Guidelines for Membership in CC

[synger]

As mentioned in another thread (http://foru.ms/t6425022-probation-ending-soon-guidelines-discussion-to-follow.html), with probation at an end, the moderator staff is asking for membership input and discussion of various guidelines for the Conservative Christians forum.

So if you are a member of the CC forum, please feel free to comment on the following discussion-starters about membership in the forum:

The membership list was originally created to identify those who could vote in policy polls and moderator elections. These are no longer being used, so do we still need a specified list? Do we still want to keep a membership list for the forum to identify those who can discuss, teach, and debate in the main forum?


If we do keep a membership list, what are the limitations on non-member posting? Currently, non-members are limited to fellowship posts only, as outlined in the current Statement of Faith. Posts by non-members in any thread that deals with doctrine, ethics, Scripture, morality, or other debate topics are often flagged for moderator action, even if their posts are conservative in doctrine. Is this how we wish to continue? Do we need to identify and action every post that a non-member makes that is not a fellowship post (the current model), or only those that espouse a non-conservative viewpoint?

[Voegelin]

Posts by non-members in any thread that deals with doctrine, ethics, Scripture, morality, or other debate topics are often flagged for moderator action, even if their posts are conservative in doctrine. Is this how we wish to continue?

I would say yes and no. Yes to flagging posts which debate Scripture or doctrine; no to flagging debate invovling ethics and morality by those in general agreement with conservative Christian principles. If an atheist agrees with conservative Christian teachings on the primacy of the family and the sanctity of life, I think we should be delighted if he or she wants to debate the finer points or how best to effect change which advances both.

Do we need to identify and action every post that a non-member makes that is not a fellowship post (the current model), or only those that espouse a non-conservative viewpoint?

As above, only those that cross into a debate on Scripture and doctrine.

[Criada]

Do we still want to keep a membership list for the forum to identify those who can discuss, teach, and debate in the main forum?

To be honest, the membership list has been the cause of a lot of friction, as people sign in and out to make a point.
(Not accusing anyone here - I am also guilty of this!!)

Maybe something like Moderate Christians have started, where regular posters can post a little information about themselves, to help us get to know one another would be nice as an alternative...


In which case , the rules for posting would have to change... perhaps just to say that posts expressing views contradictory to scripture or to our SoF will be flagged.

[synger]

Voegelin has made an interesting divide, between those topics which are based in Scripture and doctrine and those that are discussing ethics and morality. We could certainly try to moderate this way, but it would be a fine line at times. Most discussions about ethics and morality, especially when conservative Christians participate in it, tend to either revolve around or come back to Scripture and doctrine, because we see Scripture and the Church as our authority and guide for such topics.

[synger]

Criada, you go to the heart of the matter. Do we want to limit posting based on WHO is posting (is the poster a member of the forum?) or on WHAT is being posted (does the topic conform to our Statement of Faith?).

Without the need to keep a list for moderator election purposes (where WHO was voting was very important), I'm not sure we really need a "membership list" at all. Many congregational forums get along fairly well by just outlining their beliefs and saying that discussion contrary to these guidelines will be moderated.

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm a non-member, but I like to come here and talk with people, and sometimes I do post in the threads that talk about scripture and doctrine. I'd hate to have my posts flagged all the time simply because my name wasn't on a list.

I TOTALLY like the idea of looking at the content of a post rather than who is posting it. I try to do that anyway, myself, and it often works out okay, although I do sometimes end up replying to someone who ticked me off the week before.

[ContentInHim]

Posts by non-members in any thread that deals with doctrine, ethics, Scripture, morality, or other debate topics are often flagged for moderator action, even if their posts are conservative in doctrine. Is this how we wish to continue?

I would say yes and no. Yes to flagging posts which debate Scripture or doctrine; no to flagging debate invovling ethics and morality by those in general agreement with conservative Christian principles. If an atheist agrees with conservative Christian teachings on the primacy of the family and the sanctity of life, I think we should be delighted if he or she wants to debate the finer points or how best to effect change which advances both.

Do we need to identify and action every post that a non-member makes that is not a fellowship post (the current model), or only those that espouse a non-conservative viewpoint?

As above, only those that cross into a debate on Scripture and doctrine.
I agree with Voegelin (no surprise there :) ) with the proviso that fellowship posts by non-members should be just that and not posts that are intended to be passive-agressive burrs under conservatives' saddles. This has happened in the past and when conservatives objected, conservatives were the ones who were punished. :(

[Latreia]

Criada, you go to the heart of the matter. Do we want to limit posting based on WHO is posting (is the poster a member of the forum?) or on WHAT is being posted (does the topic conform to our Statement of Faith?).

Since there is not an icon for conservatives, although it is clear that we are in a very certain category, and that we have standards that we want to follow, it might be well to let those of us have some kind of greeting for each other.

And I used to think that was what the different fora's Sign-In thread was for.
It is like entering through a door, which indicates one is entering a place where manners, consideration, and enjoyment of like-minded followers understand and trust each other.

So why not have that here, when a "member" enters to contribute here as a conservative Christian, to be in harmony and trust with fellow Christians whose behaviour, attitudes, and posts reflect this kind of sincerity, then first post a greeting which includes something of warmth and eagerness to participate?

This, then is a reminder and a promise to be true to those in the Statement of Faith.
This first post is a form of pledge to be true and total willingness to observe the rules in the best attitude.


Without the need to keep a list for moderator election purposes (where WHO was voting was very important), I'm not sure we really need a "membership list" at all. Many congregational forums get along fairly well by just outlining their beliefs and saying that discussion contrary to these guidelines will be moderated.

Many fora have a membership list to indicate their popularity by the length of the list and the names there to attract other posters who like the names on that list. Most sadly, the list on CC seems to have also attracted the insincere and even sock puppets. The latter should be strictly forbidden here.

Another way to show desirability by the growth rate. This is like an appeal to join a popular clubhouse, pub, or a place where you can assume that anything goes.

Since there are so many other threads and sites available to please everybody, it is not necessary to provide such outlets here.

Fellowship and joy are qualitites which, when warm and sincere, exclude nobody.

Any who have formed rather unfortunate and obstinate views of conservative Christians, or for that matter, Christian members of ANY DENOMINATION or CHURCH along with criticism and ill-will towards them, need have the self-restraint and the civility not to post here and reveal their innate displeasure.

Please let this be THE forum that never casts stones at other Christians for any reasons. Removing negativity from the Christian faith should be every single Christian's big priority in relationships with each other first, and then also for other faiths and religions as well.

Lastly, at last, I just want to mention something that I would really like to see happen a lot more.

Regardless of what staff tells us about reporting bad posts, it would really be better not to rely totally on reports by members to point out bad posts.

If staff members participating in a thread shall see a post that needs action, try not to wait until a member has to report it to have action taken.

Also, there needs to be some latitude that allows members here to very gently and lovingly call to such posters' attention that the post is a problem, whether it is actually violates a rule or not.

When a member of staff sees this happen, it would be well to then privately contact both the member who got the admonishment and the member who said, "Please listen to me for a moment, you worry me and here is why.

Let's please sweep out all the eggshells we have become all to accustomed to walk upon and relearn kinder ways to relate to each other with our words and comments.

Peace and harmony require an environment that is dedicated to soft-spoken truths and compassionate wisdom.

:sigh:

[Addicted2~Jesus]

As mentioned in another thread (http://foru.ms/t6425022-probation-ending-soon-guidelines-discussion-to-follow.html), with probation at an end, the moderator staff is asking for membership input and discussion of various guidelines for the Conservative Christians forum.

Wait a minute... does it even frackin matter? I mean we've all been down this road before an what did it git any of us?? We all got all the work an effort an stress we put into it ALL null an void. An as usual, this isn't even the first time it's happend! My goodness, it's a literal disaster, I don't even think it's worth messin wit really, we're all goin to fuss over this an that an finally hammer out a nice lil deal we want to use jes to have some other numbnut run in an trash ever bit of it. So this begs the question, is it even really worth it any more??

This place is goin back to some of the darkest moments in what was once CF's history. I'm not sure I want to be part of the fall out that jes is sure to come :(

Would we be wastin our time to come up wit ideas an input an all that jes to have it all thrown out by yet another removed party who jes happens to have the bucks an Erwins hear at the time to buy up the place??

[synger]

I hear your frustration, A2J. *sighs* I think we've all wondered that at one time or another in the past few weeks.

It is, of course, up to the members here. We mods will have to moderate whether you give us input or not. We'd rather have a clear understanding of what the members here expect of us, than not.

Most of us post here regularly, so we think we have a fairly good idea about what the main concerns are. But we really wanted to give you the opportunity to let us know if we're missing the mark on some of these guidelines.

From the discussions that were happening before the probation started, one of the main issues seems to revolve around the membership list -- is it for all discussion, or just voting, etc. And if it's for posting, how restrictive should it be? The moderators have been accused both of allowing anyone and everyone to post, and of being too restrictive and deleting non-member posts on their own whims. So this is the first of the discussion points that we'd like to bring up. (Hence this thread.)

Whether the board gets sold tomorrow again, so long as we have this forum, the moderators will need some guidelines on how to interpret the site-wide rules for this specific community of faith. That's what we're trying to do here... ask you for input into those guidelines.

We're going to have to have guidelines either way. We want those who are interested to participate in the discussion about them, if they so choose.

I do hope you participate, A2J. Your insights in other discussions (in the old DR, for instance), even through your frustration, have often made me re-think ideas that have been brought forward. You have a way of cutting through the flowery words and asking the hard questions. I value that, and think it is important for such discussions.

[Addicted2~Jesus]

I don't personally think that any FSGuidelines will do any good at all because of the site wide rules, I mean there's currently a rule that allows staff to interpet the rules in jes bout anyway they see fit at the time, which jes begs the question how on earth can you have consistancy in a sistuation like that? The whole "unwritten" rule thin is a joke that's jes goin to land more an more folks in trouble.

I have personnaly wittnessed a multitude of folks that are in trouble for some insanely far reachin rules violations, I mean folks have had to go way way out on a limb in order to catch someone in a violation. This jes should not be period.

As far as FSG's go, what can we do? I mean literally, we've gone back into the dark ages agin, membership rules has been thrown out, the entire votin of anythin is gone, we once agin have no say so in how anythin goes round here. So what, we come up wit a bunch of fsg's jes to have em tossed agin?

If the only matter is wether the membership list should be used to say who an who may not post here, we're agin spinnin our wheels. We've already seen it... er maybe not, it's late an I may be thinkin of an old instance in RC er I guess it's OBOB anyways, one mod was happy to allow a member to post who did not affirm thier particular teachins an the next thin ya know there's a huge to do cause another staff member clamied they were debatin an the like. I don't think we could ever hope to pin the issue to the ground witout infact becomin a separte forum wit in this place. Flat out not allowin others to post. But then... that's not our purpose either. We aren't to close oursefs off from the world. So who decides? An then, who watches the watchers?

No I don't want, for example only, a bunch of liberals comin in an sayin how same sex stuff is fine an dandy er it's a womans right to choose an all that kind of crap, but what do we do, er rather what does staff do if a liberal member has been postin fine an dandy for a good while but sumthin crawls up their backside an they start "debatin"? Staff would havta act, an it'd be the same o'l war all over agin, partly the reasons CC came under fire so much here a bit back.

Personnaly I think it's rather pointless for us to voice our concerns, this isn't directed spcifically at the CC staff er the like, but largely our complaints, concerns, out an out anger is jes discarded an the whoevers in the upper whatever's are the ones that jes decide to 86 everthin anyways. I jes cain't fathom what good it does for any of us to even try any more. I would say I've given up, but like a most horrible movie I've jes got to git to the end of the silly thin. I'm of the mind though, I'm not even goin to bother to read the rules anymore, I'll jes post an if I violate enough whoever can jes ban me an put me out of my misery. It's a sad state to be in, but as far as a community goes, it's jes bein lost in leaps an bounds :(

[Criada]

((((A2J))))

I know how you feel.
But God *is* still sovereign - and He is bigger than any of this.
And He will sort it out - eventually.
The most important thing we can do at the moment is to pray for those who have been hurt and for those who are directing things.
And trust Him to have His way in it.
:hug:

[Voegelin]

an interesting divide, between those topics which are based in Scripture and doctrine and those that are discussing ethics and morality. We could certainly try to moderate this way, but it would be a fine line at times . . .

It is a fine line. As ContentInHim pointed out there will be those who will post with the intent "to be passive-agressive burrs under conservatives' saddles."

Moderator discretion as opposed to a hard and fast rule is fine with me. Looking at a few replies, we all know, most of the time, who is yanking chains and who is for real. I prefer discretion and perhaps wrong calls to being overly legalistic.

OBOB has a system somewhat like this now. I'm not Catholic and have posted in there for years. Never received a staff contact. Sure some Catholics have reported my posts as debate (I've read their complaints against my replies in OBOB on another forum). But I always debate, if I do debate, on the side of the majesterium. The Catholics who don't agree with parts of the majesterium have claimed (I've read this too) that I do it for political reasons, not because I really agree. But that isn't true. I do agree with the majesterium. So I suspect, if my replies have been reported, mods have looked at my replies and know I'm there to support their faith, not debate it.

But there is a line and it is a fine one. The other day I got a PM from a Catholic asking me to post doctrine in OBOB to a question in an OP. I replied that I took it as a complement to be asked but while I can agree with the church, its not my place to give instructions in the faith to those with questions. When people ask, as they do almost every other day, "Why do Catholics worship Mary?", I defer to Catholics. When abortion is raised and someone says, "Well what about war and the death penalty?", I point out that for Catholics and most Christians, abortion is a catagorical sin and not dependent upon circumstances. There is no doctrine of "Just Abortion" as there is "Just War".

Probably cause more trouble for mods and perhaps some don't want to make these calls but I do think it would make for a better forum to allow debate by those who agree on moral and ethical principle but don't agree on theology.

[shrewdsnake]

As a non-member who would have liked to join, while I have not problem with the statements of faith I don't think it's fair to just tell someone who is honest about not agreeing with one of them they are not conservative and not welcome. I think anyone who wishes to join the membership should be allowed to post for days or weeks before it's determined they are not conservative.

[Latreia]

As a non-member who would have liked to join, while I have not problem with the statements of faith I don't think it's fair to just tell someone who is honest about not agreeing with one of them they are not conservative and not welcome. I think anyone who wishes to join the membership should be allowed to post for days or weeks before it's determined they are not conservative.

This is why the Membership List has become almost irrelevent. Some on the list either didn't know or didn't care whether they were of like mind with conservative Christian values, they signed on without any idea of being sincere.

What you are saying requires that you be judged and removed a list. All that means nothing.

As I explained in a prior post,* being a member is to sign in as a promise to observe the conservative attitudes in our own posts, in such way demonstrating with our comments, thoughts, and caring that we can be seen both as followers of Christ and comfortable with the self-restraint and forbearance that we have in our own hearts.

Think both Grace and graciousness.

The first from God and the second from within our faith.


:amen:


*http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40852128&postcount=8

[synger]

From reading the replies here so far, it seems like the membership list, in and of itself, is not seen as a useful tool.

If we do away with the membership list, and do not limit the PEOPLE who post here, do we then wish to limit the TOPICS that we post about?

For instance, the SoF has a number of issues listed, and what the "conservative Christian" viewpoint is upon them, for purposes of this forum. It would be fairly easy to moderate according to topic (is this post in accordance with the SoF?), rather than having to keep checking a list, and wondering whether someone on the list really believes 100% of the SoF, and figuring out how to get them off the list if they don't.

So I propose that we do away with the membership list, and we frame the allowed discussion topics according to the SoF instead. The SoF is already quite extensive, and a LOT of work and discussion went into it to make it representative of the poster here.

Would this help alleviate some of the concerns about what is posted in this forum?

[Criada]

Sounds a good plan to me.

The only thing is, we are never going to produce an exhaustive list of what the 'conservative' view one every topic is. And some we will not agree on ourselves!
In those cases - ie if the conservative viewpoint is not stated, or is not clear-cut, is everyone happy to let the mods use their discrecion and the site-wide rules to act upon posts that cause concern?

[Latreia]

Sounds a good plan to me.

The only thing is, we are never going to produce an exhaustive list of what the 'conservative' view one every topic is. And some we will not agree on ourselves!
In those cases - ie if the conservative viewpoint is not stated, or is not clear-cut, is everyone happy to let the mods use their discrecion and the site-wide rules to act upon posts that cause concern?

Many thanks to you for this question!

This fresh start would be wonderful it we include a renewal of trust between CF members and staff!

It is a joy to turn my back on the past troubled times, and with me it goes back for two years, reach out to the mods in trust and confidence that may also encourage them to take a little extra care to view members as fellow Christians.

How else can this be done unless members take a giant first step and simply allow staff to do their best to manage topics in posts in reference to the conservative Statement of Faith?

There is much truth and a strong basis of conservative ideals as Christians contained there to serve as an excellent guide for all staff in guiding CCC to become the sanctuary for Christians to feel they can be themselves with each other and also secure enough to welcome those who want to see what conservatives are really about.

Synger has shown herself to be an excellent advisor and she has my confidence entirely.

:amen:

[Hentenza]

Hi A2J,

I sympathize with what you are saying, but let me attempt to address each point that you are making. They are good points and need to be addressed.:)

[quote=Addicted2~Jesus;40872266]I don't personally think that any FSGuidelines will do any good at all because of the site wide rules, I mean there's currently a rule that allows staff to interpet the rules in jes bout anyway they see fit at the time, which jes begs the question how on earth can you have consistancy in a sistuation like that? The whole "unwritten" rule thin is a joke that's jes goin to land more an more folks in trouble.

I am a part of both the Ecumenical team and the Theology team. Both teams are in the process of planning staff actions so that they are more consistent. It is true that the new rules are interpretative but we are trying our best to not moderate with a heavy hand. I don't agree with beating people over the head. Please understand that both teams have retained the concept of having a consensus of at least 3 moderators before a report can be actioned. To me this is important because it helps keep decisions as part of a team versus unilateral.


I have personnaly wittnessed a multitude of folks that are in trouble for some insanely far reachin rules violations, I mean folks have had to go way way out on a limb in order to catch someone in a violation. This jes should not be period.

In the teams that I am a part of, I have not seen this. Sure, mistakes have been made (we are human, you know;)). As a matter of fact, much discussion that I have been privy to have been to exactly the opposite.

As far as FSG's go, what can we do? I mean literally, we've gone back into the dark ages agin, membership rules has been thrown out, the entire votin of anythin is gone, we once agin have no say so in how anythin goes round here. So what, we come up wit a bunch of fsg's jes to have em tossed agin?


Membership rules have been turned into forum guidelines. These guidelines are enforceable from the point of view of moderation. They allow congregational forums to remain "safe heavens". The challenge that we at this forum have is that our forum is ideological, not denominational. We don't have an icon that identifies us plainly so we have to moderate by the SoF. This thread is to attempt to get the memberships input on any changes that are needed to the SoF and how the membership want us to moderate this forum. I am eager to hear what you all have to say.:groupray:



If the only matter is wether the membership list should be used to say who an who may not post here, we're agin spinnin our wheels. We've already seen it... er maybe not, it's late an I may be thinkin of an old instance in RC er I guess it's OBOB anyways, one mod was happy to allow a member to post who did not affirm thier particular teachins an the next thin ya know there's a huge to do cause another staff member clamied they were debatin an the like. I don't think we could ever hope to pin the issue to the ground witout infact becomin a separte forum wit in this place. Flat out not allowin others to post. But then... that's not our purpose either. We aren't to close oursefs off from the world. So who decides? An then, who watches the watchers?

The bible says that, in a Christian, the fruits of the Spirit are evident. This is the approach that we should take. I agree with you completely that we should not close ourselves from the rest of the world. That in fact would not be biblical.
As far as who watches the watchers, that is you and the rest of the membership. The same principle of the fruits of the Holy Spirit applies.

No I don't want, for example only, a bunch of liberals comin in an sayin how same sex stuff is fine an dandy er it's a womans right to choose an all that kind of crap, but what do we do, er rather what does staff do if a liberal member has been postin fine an dandy for a good while but sumthin crawls up their backside an they start "debatin"? Staff would havta act, an it'd be the same o'l war all over agin, partly the reasons CC came under fire so much here a bit back.

In the scenario that you are describing staff would indeed act. Posts that are contrary to the SoF will be deleted. Now, do remember that this is not a full time job for most of us so we do need the help of the membership in reporting these violations. We all have to work as a group.


Personnaly I think it's rather pointless for us to voice our concerns, this isn't directed spcifically at the CC staff er the like, but largely our complaints, concerns, out an out anger is jes discarded an the whoevers in the upper whatever's are the ones that jes decide to 86 everthin anyways. I jes cain't fathom what good it does for any of us to even try any more. I would say I've given up, but like a most horrible movie I've jes got to git to the end of the silly thin. I'm of the mind though, I'm not even goin to bother to read the rules anymore, I'll jes post an if I violate enough whoever can jes ban me an put me out of my misery. It's a sad state to be in, but as far as a community goes, it's jes bein lost in leaps an bounds :(

Dude, as far as we are concerned, you are our brother in Christ and we are here to offer you our friendship, love, and support. Please let us know how we can help. Remember that people is what makes a community, not rules. Help me to help you.:hug::hug::hug:

[Latreia]

...As far as who watches the watchers, that is you and the rest of the membership. The same principle of the fruits of the Holy Spirit applies.

In the scenario that you are describing staff would indeed act. Posts that are contrary to the SoF will be deleted. Now, do remember that this is not a full time job for most of us so we do need the help of the membership in reporting these violations. We all have to work as a group.



There have been times when I was relieved to see my posts deleted, not feeling very good about them or the thread.

Now I am avoiding certain threads and enjoying myself all I can.

But if deleting one or more of my posts will add to the harmony of CCC, I have no objection, and as it looks now, a mod may just pm me with a few helpful comments and allow me to feel like a real person.


:blush:

[IamRedeemed]

FWIW........ I believe we should retain the membership and the guidelines therein.

I believe if we limit the "whos" who would be posting non-conservative things up front, we can eliminate a lot of future "whats", thereby relieving the burden of the membership to police every post and provide a buffer zone to limit the amount of reports that mods have to contend with.

People know if their views are conservative or not, they should be able to either agree to the membership guidelines as conservatives or know that they cannot based on their views and find another congregation that suits them.

I believe since this is a conservative congregational forum with the purpose of
fellowship of like minds, to do anything other would undermine the entire purpose of this forum.

We do offer a debate subforum in which those who do not hold
our views may discuss and/or debate them.

Again....For whatever it's worth.

God bless.

[IamRedeemed]

That was mostly due to some recent hoopla. Having membership and guidelines for membership however, had nothing to do with it. I think we should still require that in order to become a member that people have to agree with what a conservative is and agree that our definition represents their personal views.

I believe we can still have the membership with the guidelines provided therein, without making the thread an open thread though, keeping it as it is now, where someone wishing to join contacts a Mod, thereby continuing to keep the thread manageable for those Mods who have taken on the task of maintaining the list.

God bless
&
Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

To be honest, the membership list has been the cause of a lot of friction, as people sign in and out to make a point.
(Not accusing anyone here - I am also guilty of this!!)

Maybe something like Moderate Christians have started, where regular posters can post a little information about themselves, to help us get to know one another would be nice as an alternative...


In which case , the rules for posting would have to change... perhaps just to say that posts expressing views contradictory to scripture or to our SoF will be flagged.

[IamRedeemed]

Non-members wouldn't have their posts flagged if their posts were fellowship or their posts were in agreement with the conservative view. At least that is the way it has always been as far as I know.
The problems I don't believe were ever regarding non-members posting period. It has always been about what they posted when they posted.

God bless
&
Happy Thanksgiving!



I'm a non-member, but I like to come here and talk with people, and sometimes I do post in the threads that talk about scripture and doctrine. I'd hate to have my posts flagged all the time simply because my name wasn't on a list.

I TOTALLY like the idea of looking at the content of a post rather than who is posting it. I try to do that anyway, myself, and it often works out okay, although I do sometimes end up replying to someone who ticked me off the week before.

[IamRedeemed]

Exactly. :thumbsup: on all points!

I agree with Voegelin (no surprise there :) ) with the proviso that fellowship posts by non-members should be just that and not posts that are intended to be passive-agressive burrs under conservatives' saddles. This has happened in the past and when conservatives objected, conservatives were the ones who were punished. :(

[flaglady]

Let's please sweep out all the eggshells we have become all to accustomed to walk upon and relearn kinder ways to relate to each other with our words and comments.


I love this comment.!


As far as FSG's go, what can we do? I mean literally, we've gone back into the dark ages agin, membership rules has been thrown out, the entire votin of anythin is gone, we once agin have no say so in how anythin goes round here. So what, we come up wit a bunch of fsg's jes to have em tossed agin?


No-one is going to toss your FSG's, brother. Though they will be put together by the mods it will be with the input of members as in this thread and since both staff and members have put them together there shouldn't be any issues about interpretation. However, that doesn't mean to say that if what you have said here, you then go and post in another forum, that it wouldn't bee seen as a violation. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks!


I am a part of both the Ecumenical team and the Theology team. Both teams are in the process of planning staff actions so that they are more consistent. It is true that the new rules are interpretative but we are trying our best to not moderate with a heavy hand. I don't agree with beating people over the head. Please understand that both teams have retained the concept of having a consensus of at least 3 moderators before a report can be actioned. To me this is important because it helps keep decisions as part of a team versus unilateral.

Exactly so - well put, Henry


Membership rules have been turned into forum guidelines. These guidelines are enforceable from the point of view of moderation. They allow congregational forums to remain "safe heavens". The challenge that we at this forum have is that our forum is ideological, not denominational. We don't have an icon that identifies us plainly so we have to moderate by the SoF.


We have this same problem in Spirit-filled forum. That is also and ideological forum and with the previous system, it was often very difficult to define what is and what is not acceptable in there.

I think that this will be the defining moment for these forums (CCC and SF) for whilst staff are no longer required to moderate on the point of a rule (legalistic) they are now able to moderate on the context of posts. So if there is a member causing disruption or whatever, staff can now discern that this is the intent of their troublesome behaviour and act on that. Had we had such rules some months ago, the trouble that blighted CCC would have been much more easily and expeditiously dealt with.

[Tenebrae]

Please let this be THE forum that never casts stones at other Christians for any reasons. Removing negativity from the Christian faith should be every single Christian's big priority in relationships with each other first, and then also for other faiths and religions as well. I just have to say :thumbsup:
I agree totally



Regardless of what staff tells us about reporting bad posts, it would really be better not to rely totally on reports by members to point out bad posts.

If staff members participating in a thread shall see a post that needs action, try not to wait until a member has to report it to have action taken.

Also, there needs to be some latitude that allows members here to very gently and lovingly call to such posters' attention that the post is a problem, whether it is actually violates a rule or not.

When a member of staff sees this happen, it would be well to then privately contact both the member who got the admonishment and the member who said, "Please listen to me for a moment, you worry me and here is why.

Let's please sweep out all the eggshells we have become all to accustomed to walk upon and relearn kinder ways to relate to each other with our words and comments.


:sigh:

Well said, I agree with this totally


Peace and harmony require an environment that is dedicated to soft-spoken truths and compassionate wisdom.

And quoted for truth:thumbsup:


Latreia said it ever so much more succinctly than I could

[edb19]

bump

[Addicted2~Jesus]

No-one is going to toss your FSG's, brother. Though they will be put together by the mods it will be with the input of members as in this thread and since both staff and members have put them together there shouldn't be any issues about interpretation. However, that doesn't mean to say that if what you have said here, you then go and post in another forum, that it wouldn't bee seen as a violation. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks!



Your kiddin right? I don't mean that to sound rude, but le's reason togeather here... this... 'place' is jes chocked full of broken promises. To make this statement cain't possibly be garenteed. We've all been sold, bought into etc those lines time an time agin an we've ALL been left scratchin our heads after the fact. No this you can take to the bank I'm sure. Here after a bit, someone else will git a wild hair an then all the "work" we've all put into everthin agin will most defintely be chunked agin.

I largely jes left this thread but a very sweet rep comment brought me back into it agin, but my opinion really hasn't changed, for us to once agin pour ourse's into sumthin jes to have someone else run in an knock it out, I jes cain't see the point. It's like goin to the beach, buildin a sand castle, wit the full knowledge it won't last cause of wind er water etc, but you spend hours buildin this thin an jes bout time your doin the finishin touches on it, some one knocks it down. Preturbed you start agin, an once agin, jes bout time you git it done boom, same thin happens, an agin an agin an agin. It jes doesn't stop. You cian't git the one to stop knockin it down an yet you cain't ever quite git it done either, so you git so frustrated you jes flat give up. That's where I see this site as a whole right now.

[shrewdsnake]

I my situation I do not agree with one statement. I had two people say sorry you can't be a member but I don't understand how that works. Are the mods who decide? Do the members vote? Should one difference keep me from fellowship? I think if the statements are to be kept to determine membership some clearer policy should be created.

[synger]

If we keep the moderation-by-membership-list model, we will indeed need to clearly delineate not only what it takes to be a member, but what powers the moderators will have to say "You can't be on the list." That is one of the main problems with that model.

Not that a membership list can't be useful for fellowship. But if we go to the "moderation-by-topic" model we can still limit what is said and how it's said, without getting into the "YOU are not conservative enough for this forum" game.

[IamRedeemed]

With all due respect Synger, the method of "limiting what people say" has not been proven effective in many other locations and in various circumstances in the past or in the present.

Not to mention, again that puts the burden on members to police every post and we get put in a situation, where we don't want to have to constantly be reporting people who consistently disregard, but if members are forced to and comply, then the members become a thorn in the side of moderators and receive unfair labels and are accused of spite reporting etc etc to infinity, and the offender just has a hay day.

The guidelines we had prior describes Conservative Christian views.
If someone does not agree with them, then they don't qualify as a member.
It is very simple. Find another congregation that more appropriately fits with your
views. Done deal. I wish we wouldn't make this harder or more difficult than it needs to be.








If we keep the moderation-by-membership-list model, we will indeed need to clearly delineate not only what it takes to be a member, but what powers the moderators will have to say "You can't be on the list." That is one of the main problems with that model.

Not that a membership list can't be useful for fellowship. But if we go to the "moderation-by-topic" model we can still limit what is said and how it's said, without getting into the "YOU are not conservative enough for this forum" game.

[Criada]

The problem is, can we ever produce an exhaustive list of 'conservative' beliefs. There is a lot of disagreement between members on various issues - the current discussion of the death penalty being one of them. And if it is OK for members to disagree on these things, how can we exclude someone who disagrees one on of the points mentioned in the SoF, when they may well agree on other issues which aren't mentioned.
Sorry - that was a little muddled... hope the meaning is decipherable! :)

[IamRedeemed]

An "exhaustive list" was never necessary before, and it shouldn't be now either.

If people don't believe in abortion, but they believe in homosexual
marriage they are NOT a conservative Christian. It's very simple.

Like I said before, we provided a guideline that includes the major
issues that commonly create a dividing line between Conservatives
and other groups. It sufficed before, and it should suffice now.
People can judge themselves according to the SOF.

We shouldn't be forced to run each person
through the shredder, nor should we have to micromanage their
membership by analyzing every post. They know themselves
if they belong here or not, simply by reading our Statement of Faith.

We have ordinarily worked on an honor system though, and took people at
their word. Like I said, people know if they agree or not with the SOF.

Occasionally to rarely people have said "Yes" I agree....
and the truth came out in their posts later.

We cross that bridge when we get to it, and in my opinion, it should be
'when that happens' what the mods should or shouldn't do, that we should be
discussing and leave everything else the way it was.


The problem is, can we ever produce an exhaustive list of 'conservative' beliefs. There is a lot of disagreement between members on various issues - the current discussion of the death penalty being one of them. And if it is OK for members to disagree on these things, how can we exclude someone who disagrees one on of the points mentioned in the SoF, when they may well agree on other issues which aren't mentioned.
Sorry - that was a little muddled... hope the meaning is decipherable! :)

[shrewdsnake]

Well I can tell you the "I don't like you so go post somewhere else" thing is not going to get anyone, anywhere. I could have easily agreed to the SOF and never once stated I believe homosexuality is a forgivable sin. I have found with everything going on that many members don't say anything because they don't agree and non-member and a few who consider themselves choosen are trying to run people out. I am a Conservative and should be able to post in the Conservative forum without fear of being run off. I tried the Moderate forum and I don't like the fit. Probably because I'm not really Moderate. I see no reason you can't request to be a member and after a month your posts be reviewed and then an ok go through.

[Criada]

Hold on - we all believe homosexuality is forgivable, don't we??
Any sin is forgivable - that's what God's grace is about. :scratch:
Don't think anyone said it was unforgivable...

[IamRedeemed]

All sin is forgivable. Unfortunately some people pick and choose which they believe are sins regardless of what the Word says and remain unrepentant and want to force their unBiblical beliefs on those who hold fast to the Word of Truth.

We have never said anything about homosexuality not being a forgivable sin, but if memory serves me correctly, that is not the presentation you made when you wanted to become a member Shrewdsnake. If memory serves me correctly, you did not agree that it IS a sin, and had a problem with that part of our SOF, as the SOF states that sexual immorality is any sex outside the marriage that consists of one man and one woman.

[shrewdsnake]

All sin is forgivable. Unfortunately some people pick and choose which they believe are sins regardless of what the Word says and remain unrepentant and want to force their unBiblical beliefs on those who hold fast to the Word of Truth.

We have never said anything about homosexuality not being a forgivable sin, but if memory serves me correctly, that is not the presentation you made when you wanted to become a member Shrewdsnake. If memory serves me correctly, you did not agree that it IS a sin, and had a problem with that part of our SOF, as the SOF states that sexual immorality is any sex outside the marriage that consists of one man and one woman.

No that is not what was said. Perhaps some of the other 50 or so people on the member list could actually speak up about what goes on here and not a loud few.

[Criada]

Just for the record, if there is something in the SoF that you don't agree with, Shrewdsnake, could you tell us exactly what it is. (You probably already have - but it would be easier to repeat it, rather than be misquoted...)
Thanks.

[shrewdsnake]

Just for the record, if there is something in the SoF that you don't agree with, Shrewdsnake, could you tell us exactly what it is. (You probably already have - but it would be easier to repeat it, rather than be misquoted...)
Thanks.
I am not a member and obviously will not be one. Let those who are members speak up about what they want. I am done trying to prove how good, or bad a Christian I am.

[Criada]

k
Sorry - wasn't trying to judge.
Just that people seemed to be arguing over what you did or didn't say...

[rmw8855]

I am not a member and obviously will not be one. Let those who are members speak up about what they want. I am done trying to prove how good, or bad a Christian I am.

No one needs to prove how good or bad a Christian they are - to be honest it is none of my business... that is between them and God.

As a member all I care about is in helping to create a forum where respect is mandatory. I want a place where I can meet with like minded people to discuss issues from a conservative standpoint. I don't care if people disagree with me as long as they direct that disagreement at my post and don't resort to attacking me personally. (This isn't directed at you SS, just my desire for this forum)

[IamRedeemed]

I stated "if my memory serves me correctly".
As that is what I recall. If my recollection is incorrect, please do correct me.

In fact I am not sure how you missed my rather lengthy
post in response to Criada, just a couple of posts before you wrote this,
which I believe if you had, you would not have said such things.
See it here==> Post #33 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41077317&postcount=33)

As far as your other comment goes, unfortunately life in general
seems to be that way. As "few" are the only ones who will speak.
Whether it is "loud" or not is a matter of opinion though I guess.


No that is not what was said. Perhaps some of the other 50 or so people on the member list could actually speak up about what goes on here and not a loud few.

[SolomonVII]

I have a request to make.

Could some of the locked threads in the rules and policies subforum here be removed?

All the locked threads are just contributing to the noise and actually get in the way fo finding out if there is a membership list hereanymore, or a need for one, or just what it implies to be posting in this forum in the first place.

It would be nice to just have a few relevant stickies here, and not a reminder of the arcane and obscure history of this forum where people were jumpiing in an out of membership here like Mexican jumping beans, and who who knows what reason anyways?

Like do we really need a thread in place in which someone titles why she is leaving without even saying why she is leaving?

How is this possibly relevant to the rules and guidleines today?

As far as rules go, it would be nice if the discussion space that they are kept in is maintained in a way that is succint, and as tidy and as informative, as possible.


Thanks for allowing me to say this after 4800 postws.

[synger]

I have a request to make.

Could some of the locked threads in the rules and policies subforum here be removed?

All the locked threads are just contributing to the noise and actually get in the way fo finding out if there is a membership list hereanymore, or a need for one, or just what it implies to be posting in this forum in the first place.

It would be nice to just have a few relevant stickies here, and not a reminder of the arcane and obscure history of this forum where people were jumpiing in an out of membership here like Mexican jumping beans, and who who knows what reason anyways?

Like do we really need a thread in place in which someone titles why she is leaving without even saying why she is leaving?

How is this possibly relevant to the rules and guidleines today?

As far as rules go, it would be nice if the discussion space that they are kept in is maintained in a way that is succint, and as tidy and as informative, as possible.


Thanks for allowing me to say this after 4800 postws.
The new guidelines, based in part on this discussion thread, were announced (http://christianforums.com/t6578521-membership-guidelines-new-revised.html)in the main forum and are available here.
(http://christianforums.com/t6377207-cc-statement-of-faith-and-guidelines.html)
I'm not sure what we'll be doing with this subforum, since it was created specifically for the discussion of the labyrinthine rules that came into play post-777. The stickies in the main forum are the best bet for figuring things out.

And no, there is no longer a membership list per se.

[SolomonVII]

(http://christianforums.com/t6377207-cc-statement-of-faith-and-guidelines.html)
I'm not sure what we'll be doing with this subforum, since it was created specifically for the discussion of the labyrinthine rules that came into play post-777.
Up at the top of the forum homepage, it is no mainly clutter and noise. No longer of any relevance, it would make sense that it gets burried somewhere.


The stickies in the main forum are the best bet for figuring things out. The new guidelines, based in part on this discussion thread, were announced (http://christianforums.com/t6578521-membership-guidelines-new-revised.html)in the main forum and are available here. (http://christianforums.com/t6377207-cc-statement-of-faith-and-guidelines.html)

And no, there is no longer a membership list per se.
.

So what would this mean then?

[QUOTE]All are welcome to come post in CC for friendship, fellowship (as defined above), and conversation, but debate is limited to CC members only.



I guess we don't really need a membership list to define just who is and who isn't a conservative though.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

So, if it don't smell right, it is not a "member" of CC? Is that something like the correct interpretation?

[Father Rick]

I hate to point out the obvious here... but the vast majority of the issues that were here prior to the probationary period had little, if anything, to do with the actual SoF of CCC.... or those who were/were not conservative.

Rather, it was a lot of political uproar of people choosing sides about specific individuals/staff decisions... then lots of "signing in" and "signing out" of the membership list in protest... and other, well... basically temper tantrums... just dressed up with little bits of religious language thrown in to try to justify why people were being so snotty. And constant accusations that anyone who disagreed with one's actions as being "liberal" whether or not the person held to the SoF of CCC or not.

If it had truly been an issue of people who were not in agreement with the SoF posting, then it would have been a very easily solved problem at that time.

While I think a membership list can be helpful, only in that it gives a definite attestment of one's compliance with the CCC SoF, if it is going to be a revolving door (as it was before) then it will actually be far more harmful than beneficial.

And unfortunately, while the SoF speaks clearly on certain issues of morality, unfortunately, it doesn't cover issues such as truthfulness or common courtesy.

[SolomonVII]

I never did come to an understanding of the events up to and leading to the mass exodus from the revolving door.
But I do know for sure that it had nothing with moderators placing limits on just how controversially conservative one's post can be. The only threads that specificallyinterest me here deal exactly with such matters, and the vast majority, if not all, of those threads were discussed through right to the end.

:thumbsup: A little Christmas kudo to the moderators form this grinch, whose heart has grown maybe a half size larger, for today only of course.

[edb19]

I never did come to an understanding of the events up to and leading to the mass exodus from the revolving door.
But I do know for sure that it had nothing with moderators placing limits on just how controversially conservative one's post can be. The only threads that specificallyinterest me here deal exactly with such matters, and the vast majority, if not all, of those threads were discussed through right to the end.

:thumbsup: A little Christmas kudo to the moderators form this grinch, whose heart has grown maybe a half size larger, for today only of course.

this mod says thank you very much http://bestsmileys.com/christmas2/20.gif

[edb19]

And unfortunately, while the SoF speaks clearly on certain issues of morality, unfortunately, it doesn't cover issues such as truthfulness or common courtesy.

And, truth be told, it shouldn't have to - first, those issues are covered by site wide rules. Second, and more importantly - they're covered by God's rules - shouldn't ever be an issue for a professing Christian.

[synger]

I hate to point out the obvious here... but the vast majority of the issues that were here prior to the probationary period had little, if anything, to do with the actual SoF of CCC.... or those who were/were not conservative.

Rather, it was a lot of political uproar of people choosing sides about specific individuals/staff decisions... then lots of "signing in" and "signing out" of the membership list in protest... and other, well... basically temper tantrums... just dressed up with little bits of religious language thrown in to try to justify why people were being so snotty. And constant accusations that anyone who disagreed with one's actions as being "liberal" whether or not the person held to the SoF of CCC or not.

If it had truly been an issue of people who were not in agreement with the SoF posting, then it would have been a very easily solved problem at that time.

While I think a membership list can be helpful, only in that it gives a definite attestment of one's compliance with the CCC SoF, if it is going to be a revolving door (as it was before) then it will actually be far more harmful than beneficial.

And unfortunately, while the SoF speaks clearly on certain issues of morality, unfortunately, it doesn't cover issues such as truthfulness or common courtesy.
You make a very good point, Fr. Rick, and one that was brought up in our discussion. Both the SoF and the membership list can really only dictate who can post, and in general terms, what doctrines they agree to. There is no list or SoF that can help when there are process questions, and those are the times when people of all stripes start calling names and digging in heels.

My understanding is that without a membership list, the moderators will be more free to moderate "to the rules and guidelines" rather than 'to the list". It is the content of the post, and how one expresses their disagreement with someone else, that will be looked at.

[edb19]

You make a very good point, Fr. Rick, and one that was brought up in our discussion. Both the SoF and the membership list can really only dictate who can post, and in general terms, what doctrines they agree to. There is no list or SoF that can help when there are process questions, and those are the times when people of all stripes start calling names and digging in heels.

My understanding is that without a membership list, the moderators will be more free to moderate "to the rules and guidelines" rather than 'to the list". It is the content of the post, and how one expresses their disagreement with someone else, that will be looked at.

exactly:thumbsup:

[daniel777]

just make sure that the actual opposing disagreements/viewpoints aren't struck down at first mention.

what is a conservative?

should we leave this task of defining solely up to the moderators?

I think we should go strictly by the list. unless something extreme comes up.

[edb19]

just make sure that the actual opposing disagreements/viewpoints aren't struck down at first mention.

what is a conservative?

should we leave this task of defining solely up to the moderators?

I think we should go strictly by the list. unless something extreme comes up.

the definition is in the SoF - posting needs to be in compliance with that

[daniel777]

:thumbsup:

[Debi1967]

Do we still want to keep a membership list for the forum to identify those who can discuss, teach, and debate in the main forum?Yes please

[edb19]

http://christianforums.com/t6578521-membership-guidelines-new-revised.html

As this current thread shows there was much discussion on membership/participation - the above summarizes the results.


And unfortunately, while the SoF speaks clearly on certain issues of morality, unfortunately, it doesn't cover issues such as truthfulness or common courtesy.

I think this (from the SoF/guidelines) covers the quoted concern:

Truth and Love are both God's character. All truth can be expressed in love. When addressing others in the forum we should hold ourselves accountable to the belief that all people are created in God's image, and as such deserve a basic level of respect, regardless of their deeds. This is not meant to muzzle honest discourse or comment, but to remind that all truth, must be expressed in love.

[MrJim]

:)

[Nadiine]

http://christianforums.com/t6578521-membership-guidelines-new-revised.html

Truth and Love are both God's character. All truth can be expressed in love. When addressing others in the forum we should hold ourselves accountable to the belief that all people are created in God's image, and as such deserve a basic level of respect, regardless of their deeds. This is not meant to muzzle honest discourse or comment, but to remind that all truth, must be expressed in love.
Agreed - my only issue about that is to ask was Jesus using love when He rebuked the Pharisees so harshly.

Not that I advise that we use that tone or rebuke to everyone either... just for clarification purposes I bring this up for balance.