Discussion for possible rule for allowing non-voting, non-debating members.

[Lisa0315]

Reactionary Kitten whom you may know better as DarkMage has asked to become a non-voting, non-debating honorary member. Can we discuss? What are your thoughts on this? I wasn't sure how to answer this, but we do not have a rule that would allow this. Actually our rules strictly prohibit this. Is this something we want to consider on a case by case basis?

I can think of both pros and cons for this.

Thoughts?

Lisa

[Letalis]

Is this about the particular member wishing to become an honorary member -- or about the overall policy question?

[Lisa0315]

Is this about the particular member wishing to become an honorary member -- or about the overall policy question?

Both. We had a request and I started this thread because currently our rules do not allow for this. It is fine if we want to keep it that way, but I just want to see what people want to do.

I don't want to make an exception for one person. I want to establish if we ever want to do this and if so, then, how do we evalutate the people.

I know OBOB has an honorary member clause in their rules. I am an honorary member over there.

Lisa

[ContentInHim]

I sort of think it's a good idea. There are actually quote a few really nice non-conservative Christians out there who know not only how to fellowship nicely but debate courteously. They're fun to have around! :thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

I sort of think it's a good idea. There are actually quote a few really nice non-conservative Christians out there who know not only how to fellowship nicely but debate courteously. They're fun to have around! :thumbsup:

So, as an honorary member, we would pre-approve them to debate with us? That might be very interesting. Would you want there to be any off-limit subjects?

Lisa

[nyj]

I guess we should describe what benefits the term "honorary member" comes with. If it's just that we recognize them as being upstanding ForU.ms citizens even though they're not CC members, and nothing more, I see nothing problematic in that at all. If it comes with added benefits, we'll need to discuss that.

Remember, if we give people something, we'll need to discuss the possibility of revoking it as well in case it's abused.

[Letalis]

I think honorary members should have a say in who moderates the forum, but policy decisions and debate are only for full members.

[nyj]

I think honorary members should have a say in who moderates the forum, but policy decisions and debate are only for full members.I might object to that.

If an honorary membership is sort of like an honorary doctorate ... it's just a title and a bit of distinction. They'd have their name added to a list, and that's about it. No responsibilities and benefits otherwise. It's not as if you can take your honorary doctorate and use it to get a job or anything of that nature. Hey, I have a doctorate ... hire me!

[NewGuy101]

Why exactly do we want to make him honorary member?

[Lisa0315]

Well, Reactionary Kitten has stated that she is not a conservative at all, but she likes us. She wants to be a non-voting, non-debating member.

Honestly, I do not see any need for honorary members. They either are or they are not. The only reason I would go for it is that it may facilitate witness to them.

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Yeah...I'm wondering what the perks would be myself. As it is non members are welcome to come fellowship with us. :scratch: I think it makes things unnecessarily complicated.

On a side note, I've noticed several non-members who like to come fellowship and it's been quite nice to see them here. :)

[Lisa0315]

Well, I had to take it to the members. I know that some forums are doing it. I just don't see how it would benefit anyone, either members or the proposed honorary members. What difference would it make?

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Well, I had to take it to the members. I know that some forums are doing it. I just don't see how it would benefit anyone, either members or the proposed honorary members. What difference would it make?

Lisa
I agree.

Maybe its about being recognized...or appreciated. Something to think about I guess. :)

[Criada]

I think it's a good idea - and possibly might make us seem a bit less exclusive...
And I like her!

[Lisa0315]

I think it's a good idea - and possibly might make us seem a bit less exclusive...
And I like her!


Well, that is a good point too.

Lisa

[Lel]

And I'm still on the fence, I'm almost rather inclined to be a sort of non-member participant if you will here.

[NewGuy101]

I think it's pointess. There is no reason to give someone else a title when they can post just like anyone else.

[GreenMunchkin]

Hmm, well afaik, ReactionaryKitten is a sweetie, but she's a member of WWMC, so that would 86 her being a member here.

The thing I'm not sure about, is what benefits someone would have. If it wouldn't allow them to vote or debate, what would be the purpose/s? Am not saying there isn't one/some, am just asking cos I can't think of any :scratch:

We're open in terms of people being able to come and go, both members and non-members, so am just a little confused about it. I know WWMC have that, but I never really saw the point of it. But there may be a genius one am not seeing.

[Greenthumb]

Hmm...I say no.

#1 We'd have to change our rules...because it states you can't be a member of both WWMC and CC (honorary or not).

#2 If we do it for one person we have to do it for everyone who asks.

#3 Non-members are already allowed to post here, without voting and debating.

#4 Membership is about being a conservative Christian.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Hmm...I say no.

#1 We'd have to change our rules...because it states you can't be a member of both WWMC and CC (honorary or not).

#2 If we do it for one person we have to do it for everyone who asks.

#3 Non-members are already allowed to post here, without voting and debating.

#4 Membership is about being a conservative Christian.
Good points GT...:hug: :)

[Debi1967]

Hmm...I say no.

#1 We'd have to change our rules...because it states you can't be a member of both WWMC and CC (honorary or not).

#2 If we do it for one person we have to do it for everyone who asks.

#3 Non-members are already allowed to post here, without voting and debating.

#4 Membership is about being a conservative Christian.
Good point and agree

[Lisa0315]

I think we have a consensus that we do not want to consider writing a rule for honorary members. I will close this now, but if anyone wishes to continue discussing this, please PM me and I will re-open.

Lisa