"Common Sense"

[David Koot]

As I understand the post was deleted by Amelia but not before it was read by a lot of people. It was up for a Week as I understand it.

That is correct. And there was a HUGE spike in 'views' between the time I left town and came back two weeks later. You can still see the numbers, as the thread is still there (less the defamatory posts.) It is in the interests of avoiding that kind of harm, that I am addressing these matters.

[Stan]

David, am sorry that you, and others have suffered..

[Woody]

Quote:

As I have sought counsel from a number of church leaders, they have encouraged me to keep on working winning souls, with the assurance that God will vindicate . All that is very encouraging. Yet, the false and defamatory posts should not be allowed. Satan can use such things to do harm.

Dave ... I think this advice is so good. Not easy to follow but yet good advice. If you go about doing God's work ... His name along with yours will be vindicated.

Ellen White says some good things along these lines. I hope they are of encouragement to you.

Quote:

"No One Can Injure Character as Much as We Ourselves.--We may expect that false reports will circulate about us; but if we follow a straight course, if we remain indifferent to these things, others will also be indifferent. Let us leave to God the care of our reputation. . . . Slander can be lived down by our manner of living ; it is not lived down by words of indignation. Let our great anxiety be to act in the fear of God and show by our conduct that these reports are false." {2MCP 548.3}

Still hurting that you are hurt ... my friend.

[Stan]

Let's say this...

One member ( MEMBER A) really "straightens out another" ( MEMBER

What is best?

A - To tell the person ( MEMBER A) if he has issues, deal with them privately?

B - Let it stand for an example that people will not tolerate the remarks he addressed ( Comments by MEMBER ?

C - Ignore it?

What if Person A or Person B are new members here? What if they are long term members...

Reality is, well I will wait for comments first..

D - Say thank-you publicly for chastising that person?

[LynnDel]

There is no one answer for every situation, is there?

[Stan]

Only by teachers

Love your new avator..

[David Koot]

David, am sorry that you, and others have suffered..

Thank-you, Stan, for those very kind words. It makes a huge difference. I was getting the feeling that the whole destructive episode somehow just didn't matter much to administration. I was feeling quite alarmed and indignant.

As for the damage done to me as a result of false and defamatory posts, etc., on C/A, I am in the process of taking steps to deal with that.

The relevance to the particular topic of these threads, that is, 'rules,' is to underscore the need for preventative policies to reduce the likelihood of thi kind of harm happening in the future. I wish to emphasize the word, 'prevention.' 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'

I wish to propose several opportunities for prevention:

1) A clearly-expressed policy statement that defamatory posts, etc. are not allowed on C/A;

2) A clear understanding that if such posts do occur, somehow slip through the cracks, there will be very serious consequences to the one who makes such posts. In terms of violations occurring on this forum, may I suggest a policy similar to what Lazarus shared from the 'Puritan' forum? Also, the definite understanding that someone defamed on this forum WILL pursue the remedies for defamation in an appropriate venue.

3) Two of us who are active on this forum, who represent different points of view but who share an interest in helping make this a safe place, have united in a commitment to take action to deal with abusive posts. We are doing this because we perceive that in too many cases, nothing is done until it is too late. We do not want to see that happen again. I believe I can speak for my colleague here, when I say that we BOTH would prefer that admins/mods deal with such matters INSTEAD of us. But too many times, that has not been done. But something needs to be done.

4) Reflecting on what I personally have observed over the last couple of years, I recall seeing someone become active on this forum, who is no longer here, but who had an avowed, stated purpose of bringing division and discord. I watched the evil consequences of what happened--which, again, was allowed to spread unchecked, until some REAL damage was done. Now, in recent months, I have seen something similar take place. That is, a few persons, sowing the seeds of dissension, gaining sympathizers and turning people against others on the forum. Such a nefarious course of action needs to be addressed and checked. Personally, I will be on the lookout for such abuses, and will doubtless seek to do something about it.

Thanks again, Stan. We are looking forward to a better, safer place here in the future.

Dave

[David Koot]

Redwood, you are such a friend! A true friend, someone who cares, will give counsel. You have done that here, and it is very good for me to be able to read what you have shared. Right now, I feel in a similar position to David in the Bible, who saddled up to go after Nabal. I have been trying really, really hard to restrain myself from taking vengeance in my own hands. Some of the comments I have read have only infuriated me and made me more determined to bring the rascals to justice. But your words of wisdom are very, very much needed, and shared in a kindly, caring spirit. That means ever so much. Thank-you, my friend.

Dave

[David Koot]

A - To tell the person ( MEMBER A) if he has issues, deal with them privately?

B - Let it stand for an example that people will not tolerate the remarks he addressed ( Comments by MEMBER ?

Seems to me that both could be addressed--the remarks which gave rise to the strong response, as well as the response. To be even-handed, it seems like both should be. But if the initial offensive remarks were dealt with in an appropriate manner, then perhaps the strong response would not be needed--better still.

Dave

[Amelia]

Quote:

As I understand the post was deleted by Amelia but not before it was read by a lot of people. It was up for a Week as I understand it.

No need to worry about problems like that again.

[David Koot]

Thank-you, Amelia, for that assurance. I am HUGELY relieved. That goes a long way towards helping create a feeling of safety on this forum.

Dave

[Amelia]

Dave, you misunderstand me. But that's ok.

[David Koot]

Oh, okay. What did I misunderstand?

[cricket]

3) Two of us who are active on this forum, who represent different points of view but who share an interest in helping make this a safe place, have united in a commitment to take action to deal with abusive posts. We are doing this because we perceive that in too many cases, nothing is done until it is too late. We do not want to see that happen again. I believe I can speak for my colleague here, when I say that we BOTH would prefer that admins/mods deal with such matters INSTEAD of us. But too many times, that has not been done. But something needs to be done.

Are you self-appointing to the Team of Five??

[David Koot]

Are you self-appointing to the Team of Five??

Nope. Nor, at this point in time, would there be a significant level of confidence in 'the team of five' concept, whatever that may be, and if it should ever come into existence. That confidence would need to be rebuilt, and that will only happen as there is an opportunity to see what 'the team of five,' if it becomes a reality, actually does in action. To recent observation, it has not appeared that a consistent, reliable structure for protecting forum members has been in place. If a 'team of five' is to assume that role, then the 'team' will need to win its spurs.

Dave

[cricket]

In my opinion, it sounds as if you've self-appointed yourself to assume a similar role.

[David Koot]

Rather than attempt to take a stand on a position of authority, it is much better to actually DO something which can provide reasonable assurance of pressing needs being met. If you, or someone else, wishes to claim the authority of a particular position or empowerment, then let actions demonstrate it. Otherwise, the words, and the claim of authority, can be rather empty and meaningless. If indeed a pax c/a is to happen, then there will be little or no need for members to take such action. On the other hand, if people continue to get hurt, and there is no redress, no assurance of protection, but a laissez faire approach to the matter, then indeed, consistent with that philosophy, one might expect things to take care of themselves, and for 'market forces' to restore equilibrium.

Dave

[cricket]

Well, I thought that attempting to "make rules" and get a Team of Five to address these issues WAS doing something. However, people here don't seem to want rules (at least not more than three!), nor do they seem to want a team of five (as discussion on that thread stayed "on topic" for only ONE post).

Good luck in your moderation, your stance, or whatever it is you will attempt to DO. I hope you will be more successful with the heavy handed, manly approach than the gentler, all-inclusive approach of trying to get things done as a "congregation" than as a self-appointed militancy.

[David Koot]

Well, I thought that attempting to "make rules" and get a Team of Five to address these issues WAS doing something.

Making rules would have been good, as a general concept. My understanding is that the final decision was to go with the 'common sense' rule instead.

As for the basis for selecting five people to make the rules, two conservative and two liberals, that seemed flawed and in fact polarizing. As well, it appeared to open the door to intense 'lobbying' by some quite vocal individuals. The appearance of even-handedness was compromised.

Looking at the proposed rules themselves--several formulations--they were subject to numerous objections, in some cases, both on their face and attempting to apply them.

In the end, some very basic rules would seem to be called for. Something on the order of, 'No personal attacks,' 'no libel,' 'no profanity/obscenity,' or something similar. Attempting to go very far beyond those basics would open a number of cans of worms--would be a creepy, crawly mess.

Enforcement of such basic rules would need to be done consistently, uniformly, even-handedly, by administration and moderators, across the board (redundancy intended.)

From what I have been able to perceive so far, following the several threads devoted to the subject, the foregoing concerns do present themselves, and to date, I am not aware that they have been resolved??

In the absence of clearly-defined, consistently enforced rules--the anarchy which has resulted from the lack thereof--the need for protecting members of a forum becomes quite evident.

Dave

[Woody]

Quote:

laissez faire approach to the matter

Dave ... I think this is clearly the attitude present and the attitude promoted.

It is articulated by use of what you have stated below ...

Quote:

My understanding is that the final decision was to go with the 'common sense' rule instead.

And yes. That was clearly stated. We were told it was no use to discuss rules because the common sense rule was final. We were told we can like it or leave. Sounds definitive.

[Amelia]

Quote:

Quote:

laissez faire approach to the matter

Dave

... I think this is clearly the attitude present and the attitude promoted.

If/when you find someone even handed who will sit here 24/7 and read everything, by all means promote them for moderator. Until then it's going to be catch as catch can by yours truly.

[Woody]

Rather than have reason ... one resorts to extremes.

No 24/7 needed. Just pay attention when it comes to ones attention.

[David Koot]

No 24/7 needed. Just pay attention when it comes to ones attention.

I think that is right, Amelia. And that is a very important part of the solution. Doing so can greatly reduce the risk of harm, as well as liability. It is an important part, both of caring about others, about individuals, and about being safe.

The other part of the solution is to have rules protecting against such harm, and to put teeth into those rules. If there are not going to be rules promulgated, then the alternative will be a type of freikorps such as happened in Germany after the Great War. That is what some of us have decided to do under the circumstances here. IOW the forum will police itself. This should be a safe place. Rules properly enforced would help make this a safe place. Jus est norma recti. Et quicquid est contra normam recti est injuria. In the absence of such rules, something does need to be done. But IMO it would be much better for admin/moderators to deal with such things.

Dave

[D. Allan]

Quote:

but a laissez faire approach to the matter, then indeed, consistent with that philosophy, one might expect things to take care of themselves, and for 'market forces' to restore equilibrium.

That is a good idea Dave. Although I know you don't like it. But as soon as you resign yourself to the reality you can join the market. Be part of the economy! And proceed to vivify the forum with your talents for wit and conviviality!

[David Koot]

Although I know you don't like it.