Deep concerns about this board.

[Twilight]

Like minded people will always be viewed as unbiased.

Every single one of us has a bias, anyone who does not know this, does not understand themselves.

That is why moderation needs a system where bias can be filtered out through the counsel of many.

[Twilight]

The current system pits one Bias against another, with the one in power holding the upper hand.

[Stan]

Each moderator has the right to set the tone in his/her forum. That is just how it is and how it shall remain.

[Stan]

it comes back to the personal choice of communication

it can be

conversational

or

confrontational

[Stan]

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

That is a great way to package it.

[Twilight]

It seems totalitarianism is here to stay then Stan.

Your sandpit, your rules, at least we all know where we stand.

As to being direct.

Can you display from the Bible, where directness when presenting truth is a sin?

Or can you show where confrontation of error is sin?

Because if it was, then Ellen White, Paul, Peter and Jesus were all guilty of being direct at times and therefore would have been guilty of "sin", in this matter.

I wonder if they would have been "moderated"?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Maybe that is the problem with the liberal movement in the church, they have itching ears and do not like anyone stating anything "directly".

But want to wrap "error" up in a warm fuzzy blanket and give it a cuddle...

And anyone that does become direct with error, gets the whip...

:-)

[Twilight]

Maybe this board has become pro-liberal to such an extent that those that hold to to the traditional values are made to feel unwelcome here.

Such as myself.

[Twilight]

And yes Stan, you and other moderators have made me feel unwelcome here.

[John317]

I would ask for the post numbers and the name of the threads where posts were made which are thought to be bad enough for the poster to be banned, etc. Can anyone tell what those posts are and what rules of the forum were broken by them?

[John317]

The following rules were accepted by almost all the moderators and administrators:

Rules For Members Appeal To Moderators--

If it is believed that any moderator is not abiding by the rules, the issue may be taken up in the moderators forum where all moderators can discuss the issue and come to a resolution. Any moderator may introduce a question or issue to the moderator's forum for a general discussion.

If members believe a moderator has treated them unfairly, they may appeal to a moderator by means of PM, and if a moderator decides that the appeal has merit and should be heard by all the moderators, he may bring the appeal to the attention of a second moderator. If both moderators agree that it is an issue deserving of the attention of all the moderators, they should then move the issue to the moderator's forum for all the moderators to discuss and resolve.

While it will not be necessary for all the moderators to take part in the discussion, yet in order to ensure fairness and objectivity, there should be no less than 4 moderators and 1 administrator who understand the issue and agree as to a solution.

Moderators should try to resolve the issue within 3 days of the time that it is introduced on the moderator's Forum.

No one should lose their posting privileges, or moderator's privileges, until the issue is decided on the moderator's forum.

[fccool]

Can you display from the Bible, where directness when presenting truth is a sin?

Or can you show where confrontation of error is sin?

Mark, I know which posts you are talking about , and I'm with you on these.

Yet, I think every discussion should be a debate on issues, instead of personal demagoguery. It's easy to resort to "you have no Spirit so you don't understand" defense, and I see it frequently invoked (not direct reference to you) instead of actually going through those issues and talking about these in a rational manner. I think, in this case the moderators are right to steer the discussion back to issues instead of personal claims to know something better because of immeasurable spiritual advantage.

It's sort of hard to keep the discussion going when certain questions are being asked, and then answered by vague reference to scripture which are left unexplained, or by a call such as "God gives understanding only if you already believe that this passage is the truth". It makes little sense to have a discussion at all. Why not just lay out the rules of "Bible is always right, I understand the Bible so I'm arguing from perspective of the truth... therefore if you disagree with me, you argue from opposite perspective... i.e. a lie"? Would be much easier that way .

[skyblue888]

My experience on this board has been that behaviour or attitude rather than what one holds as truth is "moderated". I would certainly raise my voice as you are doing right now, Mark, if it could be shown that this board does not allow freedom of expresion or of belief.

sky

[Tom Wetmore]

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?

Originally Posted By: Bravus

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

Gentlemen, you hit the nail most squarely on its head!

[Gordon1]

Because if it was, then Ellen White, Paul, Peter and Jesus were all guilty of being direct at times and therefore would have been guilty of "sin", in this matter.

I wonder if they would have been "moderated"?

Mark :-)

Hi Mark,

These people were all moderated - beaten, scourged, crucified or sent away as in EGW to Australia. Yet they raised no protest for themselves. If you have the Truth, then let it be known - bring it forth. Repeat it. Let it not be an issue about Mark and his feelings. There are enough 'victims' here. For all one can see, Christ never argued a point - debate is not a Christian talent.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1) I truly think the Mods and Admins do a good job here. (I even learned that goats need to wear clothes.. [tic])

2) I also think that many members feel like they have to tiptoe around certain other members, or risk being reprimanded. That said, some members come across like bulls in a china closet.

3) I also think that, in general, a non-Adventist coming to this forum and perusing the threads, would likely *not* get an idea of what Adventism espouses. And I think that's a direct result of having a forum based on behavior and not on substance. But I (usually) do not have a problem with that.

4) But it *is* Stan's forum and it is his to run as he chooses. Members are guests....hmm...or are members actually "customers" since most pay to *be* members?? ..hadn't thought of it that way before.

5) An interesting sidelight that I've noticed over the course of my long and winding road of life thus far: non-Christians tend to be kinder and more tolerant than Christians towards people with opposing views.

6) There comes a time in a discussion where one needs to shake the dust from one's shoes, and move on, i.e., for me, discussions with strident pro-lifers are in that category.

7) I reserve the right to research assertions made in the forum and post what I have found.

8) I am very happy that "smilies" are allowed.

9) I have made an extraordinary number of good friends here. Even if we don't see eye-to-eye.

10) I sure hope I can get my studded snow tires on my car tomorrow.

[Twilight]

Thats fine Rudy, as long as we all recognise that this is not a board where we can expect any justice when an issue with a moderator comes up.

Quite simply because there is no mechanism for such a thing on this board and clearly Stan is opposed to having such a system as he has expressed on here.

Imagine going to church and the Elder accuses you of something.

The board meets, decides you are guilty, without you being permitted to address the board.

What kind of "church" would that be.

But that is exactly the principles that seem "unimpeachable" on this board.

What is wrong with having a community where people can question those who have been given responsibility?

And can appeal against that.

That is currently not the case.

If you disagree with the treatment of a moderator, you can go to Stan, if he disagrees, then thats it.

My concern also is that we have this "emperor" mindset where we say:

"It is okay for Stan to be an emperor".

Its his board.

Surely this is Gods board that Stan has been gifted with.

But those that are happy to kowtow, good luck with that.

I am a Christian, not someones "serf".

The only person I bow down to is Jesus Christ.... :-)

[Bravus]

The thread has been open for about 12 hours or so, and Stan has posted a number of times - and the thread has not been shut down. Will you, Mark/Twilight, now withdraw your inflammatory language about totalitarianism? You set up the test yourself: if this was a totalitarian board, this thread would be binned. And it hasn't.

Many good points have been made overnight.

Please read the following carefully. It is not an attack or a matter of making you feel unwelcome:

This board has run very successfully in its current form for many years. It is supported by members, many of whom pay a small monthly contribution to its upkeep. I don't know whether you pay as a regular member - while that is to some extent relevant to having a say in the site, your voice would still be one among many members, and the majority of members like the board the way it is.

You apparently don't like the board the way it is, and want to change it. Perhaps the title, or your own assumptions, have given you a mistaken sense of how the board should be and was intended to be. Or perhaps you just want it to be the way you want it.

You can keep trying to change this board, but that will be a frustrating and ultimately futile task - Stan likes it the way it is, and the great majority of members like it the way it is. So whether it's a benign dictatorship or a democracy, it's likely to stay the way it is.

So you have a couple of choices - you can stay here, and accept that it's the way it is. Or you can either go and find, or go and establish, another board that fits the way you think it should be. Stan had that right, and he exercised it.

I'll go further, to make life even easier: if you like, I will build a new board for you, using my skills, on a server I pay for. If you want to give it a certain domain name, you'll have to find and pay for that, but I'll set it up, host it, make it the way you want it, and then give you the administrator password. It will be your forum entirely, I will take no active role in it (I'll reserve the right to delete porn spam if any appears, to protect my own server space). You can run that forum exactly as you wish in all respects.

I'll understand if that is not attractive to you, but the offer is there.

In the mean time, as I say, trying to change this forum away from the way it has operated so successfully for so long is unlikely to be satisfying or successful.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Because if it was, then Ellen White, Paul, Peter and Jesus were all guilty of being direct at times and therefore would have been guilty of "sin", in this matter.

I wonder if they would have been "moderated"?

Mark :-)

Hi Mark,

These people were all moderated - beaten, scourged, crucified or sent away as in EGW to Australia. Yet they raised no protest for themselves. If you have the Truth, then let it be known - bring it forth. Repeat it. Let it not be an issue about Mark and his feelings. There are enough 'victims' here. For all one can see, Christ never argued a point - debate is not a Christian talent.

This is not an issue about me.

I may well have been wrong on the thread in question.

But what is wrong here, is that a poster has no recourse on this board to question a moderator.

No means of appeal.

If he disagrees, he has to hope the "moderator" will raise it with the other moderators.

That is not a Christian system.

All should be held to accountability.

If someone thinks they are above any accountability, then they have sinned.

They have taken the head of the table, like the apostles attempted to and want to sit as a "king".

But I am sure we don't want to hear that here.

That is me being too "direct" again. :-)

[Twilight]

My experience on this board has been that behaviour or attitude rather than what one holds as truth is "moderated". I would certainly raise my voice as you are doing right now, Mark, if it could be shown that this board does not allow freedom of expresion or of belief.

sky

Say something direct to some people on some boards and watch what happens Sky.

Offend a moderators friend (even though it was a plain expression of fact and the persons name was mentioned), and you are warned you will soon be "on the outside looking in", when you disagree with their assesment.

When you are "moderated" and then try to find a route of appeal, there is nothing for you.

As can be seen on this thread, Stan has already said that the current system stays and in effect indicated that a forum where a poster can appeal to what they percieve is possible victimisation against a viewpoint, is not going to happen..

No discussion, no rationalisation.

Just a:

Thus saith the moderator. :-)

[Twilight]

You see the issue is, that some do not like my "direct" method of posting.

The fact I go straight for the core of the argument when I respond to a post.

And I am not frightened to say they are wrong and explain why.

That is not acceptable here it seems on some forums.

Note, I have not personally said anything offensive to someone about their character, but I have challenged their arguments.

And if there arguments are sound, then that challenge shouldn't be a problem.

The mere fact I am challenging an anti-Christian argument directly has resulted in this current situation.

If I say:

Sky, I do not think you are correct on this and that you are teaching something that is oppossed to the fundamental beliefs of the church, and I think this because of this reason etc...

Then I am "attacking" them.

But notice this, no discussion, no means to appeal, just a "thus saith the moderator".

That is not a Christian principle, as we both know.

The minute someone becomes unaccountable and untouchable we see the spirit of the papacy in our actions...

We see men making themselves kings with no means for that to be challenged.

I maintain, openly.

That anyone providing a Christian community must themselves be held accountable by that community, otherwise it breaks the spirit of Christianity and is no longer a Christian community.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

The thread has been open for about 12 hours or so, and Stan has posted a number of times - and the thread has not been shut down. Will you, Mark/Twilight, now withdraw your inflammatory language about totalitarianism? You set up the test yourself: if this was a totalitarian board, this thread would be binned. And it hasn't.

Many good points have been made overnight.

Please read the following carefully. It is not an attack or a matter of making you feel unwelcome:

This board has run very successfully in its current form for many years. It is supported by members, many of whom pay a small monthly contribution to its upkeep. I don't know whether you pay as a regular member - while that is to some extent relevant to having a say in the site, your voice would still be one among many members, and the majority of members like the board the way it is.

You apparently don't like the board the way it is, and want to change it. Perhaps the title, or your own assumptions, have given you a mistaken sense of how the board should be and was intended to be. Or perhaps you just want it to be the way you want it.

You can keep trying to change this board, but that will be a frustrating and ultimately futile task - Stan likes it the way it is, and the great majority of members like it the way it is. So whether it's a benign dictatorship or a democracy, it's likely to stay the way it is.

So you have a couple of choices - you can stay here, and accept that it's the way it is. Or you can either go and find, or go and establish, another board that fits the way you think it should be. Stan had that right, and he exercised it.

I'll go further, to make life even easier: if you like, I will build a new board for you, using my skills, on a server I pay for. If you want to give it a certain domain name, you'll have to find and pay for that, but I'll set it up, host it, make it the way you want it, and then give you the administrator password. It will be your forum entirely, I will take no active role in it (I'll reserve the right to delete porn spam if any appears, to protect my own server space). You can run that forum exactly as you wish in all respects.

I'll understand if that is not attractive to you, but the offer is there.

In the mean time, as I say, trying to change this forum away from the way it has operated so successfully for so long is unlikely to be satisfying or successful.

You are very inconsistent here Bravus.

Earlier in this thread you stated that a sub-forum to discuss this type of issue was a good idea.

Now you are saying that my attempt to rectify a totalitarian type system is incorrect.

That I should basically go elsewhere.

What is it Bravus?

Do you think accountability is important?

Because you seem to be changing your argument?

I maintain:

If this is a Christian board, then everyone should be accountable.

Every single person, moderator or even the owner.

It currently is not the case.

And if we have to advise a poster to go elsewhere, when a voice rises from the floor with concerns, then the Spirit of the Lord is not in this place.

[Twilight]

The other point is this Bravus.

The moment you put the name "Adventist" on the door, you are claiming to be an Adventist organisation.

When that happens, you can be expected to be held accountable to those that are "Adventists".

You can of course try to ride those people out of town, but that does not stop you being accountable for using that name.

It also makes you accountable for the principles you organise yourself with.

If they do not reflect Adventist principles, then it is not Adventist.

It is something else.

[Twilight]

Remember, the basic argument that I have made is this:

A poster should be able to appeal against a decision of a moderator, in a public arena.

And all the users of the board, including the owner should be subject to Christian accountability to the other members of the community.

[Twilight]

It is interesting that even making such an argument results in people advising you to "leave"...