against it..would you not just walk away from the forum? :) That's really all that can be done in the case of this.

If they feel like flaming others there, that's their choice to have a rule or not..cause it's their forum.

If this is the case, and nothing can be done about the flaming of non-progressive members and SDA doctrine, then since they have claimed absolute autonomy from the rules of the SDA forum and the general vote of the people thereof, then they should be completely separated from the SDA forum, and should no longer identify their section as SDA.

I suppose we can vote for that.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

If this is the case, and nothing can be done about the flaming of non-progressive members and SDA doctrine, then since they have claimed absolute autonomy from the rules of the SDA forum and the general vote of the people thereof, then they should be completely separated from the SDA forum, and should no longer identify their section as SDA.

I suppose we can vote for that.
THe idea of the autonomy was so they could stay as part of our forum and still have their own rules and mods and such. I don't agree with a split. Never did. And they would still need to vote on that also.

[StormyOne]

THe idea of the autonomy was so they could stay as part of our forum and still have their own rules and mods and such. I don't agree with a split. Never did. And they would still need to vote on that also.and that is what they are doing.... the flaming didn't begin until a certain member arrived because they have been banned from other areas and started antagonizing members in the progressive area.

[Sophia7]

Flaming is against the main Foru.ms rules and will be handled as such in the PSDA sub-forum. We also voted in the main protocol for acting on rule violations there and stickied it, which does include a banning procedure. The main SDA forum cannot vote to take away the sub-forum's independence. Each sub-forum is allowed to exercise their autonomy.

[woobadooba]

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

This rule is severely flawed in how it is worded, and should be corrected.

Moreover, no one should be held accountable to it until it is corrected.

1. Any question can 'lead' to debate. Therefore, all questions must be in violation of the rule.
2. It clearly says that 'questions' that could lead to debate 'should be' posted in the DD forum, not that they 'must be' put there. Thus 'should be' denotes the idea of a recommendation, not a command as would 'must be' imply. Therefore, there is a suppressed clause within the rule that allows for questions that could lead to debate to be moved to the DD forum without penalty.
3. The rule makes it clear that 'questions' (not statements or opinions) 'that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the' DD forum. Therefore, anyone could post a debative statement or opinion and not be subject to a warning, because the rule only has an issue with 'questions', not statements or opinions.

Here is what I propose. Just simply state the rule as 'debate is not allowed in the main forum. Posts that are of a debating nature (argumentative) will be moved to the DD forum.

'Argumentative' is to be understood as an act wherein someone posts a comment that denounces another poster's comment, or addresses another poster in a combative manner.

People that continue to disregard this rule will be subject to a 3 strike warning. What this means is that if you are found to be guilty of violating this rule three times you will get a warning.'

[sentipente]

Woob, it is not too late for you to come back down to earth.

[woobadooba]

I just want to let everyone know that if I don't receive any input on this I will post a poll in the DD forum when my ban is lifted.

The results of that poll will determine what happens to our current rule.

[DarylFawcett]

We just finished a POLL on a revision of the Section 6 FSRs in relation to warnings and FSBs. The ones that received the required 51% were edited into the wiki and edited into the stickied new rules threads in each SDA forum/sub-forums, and are in effect.

[DarylFawcett]

If there is interest in tweaking any of our FSRs, we should do it in an organized fashion beginning with the Section 1 FSRs, however, it must be done as agreed by discussing proposed revisions here first and then later on in a pre-poll thread before going to a POLL.

[woobadooba]

We just finished a POLL on a revision of the Section 6 FSRs in relation to warnings and FSBs. The ones that received the required 51% were edited into the wiki and edited into the stickied new rules threads in each SDA forum/sub-forums, and are in effect.

I realize that. But that doesn't address the absurdities that exist within the rule that I am challenging.

Please address that.

[woobadooba]

If there is interest in tweaking any of our FSRs, we should do it in an organized fashion beginning with the Section 1 FSRs, however, it must be done as agreed by discussing proposed revisions here first and then later on in a pre-poll thread before going to a POLL.

Can you show me where in our rules it states that it has to go to a pre-poll thread even after being discussed in here?

Also, it doesn't take more than two people to agree on something in order for there to be a consensus. If people don't participate that isn't the fault of those who did.

So as long as I can get someone to agree with my proposal, and no one else participates, it can go to a poll. And that poll will be valid. There is no rule that states a certain number of people must discuss a rule proposal or change before it can go to a poll, just as there is no rule that states there must be another pre-poll discussion after such a proposal is discussed in here. Please keep these things in mind.

[sentipente]

I just want to let everyone know that if I don't receive any input on this I will post a poll in the DD forum when my ban is lifted.

The results of that poll will determine what happens to our current rule.
Woob, antagonizing the world does not make you a martyr.

[DarylFawcett]

We have an agreed process that should be followed, otherwise, I will vote against anything in a POLL and will speak against the POLL itself, if the agreed to process isn't followed, and that includes a pre-poll discussion.

[DarylFawcett]

With what I just said in mind, let us take a look at what needs to be revised in the Section 1 FSRs quoted below from the wiki:

1. Main SDA Forum (Effective September 17, 2007)

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

[DarylFawcett]

I actually originally wanted to separate what I quoted into three separate Section 1 rules, but didn't receive an agreement to do so at that time.

Here is how I would like to see it appear now:

1. Main SDA Forum (Effective September 17, 2007)

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions.

1.2 Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.3 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.
With this breakdown in mind, further revising should now be suggested.

[woobadooba]

We have an agreed process that should be followed, otherwise, I will vote against anything in a POLL and will speak against the POLL itself, if the agreed to process isn't followed, and that includes a pre-poll discussion.

Daryl, you can do whatever you want, but there is no rule that dictates that we must have TWO pre-poll discussions, one in the wiki, and another in the SDA forum.

Where is the rule for this?

[woobadooba]

I actually originally wanted to separate what I quoted into three separate Section 1 rules, but didn't receive an agreement to do so at that time.

Here is how I would like to see it appear now:
[/color][/font][/size]
With this breakdown in mind, further revising should now be suggested.

Daryl, you are not addressing the issues that I raised that this rule poses.

I want you to address the issues that I raised.

Please do so!

For your convenience here they are again:

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

This rule is severely flawed in how it is worded, and should be corrected.

Moreover, no one should be held accountable to it until it is corrected.

1. Any question can 'lead' to debate. Therefore, all questions must be in violation of the rule.
2. It clearly says that 'questions' that could lead to debate 'should be' posted in the DD forum, not that they 'must be' put there. Thus 'should be' denotes the idea of a recommendation, not a command as would 'must be' imply. Therefore, there is a suppressed clause within the rule that allows for questions that could lead to debate to be moved to the DD forum without penalty.
3. The rule makes it clear that 'questions' (not statements or opinions) 'that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the' DD forum. Therefore, anyone could post a debative statement or opinion and not be subject to a warning, because the rule only has an issue with 'questions', not statements or opinions. (granted, you did address this slightly, but you haven't defined what constitutes debate.)

Here is what I propose. Just simply state the rule as 'debate is not allowed in the main forum. Posts that are of a debating nature (argumentative) will be moved to the DD forum.

'Argumentative' is to be understood as an act wherein someone posts a comment that denounces another poster's comment, or addresses another poster in a combative manner.

People that continue to disregard this rule will be subject to a 3 strike warning. What this means is that if you are found to be guilty of violating this rule three times you will get a warning.'

[DarylFawcett]

As I look at this further, I think a further breakdown would be appropriate as follows:

1. Main SDA Forum (Effective September 17, 2007)

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions.

1.2 Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum.

1.3 Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.4 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.
As you noticed, I haven't yet personally suggested any revision in the wording.

[woobadooba]

As I look at this further, I think a further breakdown would be appropriate as follows:
[/color][/font][/size]
As you noticed, I haven't yet personally suggested any revision in the wording.

No, but I have. And I would like you to address the points that I raised.

This doesn't have to be a difficult task. We could just address the validity of the proposal. There is no sense in burying the proposal beneath a bunch of posts that really aren't necessary.

[DarylFawcett]

Woob,

The warning portion belongs in Section 6, where they can also be suggested as we discuss the revision of the Section 1 FSRs.

As far as the discussion goes here in the wiki, and the pre-poll discussion in the SDA D&D Sub-forum goes, this wasn't voted as a rule but was agreed to by consensus, which is why we were doing many of the FSRs in accordance and agreement to this process, and is why we still are. You are the only one questioning this, therefore, unless you want us all to take up more time to go through discussing how the process should take place for future work on the rules, I suggest we go with the agreed process, which I think you will find somewhere in one of the three wiki threads here, most likely in the Take 2 or Take 3 ones.

[DarylFawcett]

Well, then let us look at each one as I have listed here and look to see what needs revising.

How about 1.1 as I quoted here? Is it OK as is, or does it need revising?

[DarylFawcett]

By the way, the only way this is going to work is by group participation, which translates in more than just you and I, therefore, I trust others will soon also participate here. This is another reason why we agreed on a pre-poll discussion topic in the SDA section, prior to taking it to a POLL.

[DarylFawcett]

As far as the present FSRs goes, they were voted through in POLLS and will remain as rules to be enforced by the moderators until revised ones are voted through and take their place.

Neither you, nor I, nor anybody else has the right to say, state, and declare otherwise.

[DarylFawcett]

Here is what I propose. Just simply state the rule as 'debate is not allowed in the main forum. Posts that are of a debating nature (argumentative) will be moved to the DD forum.

'Argumentative' is to be understood as an act wherein someone posts a comment that denounces another poster's comment, or addresses another poster in a combative manner.

People that continue to disregard this rule will be subject to a 3 strike warning. What this means is that if you are found to be guilty of violating this rule three times you will get a warning.'
Are you proposing that all the voted through Section 1 FSRs be replaced by what you have proposed here? Of course, the warning part would need to be looked at in relation to the Section 6 FSRs.

[DarylFawcett]

Only bringing the proposed renumbering of the quote to page 33:

1. Main SDA Forum (Effective September 17, 2007)

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions.

1.2 Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum.

1.3 Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum.

1.4 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate.

[woobadooba]

[/color][/font][/size]
Are you proposing that all the voted through Section 1 FSRs be replaced by what you have proposed here?

That is what I am suggesting, and unless it can be shown that my reasons for doing this are not logically consistent, I see no reason not to word it as I have proposed.

Of course, the warning part would need to be looked at in relation to the Section 6 FSRs.

The current FSB system applies to all rules. My three strike warning proposal would only apply to rules 1.1 and 1.2

As for your other comments, I could address them, but choose not to because I don't want to delay this process further. People are being accused of violating rules that they are not guilty of breaking because the rules are not being applied properly. And you know exactly what I am talking about!

Further delays will only result in more innocent people being penalized for rule violations that they are not guilty of.

[DarylFawcett]

People that continue to disregard this rule will be subject to a 3 strike warning. What this means is that if you are found to be guilty of violating this rule three times you will get a warning.'
The last part of what you proposed, quoted above, conflicts with the Section 6 FSRs on Warnings and FSBs. We can't have one type of FSB for one rule and another type for another rule, at least not in the way the FSRs are presently set up, therefore, the same FSBs need to apply for all the rules. There was a proposal to change the warnings from two to three, however, it didn't receive the required 51% to pass, therefore, I suggest we concentrate on the wording of the proposed revision of the Section 1 rules and leave the other part until after the Section 1 proposed revision has been done and voted up or down.

[woobadooba]

The last part of what you proposed, quoted above, conflicts with the Section 6 FSRs on Warnings and FSBs.

Not all rules should be subject to such a system as not all rule violations are as severe as others in nature.

We can't have one type of FSB for one rule and another type for another rule, at least not in the way the FSRs are presently set up,

Says who?

therefore, the same FSBs need to apply for all the rules.

No, they don't. You just want them to, but they don't have to. As I had said, not all rule violations are equal in nature. Some are more severe than others, and should be treated as such when it comes to issuing a warning.

[sentipente]

Woob, stop wasting time with meaningless arguments.

[sentipente]

You are repeating the errors of the past with your stubbornness. If you had listened before much of this nonsense would not be. You seem intent on following the same road.

[woobadooba]

I think we need to hold off on this right now. It appears that the wiki system may be done away with: http://foru.ms/t6349711

[DarylFawcett]

I know there is a big push to get rid of the wiki, which would translate into doing this in the D&D Sub-forum instead.

[DarylFawcett]

When I have time, I will need to read that whole thread to see exactly what is happening and how this affects our own present FSRs.

[DarylFawcett]

As it seems we will still be able to use the wiki for discussing any revisions as a result of the change from rules to guidelines, this still seems like a good place to do this, therefore, let us begin by looking at the ones under section 1.

Is there anything that needs to be changed in the wording?

By the way, I am going to go and edit the word rules, wherever found, into guidelines, which should make the process here easier.

[DarylFawcett]

Here is how the Main SDA Forum Guidelines could be revised:

1. Main SDA Forum (Revision Suggestions to Conform with the New Site Rules)

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum. This is an expansion of the following new site rules: “Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens may choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed etc.” The etc. part leaves things wide open. “Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.”

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers to questions without provoking debate. This is an expansion of the following new site rules: “Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens may choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed etc.” The etc. part leaves things wide open. “Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.”
You will notice that only relevant new site rules were added to give teeth to the guidelines in relation to the new rules so that they could still be enforced by the moderators.

Any thoughts on this idea of doing this?

[woobadooba]

...

[woobadooba]

Because of the recent crisis that is taking place within our forum with the increase of anti-SDA rhetoric, I feel a need to modify our forum specific guidelines to prevent this kind of thing from continuing in our forum.

It is one thing to enter into a discussion and share our opinions with each other in a way that is edifying, but something else entirely to launch an all out assault on the doctrines that our church holds dear to its heart, and to endeavor to proselytize our forum members to renounce our official beliefs for those that the anti-SDA proponents are throwing around in our forum.

Also, the constant posting of slanderous material must be dealt with too. Character assassination should not be allowed in our forum at any level!

If I don't hear from anyone within one week I will personally modify the wiki myself.

[NightEternal]

Woob, why don't you just give it up already? Your personal crusade is so very tiring to so many. We have autonomy in our area and there is nothing you can do about it, so just accept it. It seems like you thrive on upheaval, discord, contention and strife in the forum.

As for character assassination, that is a false charge. I merely posted one man's testimonial which is on a public website where anyone is free to access. If it is not true, then prove it wrong with some evidence. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting what I did.

[sentipente]

If I don't hear from anyone within one week I will personally modify the wiki myself.
You have heard. Now, pace of two hundred yards and build a head of steam. I'll wait to hear the splash.

[StormyOne]

Is it possible for one person to modify the wiki without the input of others? If it is modified it has to be voted on correct?

[woobadooba]

Is it possible for one person to modify the wiki without the input of others? If it is modified it has to be voted on correct?

this is true. It also has to be discussed before being changed.

Out of frustration I did not keep this in perspective. So the same rules apply as always for the Wiki.

[freeindeed2]

this is true. It also has to be discussed before being changed.

Out of frustration I did not keep this in perspective
:idea:

[sentipente]

this is true. It also has to be discussed before being changed.

Out of frustration I did not keep this in perspective. So the same rules apply as always for the Wiki.
Woob, do you realize how much embarassment you are bringing upon yourself? I am surprised that your friends in the Trads section are not giving you better advice.

[woobadooba]

Woob, do you realize how much embarassment you are bringing upon yourself? I am surprised that your friends in the Trads section are not giving you better advice.

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
(Luk 18:10-14)

[RC_NewProtestants]

Here is what Daryl suggested, I put in revisions in red:

1. Main SDA Forum (Revision Suggestions to Conform with the New Site Rules)

1.1 This is a non-debate area, reserved for fellowship and questions. Questions on doctrines and beliefs can be asked in the Main SDA Forum. Questions that are likely to lead to debate should be asked in the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum. The Traditional SDA Sub-forum is held as the safe haven as per the following: “Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens may choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed etc.” “Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.”

1.2 To avoid confusion and debate, questions posed in the Main SDA Forum will generally be directed to official church statements such as the Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This is to provide clear and consistent answers based upon official SDA documents to questions, without provoking debate. This is an expansion of the following new site rules: “Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens may choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed etc.” This part not needed as off topic stuff is the same for all the sub-forums and was mentioned above. :The etc. part leaves things wide open. “Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.”

[woobadooba]

Here is what Daryl suggested, I put in revisions in red:






[/color]

First of all, before this is even addressed a no proselytizing rule must be made along with a rule which forbids the use of anti-SDA rhetoric. Such a rule should be applied in the debate/discussion area along with every other area.

Discussion is allowed, but the teaching of ideas which oppose our official beliefs should not be permitted on any level as that would constitute proselytizing and the use of anti-SDA rhetoric.

One does not have to complain about our church and its doctrines in order to have a discussion. There are plenty of things to discuss outside of these things.

[sentipente]

Discussion is allowed, but the teaching of ideas which oppose our official beliefs should not be permitted on any level as that would constitute proselytizing and the use of anti-SDA rhetoric.

One does not have to complain about our church and its doctrines in order to have a discussion. There are plenty of things to discuss outside of these things.
This post would be in violation of the rule you are proposing because it is teaching an intolerance that the SDA church stands against.

[woobadooba]

This post would be in violation of the rule you are proposing because it is teaching an intolerance that the SDA church stands against.

That is false. Before people are even permitted to refer to themselves as official members of our church they must agree with our doctrines. That is a FACT!

And why does the SDA church require that its members agree with certain doctrines before baptism?

It is because if people want to identify themselves as SDAs they have to hold to a certain standard of teachings.

So if they no longer hold to this standard of teachings what then does that mean?

BY the way, the SDA church does not tolerate the teaching of false doctrine. So STOP misrepresenting our church by saying that it does!

[sentipente]

It is because if people want to identify themselves as SDAs they have to hold to a certain standard of teachings.

Your behavior here does not conform to the SDA standard of teachings.

[sentipente]

Let's see. I was introduced to the SDA congregation to whom I preached a few weeks ago as a former SDA pastor and received an invitation to speak at another SDA church this year as a result. It appears that those who know disagree with you. Stop howling at the moon.

[woobadooba]

Let's see. I was introduced to the SDA congregation to whom I preached a few weeks ago as a former SDA pastor and received an invitation to speak at another SDA church this year as a result. It appears that those who know disagree with you. Stop howling at the moon.

If you got up there and began to herald some of the views that you have expressed in here I am sure they would never ask you to speak in their church again.

Of course, if they are offshoots it wouldn't matter to them.

In fact, it's not likely that the GC would allow you to pastor any church while knowing that you disagree with even our basic teachings. So you really don't have a valid argument here.

You agreed to certain teachings before you became an SDA. You had to. If you don't agree with those teachings now, then that only says one thing. And you know what that is!

[sentipente]

Woob, I have never preached the prophetic voice from the pulpit. I don't care for captive audiences.

I am hoping you realize that the prophetic voice never proclaims what the people already agree with. You would if you really understand Adventism.

[woobadooba]

Woob, I have never preached the prophetic voice from the pulpit. I don't care for captive audiences.

I am hoping you realize that the prophetic voice never proclaims what the people already agree with. You would if you really understand Adventism.

If you understood the Prophetic you would know that it is purposed to bring people BACK to their ROOTS IN GOD!

The inculcation of ideas that encourage people to move away from such roots is a sure sign that a false prophet is present!

And mark my words, those who have abused God's messengers on any level will face severe consequences in the day of God's wrath if they don't repent.

Therefore, it is strongly advised that a message that is declared to be of God be weighed well.

A lot of people in here are currently in serious trouble because they refuse to learn how to rightly divide the word of truth.

[sentipente]

If you understood the Prophetic you would know that it is purposed to bring people BACK to their ROOTS IN GOD!

The inculcation of ideas that encourage people to move away from such roots is a sure sign that a false prophet is present!

Your problem is that you focus on these roots rather than on God.

[tall73]

One does not have to complain about our church and its doctrines in order to have a discussion. There are plenty of things to discuss outside of these things.

So are you wanting an area to debate whether Big Franks or Super Links are better?

[RC_NewProtestants]

In reference to what woob wrote:
First of all, before this is even addressed a no proselytizing rule must be made along with a rule which forbids the use of anti-SDA rhetoric. Such a rule should be applied in the debate/discussion area along with every other area.

As this has never been mentioned before it really has no application here. We are talking about modifying the statement of the previously approved rules to conform with the Forum policy changes. If you can't discuss things properly woob please silence yourself until you can.

[woobadooba]

So are you wanting an area to debate whether Big Franks or Super Links are better?

No, I want a real discussion area wherein real spiritual edification takes place in Jesus Christ, not a place where people are permitted to promote anti-SDA views and heretical opinions.

[sentipente]

Woob, do you believe the church is always correct in its religious conclusions?