Moderators Bravus Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 7, 2011 Re-reading what I wrote above, it's not as clear as I'd like. While Stan has said 'moderators set the tone of their forums', the key word there is 'tone', and I believe (he can clarify) what is meant there is the 'robustness' of the debate. In the final analysis, the moderator has to decide, in the moment, whether a post can stand, needs editing or needs deleting. What is *not* being said (again, IMO and Stan can clarify) is 'moderators can ensure that their forums reflect their own views'. That's opposite to what a discussion forum is all about and to what this site is all about. Editing posts because they disagree with the moderator's views is, IMO, anathema. When I said 'enforcing orthodoxy' above I should have been clearer - I meant 'orthodoxy in the eyes of the moderator' not 'orthodoxy in the eyes of the SDA church'. That is, the moderator should not be enforcing his/her own views, no matter how those views align (or don't) with 'the 28'. That's not what moderators are for. As was discussed in the 'Moderating The Origins Forum' thread I linked, I think this is a misunderstanding about the role of moderators that underlies much of the angst on this question of who can be a moderator. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobRyan Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 BR, What you failed to mention was that your first 3 posts which only picked at others comments that you disagreed with, were left on the Meet It! thread. Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II And what advantage for "Adventism" is there in permitting such behavior? :-) Twilight, I think the challenge you have is this: You expect all SDA's to conform to your idea of what Adventism is. Absolutely not at all. I fear you have put me in a box and labelled me here. Each of us should grow into the light we have, that God had given and give each other space to do the same. But in the name of order and clarity, those in controlling positions should be believers in the fundamental positions of the church, as they represent the church to the world who visit these forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Re-reading what I wrote above, it's not as clear as I'd like. While Stan has said 'moderators set the tone of their forums', the key word there is 'tone', and I believe (he can clarify) what is meant there is the 'robustness' of the debate. In the final analysis, the moderator has to decide, in the moment, whether a post can stand, needs editing or needs deleting. What is *not* being said (again, IMO and Stan can clarify) is 'moderators can ensure that their forums reflect their own views'. That's opposite to what a discussion forum is all about and to what this site is all about. Editing posts because they disagree with the moderator's views is, IMO, anathema. When I said 'enforcing orthodoxy' above I should have been clearer - I meant 'orthodoxy in the eyes of the moderator' not 'orthodoxy in the eyes of the SDA church'. That is, the moderator should not be enforcing his/her own views, no matter how those views align (or don't) with 'the 28'. That's not what moderators are for. As was discussed in the 'Moderating The Origins Forum' thread I linked, I think this is a misunderstanding about the role of moderators that underlies much of the angst on this question of who can be a moderator. Moderators will bring bias. I have personally experienced that on these boards. But that bias should not be actively opposed to the fundamental positions of the Adventist church. The minute that happens, and it does in many "veiled" ways, (you are guaranteed a ban on some sub-forums if you insist the idea that God is not some evil destroyer and the person stating that is incorrect), the boards have lost their credibility to trumpet themselves as "Adventist" boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 But this board consistently and insistently chooses to ignore and put down these expressions of concern from many. By doing so the credibility of the board is reduced. Then the credibility of the Adventist message on the internet is reduced because this board is so dominant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 7, 2011 Three related issues: 1. As I've said, moderator bias should not be an issue. Maybe we need some moderator education. Maybe this thread is it. 2. The 'is it or isn't it Adventist?' question is just not that interesting to me: but then, neither is the 'is it or isn't it art?' or 'is it or isn't it science?' question. This board explicitly claims to be 'unofficial Adventist', and to me that gets it about right... and I'm not that concerned about making the dividing line stricter. It's not what Jesus did. 3. While there are many who are prepared to criticise moderators, there are far fewer who are willing to *be* moderators: at least if being a moderator means actually fulfilling the responsibilities of a neutral moderator, not creating a personal fiefdom. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobRyan Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 John317 is a good example of a non-neutral poster that demonstrates the ability to fill the role of a neutral moderator IMHO. You will not offend him by accusing him of being a pro-28FB, conservative, Believe Ellen White was inspired, take the bible as it reads kind of poster. He is what he is and he is not conflicted about it. Thus he gets slammed by some posters that do not share his views in those areas. But he takes it as a fellow poster - not as a moderator. in Christ, Bob Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Three related issues: 1. As I've said, moderator bias should not be an issue. Maybe we need some moderator education. Maybe this thread is it. 2. The 'is it or isn't it Adventist?' question is just not that interesting to me: but then, neither is the 'is it or isn't it art?' or 'is it or isn't it science?' question. This board explicitly claims to be 'unofficial Adventist', and to me that gets it about right... and I'm not that concerned about making the dividing line stricter. It's not what Jesus did. 3. While there are many who are prepared to criticise moderators, there are far fewer who are willing to *be* moderators: at least if being a moderator means actually fulfilling the responsibilities of a neutral moderator, not creating a personal fiefdom. 1. Bias is always an issue, which is why it should be limited. 2. But it is interesting to others and indeed very important. And you are incorrect, Jesus did specifically choose from a group of people that fit a certain demographic, for a specific reason, I do not remember any Samaritans or Gentiles amongst the disciples, the leaders of the future church. They had to accept fundamental points about Christ and His nature before they were able to be sent out to their greater work. 3. There are many posters on here that would be excellent moderators, but because they have opposing views to other moderators, or they think the organisation of the board is fundamentally flawed and dangerous, that will probably never happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 7, 2011 (in response to BobRyan's post above) I agree, John317 has responsibility for many fora, and does a great job keeping on top of them all and moderating in the appropriate spirit of fairness. He moderates for tone, not for opinion. Edit: I agreed with Bob's post more before his edit (when it was just the first sentence), but I still agree. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 7, 2011 There are many posters on here that would be excellent moderators, but because they have opposing views to other moderators, or they think the organisation of the board is fundamentally flawed and dangerous, that will probably never happen... (emphasis added) If they think that, perhaps they ought to be thinking about setting up their own forum elsewhere, rather than trying to change this one to fit them. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 7, 2011 I think you're over-determining Jesus' selection of his disciples: in a time of much less travel and much more homogeneous society, he selected them where he was. And despite their all being Jews, one of them was Judas and another Peter. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobRyan Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Jesus said in John 6 "Have I not chosen you 12 and yet one of you is a devil". He also says that of all that God gave Him he lost none - except the son of perdition. But it is his statement about the "foxes have holes... but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" that applies to the insistence of others - that Judas be allowed to join the inner group that is most instructive. Ellen White states that Christ could not refuse Judas without causing a problem for everyone else in the group who thought of him as the best candidate, as the most capable, as the most able of all. in Christ, Bob Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 If they think that, perhaps they ought to be thinking about setting up their own forum elsewhere, rather than trying to change this one to fit them. Bingo! There is the problem Bravus. This attitude you have just expressed here. Which basically says, "if you do not like it here, go away". So whilst the "all inclusiveness" of this board is paraded as an "ideal", the reality is that this board is only inclusive when agreement is made with the moderators, many of whom are fundamentally opposed to the SDA doctrines... Your own response here, testifies to this simple truth. This is why you lack moderators. It seems that many that run this board are totally blind to the situation that they have created, where those that could and would serve are told to go elsewhere when they offer counsel and raise concerns. There are plenty of potential moderators on this board, but they will never step into the roles whilst this spirit of "dismissal" is displayed. They will also have little respect for this board, when this spirit is prevalent. Mark :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 I pray that someday the SDA church has a good long look at this board and considers its viability as a representative board for SDA beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 7, 2011 Ummm... have you thought through the logic? Your whole argument here is that some people are not welcome as moderators. Correct? And yet now you want to complain about lack of inclusiveness? Does not compute. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 I think you're over-determining Jesus' selection of his disciples: in a time of much less travel and much more homogeneous society, he selected them where he was. And despite their all being Jews, one of them was Judas and another Peter. I think you are dismissing Jesus' appointment of the Jews as the ministers of the gospel so that you can water down the clear selection process I have pointed out. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Ummm... have you thought through the logic? Your whole argument here is that some people are not welcome as moderators. Correct? And yet now you want to complain about lack of inclusiveness? Does not compute. You have stated that those that do not "agree" with the way things are, should go elsewhere. So those that care enough to comment are driven away, those that value the message of the SDA church are not welcome because they can see some serious flaws in the make up of this board and care enough to speak out... Then you state there are no potential moderators... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresaq Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Mark, any one who starts thread after thread trying to prove the heart thinks, and is allowed to, really doesn't have much to complain about as I see it. I thought Bravus expressed the thought well of what a moderator should be... In general, it seems fair game to misrepresent posts of those with whom we disagree. But maybe its a form of dyslexia... :( Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Quote: But in the name of order and clarity, those in controlling positions should be believers in the fundamental positions of the church, as they represent the church to the world who visit these forums. There in lies the problem for you! Who determines the 'fundamental positions' and whether or not 'mods' hold to that position? This forum is STAN's, he makes the rules! I find it troubling that persons come here and then wish for changes that would meet their protocol/demands. The forum is successful because of the way that stan runs it, otherwise it would die. So, if someone says maybe it would be best for an individual might want to start their own, it is NOT about Quote: the reality is that this board is only inclusive when agreement is made with the moderators , a quote that can not stand up to serious investigation. Stan asking his question is partial proof of that. But, again, it is STAN's forum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 I pray that someday the SDA church has a good long look at this board and considers its viability as a representative board for SDA beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Mark, any one who starts thread after thread trying to prove the heart thinks, and is allowed to, really doesn't have much to complain about as I see it. I thought Bravus expressed the thought well of what a moderator should be... In general, it seems fair game to misrepresent posts of those with whom we disagree. But maybe its a form of dyslexia... Teresa, when was the last time you posted something positive about anything I said... :-) As to the subject of the heart, I have not presented anything that is not fully supported by the bible. And it is not a subject that is a fundamental doctrine of the church that I oppose. The church is silent on this issue. How that relates to this discussion however is extremely unclear? The point being discussed is why there is a lack of moderators on the board. Your personal view of my beliefs being spiritualism does not really relate to this topic... :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 7, 2011 There's an interesting parallel on which I think you might have a diametrically opposed view, Mark: the SDA church itself. Are you happy to include those who come to that organisation and wish to change it? Or would you tell them to go elsewhere? For me, the great heroes of faith are often reformers, from Jesus to Luther to EGW. Reformers are welcome: and so are the orthodox. It's the claim that some are unwelcome that I object to. I'm always in favour of a big tent. And that includes my many, many conservative orthodox friends. It's only when some within the tent start to suggest that others are unwelcome that I'll start pushing back. By all means suggest that some *ideas* are unwelcome: but refute them with good solid arguments, don't censor them with the abuse of power. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Quote: But in the name of order and clarity, those in controlling positions should be believers in the fundamental positions of the church, as they represent the church to the world who visit these forums. There in lies the problem for you! Who determines the 'fundamental positions' and whether or not 'mods' hold to that position? This forum is STAN's, he makes the rules! But, again, it is STAN's forum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 7, 2011 Incidentally, my comment was not 'those who disagree with this site should leave'. It was quite specifically, and narrowly, 'those who think the organisation of this site is fundamentally flawed may wish to build their own site'. Not for this site's sake, for their own sake. They can stay here and be miserable, and make us miserable, or they can build their own paradise elswhere. I can literally build a discussion forum in 20 minutes, these days, it's that easy. If someone thinks this site is *fundamentally* flawed, why should they suffer it? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Incidentally, my comment was not 'those who disagree with this site should leave'. It was quite specifically, and narrowly, 'those who think the organisation of this site is fundamentally flawed may wish to build their own site'. Not for this site's sake, for their own sake. They can stay here and be miserable, and make us miserable, or they can build their own paradise elswhere. I can literally build a discussion forum in 20 minutes, these days, it's that easy. If someone thinks this site is *fundamentally* flawed, why should they suffer it? No Bravus. Those that question whether this board is actually even remotely representative of Adventist views, should be listened to and engaged with. Not told to go elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.