Times, they are a changin' More Guidelines Need Here

[Stan]

There is something about 'Adventist DNA' that seem to make some of us to want to correct every perceived error in other people's Biblical Interpretation or thoughts.

AND it is HURTING the forum.

It has been said (actually by me ) that if it was not for Religion and Politics this could be a great forum...

There are a number of formerly active members that do not come here anymore due to the argumentative comments done by well meaning people who find it difficult to understand that their "enlighten posts" are offense to others.

I doubt if there is anyone here, who would view themself as arrogant, opinionated, domineering, manipulative, condescending, controlling, and narrow-mindedly dogmatic. YET that is a common opinion of posters who try to discuss the Great Things About God

KEEP IN MIND THIS, Text does not generally transfer attitude

While unsolicited advise and correction would seem welcome, they are not to most.

So where is the balance?

Often those in one 'Camp' are heros for their "Tell the Truth Plain" it does not go over well at all in another 'Camp'.

I am not wanting anyone to leave, I do not think there is anyone current poster that I do not appreciate some or a lot of their posts.

BUT what to do, when the constant correction and dissecting of others peoples thoughts chase posters and visitors away?

SO am going to do this... ask the regular posters here to make some comments on what we can refer people to, in order to 'PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS'

What must not happen, is to comment or tear apart someone else's statement in this thread.

After enough comments are made, I will select a group to package them into a workable guidelines for all to adhere to.

[Stan]

Let me throw out the first comment

No disparaging comments about other Churches or Ministries

[Woody]

Thank you so much Stan for this opportunity. I can appeciate the dialogue needs.

Let me point out my personal perspective.

I feel we should be able to discuss or even criticize in a respectful way. This has not been happening.

We need to establish a base amount of respect for each other and their spirituality. We need to be more sensitive of how we might offend. We need to be more tolerant.

Before I go on .... please understand that I include myself in this. I need to improve.

If we could only have an attitude that my belief is just that ... it is mine personally. I should not feel that mine is the only one or even the correct on. It is just the one that I personally believe is correct at this time of my experience.

This may be long. I have lots of thoughts. Thus you see my high total of posts in such a short time.

Anyway ... I would like to see us TRY to show agreement of each other more often. I would like to see more praise when someone has a good thought. But this would mean most coming from the "opposite camp". And you know who you are out there that disagree with me!!! I would like to hear from you that I occasionally have a good thought. I will try to do the same in return.

Then I come to the topic of apologizes. I believe in apologizes as you may well know. But apologizes do not need to identify fault or blame.

Let me start with a personal apology to all. I am sorry for my personal reaction to some comments on this forum. I know I could do better. It is hard when one feels personaly attacked. But I could still do better. And it is my desire and commitment to do better. I would like to apologize to all that I have offended. I am determined to improve. It is not in my heart to come across as I have.

I have to go ... but I will write more later.

[Dr. Shane]

If everyone, including me, would step back and read their posts before posting them, that would help.

It can be difficult to disagree without being disagreeable. It is also very hard for some to stay focused on the topic and not on other members they are disagreeing with.

To a certain extent, we have to be able to criticize other denominations since we often have to make the case of why we hold as truth what we believe and not what "they" believe. That is not to say we need to get nasty or degrading about it. Once upon a time I was censored here for refering to the Catholic church as the "great whore". Actually I was reprimanded. Of course, I picked that up from our own denomination's evangelistic crusades so I found it odd being reprimanded for using the words actually taken from the Bible.

Much is in the context of the discussion. Using such a term in a discussion between myself, David Koot, John 317 and Redwood about Bible prophecy would likely not rub any of us the wrong way. However if a member of the Catholic church was in here trying to defend the papal power and one of us tossed out the term, that certainly wouldn't be "playing well with others".

[Woody]

Quote:

If everyone, including me, would step back and read their posts before posting them, that would help

Thanks for all your comments Shane. I would like to comment briefly though on this comment of yours. I do read my posts. But I am afraid it is not enough. I think they are interpreted differently. At times I am angry and I feel what I say is TRUTH. I also tend to get inside others heads and make critical wrong judgments on people.

I would like to see us develop more trust and respect for each other personally. I feel that much of our problems are personal in nature. I have developed a distrust for the "other" side.

I have decided to change this. I am working at it. I hope you will see changes in me. I want to see both sides lifted up. I want to see respect. I still want to see and enjoy the differences though.

The one attitude I have difficulty with is the ... MY way is TRUTH. It may be truth for you and your interpretation at this point in your life. But that is it. If we could agree that it is OK to have different beliefs then I think this place would be much safer.

[Nan]

I am glad you have brought this up Stan. Certainly personally I have just avoided those threads that have descended into the type you describe.

Guess we have to ask ourselves before we post, what if someone else was saying this to me? Would I appreciate/be hurt/be offended by it.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Be ye civil one to another or be smited. This does not mean one cannot make TIC or other silly and goofy remarks....just remember there's a fine line between humor and sarcasm.

Never ASSUME anything about another member. They may or may not be *where you are at emotionally and/or spiritually*... This avoids foot-in-mouth disorder. In addition, pray with or for someone, but never EVER be pompous enough to tell someone that you have a message from God for them. You don't. God is perfectly capable of telling someone what He wishes for them to know. IMHO.

Politics is always a *hot* topic. It is also one where debate and discussion are not likely to change anyone's ideas. And it is also one where tempers flare. IMHO, politics is not a suitable topic, especially for a worldwide forum such as C/A. Americans/Canadians/Australians/Romanians, etc do not appreciate people from other countries making disparaging comments about those "foreign" countries. What you want to say may or may not be true, but it essentially boils down to rudeness. IMHO.

Bible and theology topics, especially, need to be properly monitored. We don't know who might be dropping by the forum....they don't need to see Adventist dirty laundry. Moderators, IMHO, should STAY OUT of the discussion except to add to someone's post or delete/edit posts. Moderators who overly participate in the areas in which they moderate are not able to see all sides objectively and make proper decisions in their moderating duties. IMHO.

Don't come charging into a heretofore unknown topic with your warbonnet on. You may not really know what the topic is all about, and you build up an unsavory reputation very quickly by doing that. Hang the hatchet and warbonnet at the door, please.

[Gail]

I've got a TIC for you...

Can we vote them off the island?

[Woody]

I want to keep my torch lit. Please don't vote me off.

By the way .... I am a huge Survivor fan.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I've got a TIC for you...

Can we vote them off the island?

Oh dear. I feel the theme song to Gilligan's Island bubbling up...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

IMHO, politics is not a suitable topic, especially for a worldwide forum such as C/A.

I think when Adventists quit talking about politics around the potluck table, we can quit talking about it on C/A. Adventists tend to be political by nature. Early Adventists testified in front the the US Congress. Adventists have sued the US military and won more than all other denominations combined. Adventists believe the second beast of Revelation 13 is the United States of America!

That said, it is understood that political discussion rubs some people the wrong way. It may be a good idea for moderators and/or administrators to move political threads out of various sections and into the World Affairs section so that those not wanting to deal with political discussions can simply avoid that section.

Quote:

It is also one where debate and discussion are not likely to change anyone's ideas.

Well, abortion use to be the political issue I cared most about. I was strongly pro-life - favoring a legal ban of most abortion. Due in no small part to the discussions here, I now favor keeping abortion legal (although adopting public policy to restrict and discourage it). Because of that shift in my thinking, I do not find it nearly as objectionable to vote for a pro-choice candidate as I once did. So given my own experience, I would have to say I complete disagree with the quoted sentence above.

I will make this comment however. Even when I expressed a strong pro-life sentiment, I never ridiculed others here that were/are pro-choice as being "bad" Christians. Quite to the contrary. I commented how two people can be on two different sides of a political issue, such as abortion, and both be good strict Christians.

Brother Neil and I often disagree on political issues but I never attack him, nor he I, as being a bad Christian. As far as I know he is a strict and perhaps conservative Christian that holds liberal political views.

My best friend, who I named my son after, is quite liberal politically and much more conservative religiously than I am. It is quite a friendship we have. When we talk politics, I am more conservative than he. When we talk religion, he is more conservative than I. We have a wonderful friendship and he has become kind of a father-figure for me.

[Stan]

What must not happen, is to comment or tear apart someone else's statement in this thread

Read repeated as needed..

[John317]

I think it's important that everyone feel free to criticize statements others make, but to do it in a way that sticks to the issue or question, and not allow it to develop into a criticism of the person. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with a person's argument" and then offer reasons or evidence in support of a viewpoint; but it is something quite different, and I believe should not take place on CA, to characterize the person in such as way as to ridicule or be rude to him/her.

For instance, it may be perfectly proper to say, "I don't think your argument or idea is correct. The reason I disagree with it is..." But I don't think we should ever say, "I think it would be great if you could read..." Or: "Why don't do you put your glasses on for a change?" Or: "Hey, got your thinking cap on today, bozo?" and other, similar remarks and obvservations that are intended to hurt people rather than help them.

Even as you show an argument to be wrong, try to do it in a way that will build up the person, not tear him or her down. It CAN be done.

Just because you feel or believe that someone is not real bright or is not well informed is no reason to treat him disrespectfully or with less love than you do someone with whom you wholly agree.

Try to practice the Golden Rule: Ask yourself if you would like someone to approach you in the way you are approaching the other person. And even if you beleive you would OK with a certain approach, if you think the other person probably will not be OK with it, don't do it.

[David Koot]

I have some reflections and suggestions:

1) Different people may have different expectations and agendas in coming to a forum like this. Some like in-depth discussion, and to really dig and get to the bottom of things. Others may want to make presentations, and not have those presentations or thoughts interrupted. In that regard, I suggest the following:

(a) There is a very definite need for the existing forums on Bible and Theology, where there is full discussion and examination of ideas and position statements. This is an important opportunity to seek after truth, and has some very real advantages. Also, I think a lot of people may enjoy either participating or following serious discussions like that.

( There may be a need for a separate section in which individuals can make presentations. In such a section, perhaps discussion could be limited in some manner, so that participants can make their presentations without interruption. This would not be a discussion forum, but a place to make presentations, as in teaching or homilies.

I believe that the single most urgent concern at this time, is to make this forum a safe place, where participants may feel secure in being free from personal attacks. I submit that an important guideline to have in place, and to uniformly and consistently enforce, is for participants on discussion forums to keep to the issues, and not make personal attacks or innuendos. I believe that should be enforced incrementally, first by a warning, then by editing posts and, if the behavior persists, the person should be suspended or ultimately banned.

There may be some individuals who use forums like this to vent personal anger, whether at organizations, individuals, belief systems or simply in general. I believe that constitutes an abuse of a forum, and should not be allowed.

Finally, I urge that serious consideration be given to self-policing. That is, where individuals unite their efforts to make the forum a safe and pleasant place. Encourage formation of such support teams, and give them an opportunity to turn things around. If that fails, then administration should step in.

I believe it is extremely important to allow the open and unfettered exchange of ideas, in an appropriate forum. Doing so can serve the cause of truth, as well as provide stimulating discussion and interaction.

I guess I want to add one more thought: "Live and let live."

Dave

[Bravus]

As someone who has been a moderator, and has steadily withdrawn from that role because it's been just too difficult, let me reiterate something I've said here before: the calls for perfectly capable, perfectly unbiased moderators who will save us from ourselves are nice, but I'm not seeing people lining up to do the work (for free) and take the resultant abuse. The moderators have a role, but it is really going to be up to each of us to behave as we would wish to see the forums.

Having said that, different ones wish to see the forums operate in different ways, and what we end up with is a clash of expectations. What some see as rudeness and aggression others see as open, honest and robust debate. I understand very well that others see particular posts and posters in dramatically different ways than I do.

The ability to recognise that we have hurt someone, and to apologise, is one of the keys to a healthy community, in my opinion. I have to reject the position that telling someone they have upset you is somehow an abusive playing of the 'victim card': no, it is simply finding a way to continue to live and work together.

The fruit of the Spirit is my only guideline.

[John317]

Having said that, different ones wish to see the forums operate in different ways, and what we end up with is a clash of expectations. What some see as rudeness and aggression others see as open, honest and robust debate. I understand very well that others see particular posts and posters in dramatically different ways than I do.

Maybe we could set up some threads where it can be indicated before the person enters it, that on this particular thread they might expect more "open and honest, robust debate." That way there can be something for everyone and no one needs to be needlessly hurt. For instance, some threads could given a certain color, say red, if people who enter them should expect open and honest and robust debate. That way people can decide to stay out of the hot kitchens if they don't like all that fire and smoke.

[David Koot]

I think 'open and honest' is excellent. But it doesnt need to be rude or offensive. That simply incites. I appreciate Bravus' suggestion to make the fruits of the Spirit a goal.

Dave

[Bravus]

Great idea, John - the diversity of sub-fora here are a great strength, and allow CA to go some way toward pleasing everyone. Now we just need some sort of easily understood 'poster beware' coloration that keeps the rough stuff corralled...

David, I absolutely agree... but how many debates have we (the forum, not you and me specifically) had about whether a particular post is rude or not? There is definitely some degree of 'eye of the beholder' going on (and perhaps a little bit of 'mote and beam').

[John317]

Exactly. The rules would still stipulate that. Maybe we could come to some agreement on what those basic rules could be on those different threads.

[David Koot]

David, I absolutely agree... but how many debates have we (the forum, not you and me specifically) had about whether a particular post is rude or not?

Simple solution, B. If everyone were to emulate your civility and good-will in posting, problem solved!

D

[John317]

.. but how many debates have we (the forum, not you and me specifically) had about whether a particular post is rude or not? There is definitely some degree of 'eye of the beholder' going on (and perhaps a little bit of 'mote and beam').

OK, here's an idea. What if we say that if a certain poster indicates they consider a certain kind of language offensive and they ask that it be stopped, everyone should respect their request and stop it? I think we can get to know each other's feelings about those things. And the rule could be that someone should not reply anything like, Well stop telling me what to do or say. They should stop doing whatever that other person finds offensive or rude. And perhaps that "rude" person could receive one warning and then if he does it a third time, he is asked to leave the thread for a limited period of time. Something like that. Just a suggestion.

[David Koot]

Okay, one more proposed guideline: a 'boor-ban.' No boors or boorish behavior allowed lol.

[Amelia]

1. Thou shalt not say "You are wrong!"

2. Thou shalt not say "You are a liar!"

3. Thou shalt not be "Holier than thou!"

Take a moment and go look in the mirror. Now point your finger away from yourself. What do you see? A finger pointing at you. So before you go throwing stones, calling names etc, remember to look in the mirror; it's coming right back at'cha.

[David Koot]

OK, here's an idea. What if we say that if a certain poster indicates they consider a certain kind of language offensive and they ask that it be stopped, everyone should respect their request and stop it? I think we can get to know each other's feelings about those things. And the rule could be that someone should not reply anything like, Well stop telling me what to do or say. They should stop doing whatever that other person finds offensive or rude. And perhaps that "rude" person could receive one warning and then if he does it a third time, he is asked to leave the thread for a limited period of time. Something like that. Just a suggestion.

Excellent idea.

[John317]

Okay, one more proposed guideline: a 'boor-ban.' No boors or boorish behavior allowed lol.

Hey how about a thread just for the "boors" who believe they can't change and don't want to change? Where I work we have some teenagers who like to be slapped around a little. So I know how this works. For them we have the boxing program. Others don't even like to be yelled at. 'Course those are always yelling at other people-- lol But we try to treat them with due respect even though they often don't do the same toward others.

My primary concern as a moderator has been with situations where people feel offended by certain kinds of language. I realize that some others might not be offended by that same kind of language, but the main point is that if someone is offended by our words, even if we think they are wrong to feel that way, we should change our approach so that he/she is not offended.

I would like to suggest, however, that when we make statements on a thread where a discussion is going on, we should not take offense if we are merely told that someone does not agree with a particular statement. I think that has to remain a legitimate criticism for anyone to make, unless we are on a thread that is designed only for making statements without any kind of discussion (if such a thread is designed). And then once I say, "I don't agree," I should also not feel offended if someone wants to know exactly why I disagree and maybe even asks what my evidence or reason is for thinking a certain way. In my opinion, those would not be legitimate reasons for complaining about abuse or rudeness, as long as the question is asked in a way that is not itself rude or mean, etc.