Rules and Guidelines For Forum Posting

[Bravus]

Good sense all the way to the last sentence, Dave.

I just don't see how that last stipulation can work. As an example, I seem to be the only one willing to moderate the Origins forum. But that would mean I could never participate in discussions in that forum... so where's the milage for me in moderating it? The moderators are volunteers, doing it because the enjoy participating. If they can't participate, why would they do it?

[David Koot]

The moderators are volunteers, doing it because the enjoy participating. If they can't participate, why would they do it?

Moderators are most definitely free and welcome to participate in a discussion, but not, at the same time, to moderate it. That is another 'common sense' rule. There needs to be a ref, and that ref needs to be neutral. If a moderator is going to take sides in a discussion, then someone else needs to moderate. That principle is followed successfully elsewhere. It works--and it is extremely important to the health of a forum.

I also suggest that if a forum has reasonable rules, and there is the expectation that they will be followed and enforced consistently, IOW that there is a credible structure to the forum, and not a free-for-all, then suitable individuals may be inclined to volunteer as moderators. It feels good to be part of a good team.

Dave

[jasd]

Bravus,

>>Maybe. I dunno - as I said above, there's no real substitute for common sense.<<

Seems that personal biases and ego trips are mightily striving to supercede “common sense”.

>>And I could be totally wrong in this proposal - maybe there are half a dozen or half a hundred lurkers who are following the debate about the meaning of 'hastening' and the Mark of the Beast with rapt attention...<< [/ed.jasd]

Never took you for Attention Deficit, guy.

(most posts receive an average of 10 – read: ten – views)

Mebbe, the list would like to know more about ‘roos, bunnies, Ozland and other anomalistic strangeness, eh? :-o (Okay, so some things peeve me off)

Good grief, where does it end? Let’s see who will be the one who comes up with the 600th ‘rule’...

So, how did we know that ‘rules and regulations’ was a not-quite-so-subtle attempt to censor?

Sheesh! Tchah! :-o

[jasd]

Umm, by my screen, I am posting consecutively... back to back.

Have I inadvertently broken a rule?

DKoot,

>>Moderators are most definitely free and welcome to participate in a discussion, but not, at the same time, to moderate it. That is another 'common sense' rule.<<

Don’t take umbrage at my observation, but – didn’t we begin to miss your presence almost upon this same bar-same note? that is, assiduously involved with the concept of rules-making? Anyway, per the above quote:

I am led to believe that this forum is the most successful Seventh-day Adventist oriented forum on the net. That speaks to success. Why mess with success? Unless... hmmm.

>>...and not a free-for-all, then suitable individuals may be inclined to volunteer as moderators. It feels good to be part of a good team.<<

What colour shirts did y’all intend wearing?

[Bravus]

You may have missed my intention, jasd. Since I was in the process of suggesting the same thing you're saying - that we were better off without explicit rules - the proposed rule about long discussions with but two interlocutors was intended tongue in cheek as an illustration of the path down which the specification of rules can lead.

[melvin mccarty]

I am on a certain moderator's "ignore" list. Is that in indication thar I am not welcome here?...mel

[Stan]

Mel

You are always welcome here.

Am not sure a moderator can put a member on 'ignore'

HOWEVER those who know me, know that I can be wrong often...

[jasd]

>>You may have missed my intention, jasd. [...] the proposed rule about long discussions with but two interlocutors was intended tongue in cheek as an illustration of the path down which the specification of rules can lead.<<

Indeed! I missed it. That being so,

you are back in my good estimation – whatever that’s worth. :-o

(It’s the Burger King promotionals – double your value, double your meal. Same price – double the grease, the mayonnaise, the starch, the salt, the sugar, the caffeine. Finger-licking good. To die for!)

[Woody]

Yes jasd. I think these rules do have a little too much starch.

[David Koot]

Don’t take umbrage at my observation, but – didn’t we begin to miss your presence almost upon this same bar-same note? that is, assiduously involved with the concept of rules-making?

There are some basic concepts of fairlplay and civil discourse which seem to be widely recognized. When they are not followed, the difference becomes noticeable. Situations may arise in which participants in a forum or group become accustomed or comfortable with "the way things are," however dysfunctional that may be. Indeed, some people may prefer a dysfunctional situation. Others may not be willing to tolerate it.

Last year, I decided to check out different Christian forums. I found some interesting comparisons. The first one I tried out had a Calvinist orientation. The lead moderator, a five-point Calvinist, was active on threads, and ridiculed those with differing beliefs, as well as questioned their Christianity. The second one I tried was much more open. After posting there for a time, I was invited to become a global moderator. That went well. However, administrators and moderators were active on threads, as well as moderating those threads. I pointed out the concern, and they made an effort to stop doing both. In time, there was a falling out within the administration, and most of the staff ended up leaving. Two of them started a new forum and invited me to participate--which I did. Still another forum which I looked at was very large, with many boards and tens of thousands of members. I became very active on that forum, and was very well received. In time, I was accepted as a moderator and had a chance to go through the training manual for moderators. Wow! Very extensive, very carefully thought out, and very, very good policies and procedures--and ones which I personally had advocated here on C/A. Having been exposed to that, I can truly appreciate the difference--which is between the 'bush league' and the majors. Of course, there may well be those who prefer the bush league. To each his own.

Cheers

[Bravus]

I guess part of the point, though, is that this forum has thrived as it is for a loong time: leventy-teen in forum years, at least! So while the way it was running may not have suited everyone, it passed the empirical test of success - and a lot of us enjoyed it for a lot of years.

Seems to me the onus is on those wanting changes to show in some clear way that they would be better, how they would be better and for whom they would be better. And you can have all the justice and correctness in the world and it's irrelevant if you don;t have a forum...

[Amelia]

Mel

You are always welcome here.

Am not sure a moderator can put a member on 'ignore'

HOWEVER those who know me, know that I can be wrong often...

Hey Boss, I know that admins CANNOT put anyone on ignore but I'm not sure about mods. I don't think they can but if a mod would please test this and post back, that would be great.

[LynnDel]

Nope, I cannot ignore you, Amelia (no ignore option available to me). But maybe it's because you're special!

LD

[Amelia]

Oh goodie teehe Good to know. Mods AND admins cannot ignore anyone.

[melvin mccarty]

Welll not that it matters but when I try to IM one person a message says "this person is ignoring you. You cannot send them a message". Not to worry...mel

[messenger]

Originally Posted By: jasd

Don’t take umbrage at my observation, but – didn’t we begin to miss your presence almost upon this same bar-same note? that is, assiduously involved with the concept of rules-making?

There are some basic concepts of fairlplay and civil discourse which seem to be widely recognized. When they are not followed, the difference becomes noticeable. Situations may arise in which participants in a forum or group become accustomed or comfortable with "the way things are," however dysfunctional that may be. Indeed, some people may prefer a dysfunctional situation. Others may not be willing to tolerate it.

Last year, I decided to check out different Christian forums. I found some interesting comparisons. The first one I tried out had a Calvinist orientation. The lead moderator, a five-point Calvinist, was active on threads, and ridiculed those with differing beliefs, as well as questioned their Christianity. The second one I tried was much more open. After posting there for a time, I was invited to become a global moderator. That went well. However, administrators and moderators were active on threads, as well as moderating those threads. I pointed out the concern, and they made an effort to stop doing both. In time, there was a falling out within the administration, and most of the staff ended up leaving. Two of them started a new forum and invited me to participate--which I did. Still another forum which I looked at was very large, with many boards and tens of thousands of members. I became very active on that forum, and was very well received. In time, I was accepted as a moderator and had a chance to go through the training manual for moderators. Wow! Very extensive, very carefully thought out, and very, very good policies and procedures--and ones which I personally had advocated here on C/A. Having been exposed to that, I can truly appreciate the difference--which is between the 'bush league' and the majors. Of course, there may well be those who prefer the bush league. To each his own.

Cheers

Hey David, I agree with what you have said here, well said! My experience in visiting several SDA Sites is similar to yours. And although there are some of these sites with no guidelines and rules and they have still grown. Large numbers is not the only indication of the success of a forum-site, at least not for SDA sites. I think our focus should be on substance, quality of the messages the people, management! Are they or do they represent the type of site they have joined the Christian values etc. Large numbers is not always good. The Bible says, "Broad is the way that leads to destruction... and many go down this way..

I know some SDA's sites that had no rules and guidelines (not this one) and the members are out of control, name calling, angry words, vindictiveness, making personal attacks on members etc. And although that site has many thousands of members, many have also left in discuss too. And If we are consciencious Christians we should be doing all things for the Glory of God and to represent our faith and it's principles including Christ-like compassion, He told us to love one another. The truth of God's word is about allowing Christ to give us His character and we revealing His love and Bible Truths to others!

Although some of these sites are growing, some are open to all types and some people are not looking for Christians values as a priority! Some people are just very lonely, and just looking to socialize with others regardless of their Christian beliefs or principles etc. Anyway, my experience has been similar to yours and I think that the new rules and guidelines here will only make the site much more appealing to sincere Christians and will improve the quality, substance of the overall site. This is not meant to offend the creators of this site. And the management members should be commended for establishing new rules and guidelines which I think do not have too much starch at all, as some have suggested!

And some other sites that did not have rules and guidelines when the suggestion was made by the members to make some, the creators of the site, admins.etc were offended, how dare anyone try to tell them how they should run their site, after all they have thousands of members are very successful, and they know what they are doing, was their attitude and resented suggestions for improvements, until things got so bad there, they too have now established new rules and guidelines. If we were all perfect Christians and there were no tares and we had complete unity, then we would not need rules and guidelines etc., but we are not, and we do! And the wheat and tares will grow together until the end, all the more reasons of rules and guidelines that point to biblical standards of love and the law.

I am glad that the management of this site was more open minded and did not have an attitude like some had against suggestions, improvements etc. and all compliments and regards to the admins and moderators here that have promoted and established the new rules and guidelines. Experience is the best evidence and reviewing the other sites the evidence is clear to me, that rules and guidelines make for a better Christian Site if we are talking in terms of success being representing Christian values etc. I feel much more comfortable here at this site now and like it much more then I did in the past. How about you?

Blessings in Christ, messenger

[cricket]

Very extensive, very carefully thought out, and very, very good policies and procedures--and ones which I personally had advocated here on C/A.

Link??

[Woody]

I guess part of the point, though, is that this forum has thrived as it is for a loong time: leventy-teen in forum years, at least! So while the way it was running may not have suited everyone, it passed the empirical test of success - and a lot of us enjoyed it for a lot of years.

Seems to me the onus is on those wanting changes to show in some clear way that they would be better, how they would be better and for whom they would be better. And you can have all the justice and correctness in the world and it's irrelevant if you don;t have a forum...

Good Points Bravus. At some point if the rules are uniformly enforced .... there would be no one left on the forum to converse with.

[Woody]

Quote:

And some other sites that did not have rules and guidelines when the suggestion was made by the members to make some, the creators of the site, admins.etc were offended, how dare anyone try to tell them how they should run their site, after all they have thousands of members are very successful, and they know what they are doing, was their attitude and resented suggestions for improvements, until things got so bad there, they too have now established new rules and guidelines.

You should have been here a year ago for this discussion.

[David Koot]

I guess part of the point, though, is that this forum has thrived as it is for a loong time: leventy-teen in forum years, at least! So while the way it was running may not have suited everyone, it passed the empirical test of success -

[Bravus]

I'm not seeing no dysfunction, just a very normal web forum.

Perhaps those who are perceiving it need some glasses cleaning.

There are a lot of people who are very happy.

Perhaps we can start a separate thread and you can present some of this evidence.

And oh yeah, this is not a church, it's a web forum, and its goal is to be there for everyone. Not just the 'normal'.

[David Koot]

I'm not seeing no dysfunction, just a very normal web forum.

Perhaps those who are perceiving it need some glasses cleaning.

There are a lot of people who are very happy.

Perhaps we can start a separate thread and you can present some of this evidence.

And oh yeah, this is not a church, it's a web forum, and its goal is to be there for everyone. Not just the 'normal'.

Actually, I have been busy elsewhere for the past months, and truly would not be aware of whatever the situation may or may not be here specifically. I have not kept in touch, except for an occasional glance at the weekly blurbs. But the principles I have mentioned are pretty general and commonplace, and generally applicable.

[David Koot]

Link??

I don't believe I would be at liberty to share that. I would have to ask the administrators of other forums if their materials could be shared.

Dave

[David Koot]

Upon reflection, before I turn in for the night, I will respond a bit further to Bravus' last post. As for the current application, perhaps I could reiterate:

1) The forum rules which now appear to have been put in place, sound like a good step;

2) Those rules need to be consistently and even-handedly applied on the general discussion Boards;

3) A recovery forum could be set up, in which special needs are given consideration, in comparison to the even-handed application on the general discussion Boards;

4) If the moderator for a Board chooses to take sides in a discussion, he or she should recuse himself from moderating that discussion, and another mod or admin should take that role.

The above concepts really, really are very general, and widely recognized. They did not originate with me, although I see the value of them. If these principles are followed in a discussion forum, good will result.

As for dysfunction, I expect that there will almost always be some element of dysfunction anywhere you have a group of people. The difference is how it is handled. Either it is allowed to rule or to be active with little restraint, in which case it becomes the norm, or it is kept in check.

Dave

[Bravus]

I agree with what you say here - and I'm sorry if I bridled a bit when it sounded like you might have called my family here dysfunctional.

I think you've given a slightly different slant here to the recusing question, which I like: a moderator should definitely take off the moderator hat and just be a regular Joe or Jane if s/he is taking an active part in a discussion that becomes a more or less heated argument. That just makes sense. What I took you to be saying before was much broader than that, and would preclude a moderator entirely from posting in the forum s/he moderates. It was that which I was objecting to earlier.