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

[DarylFawcett]

Due to the fact that the Take 2 wiki is about to have the maximum number of posts in the discussion part of the wiki, this now Guidelines Take 1 one has been created to continue the wiki and discussion.

Here is the link to the Rules Take 2 wiki: http://christianforums.com/t5739473-wiki-seventh-day-adventist-rules-wiki-take-2.html


Due to a voted resolution in the Seventh-day Adventist forum we have restarted the wiki process here. This thread details that agreement:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5709683

Here is the old, now obsolete, wiki.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5674...dventists.html (http://www.christianforums.com/t5674237-wiki-seventh-day-adventists.html)

According to the agreement we now have an agreed upon set of guidelines for wiki editing:

1. All changes need to have discussion and consensus. To ensure this each proposed addition, or any counter-proposals, will be voted on prior to adding. After an initial discussion period to form the poll options a poll will run 4 days. Polls will be public. The votes of those who are not Seventh-day Adventist contributors will not be counted.

2. The process will begin with the big items first such as forum/sub-forum organization, who can debate, etc. and then move to specific rules.

3. Any changes made without the process outlined in point 1 will be rolled back.

Ideas from the old wiki can still be proposed and voted on, but the desire is to start the process fresh with some guidelines in place.

-----------------------------------
Voted wiki items:
-----------------------------------

Welcome to the Seventh-day Adventist Forum. In accordance with the intent of christianforums.com, the SDA Forum is open to everyone–Adventist Christians, other Christians, and non-Christians. All general christianforums.com Rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules) apply in the SDA Forum and sub-forums. In addition, all posters are expected to observe the following forum-specific guidelines:

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.

2. Both the Main SDA Forum and Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum) (Effective September 17, 2007)

2.1 When posting a reply to a pre-existing thread, please stay to the topic of the origional post and/or the replies.

2.2 Temporary deviation from the topic will be permitted as long as the integrity of the topic is not compromised.

2.3 The Sabbath is reserved for a quiet time of fellowship and Bible study. During this time period no debate is to take place. This not only allows moderators to rest and relax, but it creates a more positive atmosphere for us all to spend time with God.

2.4 All reports will be left for Sunday, unless very urgent. Moderators will also still be free to offer help if needed, in accordance with Biblical standards.

2.5 Due to the multiple time zones, the term "Sabbath" is defined as the 24 hour period from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, according to your local time zone. Please respect that even though yours may be over, others may still be keeping it.

2.6 Any threads that are a continuation of a thread that has been locked as a result of a rule violation, will be deleted.This also means that a poster is not permitted to take a post from a locked thread and use it to start up another thread.

2.7 Posts that glorify Satan will be deleted. For example, referring to Satan as a Savior, or expressing love for him constitutes satanic glorification. This also means is that it is forbidden to speak of Satan as though he is greater than, or equal to Jesus Christ (God).

2.8 Sexual content within a post will not be tolerated. This means is that it is forbidden to graphically describe a sexual act, or post images that are of a sexual nature.

2.9 Blasphemy of God is forbidden. It should not be said, or implied that God is a liar, nor should any other condescending or derogatory remark be made about God. An example of implied blasphemy would be to say that Satan will be reconciled to God, or that God will ultimately forgive Satan and spare him from destruction, thus granting him salvation. The Bible is very clear about the fate of Satan, that he will be destroyed. Moreover, the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, to declare these things about Satan is to call God a liar. Hence this is blasphemy.

2.10 Profane language will not be tolerated, nor will any variations of it be allowed.

2.11 No condescending generalizations about Seventh-day Adventists or the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be tolerated.

2.12 Referring to SDA doctrine (any one of the 28 fundamental doctrines of our church) as cultish, satanic, or devilish (or variants thereof) is forbidden. Granted, one could declare any doctrine, or some aspect of it to be false; but that person must provide a Biblical reason for declaring it to be false. In other words, that person has to give scripture to prove that it is false.

2.13 Personal attacks against Ellen G. White will not be tolerated. We realize that the writings of Ellen G. White can and should be scrutinized using Scripture, however, she is dead and resting in the grave and cannot defend her character.

2.14 The above guidelines will not supersede any rules for any of the SDA sub-forums.

Sub-Forums

3. Debate/Discussion Sub-forum (Effective September 16, 2007)

3.1 The majority of the Debate/Discussion Sub-forum users will identify as Seventh-day Adventist, so discussion will probably be in a Seventh-day Adventist context though there is a diversity of opinions held by Seventh-day Adventists.

3.2 Other Christians and non-Christians are also allowed to debate respectfully.

3.3 Topics can include, but are not limited to, SDA theology, history, culture, and personalities.

3.4 To help avoid possible confusion when people come to the SDA forum to ask what SDAs believe, if any answer that is given does not concur with what the church officially identifies as SDA doctrine, it should be noted that the answer isn't an official SDA belief, but merely an opinion. For example, a person could say: "This is not a belief that is acknowledged by the SDA church as one which constitutes official doctrine; rather, it is my personal opinion on the matter."

3.5 Those inquiring about Adventist beliefs should be directed to the main Adventist forum. Only Adventist members are allowed to explain what Adventists believe in the main Adventist forum. These statements, as outlined above, should be in accordance with official church statements. Non-Adventists who wish to debate Adventist beliefs, as opposed to sincerely inquiring about those beliefs in order to gain more information, should post in the debate section.

4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventists Sub-forum (Effective September 20, 2007)

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html).

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.

The Progressive Adventist sub-forum is an independent section with its own rules and staff. The rules for this forum are found at the Progressive Adventist Wiki:
http://christianforums.com/t6096110-wiki-progres...dventists.html


5. New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum (Effective September 30, 2007)

5.1 The main goal of this sub-forum is to create a welcoming environment for new Seventh-day Adventists, for fellowship and learning, so that they may grow in Christ.

5.2 All are welcome to participate in the study.

5.3 The starting of threads and study topics in this sub-forum is limited to Seventh-day Adventists.

5.4 Bible studies can deal with any subject that is in harmony with Scripture. However, no studies may be started that are in disagreement with any one of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church, nor should anything that is contrary to any of those beliefs be inculcated within a Bible study. If one wishes to take exception to any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA church they should post in the Debate/Discussion sub-forum.

5.5 Debating will NOT be permitted here.



5.6 Since this is a Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum it is understood that:· 1) All Bible Studies will be started and lead by designated teachers. · 2) To be a designated teacher you must be a member in good standing of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for at least one year.· 3) You must also have a minimum post count of 100 before applying.· 4) Each teacher will have a one month term, with the ability for current teachers to re-apply each month if desired simply by acknowledging the sign in thread with their name.· 5) The process of electing teachers will be simple. All interested will go to the sign in thread within the forum and fill out a short questionaire within the week prior to the month term desired. Those who have already taught in prior terms are not required to fill in the questionaire again, simply resubmit your name.· 6) First time teachers are limited to the starting of one study thread for their first month term.· 7) There will be up to 10 teachers elected for each term.· 8) Any teacher violating any of the rules of this sub-forum will lose their teacher status, and their study thread will be closed.· 9) Any teacher at sign up can apply for 'Advanced Studies only' to start and lead studies in the 'Advance Studies' section only which is excempt from re-applying each month.

[DarylFawcett]

We will continue the wiki discussion here.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Will we leave discussion on the rules for the Newbie forum untill after the FSB rules have been voted on, then? :) Might help stop confusion.

[woobadooba]

I think we also need to vote on the rules that were made for the main forum, to see if all of them are going to apply in the debate forum.

[TrustAndObey]

It would be NICE if we could just have an agreement that the Newbie section is NO debate, Adventists only, official teachings of the church...and people respect that until we get the rules voted on and stickied. I think people will respect that until we can get going on that.

And I definitely think the Warning/FSB system needs to go into effect before anything else, otherwise our rules are just words on a screen.

This is pretty exciting. We finally get to clean up the Main Forum!

[woobadooba]

It would be NICE if we could just have an agreement that the Newbie section is NO debate, Adventists only, official teachings of the church...and people respect that until we get the rules voted on and stickied. I think people will respect that until we can get going on that.

And I definitely think the Warning/FSB system needs to go into effect before anything else, otherwise our rules are just words on a screen.

This is pretty exciting. We finally get to clean up the Main Forum!

I think making it SDA only kind of defeats the purpose of it, which is to get people involved in Bible study, and encourage others to want to become SDA.

I agree with the no debate part however, and only allowing for teachings that agree with the 28 doctrines..

[TrustAndObey]

Actually, no. Sarah wanted a forum for new ADVENTISTS specifically, so they can ask questions and do bible study with us. It's not a forum for recruiting, it's for people that have already made the decision but want to learn more, like Sarah.

She's okay with deeper studies too for people like myself that are fairly "new", but not advanced. Intermediate. That's what I'll call myself. :)

[TrustAndObey]

The Main Forum is where people can ask questions of our faith, the Newbie section is something completely different.

[DarylFawcett]

I think we also need to vote on the rules that were made for the main forum, to see if all of them are going to apply in the debate forum.
I have also very recently edited in the rules into the Discussion and Debate Sub-forum the rules we voted on that applies to both the Main SDA and the other sub-forums in the wiki, with the exception of the PSDA Sub-forum as they are completely independent of all the other forums in the SDA Section of forums.

[DarylFawcett]

As far as FSBs goes, the site-wide ones are presently being used by the moderators until our own are in place, therefore, I do not see why we should hold up implementing the new rules that we already voted through.

I actually posted the ones for both the main forum and the sub-forums, other than the PSDA one, which in future will be understood, before reading what has been posted here. They are preferable over the temporary ones, or over no specific rules at all in the new sub-forums.

[DarylFawcett]

As the New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum really doesn't yet have its own rules, we need to really focus on proposing those rules here as Section 5 rules. We can keep the FSB ones as Section 6 rules that are still in pre-poll discussion stage, but will soon be going to a POLL.

[DarylFawcett]

Proposing these ones here and keeping the FSB ones in the pre-poll thread in the Main SDA Forum should keep us from being confused between the two.

[TrustAndObey]

As far as FSBs goes, the site-wide ones are presently being used by the moderators until our own are in place, therefore, I do not see why we should hold up implementing the new rules that we already voted through.

Well I agree that we shouldn't hold off on implementing the rules we already have, but this site doesn't have a warning system or FSB system anymore.

That's why I think it's mucho importante that we get our system of warnings/FSBs implemented along with our new rules.

I actually posted the ones for both the main forum and the sub-forums, other than the PSDA one, which in future will be understood, before reading what has been posted here. They are preferable over the temporary ones, or over no specific rules at all in the new sub-forums.

It's totally cool that you stickied our voted in rules.

The mods can work with that but they still won't be able to issue warnings or FSBs or even count the violations toward an FSB until we implement our system. See what I'm saying?

[Sophia7]

There actually is a sitewide protocol in place for issuing FSBs or other bans:
http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=staff_protocol#faq_staff_protocol_bans

[TrustAndObey]

I posted a message to Sarah in the Newbie section because this was her great idea, and I really do think that we need to follow along with HER vision of what the forum should be like.

I would like to add my two cents though, because I plan on spending most of my time in that section.

I would like for it to be Adventist-only. For several reasons, but mostly because there will definitely be threads in there that will go into great detail about our beliefs. While trying to absorb all of that, I think the LAST thing we need is drive-by postings like "Christians do NOT have to keep the Sabbath!"

We're way past that by the time we've decided to join the Adventist church, you know what I mean? We've made the personal decision or felt the conviction that we DO need to keep the Sabbath...and we're trying to go even deeper as to why it's important....not argue whether or not it IS important.

I'd also agree that there should not be ANY debate in there.

I'd like to see that the bible and personal experience is used more than anything else...however, there are definitely some subjects that I'd like to see the writings of EGW on.

I'd like for it to be a friendly place where young Adventists (not just young as in their physical AGE) can go to question a certain a belief and ask for the resources to back it up.

That's my particular vision for it, but Sarah's may be different, and I really do want this to be something that she thought up, helped plan out, and enjoys.

So I'm just waiting on sister Sarah's input on this one. :)

[TrustAndObey]

There actually is a sitewide protocol in place for issuing FSBs or other bans:
http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=staff_pro..._protocol_bans (http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=staff_protocol#faq_staff_protocol_bans)

Very cool, I wasn't aware of that. It looks like those only apply to breaking general Foru.ms rules, which covers personal flames, so that's definitely something we could work with until we get our system going.

[Sophia7]

Yes, I think so.

[woobadooba]

I posted a message to Sarah in the Newbie section because this was her great idea, and I really do think that we need to follow along with HER vision of what the forum should be like.

No, we need to work together in following God's vision for what this forum should be like.

Do you object to this?

I would like to add my two cents though, because I plan on spending most of my time in that section.

I would like for it to be Adventist-only. For several reasons, but mostly because there will definitely be threads in there that will go into great detail about our beliefs. While trying to absorb all of that, I think the LAST thing we need is drive-by postings like "Christians do NOT have to keep the Sabbath!"This is paranoia. And even if it does happen, such posters will be banned from the forum, as they will be identified as trolls. Moreover, their posts will be deleted. I really don't see this as being a problem.

Moreover, I object to it being for SDAs only on the grounds that the forum is also for Bible study. Would you tell someone that he isn't allowed to participate in a Bible study because he isn't an SDA? Do you think that is a nice thing to do to someone? Do you even realize what kind of message this idea gives off? Here is the message: Sorry, but because you are not an SDA you are not allowed to study the Bible with us." How absurd this is, and contrary to everything that Christ's vision for His church stands for! Truth is, you wouldn't even be an SDA if everyone had that attitude!

Just as Christ commanded His disciples to go out to all the world and share the good news with every sinner, so also our Bible study forum should go out to all the world, as the purpose of Bible study is to share the good news of Jesus Christ with all humankind.

As long as people are studying together in a civil manner this forum could prove to be a great witnessing tool to both non-SDAs and SDAs alike.

All we have to do is just simply make it a no-debate area to avoid conflict.

Problem solved!

[DarylFawcett]

To help keep things from getting out of hand there, I posted this in the New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum:

Until the rules of this sub-forum being discussed in the wiki are voted on and placed here as a sticky thread, the following temporary rules are now in effect for this sub-forum:

1 - There will be no debating here.
2 - Only Seventh-day Adventists can post here.
3 - Only official teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church can be discussed here.

[DarylFawcett]

From what I have read here so far, here is what I am proposing:

5. New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum (suggested by Daryl)

5.1 As this sub-forum is mainly for new Seventh-day Adventists, only Seventh-day Adventists may participate here.

5.2 Bible studies in this sub-forum are to be the type that will help new Seventh-day Adventists to grow and learn together with other Seventh-day Adventists.

5.3 Bible studies will be limited to the official teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

5.4 Debating will NOT be permitted here.
How do these sound so far?

[woobadooba]

To help keep things from getting out of hand there, I posted this in the New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum:

Then you should delete it immediately, as you have not gone through the proper channels to put such a thing in there. It hasn't been decided yet whether it will exclude non-SDAs from Bible study.

You are abusing your power to post by doing this, and I will not stand for it!

[woobadooba]

To help keep things from getting out of hand there, I posted this in the New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum:

Then you should delete it immediately, as you have not gone through the proper channels to put such a thing in there. It hasn't been decided yet whether it will exclude non-SDAs from Bible study.

You are abusing your power to post by doing this, and I will not stand for it!

[woobadooba]

From what I have read here so far, here is what I am proposing:

How do these sound so far?

I don't agree with your proposal as I don't see that it is Christlike.

See post 17 here: http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38892134&postcount=17

[TrustAndObey]

Woob, I disagree with you. Non-Adventists have four other forums in which to ask us questions about the bible.

This is the Seventh-day Adventist forum and there needs to be a place where we can deeply study the bible, whether it be 101 for New Adventists or more indepth for people that have been in the church longer.

Anybody can read it, and if they have a question about something that is said they can ask in the Main Forum (non-debate) or in the Debate section (if they disagree).

I am voting for Adventists only in that forum.

[woobadooba]

Woob, I disagree with you. Non-Adventists have four other forums in which to ask us questions about the bible.

This is the Seventh-day Adventist forum and there needs to be a place where we can deeply study the bible, whether it be 101 for New Adventists or more indepth for people that have been in the church longer.

Anybody can read it, and if they have a question about something that is said they can ask in the Main Forum (non-debate) or in the Debate section (if they disagree).

I am voting for Adventists only in that forum.

It's not an issue of asking questions, but one of allowing earnest seekers an opportunity to study the Bible with us.

Perhaps you would rather that they go study the Bible with some other denomination that will accept them, yes?

:sigh:

[TrustAndObey]

Do you honestly believe that we're going to have an onslaught of say....Methodists...that decide they want to come in here and study the bible with us?

I don't. I think we're going to have a lot of people come in asking questions like "why do you keep the 4th commandment?" in the Main Forum, and we can link them to a bible study thread and tell them within their question thread...but I do not believe that a lot of people are going to say "hey, I think I'd like to study with the Adventists today."

If I went to someone's forum and I saw a forum titled "New Baptists/Bible Study" I wouldn't even THINK to go in there and "join in". It's for people that have already joined the Baptist church.

[TrustAndObey]

That is NOT to say that I would report a friendly post within the Newbie section, because I wouldn't.

[woobadooba]

Do you honestly believe that we're going to have an onslaught of say....Methodists...that decide they want to come in here and study the bible with us?

You never know. If word gets from a lurker that it is a good study, people might want to come by to take a look at it. Thus it could very well prove to be a means to encourage people to want to learn more about us and then become SDAs at some point.

However, this won't happen if you push them away by cutting them off from the study. In fact, after they see the rules that seclude them from participating this will be a major turn off for them, and their will be one more reason for people to not want to become a part of our church.

Then again, even if they don't ever become members of our church as a result of such a study, the study just very well may prove to be of great help to them in their walk with God. Why would you deny them of such an opportunity to receive God's blessing?

You just aren't thinking this through well enough. I see your opinion, but I don't see the Holy Spirit in your words.

[woobadooba]

That is NOT to say that I would report a friendly post within the Newbie section, because I wouldn't.

Then there is no sense in excluding them.

If people try to stir up trouble they will be banned from the forum. But if the rules state that non-SDAs can not participate in Bible study, then you won't even give them a chance to prove that they are earnest seekers of truth.

I think you are being totally unfair and insensitive to the spiritual needs of non-SDAs.

[TrustAndObey]

I'm not sure why you're insisting on making this personal when it's not. This whole forum was SARAH'S idea and she has mentioned more than once that she'd like to see it be for New Adventists or Adventists who'd like to learn more on a subject.

I am going to defend what she wants.

She really needs to have input here because she is the one that got this going. If she decides it shouldn't just be for Adventists, then I'm okay with that.

But no debate means no debate, and that was already voted in.

[woobadooba]

I'm not sure why you're insisting on making this personal when it's not. This whole forum was SARAH'S idea and she has mentioned more than once that she'd like to see it be for New Adventists or Adventists who'd like to learn more on a subject.

I am going to defend what she wants.

She really needs to have input here because she is the one that got this going. If she decides it shouldn't just be for Adventists, then I'm okay with that.

But no debate means no debate, and that was already voted in.

It's personal to me because I have a passion for outreach, and I don't see that your attitude reflects a Christlike love for people that are non-SDA.

You want to cut people off from studying the Bible with us simply because they are not SDA? That is not nice at all! Only Pharisees do stuff like that.

Furthermore, I agree that Sarah came up with a good idea in having this forum; but that doesn't give her exclusive rights to making up all of the rules that are to govern it.

We all have a say in this. Please respect that!

You are my sister in Christ, and I love you as a brother. I have compromised with you before because I value you as a person; but I put my foot down when it comes to stuff like this. Your attitude on this matter is just not right.

[Sophia7]

Furthermore, I agree that Sarah came up with a god idea in having this forum; but that doesn't give her exclusive rights to making up all of the rules that are to govern it.

We all have a say in this. Please respect that!

I agree with you, Woob.

[DarylFawcett]

Thecountrydoc was also involved in the idea of this sub-forum, therefore, his input is also very important here, however, I received PM from him about this sub-forum, which I will share here, especially where he told me he is having computer problems and may be unable to be here over the next couple of days.

I will not quote him, as that may not be permissible, however, I will share a little about what he is thinking, therefore, our proposed rules should take this into consideration.

Thecountrydoc would like this sub-forum to be open to interested new non-Adventist Christians, therefore, we should consider how our rules should be proposed in relation to this desire of his. He has a specific type of Bible studies in mind that would be good for these type of non-Adventist Christians.

[DarylFawcett]

I informed thecountrydoc in my reply to the PM he sent me about our discussion here, therefore, if it isn't too late in regards to his being offline over the next couple of days, I hope he is able to come here.

[DarylFawcett]

I also agree with woob that no sub-forum is a one or two or even a three person sub-forum, therefore, all proposed rules needs to be considered and discussed here, if only for the reason that we all will eventually be voting on them in a POLL.

[DarylFawcett]

I also agree though that we should pay close attention to the rules proposed by the ones who came up with the idea of this sub-forum.

I am not saying to rubber stamp their rules suggestions, but to take into consideration that they had a prime reason for wanting this type of a sub-forum.

[DarylFawcett]

Here is what I am proposing now:

5. New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum (suggested by Daryl)

5.1 As this sub-forum is mainly for new Seventh-day Adventist Christians, but also for other new Christians who may be interested, this sub-forum is open to both Seventh-day Adventist Christians and other interested Christians.

5.2 Bible studies in this sub-forum are to be the type that will help new Seventh-day Adventist Christians and other new Christians to grow and learn together with other Seventh-day Adventists.

5.3 Bible studies will be limited to the official teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

5.4 Debating will NOT be permitted here.

[woobadooba]

How about wording it like this:

5. New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum

5.1 As this sub-forum is mainly for new Seventh-day Adventist Christians, it doesn't exclude non-SDA new Christians from participating in Bible study. Of course, this doesn't exclude veteran Christians from participating either. All are welcome to break open the Bread of Life and learn together.

5.2 Bible studies in this sub-forum are to be the type that will help new Christians to grow and learn together in a fellowship type atmosphere.

5.3 Bible studies can deal with a wide range of subjects that are outside the realm of our 28 fundamental beliefs, but the answers must not disagree with what our church teaches on those subjects.

5.4 Debating will NOT be permitted here.

5.5 Only SDAs are permitted to lead out in Bible study

[TrustAndObey]

5.3 doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't have to be official, but it has to agree with the Adventist teachings?

[woobadooba]

5.3 doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't have to be official, but it has to agree with the Adventist teachings?

What it means is that it doesn't have to be solely about one of the 28 doctrines, but could address any subject, such as addressing the issue of depression for example, but must not inculcate ideas that do not agree with what our church supports.

[TrustAndObey]

I think you should just make the rule to say something more like what you just said then, because the first attempt was very difficult to decipher.

[woobadooba]

I think you should just make the rule to say something more like what you just said then, because the first attempt was very difficult to decipher.

Like this:

5.3 Bible studies will NOT be limited to the 28 official teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but must not disagree with any of them.

[DarylFawcett]

How about wording it like this:

5. New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum

5.1 As this sub-forum is mainly for new Seventh-day Adventist Christians, it doesn't exclude non-SDA new Christians from participating in Bible study. Of course, this doesn't exclude veteran Christians from participating either. All are welcome to break open the Bread of Life and learn together.

5.2 Bible studies in this sub-forum are to be the type that will help new Christians to grow and learn together in a fellowship type atmosphere.

5.3 Bible studies will NOT be limited to the 28 official teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but must not disagree with any of them.

5.4 Debating will NOT be permitted here.

5.5 Only SDAs are permitted to lead out in Bible study

Woob,

I like the way you worded them over the way I worded mine. :)

I do think though that 5.3 still needs some work on it, however, I do not have a problem with the other ones.

[TrustAndObey]

Mucho better.

I have suggested this before, and in light of being called a Pharisee by someone who has claimed to be my friend in the past, I'd like to bring it up again.

Why couldn't we label the threads accordingly. For instance, if Sarah or another new Adventist has a question they could label the thread "NEW: What is the official teaching on death?" Those types of questions will be asking for the official church teaching on the subject and I really do feel they should be limited to Adventist answers.

If it's a bible study it could be labeled "STUDY: What is a soul?" and we could go into what our church teaches and allow others to join in, just not debate.

How does that sound?

[TrustAndObey]

Like this:

5.3 Bible studies will NOT be limited to the 28 official teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but must not disagree with any of them.

How about something like this:

5.3 Bible studies can deal with a wide range of subjects that are outside the realm of our 28 fundamental beliefs, but the answers must not disagree with what our church teaches on those subjects.

??

[woobadooba]

Mucho better.

I have suggested this before, and in light of being called a Pharisee by someone who has claimed to be my friend in the past, I'd like to bring it up again.

Why couldn't we label the threads accordingly. For instance, if Sarah or another new Adventist has a question they could label the thread "NEW: What is the official teaching on death?" Those types of questions will be asking for the official church teaching on the subject and I really do feel they should be limited to Adventist answers.

If it's a bible study it could be labeled "STUDY: What is a soul?" and we could go into what our church teaches and allow others to join in, just not debate.

How does that sound?

I didn't call you a Pharisee. I had suggested that to cut people off from Bible study simply because they do not belong to our church is behavior that one would expect from a Pharisee.

You may not be seeing the big picture here. So this would just mean you aren't seeing things clearly. It doesn't mean you are a Pharisee. For, a Pharisee is one that wants to cut others off that don't agree with him, not someone that unintentionally argues the point without realizing the repercussions of it. There is a difference.

Instead of reporting me it would have been better if you asked for an explanation.

[DarylFawcett]

How about something like this:

5.3 Bible studies can deal with a wide range of subjects that are outside the realm of our 28 fundamental beliefs, but the answers must not disagree with what our church teaches on those subjects.

??
I like this wording better than woob's.

[woobadooba]

How about something like this:

5.3 Bible studies can deal with a wide range of subjects that are outside the realm of our 28 fundamental beliefs, but the answers must not disagree with what our church teaches on those subjects.

??

I also agree that it is better

[DarylFawcett]

Here is a blend of the ones by woob and T&O as blended by Daryl:

5. New Adventist/Bible Study Sub-forum (as suggested by Woob & TrustAndObey and blended by Daryl)


5.1 As this sub-forum is mainly for new Seventh-day Adventist Christians, it doesn't exclude non-SDA new Christians from participating in Bible study. Of course, this doesn't exclude veteran Christians from participating either. All are welcome to break open the Bread of Life and learn together.

5.2 Bible studies in this sub-forum are to be the type that will help new Christians to grow and learn together in a fellowship type atmosphere.

5.3 Bible studies can deal with a wide range of subjects that are outside the realm of our 28 fundamental beliefs, but the answers must not disagree with what our church teaches on those subjects.

5.4 Debating will NOT be permitted here.

5.5 Only SDAs are permitted to lead out in Bible study.
How does this list look?

[TrustAndObey]

I will report personal attacks. If the mods don't agree that's what it was, then fine. I was merely sticking up for a friend.

[TrustAndObey]

How does this list look?

I like it.

[woobadooba]

I will report personal attacks. If the mods don't agree that's what it was, then fine. I was merely sticking up for a friend.

It wasn't a personal attack. And if they agree that it wasn't then I think you owe me an apology for not taking my word on this.

I will tell you this however, don't expect me to ever defend you again on anything.

[TrustAndObey]

And if they do? Do I get an apology?

It works both ways Woob. I won't work against you, but I'm done trying to work with you.

[DarylFawcett]

Is there an agreement that this list is ready to be taken to a pre-poll topic?

[woobadooba]

Is there an agreement that this list is ready to be taken to a pre-poll topic?

I think it is ready for a poll

[TrustAndObey]

It can't go to a poll without a pre-poll discussion.Hopefully Sarah will get a chance to say something soon.I just want to point out the obvious though...if non-Adventists can join in but not say ANYTHING that goes against the teachings of OUR church, it is exclusion. No matter how you slice it, if they're not allowed to counter with what THEY feel a bible verse(s) is saying, they are being censored.It also doesn't allow for any Progressives to give a study on what THEY believe in there. It doesn't have to say "Adventists only" to be for Adventists only, that's all I'm saying.

[woobadooba]

It can't go to a poll without a pre-poll discussion.Hopefully Sarah will get a chance to say something soon.I just want to point out the obvious though...if non-Adventists can join in but not say ANYTHING that goes against the teachings of OUR church, it is exclusion. No matter how you slice it, if they're not allowed to counter with what THEY feel a bible verse(s) is saying, they are being censored.It also doesn't allow for any Progressives to give a study on what THEY believe in there. It doesn't have to say "Adventists only" to be for Adventists only, that's all I'm saying.

I disagree. It is Bible study. It isn't debate. If they want to debate they can go to the debate forum.

And if you really want to play intellectual games like this I could always tell you that to not allow them to debate is censoring them too; yet, you don't seem to have a problem with this.

You need to pick your side; but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[TrustAndObey]

I don't know what happened to my font up there. I had four separate paragraphs when I typed it.

Not allowing people to debate disrespectfully is censoring them too, but we have to do it.

I think the way the rules are being set up basically says that either a person agrees, or they disagree and have to remain silent about it. They can't provide an alternative answer to what our church teaches, nor can they disagree openly....and that really is excluding people.

Only SDAs can lead a bible study, but it'd have to be a TRADITIONAL SDA in order for them to agree with the fundamental belief, so again, it's exclusion.

Calling it what it is isn't a bad thing.

Let's take it to pre-poll.

[TrustAndObey]

...

[DarylFawcett]

We will hold up taking this to pre-poll until the other one in pre-poll is taken to a POLL.

This will also give Sarah a chance to say something here, however, I anticipate the one in pre-poll going to a POLL very, very soon, but then anything can still happen there. :)

[woobadooba]

Not allowing people to debate disrespectfully is censoring them too, but we have to do it.

As per proper etiquette for debate people are not allowed to be disrespectful anyway. So this point is moot on the grounds that even when it comes to liberty there must be some kind of law to keep things in order.

Righteous rules aren't designed to rob us of our freedom; rather, they are enforced to make liberty more meaningful.

I think the way the rules are being set up basically says that either a person agrees, or they disagree and have to remain silent about it.No, they are set up as such that people are not allowed to disagree with our doctrines. However, by working together on a Bible study we can arrive at a conclusion that is based on all input. It doesn't have to be arbitrary; yet, it shouldn't be debative either. One could disagree without debating. You do know that, right?

They can't provide an alternative answer to what our church teaches, nor can they disagree openly....and that really is excluding people.So you would feel better about cutting them off completely from the Bible study. Wow that makes a lot of sense:doh:

Only SDAs can lead a bible study, but it'd have to be a TRADITIONAL SDA in order for them to agree with the fundamental belief, so again, it's exclusion.The rules state that the studies must agree with our 28 doctrines. Any SDA could give a study as long as that study does not disagree with our 28 doctrines. So you are wrong, as per your wording you have stated that we can deal with a wide range of topics.

Calling it what it is isn't a bad thing.No, but assuming it to be something that it is not is a bad thing.

[DarylFawcett]

The other one in the pre-poll topic has just gone to POLL, therefore, this one can now go to pre-poll in the Discussion and Debate Sub-forum.

[DarylFawcett]

I will let you know here when the pre-poll topic has been created.

[DarylFawcett]

Woob jumped the gun by creating the pre-poll topic in the Main SDA Forum rather than where it was supposed to be in the Discussion and Debate forum.

[DarylFawcett]

Longhair moved it to the Discussion and Debate forum. :)

[thecountrydoc]

May I point out that this is to be a "Bible study" sub forum. As all seem to understand this is not a debate sub forum. That being said it sould be open to all who are new to Bible study whether SDA or not. I have communicated to Daryl that the title of this sub should reflect this.

I will add some thoughs in red to what the last suggested rules listed.

Doc

5. New Adventist and new Christians Bible Study Sub-forum

5.1 Although this sub-forum is mainly for new Seventh-day Adventist Christians, it doesn't exclude non-SDA new Christians from participating in Bible study. Nor does this exclude veteran Christians from participating either. There will be threads for basic Bible study as well as threads for those interested in more advanced study. All are welcome to break open the Bread of Life and learn together.

5.2 Bible studies in this sub-forum are to be the type that will help both new and veteran Christians to grow and learn together in a fellowship type atmosphere.

5.3 Bible studies will NOT be limited to the 28 official teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If one wishes to take exception to any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA church they should post in the Debate sub-forum.

5.4 Debating will NOT be permitted here. Post that are deemed to be argumentitive, or debate oriented, will be moved or deleted.

5.5 Since this is a SDA Forum sub-forum it is understood that those who may lead in Bible study are to be SDA only and who accept the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA church.

[DarylFawcett]

As the discussion on these proposed rules have now gone to the pre-poll thread in the Discussion and Debate Sub-forum, I will quote your post there for a response to it there.

[TrustAndObey]

Doc, you know that I love you and I totally respect your opinion....but we voted in a New Adventist forum by majority vote. Not a New Adventist/New Believer subforum.

If it's no debate, and we can only teach about the official teachings of the Adventist church, then it's really NOT open to everybody...even though you guys appear to want to make it look that way.

Call it what it is...."Anyone that agrees with us" subforum.

Seriously, do you not see the huge contradiction here?

[Sophia7]

I agree with T&O. There's a huge contradiction here. The rules that have been voted in preclude any serious study with anyone who doesn't agree with all 28 Fundamentals. Either the rules need to be rethought, or we need to make the New Adventist/Bible Study section open only to TSDAs since they're the only ones who will be allowed to teach there anyway, apparently.

[TrustAndObey]

If this is what they want, we need to just open up a New Adventist/Bible Study subforum within the Tradtional Subforum that already exists.

If a New Adventist is questioning some of the doctrine then there are now umpteen places to go on this subforum....they can ask the PSDAs in their forum, go to the debate section, etc.

If it's going to be for New Traditional Adventists only (which is what the rules definitely imply), then they already have a safe haven in the TSDA subforum, but they could definitely have their own subfora within it I suppose.

This is not AT ALL what Sarah pictured for that subforum and all I've been trying to do is get her message across.

If we want to appeal to non-Christians and Christians of other denominations, why can't we just do that in the Main Forum? There is no rule saying we can't have bible studies there too.

[woobadooba]

If we want to appeal to non-Christians and Christians of other denominations, why can't we just do that in the Main Forum? There is no rule saying we can't have bible studies there too.

Or we could just simply stick to the rules that we already worked on today for this forum, as they are fair for all SDAs.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Hey Everyone,

To start off, want to let you all know I'm typing this in notepad because out of the few times I've been in CF the past couple days everytime I decide to post something important, the site stops working. Which just happened as I was reading the wiki entries. Thusly, if I don't address something already spoken of when I get a chance to post this, I'm sorry.

Secondly (and interestingly when you consider the site problems I'm having), I just haven't had the heart to read or post here over the past few days. The weekend was okay, but this whole..division and such I've been seeing has really been working on me. To be clear, I don't want to lead this wiki off topic and talk about this. I just want to state that if you see limited involvement on my part over the next while this is why. I am not an emotional person, but it actually brought tears to my eyes and has rather upset me when I've seen some of what's happening here. I won't go into detail, but it's making it hard for me to actually click on the link and even read. Maybe I'm just going through something, I dunno.

Anyway, back on topic. My thoughts about the Newbie section:

There seems to be some division about whether SDA's should be allowed in it. I want to point out that origionally my idea had been for just a New Adventists forum. This is why I want it to be solely Adventist.

Then a Bible Study forum was suggested, and at some point the two blended. I didn't think this would be a problem, but obviously it's turned into one. There's valid reason to allow others to participate in the Study, but at the same time it doesn't work with the Newbie aspect of it.

So, I'm torn. It is true, though, that the other forums allow anyone to enter. Non-Adventists have more than enough chance to ask questions, join in on discussion, debate, and such in these areas. I honestly would like it to be completely Adventist, however, what about restricting it so Non-Adventists can only participate in bible study? They may not start threads, but may post in accordance to the already present study threads.

That's just off the top of my head, but it may be an in-between.

As for the actualy forum itself and it's rules, here's what I had in mind (not written as rules, just thoughts at this point):

Firstly, it's meant to be a sanctuary for those who are new in the faith. This is a very difficult time for some (myself included), and having a place to go that is "safe" would be great. Often the topics that might be posed in the debate forum may be a bit too advanced for a newbie in Christ. I found that I got very easily overwhelmed, especially due to the fact I only have a basic idea of the Bible and it's teachings. This should also provide a good environment for youths (as Lainie wants, I know. ;)). For these reasons Debate should not be allowed.

I think Jesus' point about making any of the "little ones" stumble would be a great addition to the rules as a quote.

(Someone find the verse for me, please?). I've seen a few wiki's on here include Bible verses, and though that was cool. :)

Due to the fact that the bible study is a part of this forum too, there are a few other things that need to be addressed.

1) The study should not be limited to Adventist teachings. It should be limited to Bible topics and life topics which can be addressed by Bible verses/stories. Adventists are about Bible truths, right? So lets explore the Bible as a whole, and find truths as we go. ^_^

2) Study should be mainly focussed on Bible reference. However, additional quotes from other sources may be allowed. Keeping in mind that these are bonus thoughts, and still need a biblical backing. (Meaning someone can't simply say "well my uncle says that Moses actually parted the desert sand, and like, I totally think he has a good point").

3) All study threads should be started by selected people. This would limit the amount going at one time, and can allow better focus and education. You learn better if your thoughts aren't scattered over 100 different subjects.

Also, this way subjects won't get repeated tons of times either. A formula of how it is layed out will also develope via this method and it should make it a bit easier to do this sucessfully.

As for who will get the opportunity to start a study, we can maybe vote on that or something. A few people could be chosen and they could rotate, with vollenteers once in awhile. (Like in Sabbath school, at my church at least). If someone else has a suggestion, maybe they could post it in a sticky thread for upcoming studies?

4) There has been a suggestion of having different sort of "ratings" included in the post topics. I think this could work very well. There could be different levels. Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, etc. This way someone can decide before even entering the thread if it's what they want right now. To be honest, I don't even think I'd go into an Advanced at this point. My head would probably explode. *lol*

This could also be implemented into regular posts, if we feel it's necissary. For example, Lainie suggested "Teen" as one. Then only teens could post there..? What do you guys think of this?

5) A sticky could be posted that has rules for Bible study, along with the definitions of the levels, resource links to an online bible, etc. This way the rules can stay stream-lined and simple. Oooh. Maybe we could have a sticky for people to sign in who want to participate in the study? That could be cool.

Anyway, basically that's the overall ideas I have. I am aware that this is a joint effort and these are simply my opinions. ;) Let me know what your thoughts are on this, though.

Lets see if we can bring Christ into this forum, and make Him proud. ^_^

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

[woobadooba]

Hey Everyone,

To start off, want to let you all know I'm typing this in notepad because out of the few times I've been in CF the past couple days everytime I decide to post something important, the site stops working. Which just happened as I was reading the wiki entries. Thusly, if I don't address something already spoken of when I get a chance to post this, I'm sorry.

Secondly (and interestingly when you consider the site problems I'm having), I just haven't had the heart to read or post here over the past few days. The weekend was okay, but this whole..division and such I've been seeing has really been working on me. To be clear, I don't want to lead this wiki off topic and talk about this. I just want to state that if you see limited involvement on my part over the next while this is why. I am not an emotional person, but it actually brought tears to my eyes and has rather upset me when I've seen some of what's happening here. I won't go into detail, but it's making it hard for me to actually click on the link and even read. Maybe I'm just going through something, I dunno.

Anyway, back on topic. My thoughts about the Newbie section:

There seems to be some division about whether SDA's should be allowed in it. I want to point out that origionally my idea had been for just a New Adventists forum. This is why I want it to be solely Adventist.

Then a Bible Study forum was suggested, and at some point the two blended. I didn't think this would be a problem, but obviously it's turned into one. There's valid reason to allow others to participate in the Study, but at the same time it doesn't work with the Newbie aspect of it.

So, I'm torn. It is true, though, that the other forums allow anyone to enter. Non-Adventists have more than enough chance to ask questions, join in on discussion, debate, and such in these areas. I honestly would like it to be completely Adventist, however, what about restricting it so Non-Adventists can only participate in bible study? They may not start threads, but may post in accordance to the already present study threads.

That's just off the top of my head, but it may be an in-between.

As for the actualy forum itself and it's rules, here's what I had in mind (not written as rules, just thoughts at this point):

Firstly, it's meant to be a sanctuary for those who are new in the faith. This is a very difficult time for some (myself included), and having a place to go that is "safe" would be great. Often the topics that might be posed in the debate forum may be a bit too advanced for a newbie in Christ. I found that I got very easily overwhelmed, especially due to the fact I only have a basic idea of the Bible and it's teachings. This should also provide a good environment for youths (as Lainie wants, I know. ;)). For these reasons Debate should not be allowed.

I think Jesus' point about making any of the "little ones" stumble would be a great addition to the rules as a quote.

(Someone find the verse for me, please?). I've seen a few wiki's on here include Bible verses, and though that was cool. :)

Due to the fact that the bible study is a part of this forum too, there are a few other things that need to be addressed.

1) The study should not be limited to Adventist teachings. It should be limited to Bible topics and life topics which can be addressed by Bible verses/stories. Adventists are about Bible truths, right? So lets explore the Bible as a whole, and find truths as we go. ^_^

2) Study should be mainly focussed on Bible reference. However, additional quotes from other sources may be allowed. Keeping in mind that these are bonus thoughts, and still need a biblical backing. (Meaning someone can't simply say "well my uncle says that Moses actually parted the desert sand, and like, I totally think he has a good point").

3) All study threads should be started by selected people. This would limit the amount going at one time, and can allow better focus and education. You learn better if your thoughts aren't scattered over 100 different subjects.

Also, this way subjects won't get repeated tons of times either. A formula of how it is layed out will also develope via this method and it should make it a bit easier to do this sucessfully.

As for who will get the opportunity to start a study, we can maybe vote on that or something. A few people could be chosen and they could rotate, with vollenteers once in awhile. (Like in Sabbath school, at my church at least). If someone else has a suggestion, maybe they could post it in a sticky thread for upcoming studies?

4) There has been a suggestion of having different sort of "ratings" included in the post topics. I think this could work very well. There could be different levels. Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, etc. This way someone can decide before even entering the thread if it's what they want right now. To be honest, I don't even think I'd go into an Advanced at this point. My head would probably explode. *lol*

This could also be implemented into regular posts, if we feel it's necissary. For example, Lainie suggested "Teen" as one. Then only teens could post there..? What do you guys think of this?

5) A sticky could be posted that has rules for Bible study, along with the definitions of the levels, resource links to an online bible, etc. This way the rules can stay stream-lined and simple. Oooh. Maybe we could have a sticky for people to sign in who want to participate in the study? That could be cool.

Anyway, basically that's the overall ideas I have. I am aware that this is a joint effort and these are simply my opinions. ;) Let me know what your thoughts are on this, though.

Lets see if we can bring Christ into this forum, and make Him proud. ^_^

Blessings and Love,
Sarah


I think your ideas are good and well thought out.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I think your ideas are good and well thought out.
Thanks, Woob. ^_^

[TrustAndObey]

Sarah, I've had nothing but trouble with the site lately too. One night I couldn't stay logged in, and that was so frustrating. I've learned to put what I type on my clipboard before I hit send, because most times it doesn't go and I get a "503" error.

Last night I had car issues, but honestly, I didn't want to come here anyway. It's not an edifying place.

I keep telling myself "when the rules are all said and done, then it will be awesome!" but some are in place now and I see a non-Adventist on the Main Forum starting a thread he KNOWS is going to cause debate, and he's doing it anyway....because we don't have a warning system yet.

I like your ideas Sarah and I probably didn't do a very good job of relaying what your wishes were for the forum. It's hard to do when you're under fire and well, extremely busy.

I have a lot going on right now.

I don't know, I just feel VERY protective of you or any other new Adventist/Christian, because I DO know what the bible says about how we treat them. I had some people take me under their wing when I was first learning Adventist doctrine and it meant a lot to me.

The fact is that we get attacked from all sides. From the outside by non-Christians, from the outside by other Christians, and even from within sometimes.

I totally agree with adding the scriptures about keeping the children from coming to Christ....it is better to have a millstone around your neck!

Here is one of the verses: Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Pretty powerful words from our Lord indeed!!

Here's the thing....you've already made the decision and joined the Adventist church. Now it's your goal to learn MORE about what the Adventist church teaches, and the last thing we need is you going in there to do just that, and someone tells you "EVERYONE will be saved", or "Why are you studying the BIBLE? It's unreliable."

So I totally agree with Woob's idea that any SDA can teach, but those teachings MUST agree with the Adventist church with zero tolerance for any debate that steers a conversation away from our teachings.

There are Adventists here that do not believe scripture is reliable and that everyone on this planet (past and present) will see the glory of heaven. That isn't what the Adventist church teaches, so it really is like having another denomination chime in with different doctrine.

I like the idea of labelling the threads and having different sets of rules for the three different labels. Only teens can post in a thread labelled "TEEN", etc.

Only Adventists can participate in threads labelled "NEW" or "NEWBIE", etc.

It cuts down on the amount of steering away from our church's beliefs that can be attempted if we do it that way.

I have to get this crazy day started.

It's good to see you Sarah. I really do hope we can make this a comfortable place for you and other new Adventists.

~Lainie

[DarylFawcett]

As this discussion had already previously moved on to the pre-poll discussion in the Discussion and Debate Sub-forum that woob had created, we really need to continue with the discussion there, as doing it both here and there will only lead to confusion.

[TrustAndObey]

Daryl, is the poll closed now for the TSDA subforum?

[DarylFawcett]

Yes, that POLL is closed with all the rules for the TSDA Sub-forum being voted in, therefore, the rules in the wiki remain as is.

[TrustAndObey]

Yes, that POLL is closed with all the rules for the TSDA Sub-forum being voted in, therefore, the rules in the wiki remain as is.

So much ado about nothing again? Grrr.

Oh well, now it's official and we didn't have to declare independence in order to get the rules we wanted.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Yeah, the errors are frustrating. I lost a few good posts because of them! Oy.

Thank you for being supportive about the rules for the Newbie forum, Lainie. :) I really appreciate it. I'm just sorry I'm not really...fully here right now.

[woobadooba]

Now that we have so many subforums I think we need to do something about identifying who really is an SDA.

The current rules make it too easy for anyone to be an SDA. All one has to do is consider himself to be an SDA to be an SDA, and that is not good enough for me, because it makes it too easy for people to take advantage of the system by deceptively claiming to be something that they are not.

Here is what I suggest: We make a mandatory sign in thread for all members to disclose that they are active members of our church.

If they merely have their name in a book that doesn't count, because names aren't removed from the books unless that person requests for it to be so.

We need to put up a 'sign in' thread for members to identify themselves as active SDAs

Other forums have threads which serve a similar purpose. So it should be the same with us.

Anyone that would have an issue with this is obviously someone that is not active, but wants to deceive us into believing that they are an active SDA. We should not allow any room within our forum for such deceptive activity. It's a matter of integrity.

What do you say?

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Now that we have so many subforums I think we need to do something about identifying who really is an SDA.

The current rules make it too easy for anyone to be an SDA. All one has to do is consider himself to be an SDA to be an SDA, and that is not good enough for me, because it makes it too easy for people to take advantage of the system by deceptively claiming to be something that they are not.

Here is what I suggest: We make a mandatory sign in thread for all members to disclose that they are active members of our church.

If they merely have their name in a book that doesn't count, because names aren't removed from the books unless that person requests for it to be so.

We need to put up a 'sign in' thread for members to identify themselves as active SDAs

Other forums have threads which serve a similar purpose. So it should be the same with us.

Anyone that would have an issue with this is obviously someone that is not active, but wants to deceive us into believing that they are an active SDA. We should not allow any room within our forum for such deceptive activity. It's a matter of integrity.

What do you say?
Although I see your reasoning, I'm not an "active SDA". :( I've been to church maybe 10 times in the past year and a half.

Do I consider myself SDA, yes. Have I been baptised an SDA? No. I don't consider myself ready to be yet (personal reasons, too).

Do I hold to all the fundamental beliefs? For the most part. But I don't beleive them all yet because I don't know my Bible well enough to rightly judge them, including EGW. :)

I think I just excluded myself from the main part of this forum if that rule went up. *lol*

Even if you say I'd make an expection, then it opens a loop-hole. How many others will claim to be exceptions?

[Sophia7]

I recall that djconklin said in one of his posts that his name is on the books but that he doesn't attend church. I think that's in the Roll Call (http://foru.ms/t5723094-roll-call-sdas-with-other-icons-post-here-please.html) thread, which I bumped yesterday (and I guess it's been moved to the Discussion and Debate sub-forum). He doesn't use the SDA icon either. Should he not be able to call himself an Adventist? I think he should, but such a rule would exclude him.

A regulation like this would either exclude too many people or be circumvented by opening up loopholes in order to let some in. Then there would be even more fighting because one side or the other would want to let their friends in but keep others out.

[woobadooba]

I recall that djconklin said in one of his posts that his name is on the books but that he doesn't attend church. I think that's in the Roll Call (http://foru.ms/t5723094-roll-call-sdas-with-other-icons-post-here-please.html) thread, which I bumped yesterday (and I guess it's been moved to the Discussion and Debate sub-forum). He doesn't use the SDA icon either. Should he not be able to call himself an Adventist? I think he should, but such a rule would exclude him.

A regulation like this would either exclude too many people or be circumvented by opening up loopholes in order to let some in. Then there would be even more fighting because one side or the other would want to let their friends in but keep others out.

It would only limit who could teach in our forum, and where they would be allowed to post.

There are some among us that have been stirring up a lot of trouble by harassing other members.

Unfortunately, sometimes the innocent have to pay for the sins of the guilty. It is sad that we have to do things like this, but necessary in order to keep the antagonists in their proper place.

[NightEternal]

Now that we have so many subforums I think we need to do something about identifying who really is an SDA.

The current rules make it too easy for anyone to be an SDA. All one has to do is consider himself to be an SDA to be an SDA, and that is not good enough for me, because it makes it too easy for people to take advantage of the system by deceptively claiming to be something that they are not.

Here is what I suggest: We make a mandatory sign in thread for all members to disclose that they are active members of our church.

If they merely have their name in a book that doesn't count, because names aren't removed from the books unless that person requests for it to be so.

We need to put up a 'sign in' thread for members to identify themselves as active SDAs

Other forums have threads which serve a similar purpose. So it should be the same with us.

Anyone that would have an issue with this is obviously someone that is not active, but wants to deceive us into believing that they are an active SDA. We should not allow any room within our forum for such deceptive activity. It's a matter of integrity.

What do you say?

Woob, you cannot be serious with this. :doh: BAD idea.

If you want to see all hell break loose on the boards, just try and enforce this. Aren't things volatile enough?

I am an active SDA who is involved in my church and I would have no problems signing this, but I am telling you that you are asking for a world of hurt if you pursue this. The whole true/false SDA thing has already been the scourge of the boards in the past. Let's not inflame this issue even more.

Woob, think about this, seriously. How are you going to formulate the criteria of an 'active' member? Who is going to outline the standard? Do you realize the mass of red tape you will have created?

This is an emotional reaction to Freeindeed. Just calm down and let it pass.

[TrustAndObey]

If it's a reaction to FreeIndeed, then it really shouldn't be. He already told us he's NOT an Adventist, but when he wanted to debate, he suddenly was.

But seriously, I haven't been to church in a long time. My youngest has some behavioral issues and it was really embarrassing and stressful for me to go.

He's getting better and he's in a preschool that deals with this stuff, and I told my pastor I'd be back this week. :)

But I have known during the last few months that going to church with him was next to impossible, and I do still consider myself an active Adventist.

It'd be easy to lie about this one too Woob, so I don't think it's a feasible rule. If people would just be HONEST we woudn't have the problem we have right now.

[woobadooba]

OK, so most people so far don't like the idea.

[DarylFawcett]

If a person shows, either a SDA Icon, or posts in the Roll Call Thread, then that is sufficient in my mind.

If a person considers himself/herself to be a Seventh-day Adventist, even though that person may not be a baptized member of the SDA Church, in relation to these forums, that is good enough for me. :)

[woobadooba]

If a person shows, either a SDA Icon, or posts in the Roll Call Thread, then that is sufficient in my mind.

If a person considers himself/herself to be a Seventh-day Adventist, even though that person may not be a baptized member of the SDA Church, in relation to these forums, that is good enough for me. :)

There would be no sense in having a sign in thread under such lenient requirements.

We might as well just scratch the whole idea, as it was suggested by me because of Free.

When you guys become full fledged mods I think we will see less of a problem from people that try to make life difficult for the rest of us, or at least less of them when the FSBs kick in.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

There would be no sense in having a sign in thread under such lenient requirements.

We might as well just scratch the whole idea, as it was suggested by me because of Free.

When you guys become full fledged mods I think we will see less of a problem from people that try to make life difficult for the rest of us, or at least less of them when the FSBs kick in.

I agree. Once everything's worked out and in place, things should straighten out some. At least, that's what I've been praying for. :)

I'd really be sad to see a rule like that go up, as I would love to lead a study sometime and such..but don't see myself qualifying for quite a long time at this rate, by that standard.

I'm an active SDA at heart, though. ;)

[DarylFawcett]

The section 6 rules that passed have been edited into the wiki.

As soon as they are stickied in the respective forums, they will be in effect.

[woobadooba]

The section 6 rules that passed have been edited into the wiki.

As soon as they are stickied in the respective forums, they will be in effect.

6.5 has to be revisted.

Without a rule for this it will be too easy for people to take advantage of the system by making up a new user ID.

For example, whenever a person is banned under one ID he could always fall back on the other one, and consequently always be active. Think about that one.

[TrustAndObey]

I agree Woob, that is already against the rules, but I liked the idea of a permanent ban when someone pulls that stunt. I didn't realize it wasn't part of your proposed rules or I would've voted for 6.5.

We've already had pre-poll discussion about it, so I think it could go straight to a poll.

Church was a real blessing this morning. My son didn't make it through to worship but did really well in Sabbath School.

[woobadooba]

I agree Woob, that is already against the rules, but I liked the idea of a permanent ban when someone pulls that stunt. I didn't realize it wasn't part of your proposed rules or I would've voted for 6.5.

We've already had pre-poll discussion about it, so I think it could go straight to a poll.

Church was a real blessing this morning. My son didn't make it through to worship but did really well in Sabbath School.

Actually, it was a part of my rules, but Daryl attributed it to his.

[DarylFawcett]

As the Section 6 rules have been edited into the other sticky rules, they are now in effect.

[DarylFawcett]

woob,

I didn't see it listed in your proposed list of rules, or, if it was listed, which can be verified, I missed it somehow.

Anyway, a separate POLL can be started to deal with that one.

[DarylFawcett]

We don't need a POLL as my proposed 6.5 rule is woob's 6.2 proposed rule that passed.

6.5 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will result in an additional one year FSB under all registrations. (Daryl's)

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. (woob's)
Woob's is worded differently from Daryl's, however, it was woob's wording that passed.

[TrustAndObey]

So it did pass?

[woobadooba]

So it did pass?

Yeah:)

I think I had a premature senior moment^_^

[freeindeed2]

There would be no sense in having a sign in thread under such lenient requirements.
I am a full-fledged member of the SDA church (and not just a name on the books!).

We might as well just scratch the whole idea, as it was suggested by me because of Free.
Do you think I don't see this? You're only telling one side of a story. Yes, my journey differs from most SDA's, especially since most SDA's did not study to become SDA pastors. Just like you, and any other member of the SDA church, I am entitled to my own opinions, even if you (and others) don't validate them on this public forum. It doesn't mean my opinion means any less.

When you guys become full fledged mods I think we will see less of a problem from people that try to make life difficult for the rest of us, or at least less of them when the FSBs kick in.
That 'sword' can cut both ways. I'm not sure why you have such animosity toward me? I do not hold the same for you.

[Sophia7]

We really need an end to reactionary rule proposals. Too many of our rules have ramifications that are not being thought through properly, despite the interminably long process of wiki discussion and pre-poll discussion and voting. Both the process and the rules are way too complicated to be either fair or effective.

[freeindeed2]

We really need an end to reactionary rule proposals. Too many of our rules have ramifications that are not being thought through properly, despite the interminably long process of wiki discussion and pre-poll discussion and voting. Both the process and the rules are way too complicated to be either fair or effective.
One of the schools I taught at had a couple of students who were putting clear alcohol into water bottles and drinking it in class. Once they got caught the 'rules' committee made a rule outlawing water bottles! LOL! I have to laugh. NOBODY was allowed to have ANY waterbottles after that, even teachers. As if the waterbottles were the problem...

There was already a rule against alcohol. The waterbottle rule was reactionary and was ridiculous. If some kid equipped his jacket with a bladder and filled it with alcohol and ran a tube up his sleeve to sip it through would they outlaw jackets too?

I and others suggested that the rules be kept to a minimum and that they were simple and easy to enforce and we were scoffed at. Now we have a new man-made system of legalism that will now be the focus, rather than Jesus Christ. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

[DarylFawcett]

All the new rules that have been voted in are posted both in the wiki and in each respective forum/sub-forum, therefore, for the first time, all the new rules are now in place.

The next thing is to get all the SDA Moderators in place.

[woobadooba]

Regarding the Bible study forum, I think we need to take a different approach in initiating a Bible study than what is currently happening.

I know that those who have posted studies mean well, but the studies that have been put up really don't encourage people to enter into a discussion. They are just simply Bible studies.

The idea of the Bible study forum is to get people involved in the study, so that they may learn how to interact with other Christians when talking about the Bible. Thus giving them an opportunity to become thinkers, and not mere reflectors of the thoughts of their mentors (for those that may be quick to jump on this one as the Bible study forum doesn't allow people to teach views that are contrary to our 28 doctrines, keep in mind that there is a context to this thought).

I propose that instead of posting an entire study, why not just post in bits and pieces, and make it more personal? Give people an opportunity to interact before moving on to another part.

When a study is posted in its entirety it does not encourage others to interact with the teacher, or each other. If we want this forum to be more meaningful we need to allow for more interaction and discussion to take place. A teacher's role is to facilitate the Bible study, to make sure that its objective is carried out, not to think for everyone.

If everything is already premeditated, and must adhere to what has already been thought out, the Bible study may turn out to be counterproductive for both the teacher and the students, as it won't allow for any room for the Holy Spirit to enter in.

Just some food for thought...

For an example of what I am talking about go here: http://foru.ms/t6109156-that-your-joy-may-be-full.html

By the way, I closed this study because people didn't really appear to be interested in it.

[DarylFawcett]

With the new rules now in effect there, nobody should really be creating any new topics there until they have gone through the application process, which I think a thread already exists there for such a purpose.

The already existing topics there may soon need to be moved into the Discusson and Debate Sub-forum.

[DarylFawcett]

With all the Sabbath School topics that reddogs posted there, I am now wondering if we should request a Sabbath School Sub-forum?

[woobadooba]

With the new rules now in effect there, nobody should really be creating any new topics there until they have gone through the application process, which I think a thread already exists there for such a purpose.

I understand this, but does what I have said make sense?

[DarylFawcett]

I am hoping what you said will take care of itself after things are both organized and in place there.

If, however, the problem still exists, then we will need to discuss it further.

[woobadooba]

I am hoping what you said will take care of itself after things are both organized and in place there.

If, however, the problem still exists, then we will need to discuss it further.

Regardless, I think it should be addressed, as people that wish to be teachers need to know how to teach.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I had suggested a sticky with the process, origionally. :)

Sort of a guidelines for Bible study..that explains the headers for the levels and such. Also, I'd thought of a sticky for suggestions for studies, from those who aren't going to teach.

The one thing that the rules didn't adress, though..was when a new study was to go up/how often studies could be started. This was to try and instigate more people to focus on one or two studies at a time.

[freeindeed2]

Regarding the Bible study forum, I think we need to take a different approach in initiating a Bible study than what is currently happening.

I know that those who have posted studies mean well, but the studies that have been put up really don't encourage people to enter into a discussion. They are just simply Bible studies.
That concern was raised by several, myself included, long before the rules were voted on.

The idea of the Bible study forum is to get people involved in the study, so that they may learn how to interact with other Christians when talking about the Bible. Thus giving them an opportunity to become thinkers, and not mere reflectors of the thoughts of their mentors (for those that may be quick to jump on this one as the Bible study forum doesn't allow people to teach views that are contrary to our 28 doctrines, keep in mind that there is a context to this thought).
The outcome of each 'study' is already determined. The whole nature of that forum doesn't encourage people to be 'thinkers', rather it encourages them to reflect the thoughts of the 'teachers' as shaped by the pre-determined answers.

I propose that instead of posting an entire study, why not just post in bits and pieces, and make it more personal? Give people an opportunity to interact before moving on to another part.
Interaction wasn't a desired goal in the rules process for that forum. The voted rules have put a stranglehold on true, open, and honest study.

When a study is posted in its entirety it does not encourage others to interact with the teacher, or each other. If we want this forum to be more meaningful we need to allow for more interaction and discussion to take place. A teacher's role is to facilitate the Bible study, to make sure that its objective is carried out, not to think for everyone.
Not according to what was voted. It's very clear that the teacher presents and any disagreement with what is presented is not allowed. It doesn't encourage interaction and discussion. We reap what we sow.

If everything is already premeditated, and must adhere to what has already been thought out, the Bible study may turn out to be counterproductive for both the teacher and the students, as it won't allow for any room for the Holy Spirit to enter in.
Exactly! That's exactly what we were trying to point out before the rules were rammed through.

Just some food for thought...

For an example of what I am talking about go here: http://foru.ms/t6109156-that-your-joy-may-be-full.html

By the way, I closed this study because people didn't really appear to be interested in it.
What did you expect?

[thecountrydoc]

If I may, I would like to say that the idea of spoon feeding with an eccleiastical spoon was not what I personally expected or wanted either. However even a simple Bible study needs direction and a logical sequence of subjects if there is to be participation. Since it seems that this is not going to happen without a plan I would like to propose the following. (By the way this doesn't need to be formaly polled or voted on.)

Using a preplaned guide, I will post a complete list of topics to be covered that will cover all the basics as well as giving a good start for more advanced study. This will provide some idea of where the study will take the student as well as to hopefuly create some additional interest on the part of the students.

Once the outline is posted, I will give suggested text for study in advance of actually posting questions for the topic to be studied next. Depending on the amount of material to be covered with each topic a limited amount of time will be anounced for the study of each topic when study is started. When that amount of time has expired, the topic could be locked and archived in the stickies. This will keep the information readily avilable without taking up too much room in the actual Bible Study sub-forum.

By following this format the student will be able to readly follow the study as well as to think of additional questions to be ask, text to be explained, and thoughts to share. Since I'm not able to spend as much time at the computer as I would like to due to health, I will need some help from the rest of you.

Hopefuly, once others see what it takes to get student paricipation in a learning atmosphere it will be easier to get additional study topics started.

Any thoughts? Please tell me what you all think.

Respectfully, your brother in Crist,
Doc

[woobadooba]

If I may, I would like to say that the idea of spoon feeding with an eccleiastical spoon was not what I personally expected or wanted either. However even a simple Bible study needs direction and a logical sequence of subjects if there is to be participation. Since it seems that this is not going to happen without a plan I would like to propose the following. (By the way this doesn't need to be formaly polled or voted on.)

Using a preplaned guide, I will post a complete list of topics to be covered that will cover all the basics as well as giving a good start for more advanced study. This will provide some idea of where the study will take the student as well as to hopefuly create some additional interest on the part of the students.

Once the outline is posted, I will give suggested text for study in advance of actually posting questions for the topic to be studied next. Depending on the amount of material to be covered with each topic a limited amount of time will be anounced for the study of each topic when study is started. When that amount of time has expired, the topic could be locked and archived in the stickies. This will keep the information readily avilable without taking up too much room in the actual Bible Study sub-forum.

By following this format the student will be able to readly follow the study as well as to think of additional questions to be ask, text to be explained, and thoughts to share. Since I'm not able to spend as much time at the computer as I would like to due to health, I will need some help from the rest of you.

Hopefuly, once others see what it takes to get student paricipation in a learning atmosphere it will be easier to get additional study topics started.

Any thoughts? Please tell me what you all think.

Respectfully, your brother in Crist,
Doc

I don't think it's necessary to do all of this. Like I had said, you just need to get teachers to take charge that know how to teach. It's an issue of who has the gift to teach here? I can already think of a few people that do.

And if I could make my point more clear I would say just pick a topic and enter into a discussion with all participants, rather than posting an entire Bible study and then expecting them to interact. After all, what is left for them to interact with if everything has already been handed to them on a silver platter?

Again, if you look at the example of what I attempted to do in my study, you will see that the whole study is about interaction (by the way, I don't have a complete study written up for it. My objective is to allow the Spirit to lead all involved in the direction that God wants to take the study; yet, I have a definite end point).

[DarylFawcett]

I had suggested a sticky with the process, origionally. :)

Sort of a guidelines for Bible study..that explains the headers for the levels and such. Also, I'd thought of a sticky for suggestions for studies, from those who aren't going to teach.

The one thing that the rules didn't adress, though..was when a new study was to go up/how often studies could be started. This was to try and instigate more people to focus on one or two studies at a time.
The rules did address this as quoted below in 5.6.6:

5.6 Since this is a Seventh-day Adventist Sub-forum it is understood that:
· 1) All Bible Studies will be started and lead by designated teachers.
· 2) To be a designated teacher you must be a member in good standing of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for at least one year.
· 3) You must also have a minimum post count of 100 before applying.
· 4) Each teacher will have a one month term, with the ability for current teachers to re-apply each month if desired simply by acknowledging the sign in thread with their name.
· 5) The process of electing teachers will be simple. All interested will go to the sign in thread within the forum and fill out a short questionaire within the week prior to the month term desired. Those who have already taught in prior terms are not required to fill in the questionaire again, simply resubmit your name.
· 6) First time teachers are limited to the starting of one study thread for their first month term.
· 7) There will be up to 10 teachers elected for each term.
· 8) Any teacher violating any of the rules of this sub-forum will lose their teacher status, and their study thread will be closed.
· 9) Any teacher at sign up can apply for 'Advanced Studies only' to start and lead studies in the 'Advance Studies' section only which is excempt from re-applying each month.
We may need to add an additional rule to limit the number of studies started by any qualified teacher.

[DarylFawcett]

Per these rules for the beginning month, all those who qualify are first time teachers and are thus limited to one study topic for their first month.

[woobadooba]

Per these rules for the beginning month, all those who qualify are first time teachers and are thus limited to one study topic for their first month.

In all honesty, one per person is more than enough.

[DarylFawcett]

Do you mean one person is more enough, or one topic person identified is more than enough?

[DarylFawcett]

As a result of Woob's thread on Frivilous Reporting, I propose we discuss a rule against that, therefore, I am requesting help in the wording of that rule, which will cover the SDA Main Forum and other Sub-forums, with the exception of the PSDA Sub-forum.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I don't think it's necessary to do all of this. Like I had said, you just need to get teachers to take charge that know how to teach. It's an issue of who has the gift to teach here? I can already think of a few people that do.

And if I could make my point more clear I would say just pick a topic and enter into a discussion with all participants, rather than posting an entire Bible study and then expecting them to interact. After all, what is left for them to interact with if everything has already been handed to them on a silver platter?

Again, if you look at the example of what I attempted to do in my study, you will see that the whole study is about interaction (by the way, I don't have a complete study written up for it. My objective is to allow the Spirit to lead all involved in the direction that God wants to take the study; yet, I have a definite end point).
That's actually exactly what I had in mind, Woob. About the interaction part, I mean. It's especially needed in the case of Newbies...I don't know how many times I clicked away from something because it was too long, and just too overwhelming at the time. Little by little, steping through a subject together can be way easier. :)

As for a plan..I do have to admit, that would have its benefits..However, it would be complicated.

Doc, what about just doing the plan for yourself as a teacher? Follow the pattern that you wish to follow. :) People can just pick and chose what they want.

I think, and hope, in time it will be organized..once people get into the swing of it. ;)

[woobadooba]

That's actually exactly what I had in mind, Woob. About the interaction part, I mean. It's especially needed in the case of Newbies...I don't know how many times I clicked away from something because it was too long, and just too overwhelming at the time. Little by little, steping through a subject together can be way easier. :)

As for a plan..I do have to admit, that would have its benefits..However, it would be complicated.

Doc, what about just doing the plan for yourself as a teacher? Follow the pattern that you wish to follow. :) People can just pick and chose what they want.

I think, and hope, in time it will be organized..once people get into the swing of it. ;)

If I open my study back up again will you join in, and encourage others to do so?

The study that I started is exactly what you are looking for.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

If I open my study back up again will you join in, and encourage others to do so?

The study that I started is exactly what you are looking for.
At the moment, I've been scrambling to find time to even participate in any of the heavier discussions here..but I'll do my best to participate, Woob. :)

[woobadooba]

At the moment, I've been scrambling to find time to even participate in any of the heavier discussions here..but I'll do my best to participate, Woob. :)

Well, the thing is, it is total interaction, as that is my teaching style.

I can only open it if people are willing to see it through the end.

Do what you need to do, and let me know when you have more time.

I think we need to sort some more things out in our forum anyway.

[woobadooba]

Do you mean one person is more enough, or one topic person identified is more than enough?

What I meant is that one study per teacher is more than enough.

[DarylFawcett]

As a result of Woob's thread on Frivilous Reporting, I propose we discuss a rule against that, therefore, I am requesting help in the wording of that rule, which will cover the SDA Main Forum and other Sub-forums, with the exception of the PSDA Sub-forum.
As nobody responded yet to this important post, here it is again.

[woobadooba]

As nobody responded yet to this important post, here it is again.

The only thing that concerns me about this rule is that the moderators may rule a report as frivolous when it really isn't. There have been times when a rule violation was present and the post was ruled as an NV because moderators weren't able to see a valid violation. I have seen this happen several times. Just because they fail to see a violation that doesn't mean there is none present. It would not be fair to a reporter to not only be flamed by a rule violater, but also to get a warning for a frivolous report simply because moderators used poor judgment in dealing with the reported post..

If we are going to have such a rule then the moderators must be held to a higher accountability when dealing with reported posts. This means that there must be an appeal system set up wherein there is a jury present to examine both sides to determine if a rule violation is present, so as to safeguard a reporter from getting a warning for frivolous reporting when in fact he is not guilty of any such thing.

Thus moderators would then be subject to a warning system for wasting the time of a reporter by deeming something to be frivolous when it really isn't. It is a waste of time for everyone actually, because it takes time to make an appeal. And in order to get an unbiased opinion non-staff members would have to get involved to examine the validity of the report.

If moderators are found to be wrong, then they should receive forum specific warning for wasting everyone's time during the appeal process. After enough warnings are accumulated a moderator would then show himself to be incapable of discerning the truth, and should be removed from his/her position as a result of this.

I just want to add something else here. Just because a person makes a lot of reports that doesn't make the violations in them any less valid. The problem isn't with the one making the reports. The problem lies with incessant rule breakers. And in all honesty, after seeing what has been happening lately, we may have to make our FSBs even more severe.

In closing: I think if you implement a rule for this it will create too many complications. So I don't think it is a good idea.

[DarylFawcett]

Why then did you create a thread on frivilous reporting?

This is one way I see of dealing with that.

[woobadooba]

Why then did you create a thread on frivilous reporting?

This is one way I see of dealing with that.

I actually created it because someone reported Sophia for giving instructions to Doc in a thread.

To me that was frivolous.

I had hoped that the thread would have made a difference.

[flaglady]

wooba - you forget a few things

1. this is not real life or a church or a business; it's just a forum on the internet.
2. all staff are volunteers and give their time freely to this forum. They are not in the military now even under a contract of employment to have such a level of accountability and consequences wished upon them
3. this is not a court of law and none of the staff (so far as I am aware) a qualified lawyers. They do their humble best and often with little acknowledgment or thanks.

Finally, have you any notion how difficult it is to get people to put themselves forward for election at the moment. When they see this kind of draconian and puritanical system being suggested it will be even worse. And it might ensure that those few currently on staff would likely not be around much longer either.

Seems to me you're suggesting the very kind of thing members were raging against pre-777 and which Erwin, in his wisdom, sought to remove. Now you would wish much the same upon the staff? :doh:

[woobadooba]

wooba - you forget a few things

1. this is not real life or a church or a business; it's just a forum on the internet.

But this is a Christian-based forum and we (Christians) have a right to expect it to be governed as such. That is, in an honest manner.

2. all staff are volunteers and give their time freely to this forum. They are not in the military now even under a contract of employment to have such a level of accountability and consequences wished upon themSo what is your real point here? Are you suggesting that moderators that use poor judgment shouldn't be held accountable for doing so simply because they are volunteers? Is that what you are saying?

3. this is not a court of law and none of the staff (so far as I am aware) a qualified lawyers. They do their humble best and often with little acknowledgment or thanks.I give thanks where it is due. Are you accusing me of being ungreatful simply because I think mods should be held to a higher degree of accountability when making decisions on reports?

Truth is, if you guys were doing what you were supposed to be doing I wouldn't be gettig harrassed so much in the SDA forum and in the report area. I have asked you several times to deal with this. Have you failed to do your part in addressing this matter? Even now I am being harassed in there.

You know, insetad of dealing with the problem people you are angry with the ones that are making the reports against them. How is that even remotely honest?

Finally, have you any notion how difficult it is to get people to put themselves forward for election at the moment. When they see this kind of draconian and puritanical system being suggested it will be even worse. And it might ensure that those few currently on staff would likely not be around much longer either. What do you expect? Do you want to blame me for the changes that Erwin made? The changes made things much more difficult for all of us.

By the way, I don't know what your church teaches about the role of men and women concerning authority, but when you address me please do so with respect.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

The only thing that concerns me about this rule is that the moderators may rule a report as frivolous when it really isn't. There have been times when a rule violation was present and the post was ruled as an NV because moderators weren't able to see a valid violation. I have seen this happen several times. Just because they fail to see a violation that doesn't mean there is none present. It would not be fair to a reporter to not only be flamed by a rule violater, but also to get a warning for a frivolous report simply because moderators used poor judgment in dealing with the reported post..

If we are going to have such a rule then the moderators must be held to a higher accountability when dealing with reported posts. This means that there must be an appeal system set up wherein there is a jury present to examine both sides to determine if a rule violation is present, so as to safeguard a reporter from getting a warning for frivolous reporting when in fact he is not guilty of any such thing.

Thus moderators would then be subject to a warning system for wasting the time of a reporter by deeming something to be frivolous when it really isn't. It is a waste of time for everyone actually, because it takes time to make an appeal. And in order to get an unbiased opinion non-staff members would have to get involved to examine the validity of the report.

If moderators are found to be wrong, then they should receive forum specific warning for wasting everyone's time during the appeal process. After enough warnings are accumulated a moderator would then show himself to be incapable of discerning the truth, and should be removed from his/her position as a result of this.

I just want to add something else here. Just because a person makes a lot of reports that doesn't make the violations in them any less valid. The problem isn't with the one making the reports. The problem lies with incessant rule breakers. And in all honesty, after seeing wh