Nominations for the team of 5

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

All right but what about Church leaders then. I remember that Stan banned all discussion on Danny Sheltons divorce of his wife as a personal attack against Danny Shelton. Many of us thought we were just attacking the act of divorcing his wife and marrying someone else. Attacking an action.

That was banned as they become became a liability to me, and I was not going to carry that burden. The owners of two other forums are going to be served soon, and we are not going to be.

Oh Really. Now that will just get the ire against Danny Shelton if he is behind that suit. (Grin) Trying to shut up the forums for his own actions. Now that is a hoot.

One of those forums are in Canada. That crosses borders. Makes a suit more difficult.

[Neil D]

No Redwood, the 'common sense' rule won't work. It is too vague and not enforceable, as well as varying with the individual. You really need specifics. As for ostracization, that is not--repeat not--a healthy basis to rely on in policing a forum. It is an awful thing, and should be avoided rather than encouraged. Not a good way to go. Stan, you need to have rules here. Cmon man, get it over with.

Actually, self ostraciazation does work well....and the adventists are kinda good at it, if they understand it and use it from time to time....

But educate...educate educate....

Moderators are to encourage creativity, educate on rules, and show where things could be said better in PMs...As a last resort, they enforce the rules....

Forums with multiple moderators who have conflicting view points have administration decide which is more fair, but moderators still enforce the rules....

[David Koot]

You won't need either, Stan. Base the rules on the words as they appear in the post. That is the ONLY way it could feasibly work. If someone accuses someone else on the forum of being stupid or of the devil, that is clearly, unequivocally unacceptable. If he says the guy's idea is faulty, that is not a personal attack. Easy to distinguish.

[Stan]

Dave the three rules you said are very reasonable..

[CyberGuy]

Stan if you had explained that to us before about the liability it would have soothed a lot of ruffled feathers that thought you were defending an indefensible act of a man who divorced his wife to marry another woman. That is what many thought.

[David Koot]

One of those forums are in Canada. That crosses borders. Makes a suit more difficult.

Yeah, but the libel occurred in the U.S. Piece of cake, man. Jurisdiction and venue where the injury occurred.

[Woody]

Quote:

If people who are 40-50+ lack the skill to play well with others, what are the chances of my wit and wisdom going to do?

It is a matter of them playing well as far as meeting your common sense rule. Most do not know what that is and if they were educated they might have a chance to conform to your ideas once known.

Like you say ... the problems are isolated to a certain hot topics. Should be very easy to monitor those and educate.

[David Koot]

Dave the three rules you said are very reasonable..

Then why not give them a chance? Go for it. Stick with those three. Let the mods--where they are present--enforce. I think that once it is seen they are being enforced across the board, things will quiet down in a hurry.

[CyberGuy]

Libel is hard to proof. And the person suing will be portrayed as the villain. That is hardly the PR 3ABN would want.

[CyberGuy]

Yeah but suing a forum that is across country lines makes it hard to collect any damages. One would have to get the courts in Canada to go along with the courts in the uSA.

[David Koot]

True enough, CyberGuy. A paper judgment. Lots of those collecting dust. But hey, I would guess a treaty covers that problem.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

Dave the three rules you said are very reasonable..

Then why not give them a chance? Go for it. Stick with those three. Let the mods--where they are present--enforce. I think that once it is seen they are being enforced across the board, things will quiet down in a hurry.

I will go along with that. I think it might work. Consistency will be of great value.

[CyberGuy]

True enough, CyberGuy. A paper judgment. Lots of those collecting dust. But hey, I would guess a treaty covers that problem.

Not Neccessarily. Look at Mexico. We have extradition treaties with them but the president of Mexico refused to give up murderers who face the death penalty to the USA dispite the fact the Mexican courts have said he has to. The president of Mexico refuses on religious grounds.

[Stan]

Yeah but suing a forum that is across country lines makes it hard to collect any damages. One would have to get the courts in Canada to go along with the courts in the uSA.

The was a suit over a domain name in the courts in Seattle a few weeks ago. The defendant from, I think Singapore felt he did not have to show up as the internet was a country by itself or something similar.. The judgement against him was a few million. I do not remember all the details.

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

Yeah but suing a forum that is across country lines makes it hard to collect any damages. One would have to get the courts in Canada to go along with the courts in the uSA.

The was a suit over a domain name in the courts in Seattle a few weeks ago. The defendant from, I think Singapore felt he did not have to show up as the internet was a country by itself or something similar.. The judgement against him was a few million. I do not remember all the details.

The people funding the lawsuit would have no problem going through Canadian lawyers and legal system.. but enough about them..

It would be interesting to see what happens in any case. More fodder for discussion if that is allowed. Most likely not. I have found people do not allow discussion on an ongoing suit.

Unfortunately lawsuits are used to intimidate. This one if it happens is no different.

[Planey]

If someone accuses someone else on the forum of being stupid ... that is clearly, unequivocally unacceptable.

What if the person referred to clearly is stupid?

Graeme

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: David Koot

If someone accuses someone else on the forum of being stupid ... that is clearly, unequivocally unacceptable.

What if the person referred to clearly is stupid?

Graeme

Then there would be an exception made. But it would need to be certified. The same would apply to saying that someone is of the Devil. If you can prove it then it is fine to say so. After all ... we do need to call sin by it's name. And sinners.

[Neil D]

Then there would be an exception made. But it would need to be certified. The same would apply to saying that someone is of the Devil. If you can prove it then it is fine to say so. After all ... we do need to call sin by it's name. And sinners.

Sorry, but to call someone the devil and not have the gravel [aka with rocks to hurt]in your voice is not acceptable.

On that last day, when the world is about to be remade, the saints don't say a word. And the minons of the devil are hurling what they remember against us, and God. And we don't say a word. And the minions of the devil accuse us and God....and we don't say a word....Why? because this is God's battle...not ours...He is our defender....

Now, that is then...what about now? I say if you can't say something neutral, don't say anything at all....

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: Planey

What if the person referred to clearly is stupid?

Graeme [/quote']

Then there would be an exception made. But it would need to be certified. The same would apply to saying that someone is of the Devil. If you can prove it then it is fine to say so. After all ... we do need to call sin by it's name. And sinners.

I agree with Neil on this. If we allow this it opens the door to all sorts of namecalling and finger pointing and libel.

For instance I could call someone a LIAR and I could prove it but according to the proposed rules that would be namecalling and is unacceptable. Yet that would fit into your definition of calling sin by its name. See the point.

[Woody]

How about just NO name calling of ANY kind? Just draw the line in the sand.

[olger]

Guess the author:

A recent essay in the New York Times (December 2, 2007) talked about the growing popularity of social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, and others where the word “friends” is used to describe email relationships with folks we barely know. Humans are gregarious creatures and fare better belonging to networks of family, community, spiritual groups, clubs, and so forth - all of which are sustained through face-to-face contact.

The bottom line is that the more time we spend online, the less time we spend having true relationships complete with challenges, vulnerability, risks and profundity. These are not real-world relationships with depth. These on-line relationships are shadows and facsimiles which ultimately amount to little more than casual, superficial experiences.

One mother, Jene, who listens regularly to my radio program, sent me this letter her 21 year-old son wrote to Facebook. I suggest you show this to all your children and read it twice yourself if you are hooked to on-line pseudo-friendships:

“As a mother of two young adults, I’ve witnessed their obsessive involvement with the many electronic forms of communication that are all the rage in recent years…email, instant messaging, texting, and the several web-based social networks like Facebook and MySpace. All are useful communication tools, but often counterproductive in really getting to know people.

It came to my attention that my 21 year-old son took a bold step recently and closed down his Facebook account by writing a breaking-up letter and posting it as a good-bye. When he shared it with me, I was touched, relieved, and very proud of his stand. I asked him if I might share this with you. His grin, soft laugh and nod of his head spoke volumes:

‘Facebook, we need to have a DTR (defining the relationship) talk…It’s not all your fault, it’s mostly mine…This is the end of you and me, Facebook. I’m leaving you because I have spent more time browsing your pages than I have been spending in the pages of The Good Book. And I can’t live like that anymore. I’ve let you become a monster…you’ve taken too much of my time and my thoughts. Maybe it’s just my lack of self-control or discipline, but you’re addictive to me. I’m ashamed of the number of times I check you daily. If I were able to grasp how much time I have spent swimming though your endless ocean of profiles, I would be able to bear the guilt.

Here’s why: because of your profiles, I’ve become lazy. Because of you I found myself talking with person after person, asking them questions that I already knew the answers to. On many levels I’ve substituted and even avoided personal interactions with people because of your artificial and superficial means of communication. You have diluted my perception of true social interaction.

You’ve made me a coward. There’s a difference between a Facebook friend and an actual friend. Everyone knows the difference, but when one tries to reach across the barrier from Facebook friends to actual friends it just isn’t the same.

Facebook, you’re not all bad. You have your benefits. I must admit, you allow me to network and keep in touch with people with whom I normally wouldn’t have been able to…but at what cost? Wasting time Facebooking people I’ll never meet has distracted me from meeting the person sitting next to me in class, or has kept me from calling up and hanging out with an old friend because Facebooking is just as good? I beg to differ.

In some form or another, you’ve hindered my investment in the relationships with those genuine people hiding behind the idealistic profiles they’ve made of themselves. Let’s face it, I don’t perceive myself in the same way someone else perceives me. From now on, I only want to know people for whom they truly are; not for what you (Facebook) says they are. I just can’t trust you.

‘This might seem radical, but I have to make up for lost time. This hurts me just as much as it hurts you, but I have to take a stand.

Logging out for good,

Kyle.’“

I am so very impressed with Kyle’s maturity and good sense.

[there buster]

rules exist to safeguard relationships, and to deal with the situation when relationships break down.

My state has divorce laws, about which I know nearly nothing. Nor am I interested, because my relationship with my wife remains very good. If a serious breach developed, one or both of us might then consult the law, seeing what sort of relief is possible

Most people actually understand very little about how healthy relationships work. We all assume whatever we grow up with is normal. This includes the church relationships we 'grow up' with.

In fact, many, many of our congregations are deeply dysfunctional.

Those dysfunctions naturally follow us wherever we go. They came here. So long as everyone plays their proper role in the dysfunctional system, it appears to go along just fine. When someone from a different dysfunction intrudes, they are quickly dealt with. But if someone starts identifying the dysfunction, it causes panic. No one is supposed to mention the proverbial elephant in the room.

For some time, the dysfunctional system can maintain a sort of eccentric equilibrium. But time and scale are its enemies. The longer the situation continues, and the more people who become involved, the more stress it puts on the flaws in the system.

[Jeannieb43]

Well, Stan, a few things we know from observation here:

1) What is happening now is NOT working.

2) The forum needs rules. This has been a disaster.*

3) Rules should be few and clearly defined.

3) The rules need to be uniformly enforced.

4) Admin is responsible for making and enforcing the rules. To try to hand this off to members would be disastrous.

Stan, that goes with the territory. Part of the 'joy' of operating a public forum.

A question for you guys who seem to want to argue, here in public, and want Stan to censure anybody who disagrees with you; I ask you: Who's coming up with the SALARY for this WATCHDOG SERVICE you want Stan to provide?

And will you each first ensure that the dues are all paid up, in full, by every contributor to C/A?

I have no inside information, but I'd venture to say that some of the loudest talkers are paying the least amount of dues. [Only a guess on my part, but that's usually the way it goes.]

========

* C/A is not a "disaster!" But neither is it a debating society. It's a discussion bulletin board. If you don't agree with the discussion, you're not being forced to post anything.

[Nan]

* C/A is not a "disaster!" But neither is it a debating society. It's a discussion bulletin board. If you don't agree with the discussion, you're not being forced to post anything.

Or to read anything.

On another board I frequent, a very contentious forum has been monitored closely by the owner/admins for some time, for personal abuse etc. Said admins have become tired of so doing and say it is now basically free for all. Will be interesting to see how that develops.

[Amelia]

Nan, yes I have seen that happen on other boards as well. It's usually due to members ignoring the rules. Ignoring the admins/mods. And ignoring the basic golden rule. What do you do then? You let it all fly until the blood flows freely and then shut the topic down.