Promotion

[Tenebrae]

Original Post (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43194886&postcount=67) copied into discussion thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------
These seem to be the basic breakdowns on this issue:

Any non-Nicene statement promotes non-Nicene belief (narrowest view)

Making any statement of fact is in some way encouraging the acceptance of something and that seems to be against the new rules. As for links, if when the site linked is reviewed there is information that promotes the non-nicene religions, per the rules, that wouldn't be acceptable. There's a ton of info on the site and usually with a little effort, one can find an alternative link where there isn't promotion.


debating and making positive assertions of fact is promoting


We need to look at the thread's purpose as a whole (only works for thread review, not post-by-post review):

"Promotion" would be counted as any post or thread where the entire purpose is to convert someone to a non-Nicaean Christian religion

Promotion is in my opinion placing the title of a thread in a inappropriate forum or multiple forums questioning any part of the Nicene standard, by a known opponent to the Nicene Creed.

I do not think that discussion should be viewed as promotion if it is debate oriented, and people should be allowed to link to sites that support their POV as long as they don't link to a promotional site.

I do think that threads that are titled "What do you like about the LDS church?" (for example) are promotional, no matter where they are.

Information and clarification on non-Nicene beliefs needs to be allowed:

It is not promotion to correct misconceptions or fabricated or out of context statements about ones own faith or even defending another's faith from misconceptions.

From the old rules a few years ago: "A post that merely provides information about a non-Christian belief is allowed for informational purposes only (with references provided) and without promotion. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity."

If a post is simply clarifying or correcting an erroneous post from another person, I'll let it stand. If, however, debate arises and a person continues to post what their religion believes, those could be very well considered promotion, and I'd have to look at the posts to see if they need to be removed.

such posts as "my belief is this; how does your belief compare" should be okay if a person is truly trying to learn the differences or similarities between faiths. Also, any misconceptions about a particular faith should be allowed to be corrected by a member of that faith.

Posting confirmed facts, even if these facts don't support the "CF-acceptable" view, should be allowed... so that only opinions posted as facts would count as the kind of promotion which isn't allowed

The key is to determine whether someone is actively encouraging non-Nicene belief (widest view)

only actively preaching and trying to convert others should count as promotion

Basically as long as you're not trying to convince anyone to think like you do, or change someone's faith, or belief, I think an honest and open discussion of faith is okay.

I would define promotion as un-solicited soapboxing

I think it should be ok to have informative posts explaining this is what the so and sos believe and why they believe it. What becomes promotional is when the so and sos say that their non-nicene beliefs are right and the nicene ones are wrong and they set off to prove why they are right and the nicene ones are wrong.

Maybe a key word is encouragement. Does the post merely inform and discuss, or does it encourage conversion to non-Christian (or non-Nicene) beliefs or religions? [note: this was followed by the observation by another poster that "encouragement" is very hard to objectively judge]

Alternative wording to better define promotion

-Persuasive assertion of truth in a non-nicene belief.

-The act of furthering, advancing, or helping forward the belief a non-nicene belief is true.
-Attempting to develop or encourage or convince another in a non-nicene belief
-An attempt for advancement or acceptance of a non-nicene belief.
-An active advocate of a non-nicene belief.
-An effort to persuade
-An effort to win acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-The process of guiding member toward the adoption of a non-nicene position or belief
-Persuasion to influence the acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-Attempting to encourage a member to embrace a non-nicene point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty
-Trying to convert or make (someone) agree, understand, or realize the truth or validity of a non-nicene belief
-Trying to convince someone of the truth or validity of a non-nicene statement
-Insisting a non-nicene belief should be accepted as true.

[WatersMoon110]

Personally, I would hope that "Promotion" would be counted as any post or thread where the entire purpose is to convert someone to a non-Nicaean Christian religion.

But I worry, because just correcting a mistaken post about a different religion, or even just mentioning any view held by a different religion, or even just mentioning the name of a different religion could be considered "Promotion" by some people. I agree that exactly what does and doesn't count as such should be clear, so that everyone knows what is or isn't an acceptable post.

[blueanjel]

Pro*mote" (?), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Promoted; p. pr. & vb. n. Promoting.] [L. promotus, p. p. of promovere to move forward, to promote; pro forward + movere to move. See Move.]

1. To contribute to the growth, enlargement, or prosperity of (any process or thing that is in course); to forward; to further; to encourage; to advance; to excite; as, to promote learning; to promote disorder; to promote a business venture. Born to promote all truth." Milton.

Syn. -- To forward; advance; further; patronize; help; exalt; prefer; elevate; dignify.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=promote&use1913=on&use1828=on




Quick definitions (promotion)


noun: act of raising in rank or position
noun: a message issued in behalf of some product or cause or idea or person or institution
noun: encouragement of the progress or growth or acceptance of something
noun: the advancement of some enterprise


pr-mshn
NOUN: 1. The act of promoting or the fact of being promoted; advancement.
2. Encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something; furtherance.
3. Advertising; publicity.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/P0594000.html

[WatersMoon110]

Yes, thanks for the dictionary definition of "promote". But that doesn't exactly answer the question, what sort of posts will Mods consider "promoting"?

Obviously, if someone is saying "join the Church of the SubGenius" that is promoting. But is correcting someone about the beliefs of the Church of the SubGenius "promoting"? What about just mentioning the Church of the SubGenius or Bob Dobbs? What about calling Bob Dobb's "my personally savior"? Is it promoting to ask "why is the Church of the SubGenius not accepted by main stream culture?"

There are a lot of nuances that I would like to see better explained, rather than just a definition of the term.

[Crazy Liz]

Non-promotion has been a difficult rule to apply in the past. The standard seemed to be that any post that was not negative in tone was considered promoting, particularly if it corrected negative misrepresentations in other posts.

I personally don't think there is a workable standard that can be applied.

[synger]

Even if we can't have a cut-and-dried rule, perhaps we can think of some guidelines? Can you think of some examples that are clearly promotion and some that you'd consider discussion? Maybe if we come up with some generic examples, that would be useful.

I was reading another thread, and here were two examples:

Discussion: "What do think about this and that..."

promotion "this and that is what you should think!"


Information: "This is what I believe and practice, and here's why."

Promotion: "This is what YOU should believe and practice."

How would you expand on that?

[Samuel_Rigby]

What about the following. . .

#1The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only true church.

#2Salvation has nothing to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster

#3There is no such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Are these statements promoting? Or are they opinions even though they are not labeled IMO?

[*Starlight*]

I think that only actively preaching and trying to convert others should count as promotion... for example, statements such as "you must all join church X because it's the only true church". Otherwise, all posts which speak about something in a positive way would be seen as against the rules, and that would be really bad.

[stumpjumper]

I think this is one of those rules that we can't go by the letter but more by the spirit.

I think Synger's two examples, though, are a pretty good start of a guideline.

[Samuel_Rigby]

I think debating and making positive assertions of fact is promoting. A person who counters every statement with an opposing assertion of fact clearly has an agenda to promote.

[stumpjumper]

I think debating and making positive assertions of fact is promoting. A person who counters every statement with an opposing assertion of fact clearly has an agenda to promote.

I don't like the implications, there.

You'll be basically making any post in General Apologetics by a non-Christian "promotion".

Anyway, here's the starting point: "Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity."

[jeffC]

The difficulty I ran into in the past was that if, in a discussion, the negative tone was perceived as prevailing, or neither side had the upper hand, no action was taken. But if the non-nicene appeared to be winning the argument, then that was considered promotion!


I would define promotion as un-solicited soapboxing.


However, I worry that two unorthodox Christians involved in a discussion amongst themselves could all of a sudden be considered "promotion". Members of this community should have the right to fellowship among themselves.

[Samuel_Rigby]

I don't like the implications, there.

You'll be basically making any post in General Apologetics by a non-Christian "promotion".

Anyway, here's the starting point: "Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity."
This is why we probably need different definitions for promotion.

In GA, debate is allowed whereas in the Teen Forum where I'm a mod debate regarding other religions is not allowed.

[Samuel_Rigby]

The difficulty I ran into in the past was that if, in a discussion, the negative tone was perceived as prevailing, or neither side had the upper hand, no action was taken. But if the non-nicene appeared to be winning the argument, then that was considered promotion!


I would define promotion as un-solicited soapboxing.


However, I worry that two unorthodox Christians involved in a discussion amongst themselves could all of a sudden be considered "promotion". Members of this community should have the right to fellowship among themselves.
At first glance, I like the term "unsolicited soapboxing".

[stumpjumper]

This is why we probably need different definitions for promotion.

In GA, debate is allowed whereas in the Teen Forum where I'm a mod debate regarding other religions is not allowed.

Sure.

But that would go under Forum Specific Guidelines I would think.

The definition or guideline of/for promotion should be as universal as possible I would think. Other forums can expand upon it, sure. :)

[synger]

Yes, I think what we need to start with is some examples and guidelines we can use site-wide. FSGs will still be needed for some forums. Teens is a good example. There are a number of restrictions in Teens that wouldn't work, say, in Theology.

[synger]

Also going back to the dictionary definitions, we have:


To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.
To urge the adoption of; advocate:
In the narrowest sense, it would be difficult to discuss something you believe in without trying to contribute to its growth or acceptance. So I think we need to establish that it is not that narrow sense we are looking for.

Perhaps we should look at how intentional the promotion is... say, if someone posted links to Buddhist church services in your community, that could be seen as intentionally promoting Buddhism, because it is an obvious invitation.

So we need something in-between those two extremes.

[skylark1]

This is how the rule concerning promotion was worded several years ago:
Rule No. 5 - No Promotion of Other Religions

5.1 You will not post, attach, use or send any posts, PMs, links, images or files that promote a religion, belief, faith or doctrine other than "Christianity" as defined in Rule 6. A post that merely provides information about a non-Christian belief is allowed for informational purposes only (with references provided) and without promotion. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

a. For the purposes of this rule, Atheism is to be considered as a "religion".
b. Links to websites that only contain information with no promotional intention is allowed. However, links to websites that contain advertising of events, sales of literature or merchandise, contact, donation or registration forms to organisations, invitations to worship or any other promotional intention is prohibited.
c. Attempts to convert Christians to non-Christian (as per Rule 6) religions or to deconvert Christians members will not be allowed under this rule.

I'm posting this for informational purposes, not to say that the things must be as they once were.

[synger]

Excellent, Skylark! I was hoping that someone with institutional memory might have those examples handy.

Looks like the "encouragement of progress, growth, or acceptance" part has remained pretty constant.

[skylark1]

Also going back to the dictionary definitions, we have:


To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.
To urge the adoption of; advocate:
In the narrowest sense, it would be difficult to discuss something you believe in without trying to contribute to its growth or acceptance. So I think we need to establish that it is not that narrow sense we are looking for.

Perhaps we should look at how intentional the promotion is... say, if someone posted links to Buddhist church services in your community, that could be seen as intentionally promoting Buddhism, because it is an obvious invitation.

So we need something in-between those two extremes.
Maybe a key word is encouragement. Does the post merely inform and discuss, or does it encourage conversion to non-Christian (or non-Nicene) beliefs or religions?

[Crazy Liz]

Also going back to the dictionary definitions, we have:


To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.
To urge the adoption of; advocate:
In the narrowest sense, it would be difficult to discuss something you believe in without trying to contribute to its growth or acceptance. So I think we need to establish that it is not that narrow sense we are looking for.

Perhaps we should look at how intentional the promotion is... say, if someone posted links to Buddhist church services in your community, that could be seen as intentionally promoting Buddhism, because it is an obvious invitation.

So we need something in-between those two extremes.
It's still very tricky. Last August I posted about Open Mosque Day. I encouraged Christians to go to to their neighborhood mosque if it was open. I visited & took my daughter & a couple of her friends. Was I promoting Islam? Hardly. I was promoting ways to meet, learn about and talk to Muslims in your neighborhood, respectfully & on their terms.

I hope I'll be able to promote participation in more events like this.

[Crazy Liz]

Maybe a key word is encouragement. Does the post merely inform and discuss, or does it encourage conversion to non-Christian (or non-Nicene) beliefs or religions?
Encouragement is an effect on the reader, not something that can be objectively judged from the post.

I'm concerned about the old restriction on what you can link to, as it often means the most authoritative sources cannot be used, and it encourages the use of biased sources. I would have trouble informing honestly under such restrictions, which is probably why I didn't post much on topics restricted by the old rule. It gets pretty tiresome having to say, "That's not entirely accurate, but I can't show you how those without this particular bias would say it." It was a catch-22. You had to have sources for your information, but the only sources allowed were ones that were negatively biased.

How can we avoid that trap this time?

Even if the intent is not to encourage, it may be perceived as encouraging.

[synger]

Good point, Liz. I don't think we need the restriction on informative links. Flaming links are disallowed, of course, but they come under a different rule. In the time I've worked reports in Theology, including Non-Nicene Theology, the links were not the major problem.

[PreachersWife2004]

As a mod, here is how I plan to moderate such posts.

If a post is simply clarifying or correcting an erroneous post from another person, I'll let it stand. If, however, debate arises and a person continues to post what their religion believes, those could be very well considered promotion, and I'd have to look at the posts to see if they need to be removed.

If a post comes on saying "my religion is better because...", and it doesn't fall within the realm of the Nicene Creed, then yes, I will remove it.

This is just the way *I* plan on modding.

[AxionEsti]

It basically comes down to the flaming, doesn't it? If someone comes in and states ABC religion is so much better than any other, and then starts calling names to those who believe in any other religion - then that is something which is easy to decide.

Promoting a religion can be very subtle, and some people are more sensitive to this than others. These same people can be very defensive of their beliefs. So what is the suggestion here? Should we encourage the membership to deal with the subtle promotions, to just place their views in a civilized manner instead of a knee jerk reaction? Perhaps we need to train some people in the art of debate. ;)

I realize drawing thin lines can be very aggravating after a while. Prayers needed for this, I believe. :crosseo:

[snoochface]

As a mod, here is how I plan to moderate such posts.

If a post is simply clarifying or correcting an erroneous post from another person, I'll let it stand. If, however, debate arises and a person continues to post what their religion believes, those could be very well considered promotion, and I'd have to look at the posts to see if they need to be removed.

If a post comes on saying "my religion is better because...", and it doesn't fall within the realm of the Nicene Creed, then yes, I will remove it.

This is just the way *I* plan on modding.
Will that include Catholics saying that theirs is the only One True Church?

[PreachersWife2004]

Will that include Catholics saying that theirs is the only One True Church?

If they're posting it in TCL, then their post will most likely be reported, since it's teaching something that the Lutheran church doesn't believe (obviously).

As for outside of TCL, that remains to be seen. It doesn't really follow the Nicene Creed, as the word catholic is a lower case C and is meant as universal.

It's a really good question. I'm not good enough to answer it for you, either.

[snoochface]

If they're posting it in TCL, then their post will most likely be reported, since it's teaching something that the Lutheran church doesn't believe (obviously).

As for outside of TCL, that remains to be seen. It doesn't really follow the Nicene Creed, as the word catholic is a lower case C and is meant as universal.

It's a really good question. I'm not good enough to answer it for you, either.
Thanks. Hopefully some others will be able to answer because I think it's a pretty good question too. :P

[suzybeezy]

I think debating and making positive assertions of fact is promoting. A person who counters every statement with an opposing assertion of fact clearly has an agenda to promote.

I don't like the implications, there.

You'll be basically making any post in General Apologetics by a non-Christian "promotion".

Anyway, here's the starting point: "Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity."

In my opinion, making a statement of fact is encouraging the acceptance of something and that seems to be covered by the rules.

As for links, if when the site linked is reviewed there is information that promotes the non-nicene religions, per the rules, that wouldn't be acceptable. There's a ton of info on the site and usually with a little effort, one can find an alternative link where there isn't promotion.

Encouragement is an effect on the reader, not something that can be objectively judged from the post.

I'm concerned about the old restriction on what you can link to, as it often means the most authoritative sources cannot be used, and it encourages the use of biased sources. I would have trouble informing honestly under such restrictions, which is probably why I didn't post much on topics restricted by the old rule. It gets pretty tiresome having to say, "That's not entirely accurate, but I can't show you how those without this particular bias would say it." It was a catch-22. You had to have sources for your information, but the only sources allowed were ones that were negatively biased.

How can we avoid that trap this time?

Even if the intent is not to encourage, it may be perceived as encouraging.

In my opinion, this would probably be considered advertising and publicity and under the wording of the rule, not acceptable.

Will that include Catholics saying that theirs is the only One True Church?

The rule is for non-nicene beliefs.

What is boils down to is each reported post for this rule will have to be evaluated individually with diligent referencing the rule.

[ChavaK]

I think such posts as "my belief is this; how does your
belief compare" should be okay if a person is truly
trying to learn the differences or similarities between faiths.
Also, any misconceptions about a particular faith should
be allowed to be corrected by a member of that faith.
Or questions directly related to the persons faith.
For instance, I frequently see questions asked in
Christian subforums here regarding what Jews
believe, yet they are being answered (not uncommonly)
incorrectly by non-Jews.
Honest questions and responses should be allowed.
What should not be allowed is non Christians debating
with Christians that their beliefs are wrong; or that
something that says "you must believe my faith; all
others are wrong". That type of stuff that is overtly
proselytizing....I think we are all savvy enough to
know it when we see.....:)

[Crazy Liz]

In my opinion, making a statement of fact is encouraging the acceptance of something and that seems to be covered by the rules.

As for links, if when the site linked is reviewed there is information that promotes the non-nicene religions, per the rules, that wouldn't be acceptable. There's a ton of info on the site and usually with a little effort, one can find an alternative link where there isn't promotion.



In my opinion, this would probably be considered advertising and publicity and under the wording of the rule, not acceptable.



The rule is for non-nicene beliefs.

What is boils down to is each reported post for this rule will have to be evaluated individually with diligent referencing the rule.
This worries me because it indirectly encourages slander of non-Nicene beliefs, in that untrue assertions cannot be rebutted.

[*Starlight*]

As a mod, here is how I plan to moderate such posts.

If a post is simply clarifying or correcting an erroneous post from another person, I'll let it stand. If, however, debate arises and a person continues to post what their religion believes, those could be very well considered promotion, and I'd have to look at the posts to see if they need to be removed.

If a post comes on saying "my religion is better because...", and it doesn't fall within the realm of the Nicene Creed, then yes, I will remove it.

This is just the way *I* plan on modding.
But that would mean basically removing all the debate forums... because if debate isn't allowed, what's the point of having them?

[PreachersWife2004]

But that would mean basically removing all the debate forums... because if debate isn't allowed, what's the point of having them?

First of all, I don't mod the debate forum.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the debate forum will have slightly different rules - or at the very least they are still working on figuring out what to do with the debate forum.

Remember, I said this is how *I* will mod my forums. I am not speaking for the rest of staff here.

[Tonks]

If they're posting it in TCL, then their post will most likely be reported, since it's teaching something that the Lutheran church doesn't believe (obviously).

As for outside of TCL, that remains to be seen. It doesn't really follow the Nicene Creed, as the word catholic is a lower case C and is meant as universal.

It's a really good question. I'm not good enough to answer it for you, either.

The One True Church business has traditionally been allowed as it is a dogmatic position of the church. Likewise, discussions of the Pope as Anti-Christ have generally been allowed - particularly when it is a confessional belief of some protestant denominations.

[*Starlight*]

First of all, I don't mod the debate forum.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the debate forum will have slightly different rules - or at the very least they are still working on figuring out what to do with the debate forum.

Remember, I said this is how *I* will mod my forums. I am not speaking for the rest of staff here.
hmm... ok :) I didn't know that different forums will have different rules... isn't the part about promotion in the global, not forum-specific, rules?

[suzybeezy]

This worries me because it indirectly encourages slander of non-Nicene beliefs, in that untrue assertions cannot be rebutted.

No because there are other rules that would come into play:

Flaming, baiting, trolling, or feeding trolls is not allowed. This also applies to groups. In other words, play nice, don't hurt others, nor call them names.


Defamation is not allowed.


I think regardless of ones beliefs, we should all be respectful and civil with each other. As the new rule states, discussion is permitted, promotion isn't. And as noted, there are other rules that try to ensure respectful discussion.

[synger]

hmm... ok :) I didn't know that different forums will have different rules... isn't the part about promotion in the global, not forum-specific, rules?

Yes, please let's focus on the "promotion" rule from a site-wide perspective. Some forums may have a bit more limitation in their specific guidelines, but that is another discussion.

For purposes of this discussion, please assume that we are discussing a baseline guide for what constitutes "promotion" of non-Nicene beliefs. So it would need to work in the debate forums as well as, say, the Music forums.

Congregational forums and Teen forums probably will be a little different.

[Tenebrae]

I think debating and making positive assertions of fact is promoting. A person who counters every statement with an opposing assertion of fact clearly has an agenda to promote.I disagree with that


I may make some positive comment about the time I spent as a wiccan. Doesnt mean that I am endorising wicca as a viable alternative to christianity in any way

In my opinion, making a statement of fact is encouraging the acceptance of something and that seems to be covered by the rules.

Again, I disagree with this. I had a post deleted that was decided to be promotion, it was a statement of fact that as a professional mistress I could make more in one hour than I would in one day at my current job. It was majorly triggering and upsetting to be told that was promotion, because I would not promote being a professional mistress for a moment, however had been struggling with wanting to go back to that because of the money even through I knew it was a damaging lifestyle

Rule No. 5 - No Promotion of Other Religions

5.1 You will not post, attach, use or send any posts, PMs, links, images or files that promote a religion, belief, faith or doctrine other than "Christianity" as defined in Rule 6. A post that merely provides information about a non-Christian belief is allowed for informational purposes only (with references provided) and without promotion. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

a. For the purposes of this rule, Atheism is to be considered as a "religion".
b. Links to websites that only contain information with no promotional intention is allowed. However, links to websites that contain advertising of events, sales of literature or merchandise, contact, donation or registration forms to organisations, invitations to worship or any other promotional intention is prohibited.
c. Attempts to convert Christians to non-Christian (as per Rule 6) religions or to deconvert Christians members will not be allowed under this rule. I'm posting this for informational purposes, not to say that the things must be as they once were.

I think this is a good definition, however I do worry about section B, I think liz makes a very good point. At Uni, we have a spirituality week every year where all the main religons have stalls on campus. I would recommend the event to christians as a means of finding out more about what other faiths believe and as a means of bridging the gap.

[LawsonAlan]

For discussion purposes:

On George Bush's past statements:

A reporter noted Bush has frequently expressed the view that freedom is a gift from "the Almighty," but questioned whether Bush believes "Muslims worship the same Almighty" as the president and other Christians do.
"I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person. I also condition it by saying freedom is not America's gift to the world," Bush replied. "It's much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same god," reported the London Telegraph.

In the past two weeks, I had made a similar statement and had my posts deleted for "promoting" Islam, though I clearly stated that i am a Christian.

The point being, if George Bush came here and made this statement, he would currently find himself in violation.

I see no promotion of Islam here. I see the rules being used to quash any statement that claims that any religion outside of Christianity is anything short of demon-worship.

And yes, I have heard CF staffmembers make that claim, though I am not allowed to copy personal messages here without consent.

[Bananna]

Promotion is in my opinion placing the title of a thread in a inappropriate forum or multiple forums questioning any part of the Nicene standard, by a known opponent to the Nicene Creed.

These are being promoted when they are outside formal debate challenge and area.

Forum specific guidelines should be Kept to inform unorthodox theology and Debate Forums just what is and isn't allowed. Personally I think all the questionable and questioning and challenging topics should be sent there and let run their course as long as personal accusations don't become a verbal fist fight. Better to keep those struggling where they can be watched over and mentored than to send them to a lion's den to do their soul searching.

Not promotion.
Asking a question. Only answering when asked a specific questions. Not asking questions to simply open an opportunity to Teach how wrong another person is.
It is not promotion to correct misconceptions or fabricated or out of context statements about ones own faith or even defending another's faith from misconceptions.

To be fair. People should not be allowed to come into unorthodox as they had before 777 and promote their views. Ultimately that type of person used it as an opportunity to catch the unorthodox saying they believe something not allowed to be on the board.

I thank our Heavenly Father for the many sharp moderators and their protection at the time, but often the Nicene Christians went unreported and they started to look bad and look tolerated. Just most of us didn't desire to report people. Moderators in all fairness need to report our own, or at least pm either side to depersonalize comments and avoid negative labels.

Since the standard is to uphold the Nicene Creed, Moderators should be aware that a greater standard should be encouraged for those that believe this way in order to avoid a bad name for those that believe this way.

Does this make sense?
Bananna

[A New Dawn]

The difficulty I ran into in the past was that if, in a discussion, the negative tone was perceived as prevailing, or neither side had the upper hand, no action was taken. But if the non-nicene appeared to be winning the argument, then that was considered promotion!


I would define promotion as un-solicited soapboxing.


However, I worry that two unorthodox Christians involved in a discussion amongst themselves could all of a sudden be considered "promotion". Members of this community should have the right to fellowship among themselves.

I think I would even consider solicited soapboxing as promotion. There have been several threads where people have stated that they are interested in the LDS church and promotional posts have been posted. I think that should not be allowed.

I do not think that discussion should be viewed as promotion if it is debate oriented, and people should be allowed to link to sites that support their POV as long as they don't link to a promotional site.

I do think that threads that are titled "What do you like about the LDS church?" (for example) are promotional, no matter where they are.

[Texasbluebonnet]

Okay,this is just my humble opinion but I believe that as long as someone doesn't say you have to do this, or says that if you don't believe what I do then you're going to hell, or it's stupid for you to believe what you do and you have to accept my beliefs as yours, I think posting what your personal beliefs are is okay. Basically as long as you're not trying to convince anyone to think like you do, or change someone's faith, or belief I think an honest and open discussion of faith is okay.


If I've confused anyone (and that's entirely possible ;) ) please let me know and I'll try to clarify.

[A New Dawn]

As for links, if when the site linked is reviewed there is information that promotes the non-nicene religions, per the rules, that wouldn't be acceptable. There's a ton of info on the site and usually with a little effort, one can find an alternative link where there isn't promotion.

I agree. There are sites with information that are promotional and sites with information that are just informational and linking to sites that are promotional should not be allowed.

[Tenebrae]

I do think that threads that are titled "What do you like about the LDS church?" (for example) are promotional, no matter where they are.

How is that different from asking catholics or anglicans what they like about their church?


The purpose in starting this thread was to come up with a site wide definition of promotion, so that all would know where they stand. Not to come up with one rule for the nicenes and another set of rules for the non nicenes.

[Brennin]

I think debating and making positive assertions of fact is promoting. A person who counters every statement with an opposing assertion of fact clearly has an agenda to promote.
That would be an absurd standard. Christians (and non-Christians) who do not espouse the Nicene Creed would not be able to defend their pov's at all in the appropriate fora with that as the measure of "promotion."

[jeffC]

I think I would even consider solicited soapboxing as promotion. There have been several threads where people have stated that they are interested in the LDS church and promotional posts have been posted. I think that should not be allowed.
Well, this decision must fall inline with the guidelines that the site owner personally desires. However, such a person would likely find his way to pro-LDS (for example) literature anyway. If LDS aren't permitted to provide information in a CF forum, then this individual is likely to be directed to some other, probably pro-LDS message board to find answers.

On the other hand, if CF maintains a more level playing field, the discussion can happen here, where opposing viewpoints are more likely to find expression.

In any case, I don't think this example would qualify as soapboxing; rather this would be a case of solicited promotion.

I do not think that discussion should be viewed as promotion if it is debate oriented, and people should be allowed to link to sites that support their POV as long as they don't link to a promotional site.
I know you were instrumental in implementing the two-click rule, which was an improvement. However, I think that it is still too limiting. The reality of the matter is that due to the nature of the subject, a site that hosts information is likely to be affiliated with a non-neutral entity.

I think the question of whether a link responds directly to the matter under discussion is the key to whether it is being used as a rejoinder in debate, or as a promotion of a larger issue.

I do think that threads that are titled "What do you like about the LDS church?" (for example) are promotional, no matter where they are.

So, if someone wants to say something nice about Muslims, that is not allowed?

[Brennin]

It's still very tricky. Last August I posted about Open Mosque Day. I encouraged Christians to go to to their neighborhood mosque if it was open. I visited & took my daughter & a couple of her friends. Was I promoting Islam? Hardly. I was promoting ways to meet, learn about and talk to Muslims in your neighborhood, respectfully & on their terms.

I hope I'll be able to promote participation in more events like this.

Under the previous to the previous dispensation, you would have been tried as a crypto-Mohammedian and given an infraction point.

[Brennin]

Here are two of my experiences with the way that things were that I would rather not be subjected to again:

I was given a no-point warning for a "pro-LDS" link couched in a post critical of Mormonism.

I was given an infraction point (later reversed) for posting an excerpt of Arius' Thalia as quoted by Athanasius. The excerpt was posted without comment (except to identify the quotation).

[A New Dawn]

How is that different from asking catholics or anglicans what they like about their church?

One is non-Nicene, the other is Nicene.

If a fellowship thread was posted that asked what one (anyone) liked about the church they attend, I would see no problem with that because the thread is an open invitation to everyone posting and it isn't highlighting an individual religion.

The purpose in starting this thread was to come up with a site wide definition of promotion, so that all would know where they stand. Not to come up with one rule for the nicenes and another set of rules for the non nicenes.

The rule is no promotion of any religion outside of Nicene Christianity. That is already established. Now we are trying to define what promotion means and how to recognize it.

[stumpjumper]

In my opinion, making a statement of fact is encouraging the acceptance of something and that seems to be covered by the rules.

A statement of fact could be used in an informative manner, though.

Let's say we're discussing the other gods. It's on the top of my head right now because I am participating in a GA thread on that topic. I provided information about mythological deities and how the followers of said religions did not, generally, posit those deities as being real, concrete entities in existence.

Many mythological religions looked at the mythological gods as personifications of a transcendent deity. I and another poster provided that information to show that arguing that there are million of other gods that Christians disbelieve in is an errant argument.

It was a statement of fact about another religion. Now, obviously I'm not promoting belief in Egyptian mythology but say someone else posted such factual information in the course of discussion. I really don't think we should call that promotion...

[Tonks]

In any case, I don't think this example would qualify as soapboxing; rather this would be a case of solicited promotion.


I know you were instrumental in implementing the two-click rule, which was an improvement. However, I think that it is still too limiting. The reality of the matter is that due to the nature of the subject, a site that hosts information is likely to be affiliated with a non-neutral entity.

I think the question of whether a link responds directly to the matter under discussion is the key to whether it is being used as a rejoinder in debate, or as a promotion of a larger issue.

In that case the thread would likely be closed, I would think.


So, if someone wants to say something nice about Muslims, that is not allowed?

One could say many things nice about Muslims.

[A New Dawn]

Well, this decision must fall inline with the guidelines that the site owner personally desires. However, such a person would likely find his way to pro-LDS (for example) literature anyway. If LDS aren't permitted to provide information in a CF forum, then this individual is likely to be directed to some other, probably pro-LDS message board to find answers.

On the other hand, if CF maintains a more level playing field, the discussion can happen here, where opposing viewpoints are more likely to find expression.

In any case, I don't think this example would qualify as soapboxing; rather this would be a case of solicited promotion.

We can't help what goes on on other sites. And the LDS have always sent PMs to people inviting them to more LDS-friendly sites so that they could promote Mormonism. That is the way it has always been, but that doesn't mean that this site should become pro-LDS just because someone might invite someone to an LDS-friendly site.

Why do you feel the need to promote the LDS faith in order to have a discussion of LDS beliefs? The playing field here is fine.

[stumpjumper]

Here's my example: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43145927&postcount=59

Jane actually made my point in that thread better than I could.

Is that promotion? I sure hope a post like that does not fall under this rule.

[jeffC]

In that case the thread would likely be closed, I would think.
Sounds like a clear standard.

If someone asks where to go to find out more information, such discussion will not occur on CF.

One could say many things nice about Muslims.
So a thread dedicated to that purpose would not be considered promotion?

[christianmomof3]

Here's my example: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43145927&postcount=59

Jane actually made my point in that thread better than I could.

Is that promotion? I sure hope a post like that does not fall under this rule.
I see her post as informative rather than promotional and I also would hope that type of post would be allowed.

I think it should be ok to have informative posts explaining this is what the so and sos believe and why they believe it.

What becomes promotional is when the so and sos say that their non-nicene beliefs are right and the nicene ones are wrong and they set off to prove why they are right and the nicene ones are wrong.

It means that non-nicene views should be presented in an objective, polite and non-confrontational way.
:idea:
Wouldn't it be nice if all views - nicene and non-nicene were presented in an objective, polite and non confrontational way?

[suzybeezy]

Trying to find better wording to define promotion, here's some thoughts:

-Persuasive assertion of truth in a non-nicene belief.
-The expression of approval and support of a non-nicene belief
-The act of furthering, advancing, or helping forward the belief a non-nicene belief is true.
-Attempting to develop or encourage or convince another in a non-nicene belief
-An attempt for advancement or acceptance of a non-nicene belief.
-An active advocate of a non-nicene belief.
-An effort to persuade
-An effort to win acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-The process of guiding member toward the adoption of a non-nicene position or belief
-Persuasion to influence the acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-Attempting to encourage a member to embrace a non-nicene point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty
-Trying to convert or make (someone) agree, understand, or realize the truth or validity of a non-nicene belief
-Trying to convince someone of the truth or validity of a non-nicene statement
-Insisting a non-nicene belief is believable and should be accepted as true.


Granted, these aren't perfect, but may be a starting point for trying to better define promotion.

[Tonks]

So a thread dedicated to that purpose would not be considered promotion?

I could also say many nice things about the LDS outside of the context of their theology.

[jeffC]

We can't help what goes on on other sites. And the LDS have always sent PMs to people inviting them to more LDS-friendly sites so that they could promote Mormonism. That is the way it has always been, but that doesn't mean that this site should become pro-LDS just because someone might invite someone to an LDS-friendly site.

Why do you feel the need to promote the LDS faith in order to have a discussion of LDS beliefs? The playing field here is fine.
Of course I'm in favor of a level playing field. By definition, if one group is allowed to "promote" and the other is not, the discussion will be tilted in their favor. I do not define this site as pro-catholic or pro-liberal just because it provides a level playing field for discussions with those groups.

What gives you the idea that my primary interest is promotion? I came to CF to engage in discussion and debate, which is a hobby of mine, and I do not equate discussion with promotion. Naturally I take the side of issues that I agree with, but I hardly consider this promotion of a uniquely LDS point of view.

As a practical matter, I think that giving one side an inherent advantage is counterproductive over the long haul. As one example, it promotes fair-minded parties to take the discussion elsewhere. I suggest that any such LDS PMs (I'm not aware of any personally) would have declined since the site has treated them more fairly. The net result is that more discussion occurs here on CF, yes where we are members of the community, but also where traditional points of view have an equal influence as well. Also, an unfair advantage garners sympathy from onlookers and increases the numbers who will be inclined to take a closer, unbiased look at an odd faith. But that's just my opinion. Lee can do as his opinion dictates is best.

[Tonks]

i do like your list suzy

[jeffC]

I could also say many nice things about the LDS outside of the context of their theology.

:blush: shucks

[Samuel_Rigby]

Here are some examples from a conversation taking place right now over in the Teen forum. Give me your opinions if these are promoting or not.

The idea of the trinity is pagan in origin.

Oh no, Christ is the center, but Christ's life not his death.

The world is not inherently evil nor good.

Speaker #1: People are inherently sinful.
Speaker #2: There's the problem with the common belief system of christianity right there.

[Brennin]

Trying to find better wording to define promotion, here's some thoughts:

-Persuasive assertion of truth in a non-nicene belief.
-The expression of approval and support of a non-nicene belief
-The act of furthering, advancing, or helping forward the belief a non-nicene belief is true.
-Attempting to develop or encourage or convince another in a non-nicene belief
-An attempt for advancement or acceptance of a non-nicene belief.
-An active advocate of a non-nicene belief.
-An effort to persuade
-An effort to win acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-The process of guiding member toward the adoption of a non-nicene position or belief
-Persuasion to influence the acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-Attempting to encourage a member to embrace a non-nicene point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty
-Trying to convert or make (someone) agree, understand, or realize the truth or validity of a non-nicene belief
-Trying to convince someone of the truth or validity of a non-nicene statement
-Insisting a non-nicene belief is believable and should be accepted as true.


Granted, these aren't perfect, but may be a starting point for trying to better define promotion.

Many of these are problematic. I am not going to lie about my convictions to conform to a rule. I reject the Nicene Creed because I am convinced that it is false and I will not pretend it is for other reasons.

[synger]

Trying to find better wording to define promotion, here's some thoughts:

-Persuasive assertion of truth in a non-nicene belief.
-The expression of approval and support of a non-nicene belief
-The act of furthering, advancing, or helping forward the belief a non-nicene belief is true.
-Attempting to develop or encourage or convince another in a non-nicene belief
-An attempt for advancement or acceptance of a non-nicene belief.
-An active advocate of a non-nicene belief.
-An effort to persuade
-An effort to win acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-The process of guiding member toward the adoption of a non-nicene position or belief
-Persuasion to influence the acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-Attempting to encourage a member to embrace a non-nicene point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty
-Trying to convert or make (someone) agree, understand, or realize the truth or validity of a non-nicene belief
-Trying to convince someone of the truth or validity of a non-nicene statement
-Insisting a non-nicene belief is believable and should be accepted as true.


Granted, these aren't perfect, but may be a starting point for trying to better define promotion.

What struck me about this list are the active verbs. Persuade, convince, insist, convert, win...

Perhaps that is the crux of the matter. That may be why it's so hard to moderate, because it's so hard to define. And it's even harder to say "this post is actively persuading" while "this post is merely informing".

But it may be a start.

[suzybeezy]

What struck me about this list are the active verbs. Persuade, convince, insist, convert, win...

Perhaps that is the crux of the matter. That may be why it's so hard to moderate, because it's so hard to define. And it's even harder to say "this post is actively persuading" while "this post is merely informing".

But it may be a start.

Well that was my effort, to find better words that more clearly explained the rule. As I said, not perfect, but maybe a starting point. I think they more clearly define the expectation rather then just one word "promotion" which could mean alot of different things to different people.

[Tonks]

Many of these are problematic. I am not going to lie about my convictions to conform to a rule. I reject the Nicene Creed because I am convinced that it is false and I will not pretend it is for other reasons.

OK...but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the rules of the site. Nor is the "promotion rule" going to be designed to conform to your objections.

[Tonks]

Here are some examples from a conversation taking place right now over in the Teen forum. Give me your opinions if these are promoting or not.

absent some context i really don't see a problem with anything posted.

[synger]

For the record:

This thread was started with the following post, by Tenebrae, on 27 January. I'm posting it here so that we can use the wiki section to distill and summarize our ideas.

I seem to recall about the time of the Beth Miqlat debacle, there were some non christians who only had to open their mouth and they were accused of promotion.


I dont have to like this new rule, however I feel that is it really important to have an actual definition written into this rule of what consitutes promotion. It concerns me that without it, every time a non christian opens their mouth about their path of choice or to correct some of the countless misinformation that many christians have about their path of choice, they are going to get jumped on for promotion of that path

This rule is also being applied in recovery, and without an actual definition mods have the dsicretion to call things promotion, that were nothing resembling promotion. Without an actual definition of what consitutes promotion, I feel that a person could post something in one forum and have it deleted because the forum mods feel it is promotion and post the exact same things in another forum, and its left to stand because those forum mods dont think it is promotion.


This is not meant as a diss on any mods, people have different perspectives on things like promotion, and without a site wide definition, I can see all manner or problems occuring peoples getting seriously frustrated due to the manner in which promotion is applied by different people


So what say peeps?

[synger]

Okay, I've tried to summarize the discussion so far, pulling out the strongest points. They seemed to fall fairly neatly into four categories, so that's how I organized it. I've updated the OP (wiki) post with this info.

-------------------------------------------------------------
These seem to be the basic breakdowns on this issue:

Any non-Nicene statement promotes non-Nicene belief:

Making any statement of fact is in some way encouraging the acceptance of something and that seems to be against the new rules. As for links, if when the site linked is reviewed there is information that promotes the non-nicene religions, per the rules, that wouldn't be acceptable. There's a ton of info on the site and usually with a little effort, one can find an alternative link where there isn't promotion.


debating and making positive assertions of fact is promoting


We need to look at the thread's purpose as a whole (only works for thread review, not post-by-post review):

"Promotion" would be counted as any post or thread where the entire purpose is to convert someone to a non-Nicaean Christian religion

Promotion is in my opinion placing the title of a thread in a inappropriate forum or multiple forums questioning any part of the Nicene standard, by a known opponent to the Nicene Creed.

I do not think that discussion should be viewed as promotion if it is debate oriented, and people should be allowed to link to sites that support their POV as long as they don't link to a promotional site.

I do think that threads that are titled "What do you like about the LDS church?" (for example) are promotional, no matter where they are.

Information and clarification on non-Nicene beliefs needs to be allowed:

It is not promotion to correct misconceptions or fabricated or out of context statements about ones own faith or even defending another's faith from misconceptions.

From the old rules a few years ago: "A post that merely provides information about a non-Christian belief is allowed for informational purposes only (with references provided) and without promotion. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity."

If a post is simply clarifying or correcting an erroneous post from another person, I'll let it stand. If, however, debate arises and a person continues to post what their religion believes, those could be very well considered promotion, and I'd have to look at the posts to see if they need to be removed.

such posts as "my belief is this; how does your belief compare" should be okay if a person is truly trying to learn the differences or similarities between faiths. Also, any misconceptions about a particular faith should be allowed to be corrected by a member of that faith.

The key is to determine whether someone is actively encouraging non-Nicene belief:

only actively preaching and trying to convert others should count as promotion

Basically as long as you're not trying to convince anyone to think like you do, or change someone's faith, or belief, I think an honest and open discussion of faith is okay.

I would define promotion as un-solicited soapboxing

I think it should be ok to have informative posts explaining this is what the so and sos believe and why they believe it. What becomes promotional is when the so and sos say that their non-nicene beliefs are right and the nicene ones are wrong and they set off to prove why they are right and the nicene ones are wrong.

Maybe a key word is encouragement. Does the post merely inform and discuss, or does it encourage conversion to non-Christian (or non-Nicene) beliefs or religions? [note: this was followed by the observation by another poster that "encouragement" is very hard to objectively judge]

[Tonks]

For the record:

This thread was started with the following post, by Tenebrae, on 27 January. I'm posting it here so that we can use the wiki section to distill and summarize our ideas.

I think that it is important to note that when this rule is eventually developed and published it is not going to be some sort of exhaustive case study of what is permissive and what is not. Similar to how the current rules will be enforced and whatever global forum guidelines we come up with the "no promotion" rule is going to provide a framework for moderation which allows for moderator discretion.

Long, legalistic rule-sets are out...

[Brennin]

OK...but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the rules of the site. Nor is the "promotion rule" going to be designed to conform to your objections.

I am participating in this thread to provide useful input, not to receive your unsolicited counsel.

[A New Dawn]

Of course I'm in favor of a level playing field. By definition, if one group is allowed to "promote" and the other is not, the discussion will be tilted in their favor. I do not define this site as pro-catholic or pro-liberal just because it provides a level playing field for discussions with those groups.

What gives you the idea that my primary interest is promotion? I came to CF to engage in discussion and debate, which is a hobby of mine, and I do not equate discussion with promotion. Naturally I take the side of issues that I agree with, but I hardly consider this promotion of a uniquely LDS point of view.

I don't think that your primary interest is promotion, however, since the purpose of debate isn't necessarily promotion, I don't see the need for it at all. On either side. I don't think that there are necessarily any rules at present that prevent good debate and that the ground is level in the debate forum for debate. (I do agree that some of the stuff that occurs in the debate forum is not debate, but those problems occur equally from both sides, IMO.)

As a practical matter, I think that giving one side an inherent advantage is counterproductive over the long haul. As one example, it promotes fair-minded parties to take the discussion elsewhere. I suggest that any such LDS PMs (I'm not aware of any personally) would have declined since the site has treated them more fairly. The net result is that more discussion occurs here on CF, yes where we are members of the community, but also where traditional points of view have an equal influence as well. Also, an unfair advantage garners sympathy from onlookers and increases the numbers who will be inclined to take a closer, unbiased look at an odd faith. But that's just my opinion. Lee can do as his opinion dictates is best.

I think that what get onlookers to come in and sympathize with the LDS are the continuous myths being perpetrated by many of the LDS who go around and complain about how they are being treated (being careful to leave out how they are treating others) and others who have never liked the thought of UTD (like CaDan and Uber, etc.)

[synger]

Also, I should note again, that this discussion is not binding... this is not a return to Wiki Wonderland.

We are merely trying to generate ideas to take back to The Powers That Be. They are the ones who will determine what guidance to give staff on this matter. But our input here can be very important to the effort to clarify.

[Brennin]

This recent post of mine is a good example of the sort of post that should not be censored:

O logos are the 4th and 5th words in the Greek MSS of John 1:1.

I agree that there may be a difference in the semantics of God the Son and Son of God . . . but the Scriptures clearly portray Jesus as God . . . so I have no problem with it.

En arxh| hn o logov, kai o logov hn prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn o logov.

The lack of the article "ho" (i.e., omicron with a rough breathing) in front of the last theos is instructive. It should be taken qualitatively, rather than as definite or indefinite. Thus, "...and the Logos was divine."

[stumpjumper]

... this is not a return to Wiki Wonderland.


Is that anything like Dutch Wonderland:

http://www.continentalinn.com/images/dutchWonderland.gif

Those crazy Amish and their amusement parks :P

[jeffC]

I don't think that your primary interest is promotion, however, since the purpose of debate isn't necessarily promotion, I don't see the need for it at all.
As I said, my interest is in ensuring that however "promotion" ends up being interpreted, it does not hamper free debate. In the past, it did. When non-Nicenes were perceived as carrying the argument, they were censored; when non-Nicenes provided sources to back up claims, they were censored.



I think that what get onlookers to come in and sympathize with the LDS are the continuous myths being perpetrated by many of the LDS who go around and complain about how they are being treated (being careful to leave out how they are treating others) and others who have never liked the thought of UTD (like CaDan and Uber, etc.)
There will always be a few poor choices of words on both sides. But in the face of these efforts against non-mainstream Christians, are you saying they have no cause to complain about how they are all being treated? The site is not targeting a few problem individuals, but rather is stripping entire groups of their Congregational forums and saying that they cannot "promote" their beliefs, whatever that means.

In any case, I think it's clear that such measures are the cause of greater sympathizing with the LDS - which was my original point. At minimum they validate the LDS's "myth" that they are treated unfairly. Personally, I would not want to create the impression that the other side's arguments are so persuasive that the deck needs to be stacked against them.

[CaDan]

*checking in*

[Samuel_Rigby]

I still think assertions of fact in a debate-style format constitutes promoting.

[Bananna]

Many of these are problematic. I am not going to lie about my convictions to conform to a rule. I reject the Nicene Creed because I am convinced that it is false and I will not pretend it is for other reasons.

Most of it I agree with but the premise is divisive imo.

No pretending is necessary.

I used to love the way my mother - in - law would come in and help me with the small children. This woman is Catholic, liberal, and prefers the public school system.

My husband and I are raising conservative, Protestant/oberving passover/ homeschooling.

In order to make us successful in our goals, she kept silent quite a bit, referred the kids to us quite a bit. And never tried to make us look false in our children's eyes she even tutored out children in reading.

When asked about her belief she answered honestly without ridiculing our stand.

That is all it will take here.

Bananna

[Bananna]

I still think assertions of fact in a debate-style format constitutes promoting.
Debate by nature lends itsself to a different standard. One cannot truly debate if one is not allowed to assert an alternative answer.

[A New Dawn]

As I said, my interest is in ensuring that however "promotion" ends up being interpreted, it does not hamper free debate. In the past, it did. When non-Nicenes were perceived as carrying the argument, they were censored; when non-Nicenes provided sources to back up claims, they were censored.

That happened once, and I think it was even overturned on appeal. I wouldn't base my entire argument on that one point. As I said, I debated for 15 months as an unorthodox, under much stricter rules, and not a thing happened to me or my posts.

There will always be a few poor choices of words on both sides. But in the face of these efforts against non-mainstream Christians, are you saying they have no cause to complain about how they are all being treated? The site is not targeting a few problem individuals, but rather is stripping entire groups of their Congregational forums and saying that they cannot "promote" their beliefs, whatever that means.

In any case, I think it's clear that such measures are the cause of greater sympathizing with the LDS - which was my original point. At minimum they validate the LDS's "myth" that they are treated unfairly. Personally, I would not want to create the impression that the other side's arguments are so persuasive that the deck needs to be stacked against them.

It is a Christian discussion board based on the premise that Nicene Christianity is the proper interpretation of the Bible. If I went to LDS discussion boards, my POV would not be the preferred one, either, and my posts would be more closely scrutinized than the others (and I'd accept that). Why is that so hard to understand?

[christianmomof3]

Debate by nature lends itsself to a different standard. One cannot truly debate if one is not allowed to assert an alternative answer.
That is true. Should non-nicene topics be resticted from being debated then?
If they are only to be explained informatively that would seem to make it not possible to debate them.

[christianmomof3]

I still think assertions of fact in a debate-style format constitutes promoting.
i agree

[jeffC]

That happened once, and I think it was even overturned on appeal. I wouldn't base my entire argument on that one point. As I said, I debated for 15 months as an unorthodox, under much stricter rules, and not a thing happened to me or my posts.
I was speaking from personal experience and observation; what "one incident" are you referring to?



It is a Christian discussion board based on the premise that Nicene Christianity is the proper interpretation of the Bible. If I went to LDS discussion boards, my POV would not be the preferred one, either, and my posts would be more closely scrutinized than the others (and I'd accept that). Why is that so hard to understand?
1) You forgot to add the asterisks: Nicene**** Christianity (TM).

2) The LDS boards that I have frequented (which is actually just one, and hardly at all) do permit respectful debate from anyone. I don't see any restriction on discussion, even if there might be some restriction on trolls who post a contrary website and leave. And while I'm sure you can find more strict LDS debate forums, but if I were a member of any such group I would still lobby for equality in debate for all parties.

[Crazy Liz]

First of all, I don't mod the debate forum.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the debate forum will have slightly different rules - or at the very least they are still working on figuring out what to do with the debate forum.

Remember, I said this is how *I* will mod my forums. I am not speaking for the rest of staff here.
I totally appreciate your honesty.

Can you tell us what forums you moderate?

And can you understand that lots of people will be confused to learn that each individual moderator moderates their forums differently?

[CaDan]

I still think assertions of fact in a debate-style format constitutes promoting.

And they usually warrant a little red circle on my flow. ;)

[Crazy Liz]

No because there are other rules that would come into play:



I think regardless of ones beliefs, we should all be respectful and civil with each other. As the new rule states, discussion is permitted, promotion isn't. And as noted, there are other rules that try to ensure respectful discussion.
It depends on the standard used to judge what is insulting. It's easy to assume a statement is not insulting when you agree with it.

However, this does not entirely address my concern. One may say something false in a polite way, yet any posting of the actual facts would be prohibited as promoting.

I am concerned about this situation. If we can all agree on some way such assertions (false or misleading statements posted in polite words) can be answered factually, then I think we will have gone a long way toward solving the "no promotion" dilemma.

[Crazy Liz]

I agree. There are sites with information that are promotional and sites with information that are just informational and linking to sites that are promotional should not be allowed.
:confused:

See, this is very confusing because according to suzy statements of fact are promoting.

What kind of information does that leave?

[Crazy Liz]

In that case the thread would likely be closed, I would think.




One could say many things nice about Muslims.
One could say many things nice about Muslims. but you can't say anything nice about Islam.

Is that the key distinction?

[Crazy Liz]

Here are some examples from a conversation taking place right now over in the Teen forum. Give me your opinions if these are promoting or not.







[/SIZE][/FONT]
I don't think any of those promote non-Nicene Christianity.

[Tonks]

One could say many things nice about Muslims. but you can't say anything nice about Islam.

Is that the key distinction?

One could say nice things about Islam too from a secular perspective. Until we see the various posts it is difficult to make a judgment call, frankly.

[Crazy Liz]

What struck me about this list are the active verbs. Persuade, convince, insist, convert, win...

Perhaps that is the crux of the matter. That may be why it's so hard to moderate, because it's so hard to define. And it's even harder to say "this post is actively persuading" while "this post is merely informing".

But it may be a start.
"Inform" and "persuade" are verbs that differ from each other only in the subjective effect on the reader. If all the readers feel like they've learned something but haven't changed their minds in any way, then the post informs. If some of the readers begin to change their minds in some small way, the post persuades.

This subjectivity, then, explains why, under no-promotion rules, a post can be allowed to remain in a debate if the non-Nicene member appears to be losing the debate, but not if they appear to be winning.

[Tonks]

And can you understand that lots of people will be confused to learn that each individual moderator moderates their forums differently?

Ultimately the Admins will have to ensure that things are moderated consistently across all forums. It won't be perfect but we can hopefully make it substantially better than it was in the past when all the various forum guidelines and moderation rules were like a trap for any new poster.

[Tonks]

This subjectivity, then, explains why, under no-promotion rules, a post can be allowed to remain in a debate if the non-Nicene member appears to be losing the debate, but not if they appear to be winning.

It is going to be subjective, frankly. There is really no way to get around that. In the end we're likely going to err on the side of what Christians are comfortable with.

I'm fine with that.

[Crazy Liz]

It is going to be subjective, frankly. There is really no way to get around that. In the end we're likely going to err on the side of what Christians are comfortable with.

I'm fine with that.
With what which Christians are comfortable with? ;)

[Tonks]

With what which Christians are comfortable with? ;)

Just trying to be honest here...I think that in the beginning it will probably swing back and forth between the two extremes...and hopefully we'll get it right in the long run.

Pray for us sinners of whom I am the first...

[Brennin]

Breaking News: The powers that be at Geophysics Forums have decided on the flat earth model as their standard of truth. Advocates of the oblate spheroid model are henceforth forbidden from injecting inconvenient facts into the discussions so as to shelter the faithful.

[christianmomof3]

I still think assertions of fact in a debate-style format constitutes promoting.

Breaking News: The powers that be at Geophysics Forums have decided on the flat earth model as their standard of truth. Advocates of the oblate spheroid model are henceforth forbidden from injecting inconvenient facts into the discussions so as to shelter the faithful.
http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/images/FlatEarth.gifhttp://re3.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3927019395 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dflat%2Bearth%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=262&h=243&imgurl=christianityismore.com%2Fweblog%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fflat_earth.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchristianityismore.wordpress.com%2F&size=16.8kB&name=flat_earth.jpg&p=flat+earth&type=jpeg&no=4&tt=31,859&oid=6c21e03c42394e40&ei=UTF-8):D http://re3.mm-a10.yimg.com/image/409538927 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dflat%2Bearth%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=369&h=500&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F1424%2F980696294_7b89e3ecac_m.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fmpabla%2F980696294%2F&size=148kB&name=980696294_7b89e3ecac.jpg&p=flat+earth&type=jpeg&no=9&tt=31,859&oid=5544ce26c559211e&fusr=Manny+Pabla&tit=Flat+Earth&hurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fmpabla%2F&ei=UTF-8&src=p)

[stumpjumper]

Just trying to be honest here...I think that in the beginning it will probably swing back and forth between the two extremes...and hopefully we'll get it right in the long run.

Pray for us sinners of whom I am the first...

True.

I think we'll just have to thoughtfully and prayerfully consider how to follow the new guideline and try to work towards a consistent application.

It can't be done in theory.

There's always a bit of a disconnect between theory and practice...

[Brennin]

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/images/FlatEarth.gifhttp://re3.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3927019395 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dflat%2Bearth%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=262&h=243&imgurl=christianityismore.com%2Fweblog%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fflat_earth.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchristianityismore.wordpress.com%2F&size=16.8kB&name=flat_earth.jpg&p=flat+earth&type=jpeg&no=4&tt=31,859&oid=6c21e03c42394e40&ei=UTF-8):D http://re3.mm-a10.yimg.com/image/409538927 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dflat%2Bearth%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=369&h=500&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F1424%2F980696294_7b89e3ecac_m.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fmpabla%2F980696294%2F&size=148kB&name=980696294_7b89e3ecac.jpg&p=flat+earth&type=jpeg&no=9&tt=31,859&oid=5544ce26c559211e&fusr=Manny+Pabla&tit=Flat+Earth&hurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fmpabla%2F&ei=UTF-8&src=p)
LOL!

[Tenebrae]

.

[A New Dawn]

In other words, one rule for them and one rule for us.


Not the purpose of this thread no matter which way you want to spin it.

The purpose of the thread was to come up with a generic definition of promotion that could be utilised site wide. It is also an issue for nicene christians, which is why its not about singling out one group.

If you want to start that thread, then knock yourself out

Here is a copy of the OP.

Personally, I would hope that "Promotion" would be counted as any post or thread where the entire purpose is to convert someone to a non-Nicaean Christian religion.

But I worry, because just correcting a mistaken post about a different religion, or even just mentioning any view held by a different religion, or even just mentioning the name of a different religion could be considered "Promotion" by some people. I agree that exactly what does and doesn't count as such should be clear, so that everyone knows what is or isn't an acceptable post.

I don't need to start another thread to participate in the discussion, thank you very much. It is not your place to limit the discussion to what you want to discuss since you are not the OP.

It appears you are trying to direct the discussion away from the statement that LeeD already made about the intent of non-promotion of non-Nicene beliefs because you don't like that decision. I'm sorry about that, but it is not your decision to redirect. There already exists two separate rules about promotion if you need to have it explained that way. The Nicene believers can promote their faith and the non-Nicene believers can't. It has already been stated, also, that there will likely be different guidelines in the different forums, since not all forums have the same purpose, regarding what promotion would mean to that forum, so I am not sure where you are coming up with the idea that your take on the discussion is any more valid than mine is, or where you get off telling me I can't participate. :wave:

[Tenebrae]

Here is a copy of the OP.



I don't need to start another thread to participate in the discussion, thank you very much. It is not your place to limit the discussion to what you want to discuss since you are not the OP.

It appears you are trying to direct the discussion away from the statement that LeeD already made about the intent of non-promotion of non-Nicene beliefs because you don't like that decision. I'm sorry about that, but it is not your decision to redirect. There already exists two separate rules about promotion if you need to have it explained that way. The Nicene believers can promote their faith and the non-Nicene believers can't. It has already been stated, also, that there will likely be different guidelines in the different forums, since not all forums have the same purpose, regarding what promotion would mean to that forum, so I am not sure where you are coming up with the idea that your take on the discussion is any more valid than mine is, or where you get off telling me I can't participate. :wave:
Given that I started the thread, then no, thats not the op.

This was the original starter

I seem to recall about the time of the Beth Miqlat debacle, there were some non christians who only had to open their mouth and they were accused of promotion.


I dont have to like this new rule, however I feel that is it really important to have an actual definition written into this rule of what consitutes promotion. It concerns me that without it, every time a non christian opens their mouth about their path of choice or to correct some of the countless misinformation that many christians have about their path of choice, they are going to get jumped on for promotion of that path

This rule is also being applied in recovery, and without an actual definition mods have the dsicretion to call things promotion, that were nothing resembling promotion. Without an actual definition of what consitutes promotion, I feel that a person could post something in one forum and have it deleted because the forum mods feel it is promotion and post the exact same things in another forum, and its left to stand because those forum mods dont think it is promotion.


This is not meant as a diss on any mods, people have different perspectives on things like promotion, and without a site wide definition, I can see all manner or problems occuring peoples getting seriously frustrated due to the manner in which promotion is applied by different people


So what say peeps?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43194886&postcount=66

[PreachersWife2004]

WatersMoon is the first post I see, as well, maybe some posts got moved here from the announcement thread or something. Very confusing.

[A New Dawn]

I was speaking from personal experience and observation; what "one incident" are you referring to?

I was speaking about an incident Swart posted about several times in several different places. What are you talking about? Being on staff for close to two years, moderating UTD most of that time, I don't recall that happening to anyone else.


2) The LDS boards that I have frequented (which is actually just one, and hardly at all) do permit respectful debate from anyone. I don't see any restriction on discussion, even if there might be some restriction on trolls who post a contrary website and leave. And while I'm sure you can find more strict LDS debate forums, but if I were a member of any such group I would still lobby for equality in debate for all parties.

Since we both posted on the same other board, and I did post there for quite awhile, and was a moderator on it for about 2.5 years, I do know that many members got upset that someone was allowed to be a moderator and hold views that did not agree with the LDS church. Each time it came up I volunteered to step down so that wasn't an issue, but each time the admins said to let it blow over. (It never blew over, and I finally stepped down for good.)

[A New Dawn]

Given that I started the thread, then no, thats not the op.

This was the original starter



http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43194886&postcount=66

If you and synger say so, but that still doesn't mean that you can alter the decision that Lee has announced just because you don't agree with it. It appears the mods have decided to use your post as a place to start the discussion of what promotion is and/or looks like. It still doesn't mean I can't participate.

[jeffC]

I was speaking about an incident Swart posted about several times in several different places. What are you talking about? Being on staff for close to two years, moderating UTD most of that time, I don't recall that happening to anyone else.
Is Swart's example the same that was posted in the other thread? It's really seeb's example, but I know Swart cited it.
The prize-winner was a Mormon receiving an official warning for demonstrating convincingly that a particular claim about Mormons was false. The rationale offered was that, since Mormonism is false, if a Mormon wins an argument, he must have broken some rule. I didn't recall this one until I read it in that other thread. My experience was not so explicit, but no less extreem IMO. Instead of official action, threads were "closed for cleanup" and numerous posts simply disappeared - and not only those that would have been flames. Plenty of links have been deleted as well. I haven't seen these problems for a while, but they were not uncommon when procedures were more strict.



Since we both posted on the same other board, and I did post there for quite awhile, and was a moderator on it for about 2.5 years, I do know that many members got upset that someone was allowed to be a moderator and hold views that did not agree with the LDS church. Each time it came up I volunteered to step down so that wasn't an issue, but each time the admins said to let it blow over. (It never blew over, and I finally stepped down for good.)I don't pretend to understand the full situation, but it sounds like the site was officially tolerant of your diverse viewpoint. I'm sorry that a vocal opposition eventually led you to resign. Bigotry is bigotry no matter what flag it flies under. Of course this other site doesn't claim to be an eccumenical one, but rather a site specifically for the LDS denomination. But particularly in the debate section, I would not have objected to your position as moderator, and I don't think that just being RLDS should have been reason enough to exclude you.

[synger]

If you and synger say so, but that still doesn't mean that you can alter the decision that Lee has announced just because you don't agree with it. It appears the mods have decided to use your post as a place to start the discussion of what promotion is and/or looks like. It still doesn't mean I can't participate.
To clarify. Threads in this forum are in wiki format. The first post creates the wiki article, and the first response becomes the first post in the "discussion thread". Tenebrae posted the original question, which became the article. Watersmoon posted the first response, and that became the first post of the discussion thread.

when I collected some of the points people had made in the discussion and updated the wiki article (which is how discussions on specific issues are supposed to work), I copied Tenebrae's original post into the discussion so it wouldn't be lost.

The wiki article part of this, the summary of this discussion, is here (http://christianforums.com/t6785584). (click "discussion" at the bottom to get back to this discussion thread) Lee set this forum up this way (http://christianforums.com/t6376750-please-note-threads-in-this-forum-are-in-wiki-format.html) so that we can have policy discussions, and use the article part of it as a sort of "executive summary" so that he and his policy-makers can get the gist of a discussion without having to read every post.

The article can be edited by anyone. I just did it first because I have an interest in the question being discussed, and I'm trying to facilitate the discussion.

It's rather confusing if you haven't done wikis before.

[Tenebrae]

If you and synger say so, but that still doesn't mean that you can alter the decision that Lee has announced just because you don't agree with it. It appears the mods have decided to use your post as a place to start the discussion of what promotion is and/or looks like. It still doesn't mean I can't participate.
What ever newdawn

When you are done missing the point and jumping to wrong conclusions, let me know.


At the risk of stating the obvious, thats the exact reason why this thread was started so that mod and members could try and discuss and hopefully create a definition of what promotion looks like and hopefully take it to lee who if he decides he agrees with it can incorporate it into the rules. If not, no dramas.

It was not started with the purpose of creating rules that would treat non nicene and non christians like second class citizens, having one rule for them, and one rule for the orthodox christians. If you wish to have that discussion, you would be better doing it in another thread.

However no one including me said you were not free to join in this thread and discuss promotion and what it looks like

[A New Dawn]

What ever newdawn

When you are done missing the point and jumping to wrong conclusions, let me know.


At the risk of stating the obvious, thats the exact reason why this thread was started so that mod and members could try and discuss and hopefully create a definition of what promotion looks like and hopefully take it to lee who if he decides he agrees with it can incorporate it into the rules. If not, no dramas.

It was not started with the purpose of creating rules that would treat non nicene and non christians like second class citizens, having one rule for them, and one rule for the orthodox christians. If you wish to have that discussion, you would be better doing it in another thread.

However no one including me said you were not free to join in this thread and discuss promotion and what it looks like

Whatever yourself. :doh:

I wasn't trying to create new rules to make anyone feel like a second-class citizen, I stated what seemed like promotion to me under the already-stated rules that were already set forth.

I don't believe that stating that I feel that everyone should be able to link to their discussions is making a second-class citizen of anyone. If you want to pick on someone, pick on the person who stated that an unorthodox member just stating their position, even in a debate situation, was considered promotion to them.

Sheesh.

[synger]

That opinion has been included in the summary as part of the "narrowest view". Other opinions have been included in wider views.
All in all, I doubt they'd go with that narrow view. But that's me.

Do we have more comments on the issues themselves, or do we think the article (http://christianforums.com/t6785584-promotion.html)covers most of the basic points that have been brought up?

If so, I'll shoot a PM to the policy folks that says we're ready for them to look at it an we hope it is useful to them in determining how staff will interpret the "promotion" clause of the rules.

[synger]

Oh, and also for the record, I posted links to this discussion in as wide a path as I could, so we'd get some cross-denominational representation.

I posted it in the other discussion threads on the announcement, and in the announcement itself. I invited staff.

I also went to the congregational forums and in each forum that had a thread from the past couple days discussing the issue, I posted in that thread about this discussion. I don't remember them all, but they included Baptist, Liberal, Messianic, SDA, and, I think, OBOB. Maybe a couple more.

[*Starlight*]

I think I want to add something.... :)

In my opinion, the rule should make it clear that posting confirmed facts, even if these facts don't support the "CF-acceptable" view, should be allowed... so that only opinions posted as facts would count as the kind of promotion which isn't allowed. :)

[A New Dawn]

I think I want to add something.... :)

In my opinion, the rule should make it clear that posting confirmed facts, even if these facts don't support the "CF-acceptable" view, should be allowed... so that only opinions posted as facts would count as the kind of promotion which isn't allowed. :)

So an example of your statement would be -

Joseph Smith is a prophet. - an opinion that would be considered promotion

We consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet. - a statement of fact that would not be considered promotion.

Is this something along the lines of what you are talking about?

[*Starlight*]

So an example of your statement would be -

Joseph Smith is a prophet. - an opinion that would be considered promotion

We consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet. - a statement of fact that would not be considered promotion.

Is this something along the lines of what you are talking about?
yes, that's sort of what I meant :) But not just limited to that.

[suzybeezy]

Who's deciding which points of view/comments from this discussion are being included in this http://christianforums.com/t6785584-promotion.html . Reading over it - it seems to have a very biased agenda intended. Also it seems like an effort to re-earth the wiki process.

LeeD has stated his intention for this site in reference to the rule and its amendment http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43145040&postcount=202 . Any interpretation of the promotion rule needs to keep that focus in mind.

[Crazy Liz]

Who's deciding which points of view/comments from this discussion are being included in this http://christianforums.com/t6785584-promotion.html . Reading over it - it seems to have a very biased agenda intended.

What kind of bias? It looks to me like a summary of 4 suggestions. If the suggestions are summarized in a biased way, the wiki format allows you to change it. However, it would be nice if you could explain your issues in this discussion for the benefit of all of us.

If there are more than 4 suggestions that should be summarized there, by all means add more.

Also it seems like an effort to re-earth the wiki process.

Again, could you say more? Do you not like allowing policy discussions, or do you not like using the wiki format to summarize the discussions?

LeeD has stated his intention for this site in reference to the rule and its amendment http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43145040&postcount=202 . Any interpretation of the promotion rule needs to keep that focus in mind.

Of course.

[synger]

I'm the one who summarized it. I basically went down the discussion thread, pulled out the strongest points, and then organized them in what seemed to be logical groupings.

It's a wiki article. Anyone can update it or suggest changes to it. It's supposed to be an "executive summary" of the discussion.

[Tenebrae]

I'm the one who summarized it. I basically went down the discussion thread, pulled out the strongest points, and then organized them in what seemed to be logical groupings.

It's a wiki article. Anyone can update it or suggest changes to it. It's supposed to be an "executive summary" of the discussion.
Was that also not the reason why this section was wikified, so that it would allow Lee to read a summary of the discussion rather than having to trawl through 12 pages of discussion.

If Lee likes it and agrees with it, perhaps he'll decide to pick it up and run with it. If not, no dramas


However to quote the cliche

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained"

[synger]

Exactly. It's not a wiki in the 777 sense of the word, where what we discuss here is binding. It's a wiki just in the sense of how this particular thread works, with the article being used as a summary of the discussion. If TPTB want to use it, they can. They also don't have to. But we as members have had a chance to give them our input, and they don't have to read the whole thread.

[mnphysicist]

I'm the one who summarized it. I basically went down the discussion thread, pulled out the strongest points, and then organized them in what seemed to be logical groupings.

It's a wiki article. Anyone can update it or suggest changes to it. It's supposed to be an "executive summary" of the discussion.

This was the intent of the design of the wiki discuss rules format. It looks like its starting to really come together. I do really like how you folks presented a range of thoughts on the matter... and then covered the range of opinions on the matter. :thumbsup:

[synger]

I think I want to add something.... :)

In my opinion, the rule should make it clear that posting confirmed facts, even if these facts don't support the "CF-acceptable" view, should be allowed... so that only opinions posted as facts would count as the kind of promotion which isn't allowed. :)

I added this statement to the summary article.

[synger]

Trying to find better wording to define promotion, here's some thoughts:

-Persuasive assertion of truth in a non-nicene belief.
-The expression of approval and support of a non-nicene belief
-The act of furthering, advancing, or helping forward the belief a non-nicene belief is true.
-Attempting to develop or encourage or convince another in a non-nicene belief
-An attempt for advancement or acceptance of a non-nicene belief.
-An active advocate of a non-nicene belief.
-An effort to persuade
-An effort to win acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-The process of guiding member toward the adoption of a non-nicene position or belief
-Persuasion to influence the acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-Attempting to encourage a member to embrace a non-nicene point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty
-Trying to convert or make (someone) agree, understand, or realize the truth or validity of a non-nicene belief
-Trying to convince someone of the truth or validity of a non-nicene statement
-Insisting a non-nicene belief is believable and should be accepted as true.


Granted, these aren't perfect, but may be a starting point for trying to better define promotion.

Suzybeezy added these alternate wordings to the summary article.

[Brennin]

:confused:

See, this is very confusing because according to suzy statements of fact are promoting.

What kind of information does that leave?
One can state his non-Nicene beliefs with the caveat that he must pretend that he "knows" they are really false and that they make him miserable.

It's simple, really.

[Tenebrae]

-The expression of approval and support of a non-nicene belief

I think this one is onerous and have deleted it.


I could say "Sometimes I my old path"

On further clarification I would outline that the part about my old path I miss is the dinner parties and the discussions we had where we used to solve all the problems in one night. I would not however be promoting or endorsing wicca as a valid faith choice. from my POV Christ is the only way


People should be able to express a statement like the one above without being jumped on for promotion, especially when that was never the intent behind the statement

[Samuel_Rigby]

I think this one is onerous and have deleted it.


I could say "Sometimes I my old path"

On further clarification I would outline that the part about my old path I miss is the dinner parties and the discussions we had where we used to solve all the problems in one night. I would not however be promoting or endorsing wicca as a valid faith choice. from my POV Christ is the only way


People should be able to express a statement like the one above without being jumped on for promotion, especially when that was never the intent behind the statement
I think the statement needs to be replaced. Your example does not seem to fit the removed statement because you are not stating approval of Wicca. Stating approval would be saying "Wicca is good" and statements such as this should not be allowed since it is clearly endorsing.

[Tenebrae]

I think the statement needs to be replaced. Your example does not seem to fit the removed statement because you are not stating approval of Wicca. Stating approval would be saying "Wicca is good" and statements such as this should not be allowed since it is clearly endorsing.
Yes however I had a similar statement lead to a thread being deleted because of it was deemed to be promotion it was nothing of the sort or at least it wasnt when I wrote it

It was seriously triggering which is why I have a problem with mods who dont know me applying intent to a statement like that without knowing me or knowing the intent I had when making the post

[Tenebrae]

I think the statement needs to be replaced. Your example does not seem to fit the removed statement because you are not stating approval of Wicca. Stating approval would be saying "Wicca is good" and statements such as this should not be allowed since it is clearly endorsing.
I did wonder that. If you can find a better way to articulate it then go nuts

[Bananna]

Suzybeezy added these alternate wordings to the summary article.

Originally Posted by suzybeezy http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43193212#post43193212)
Trying to find better wording to define promotion, here's some thoughts:

-Persuasive assertion of truth in a non-nicene belief.
-The expression of approval and support of a non-nicene belief
-The act of furthering, advancing, or helping forward the belief a non-nicene belief is true.
-Attempting to develop or encourage or convince another in a non-nicene belief
-An attempt for advancement or acceptance of a non-nicene belief.
-An active advocate of a non-nicene belief.
-An effort to persuade
-An effort to win acceptance of a non-nicene belief
-The process of guiding member toward the adoption of