Deep concerns about this board.

[Twilight]

I would like to express some deep concerns about this board.

I hope this is the appropriate place.

Recently I have had a couple of disagreements with moderator's who have a bias to certain views and against some of the traditional Adventist views that SDA's uphold doctrinally.

When seeking a way to discuss that, I find that there is no mechanism in place that a poster, who feels that he is not being treated fairly by a moderator because of this fundamental disagreement, or the owner of the board itself, can have a fair hearing.

If a moderator or the owner decides they do not like you, or you are disagreeing with them, you have absolutely no recourse but to either accept a ban if you raise issue with this, or leave the board.

Because of this, I think this board has a weakness in that it is founded on totalitarian principles, not democratic principles.

Hopefully this will be permitted as a discussion and not subjected to a totalitarian "removal". :-)

I would also like to see a mechanism for dialogue opened up, when issues are raised of this type.

At the moment, blanket commands and judgements seem to be the order of the day when disagreeing with those in "power".

Your thoughts?

A very concerned,

Mark :-)

PS.

This may get me banned from the board, but somebody has to speak up.

Christianity should always be practiced in the "light".

[Twilight]

There should be a forum where posters can challenge moderators behavior and the owners behavior.

Where the poster can engage with all the moderators and admins.

At the moment, it is trial by secret court it seems.

The question I ask, is, is this the Christian way of dealing with issues?

Should we place someone in a position where they are judged, without that person having any recourse to defend themselves?

Should we also have a situation, where threats from moderators, can be given and no recourse for making that threat public is presented?

[Twilight]

At the moment, moderators can take a "side" and effectually ban someone by using the smallest "justification" and there is nothing a poster can do.

How does that empower the posters on this board?

[Bravus]

I kind of hope this discussion gets a chance to play out, too.

One question, Mark. Where do you think this board came from in the first place?

[olger]

You make a valid point. Outside of Gail, John317, and Lifehiscost (not a moderator) this board has an observable moderator bias.

If you are a manchurian montanist monk practicing metaphysical mysticism you are a much better candidate for a moderator than, say, if you are an Amazing Facts graduate.

If you have angst against the precious truths that God gave the Advent Movement - you will instantly have many friends on here (including several moderators). If you love the doctrines of the church for their liberating power in Christ, you will experience resistance. Not to condemn, but to observe.

I believe it reveals a fundamental lack of identity who we are as a people. What do you think?

[Bravus]

Scroll down through the whole list of forums. The great majority are either unmoderated or moderated by the people you listed, olger. Others are moderated by people like A.G. Brito who is an absolute pillar of Adventist orthodoxy. Jerry Thomas moderates a few, and I don't know him well but think he's likewise.

Abelisle moderates a forum relating to the soccer world cup, which is finished for this year and won't be back for another 4. SivartM moderates a writing forum.

Is what you wrote above, then, reality or perception?

[olger]

Oh. Reality by a long shot !

Ps. (I still don't know who Angela Gossow is).

:^]

[Twilight]

You make a valid point. Outside of Gail, John317, and Lifehiscost (not a moderator) this board has an observable moderator bias.

If you are a manchurian montanist monk practicing metaphysical mysticism you are a much better candidate for a moderator than, say, if you are an Amazing Facts graduate.

If you have angst against the precious truths that God gave the Advent Movement - you will instantly have many friends on here (including several moderators). If you love the doctrines of the church for their liberating power in Christ, you will experience resistance. Not to condemn, but to observe.

I believe it reveals a fundamental lack of identity who we are as a people. What do you think?

I am beginning to suspect this is the case Olger.

When we have a system where a poster can be "policed" in the Soviet style, then that system will be abused.

I also recognise your concern that many of the moderators are openly oppossed to one or another of the Adventist fundamental beliefs.

Why do I share that concern?

When someone that does share those beliefs opposes someone who does not, it seems that the individual who is opposed to the SDA beliefs automatically becomes the "victim" and the person who defends the SDA position the "aggressor".

This I have personally felt has been the case whenever I disagree with someone who "reasons" against the gospel.

Any response to them is considered an attack by some moderators it seems.

But without a forum where this type of issue can be raised, that all parties are privy to, this doubt about this board will remain.

[Twilight]

I kind of hope this discussion gets a chance to play out, too.

One question, Mark. Where do you think this board came from in the first place?

I have absolutely no idea Bravus.

But as it claims to be the "unofficial Adventist Forum", it should come from an Adventist root.

Being then Adventist in its claims, why does it give position as moderator's to those that clearly do not hold the fundamental Adventist positions?

Liberalism gone mad perhaps?

[Twilight]

I agree totally though Olger, there does seem a bias of opinion on this board amongst some moderators that is against anyone holding to the foundational truths of our Church.

[Twilight]

Of course, if the spirit of openness is treasured by those that run this board, then this thread will engage in hearty debate.

But if not, it will be squashed forthwith.

[Gerr]

We have ALL kinds of un-orthodox views presented here in the forum and they are not banned except in egregious cases. So is it your views that are being questioned or your method of presentation that is being questioned?

[Bravus]

1. This forum came from the mind and hands of Stan Jensen. I hope he'll speak up in this thread, but he might not - he prefers to stay in the background, because he believes that his voice has forum owner would have a lot of power and he prefers the board to be owned by the community as a whole. But make no mistake - he thought up the idea, designed and built it, and maintains it. Given that, it is really not a democracy. Neither is it owned by the denomination. It is more like his own virtual home into which he has graciously invited all of us. He does not control what we talk about, but he does have to watch for those guests who spoil the party for others. He does that with two other site administrators, both orthodox SDAs and both very wise people who have been here from the first. The touch in general is light, and - despite what you may think - what is edited is not doctrine but behaviour. Editing and moderation are to maintain a safe discussion environment for all, not to support or challenge particular doctrinal positions. Maybe you think it should be otherwise, but to be frank, it's not your house. If this house doesn't suit you, you have the absolute right to build one of your own.

2. I suspect I'm one of the moderators olger speaks of - possibly even the only one - although I moderate only one subforum and that reluctantly. On the balance of all the forums and all the moderators here, though, I believe olger's claim is simply factually inaccurate: there are far more orthodox SDA moderators and they moderate far more forums. Willing to consider any evidence presented.

3. You (anyone reading this discussion) may wish to visit or revisit the 'Moderating the Origins Forum' thread in the Origins forum for a detailed multipage discussion of how moderators are chosen here and all the relevant issues in relation to moderators, their role and their actions. I won't reiterate those points here, except to note that moderators are volunteers who serve the community.

[Twilight]

We have ALL kinds of un-orthodox views presented here in the forum and they are not banned except in egregious cases. So is it your views that are being questioned or your method of presentation that is being questioned?

That is a good question Gerry.

Which validates the point.

This is the first time any attempt at discussion has been made about this.

And I would expect any issue between a moderator and a poster to be engaged in this manner.

But there is no engagement in my experience.

My experience has been basically:

You are wrong, stop doing it or you will be banned.

Which obviously shows no inclination to communicate about the issue.

A mechanism where this type of dialogue could take place, as you have initiated here, does not exist on UAF.

That is my point.

I may well have been wrong.

I may have woken up with a sore head one day.

I may also be reacting to a continously negative response from one individual who is now a moderater and seeking to settle "old scores".

But without dialogue, how can that be ascertained?

And that is the problem here.

The moderator's exercise control in a totalitarian manner, that allows no dialogue.

Especially open dialogue with witnesses.

[Bravus]

I know that a number of other forums I frequent have 'Site Discussion' subforums on which these kinds of issues can be discussed. I'd be happy for such a venue to exist here.

It's worth remembering again that moderators are volunteers with lives, though: endless circular 'questioning the umpire's call' discussions will take away from their time actually reading and posting in the forum - which is the only recompense they get for their work.

[Twilight]

1. This forum came from the mind and hands of Stan Jensen. I hope he'll speak up in this thread, but he might not - he prefers to stay in the background, because he believes that his voice has forum owner would have a lot of power and he prefers the board to be owned by the community as a whole. But make no mistake - he thought up the idea, designed and built it, and maintains it. Given that, it is really not a democracy.

Do you not see the inconsistency here with your argument Bravus?

Stan on the one hand wants the community to take responsibility.

But on the other hand it is "his sandpit", so he can do as he likes.

This is your argument.

It is either a democracy or it isn't.

If UAF is a place where you are not allowed to disagree or challenge the owner of the site, but must abide by his decisions, no matter what, then it is a totalitarian environment ultimately.

If it was my site, I would want to be held up to the same rules and restrictions the rest of the community were held up to.

Including the moderator's.

If I could not do that, I would not run the site as it would betray my Christian principles.

[Bravus]

Anyway, it's sleep time here in the Antipodes. Guess I'll see where the discussion has got to by the time I wake up...

[Twilight]

Anyway, it's sleep time here in the Antipodes. Guess I'll see where the discussion has got to by the time I wake up...

Probably the bin, if it is a totalitarian board we have here...

[Twilight]

I know that a number of other forums I frequent have 'Site Discussion' subforums on which these kinds of issues can be discussed. I'd be happy for such a venue to exist here.

It's worth remembering again that moderators are volunteers with lives, though: endless circular 'questioning the umpire's call' discussions will take away from their time actually reading and posting in the forum - which is the only recompense they get for their work.

A moderator or even the owner, should not be able to exert power over a poster, without any open discussion.

Any moderator worth his salt, would be capable of having their moderation held up to public inspection.

Currently, this is not the case.

A moderator can operate out of a vendetta against a poster, who has disagreed with them consistently and nothing is in place to call that moderator into question, where the poster has opportunity to express their views.

[Bravus]

Sorry, had to capture this before my brain would let me sleep!

Do you not see the inconsistency here with your argument Bravus?

Stan on the one hand wants the community to take responsibility.

But on the other hand it is "his sandpit", so he can do as he likes.

This is your argument.

It is either a democracy or it isn't.

If UAF is a place where you are not allowed to disagree or challenge the owner of the site, but must abide by his decisions, no matter what, then it is a totalitarian environment ultimately.

If it was my site, I would want to be held up to the same rules and restrictions the rest of the community were held up to.

Including the moderator's.

If I could not do that, I would not run the site as it would betray my Christian principles.

Oh, you have misunderstood. I wasn't making an argument, I was explaining as clearly as I can how it is. That's it.

There is, however, an inconsistency in *your* argument: you want a democracy, apparently, but you want SDA beliefs to have a special protected status. But that's not how a community works - a community is made up of a wide variety of different members with different views, and with all those views being discussed.

You need to recognise that moderation is based on behaviour, not doctrine.

The fact that I, as poster, raise issues about recent creationism does not mean that I, as a moderator, suppress other views. If you can bring clear and specific evidence of a moderator moderating a discussion based on a doctrinal position to Stan in a PM, something will definitely happen.

If, however, your posts are moderated on the basis of your behaviour by a moderator with a different view from yours, you need to recognise what's really going on.

And, of course, moderators are human and imperfect and sometimes make mistakes. Take it up with them in a PM and most times they will explain their decision and correct their mistake. If you don't get satisfaction there you can take it up with Stan.

Be clear, though: the fact that there are moderators here who disagree with you on doctrinal points is not, in itself, a problem.

Rather, it's one of the strengths of this community.

[Twilight]

I personally will accept counsel from Godly men.

But I will not be "bullied" into submission.

If I am fault, engage with me and communicate with me.

But if someone is going to just exercise "power" and try to silence me using force, then expect a reaction.

All my dealings with moderator's so far have smacked of "bullying", exercise of inappropriate force..

Not once has counsel been offered amongst a group of people...

Christians are supposed to sit down and discuss issues.

Not cast out Pharoahs commandments...

:-)

[Stan]

Like minded people will always be viewed as unbiased.

[Bravus]

Any moderator worth his salt, would be capable of having their moderation held up to public inspection.

Yes. And did you read my post that you quoted?

In the first paragraph I called for just such discussion.

In the second I reminded you (and everyone) that such discussion might be limited by the time of those participating.

Before making more accusations, stop and have a think about who moderators are and what they do and why they are here. Hint: it's not for a power trip and it's not to evangelise for particular views.

[Twilight]

Sorry, had to capture this before my brain would let me sleep!

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Do you not see the inconsistency here with your argument Bravus?

Stan on the one hand wants the community to take responsibility.

But on the other hand it is "his sandpit", so he can do as he likes.

This is your argument.

It is either a democracy or it isn't.

If UAF is a place where you are not allowed to disagree or challenge the owner of the site, but must abide by his decisions, no matter what, then it is a totalitarian environment ultimately.

If it was my site, I would want to be held up to the same rules and restrictions the rest of the community were held up to.

Including the moderator's.

If I could not do that, I would not run the site as it would betray my Christian principles.

Oh, you have misunderstood. I wasn't making an argument, I was explaining as clearly as I can how it is. That's it.

There is, however, an inconsistency in *your* argument: you want a democracy, apparently, but you want SDA beliefs to have a special protected status. But that's not how a community works - a community is made up of a wide variety of different members with different views, and with all those views being discussed.

You need to recognise that moderation is based on behaviour, not doctrine.

The fact that I, as poster, raise issues about recent creationism does not mean that I, as a moderator, suppress other views. If you can bring clear and specific evidence of a moderator moderating a discussion based on a doctrinal position to Stan in a PM, something will definitely happen.

If, however, your posts are moderated on the basis of your behaviour by a moderator with a different view from yours, you need to recognise what's really going on.

And, of course, moderators are human and imperfect and sometimes make mistakes. Take it up with them in a PM and most times they will explain their decision and correct their mistake. If you don't get satisfaction there you can take it up with Stan.

Be clear, though: the fact that there are moderators here who disagree with you on doctrinal points is not, in itself, a problem.

Rather, it's one of the strengths of this community.

I am sorry, I thought this board was a place where Adventists come and can engage and discuss with non-adventists their views and beliefs.

I thought that it was supposed to be a democratic Adventist board.

If if is not, that should be made clear and it should not call itself an Adventist board...

As to taking up the problem with moderators.

How does that help?

The whole point I have made is that a single moderator can decide what he likes and you have to hope that that person is not "owners" friend and appeal to the "emporer".

One man should never hold judgement and power over another.

That is a Christian principal.

Anyone seeking to do so, should question why.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Any moderator worth his salt, would be capable of having their moderation held up to public inspection.

Yes. And did you read my post that you quoted?

In the first paragraph I called for just such discussion.

In the second I reminded you (and everyone) that such discussion might be limited by the time of those participating.

Before making more accusations, stop and have a think about who moderators are and what they do and why they are here. Hint: it's not for a power trip and it's not to evangelise for particular views.

I do not think any of us should judge why any particular person is here, unless we know their heart like God does Bravus.

I also observed your original response, but the last post you made you justified a "moderator" and "emperor" system, you seemed to be supporting the current system, which I think is totally wrong.

So I am a little unclear what your true position is?

Mark :-)