Rules and Guidelines For Forum Posting

[jasd]

>>When people try to use the word of God to manipulate others,<<

I’ve never seen the post that appeared manipulative; rather, I see good, thoughtful people expositing Writ in a sharing manner – granted, it is sometimes done adversarially, but then, that’s the best kind of post – the clinical and thought-provoking.

>>...setting themselves as being helpful and true believers, casting doubts of the beliefs of others,<<

The best kind of post – the kind providing either substantiating reason for our beliefs or reason for scuttling that which cannot be sustained by Writ.

>>...talking about 'I'll pray for you' 'you just need to see the light' and on and on, you have a false piety.<<

Has anyone been praying for me? Thanks.

>>The Jewish religious leaders were experts of the attitude and we know what Christ called them.<<

Whatever He called thems Pharisaical types, He did indicate that our righteousness must exceed theirs...

>>There is much that goes on of this type of attitude through out the forums...and it ain't subtle!<<

Oh, please, please, please... not another call for treacle! Let’s, instead, take off the gloves where Writ is concerned and quit playing the last parrot on the Orinoco. Just, let’s be civil.

>>Lighten up folks....what do we know about anything?<<

Really, lots less than we should.

[jasd]

>>Ahhh...... teachers make rules.... and students obey them.... at least they are suppose to....<<

So, I is 'sposed tah conduct mysef as a student of Bravus? I thought that teacher-teaches thing applied elsewhere, and that here - we tend each other in a more egalitarian manner.

Is the surplus of ellipses and the "supposed to" - supposed to intimidate? Appreciate some respect going the way of the listers, as well, Moderator.

>>...and yes Bravus is more complicated than that. He writes books too.<<

So, writing a book would make me complicated?

[Bravus]

I think any enquirers will find that the rules for the Origins forum, which I moderate, conform with the spirit and letter of these larger forum rules. There is a stronger emphasis in that forum on not calling others' faith into question, although I believe that is part of the main forum rules too. It is that and only that (not any 'personality test') that gets people into or out of the Origins forum.

[John317]

I agree with you, Bravus. That's why I said that the moderators aren't "writing their own rules," as some have suggested. Moderators always have been, and still continue to be, free to apply the rules and principles as they judge is right at the time they are viewing a given thread.

[Woody]

The question is ... what process is there for reporting and dealing with a moderator who is not abiding by the terms of the Adventist Forum in general. Is there a way to report said moderator other than reporting the moderator to himself so that he can moderate himself which does not happen?

[John317]

The moderators have the final word, Redwood. You may not agree with them, but the moderators decisions on the forums are official and final. We want you on the forum but if you find you cannot abide by the rules and by the decisions of the moderators, you might need to go elsewhere to post.

[Woody]

No need to get personal. STick with the issues. I am simply asking if the same applies to the moderators.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

How do these new rules affect the use of smilies? i.e.,the use of is not exactly keeping with not getting frustrated with someone.

Must we now need to use only those smilies which portray the forum as meek and mild and milquetoast? is in our list of smilies. That doesn't seem to fit in with the new guidelines.

People should be able to express their outrage and/or other reactions at something SOMEHOW so that the other party knows. That's what a FORUM is all about.

Thank you. I'm now off my

p.s. Does it mean I can't use this anymore: ? Even when it's appropriate?

[John317]

Yes, of course all the smilies, etc., may be used the same as always.

[Neil D]

If you ever feel justified for being combative toward another member... see rule #1 and DON'T.

Listen to, and cooperate with, moderators.

Feel free to suggest other guidelines by writing to us here at Adventist Forum. God Bless!

Where is "rule #1"? tain't labeled...Ain't sure where to look for it...

I might have added-

"Guidlines" ]

"If you are tempted to write to Stan, we suggest that you consider writing to your mother." or some such 'not set in stone, but worthy admonition'. And then I would explain why not to write to Stan...ie, Stan has a minimum of 3 other boards. And if they are as noisy as this one, he's got at least one troublemaker per board [Guess what? You qualify as 'troublemaker'] and those other troublemakers are noisy as you are.

Believe it or not, the moderators are your advocates. If you should find yourself in a position of needing an advocate, lean heavily upon what s/he says. S/He is showing the other moderators what you are doing, and evidence that you are teachable. If you revolt against the idea of an advocate before the moderatorial board, and your advocate steps aside, the moderators will recommend that you go somewhere else and Stan will gift you with a ban.

Or something like that......But that is me....

[John317]

Those are some good suggestions. Thank you.

The rules are still in the process of some changes or additions, as I get input from people.

This would be number #1, Neil:

Be loving. Discuss issues with Christ-like love for your brothers and sisters here.

I'll be numbering all of them fairly soon.

[there buster]

Quote:

You just need to sound pious and all will be copacetic.

yup

[Taylor]

Rules and Guidelines For Forum Posting:

1) Be loving. Discuss issues with Christ-like love for your brothers and sisters here.

Recognize that others are seeking the truth just like you. And these praying, thinking Christians might come to different conclusions than your own.

These members will feel just as strongly about the "rightness" of their opinion as you feel about yours. Study with them in humility -- seeking the truth, NOT just trying to convice others you are right. Go wherever the Spirit, Bible, and Spirit of Prophecy lead. HIS truth will win in the end.

2) Speak ONLY for yourself. Do not tell anyone what any other person is saying. Do not put words in their mouth. They will do that themselves. Advocate for your own position strongly but with love for others.

3) Don't call names or be negative towards other people... they are Christ's children. Sinners just like ourselves. Only rebut differing issues, NOT the members who write them.

4) No commercial messages, or spamming.

5) If you ever feel justified for being combative toward another member... see rule #1 and DON'T.

6) Listen to, and cooperate with, moderators.

Feel free to suggest other guidelines by writing to us here at Adventist Forum. God Bless!

I think these are good rules.

I have seen people strongly disagree here when actually they were in agreement but it took a while for it to come out, so give the person who is posting some time to develop or explain what they are trying to say and you might be surprised to find that you agree with them.

On the other hand, I think people should be able to post their opinions or convictions and not be slammed for them, while others can still present their truth as they see it as well. It isn't bigoted to be strongly convicted of something and it isn't personal when someone takes an opposite conviction of your conviction.

(And this isn't aimed at anyone...just speaking in generalities.)

[Taylor]

:grouphug4:

Lets just say that I have been around long enough and heard enough and read enough to know when piety is being used. Some recognize it, others don't...or choose not to. Forums are a good place for this type of posting because it is not face to face, people can hide behind their words and say, 'you misunderstand' or 'thats not what I meant', etc. If you don't see any of the things I mentioned, good for you! However there are others who don't feel that way and themselves feel as if they are on the receiving end of such abuse.

Biblical and EGW 'use abuse' are quite widespread in the forums. One of the reasons I take very little seriously when the quoting starts.There are a few posters that I listen too, just wished they posted more.

I agree that people who quote extensively from EGW can be abusive however, it isn't allways the case. "Abuse" is hard to define as some people are very sensitive to anyone disagreeing with them. But abuse, in my opinion is when someone is "slammed" for believing the way they do, with comments such as "well you sure are dense to not see that, or you are willfully not wanting to understand that.." Those are judgement statements that should never be made as we can never know the motives of the other person.

[there buster]

Abuse is not that hard to define, if people want it defined.

Abuse is attacking or belittling a person, their character, or their motives. Disagreement is not abuse.

If 'sensitivity' becomes part of the definition, then there is no definition. Claiming to be offended is entirely within the power of the one making the claim. A person can claim to be offended if everyone doesn't immediately concur. They can claim to be offended if their belief that the moon is made of green cheese is not treated with sufficient reverence.

In practice, concerns about 'sensitivity' become concerns about the most 'sensitive,' and therefore the most abusive poster.

Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan." Not sensitive.

[Tom Wetmore]

TU

[John317]

I have seen people strongly disagree here when actually they were in agreement but it took a while for it to come out, so give the person who is posting some time to develop or explain what they are trying to say and you might be surprised to find that you agree with them.

On the other hand, I think people should be able to post their opinions or convictions and not be slammed for them, while others can still present their truth as they see it as well. It isn't bigoted to be strongly convicted of something and it isn't personal when someone takes an opposite conviction of your conviction.

I strongly agree with you, Taylor. Thank you for your comments.

[John317]

Quote:

You just need to sound pious and all will be copacetic.

yup

Do you approve or disapprove of the rules and guidelines?

Anything that you would change, delete or add?

[there buster]

Quote:

Do you approve or disapprove of the rules and guidelines?

Rules and guidelines are necessary, but by their nature, they are passive. In practice, they mean whatever the moderators say they mean.

Rules have been promulgated, or at least suggested before. If they didn't resolve the problems, why will another set of rules accomplish what others have not?

[Bravus]

In a sense it's true to say that in practice the rules mean whatever the moderators treat them as meaning, but I think it's also true to say that these guidelines are only being promulgated to the moderators as an accountability and openness measure, and that that's something new in itself. I'm in general terms more comfortable with Stan's older approach of being as unspecific as possible and leaving it up to goodwill and common sense, but there seem to be many calling for chapter and verse and a more legal approach, so outlining the rules fits in with that.

But the bottom line is that the rules are there as guidelines for all posters, and that the moderators can never make the forum work: it's up to all posters. Moderation here is not an active, post-by-post, 24/7 process, it is a reactive process to various excesses. And we readily admit that it's fallible. So what is going to change the forum is a change in how people post, not a change in how the moderators moderate. The rules and guidelines are, in a sense, a plea rather than the handing down of a couple of stone tablets from the Mount. (We already have those.)

I read something interesting in a motorbike magazine a couple of days ago. The research shows that it's best to set the speed limit in an area at the 85th percentile of the speed that peoplewould naturally travel in that area if there was no speed limit. That is, 85% of drivers will travel at that speed or slower. Most drivers have a pretty good sense of what is a safe and reasonable speed in a particular area, and would abide by that even without a speed limit. The speed limit is for the 15% without either the sense to know what is safe or the self-control to do it.

[there buster]

Quote:

So what is going to change the forum is a change in how people post, not a change in how the moderators moderate. The rules and guidelines are, in a sense, a plea . . . . for the 15% without either the sense to know what is safe or the self-control to do it.

A plea for the 15% without the sense. . . or self control to do it.

Good luck with that.

[John317]

.... Most drivers have a pretty good sense of what is a safe and reasonable speed in a particular area, and would abide by that even without a speed limit. The speed limit is for the 15% without either the sense to know what is safe or the self-control to do it.

That's says it exactly.

Two main reasons for the rules is that we recently experienced some things that probably wouldn't have happened, at least for as long as they did, if we had these rules in place; and also, there have been requests to see more specific rules. It would be good if we could get by with just the golden rule, but there are some who have called for "chapter and verse and a more legal approach," as you say.

[there buster]

Quote:

what does that say about this being a Christian forum.

Christians come in all stages of development. One of the proper tasks of more mature believers is discipling--which comes from exactly the same root as "discipline." No discipline, no discipling.

Discipline does not me punishment, but "showing the way." Interestingly, 'the way' is both the meaning of 'the Tao' and what early Christians called following Jesus. Before we were called Christians, we were known as 'followers of the way.' But one has to know the way before he/she can walk in it. And a 'plea' to walk in the way gives no guidance to those who do not know the way.

[Taylor]

Abuse is not that hard to define, if people want it defined.

Abuse is attacking or belittling a person, their character, or their motives. Disagreement is not abuse.

If 'sensitivity' becomes part of the definition, then there is no definition. Claiming to be offended is entirely within the power of the one making the claim. A person can claim to be offended if everyone doesn't immediately concur. They can claim to be offended if their belief that the moon is made of green cheese is not treated with sufficient reverence.

In practice, concerns about 'sensitivity' become concerns about the most 'sensitive,' and therefore the most abusive poster.

Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan." Not sensitive.

Exactly we can be so afraid of being "politically correct" that we can never stand for anything so I agree that disagreement isn't abuse..but belitting a person or their character or motives shouldn't be allowed.

[Stan]

Nothing like a simple set of basic rules is there?