Deep concerns about this board.

[Gail]

Quote:

No discussion, no rationalisation.

Just a:

Thus saith the moderator. :-)

Sometimes that is just the way it is... for good or for bad.

This has been a great discussion and I thank ALL of you for keeping it civil. Even if a full consenses is not reached I have found it valuable.

I think that Bravus has essentially stated the facts well, but Pam and Gerry have added thoughts that popped into my mind also.

Here is my contribution:

- Generally all across the board it is behaviour that is being moderated here more than points of view- ie. I don't agree with all that skyblue posts, but I consider him a valued member. But there have been times when he has been (moderated) and he has cooperated with us graciously.

To be continued-

[Bravus]

Nope.

What I'm trying to do in this thread, whether you recognise it or not, is to actually be helpful and address the concerns you raise. In that context I am suggesting multiple different possible solutions.

I still like the idea of adding a 'Site Discussion' forum to this site where these issues can be discussed. There are a few caveats, which are discussed in my next post.

I also suggested the possibility of another forum - and specifically said that that offer was *not* a suggestion that you should leave. It was an offer - and, if you know anything about hosting forums, quite a generous one - to try to help resolve your concerns.

There may be still other suggestions I offer. They're not all going to be logically consistent with one another because they're alternatives. Accept one or reject them all... all that can be done in response to concerns is to offer possible solution options.

[Twilight]

Quote:

No discussion, no rationalisation.

Just a:

Thus saith the moderator. :-)

Sometimes that is just the way it is... for good or for bad.

This has been a great discussion and I thank ALL of you for keeping it civil. Even if a full consenses is not reached I have found it valuable.

I think that Bravus has essentially stated the facts well, but Pam and Gerry have added thoughts that popped into my mind also.

Here is my contribution:

- Generally all across the board it is behaviour that is being moderated here more than points of view- ie. I don't agree with all that skyblue posts, but I consider him a valued member. But there have been times when he has been (moderated) and he has cooperated with us graciously.

To be continued-

But whose behaviour Gail.

That is the issue.

The only behaviour that is being moderated is the posters.

This is not about co-operating graciously.

Why should a Christian co-operate with injustice within a Christian community?

A system that does not protect a poster from a moderator, is not something to be held up.

[Bravus]

It's impossible to play a game in any sport if every call of the umpire is questioned and must be discussed at length. The game just stops.

At some point, the judgement of the umpire has to be respected, simply because s/he is in that role. In fact, in sport, even if a call is demonstrably wrong (based on video evidence for example), the umpire's decision stands. The umpire will learn and do better next time.

Take that by way of preamble to the discussion of a 'Site Discussion' forum in which it would be possible for posters to question the actions of moderators. And there are three more points:

1. Sometimes posts are removed by a moderator because their content is either legally actionable or simply extremely rude and offensive. It would not be appropriate for that content to remain available for public access. It ought to be possible to talk *about* such a post without quoting it verbatim. The point is, the institution of this forum ought not to invalidate the very activity of moderation by providing an alternative forum in which the same material is aired.

2. One person's 'direct' is another person's 'offensive'. Like it or not, these are subjective matters. In the final analysis, a call has to be made and abided by. Bringing more thoughts and more voices in can be valuable in contentious cases - it can get us from subjective to intersubjective judgements - but not everyone is going to agree, and something has to stand, not be discussed in circular fashion forever.

3. One doesn't get to choose who participates in such discussions, or whose voices have weight. Those with whom one disagrees will also weigh in if they have a view.

I still think such a forum is a worthwhile idea, and is workable, with goodwill on the part of all concerned.

One further point:

4. I believe that if such a forum was created it should be invisible to the search engine bots, meaning it is not able to be searched on the web, and that it should be open to paying members only. Those who support this site have a stake in this site. I know this last is controversial, but it's what I believe is fair. People ought to put their money where their mouth is.

[Twilight]

But what is interesting here Gail, about your response and others, is this:

I have continously made the case that a Christian community should be held accountable to the whole community, including leaders.

This is a biblical principle.

And a Seventh Day Adventist principle.

Yet not one of you so far, has even attempted to deny that.

Why is it you are all so comfortable with the idea that this community should not run on Christian principles?

Has your loyalty to your friends blinded you to the righteousness of my argument?

That is my sense of the situation here.

That this is about loyalty to Stan, rather than Christian Principle.

Ask yourself that question.

Are you denying Christian principle in a misguided attempt to support your friend?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

It's impossible to play a game in any sport if every call of the umpire is questioned and must be discussed at length. The game just stops.

But Sport is about two sides competing.

This is supposed to be a Christian Community, founded on Christian principles.

And in a Christian community, everyone is accountable.

This is about principle Bravus.

Christian principle.

[Gail]

Continued-

-Semi-private fora can be heavily moderated or more freedom granted, depending on what the "vision" the moderator has for it. Tom and teresaq both have particular ideas on what they would like to see and I am interested, too. I am enjoying the results.

- Full moderation is where each and every post goes under the scrutiny of the moderator before even being posted onto the board. Although full moderation has not been used here, I have seen it in action where it has worked well. But, in such an environment a member really is under the mercy of the moderator. It is another option.

- Subscribing members:

Generally we find that members who do help out with administration costs do take "ownership" of the site and seldom prove problematic. God bless them! Most of the headaches that have arisen involve non-subscribing members. And I am not sure why that is- a paid subscription doesn't provide official shares in the site AND there has been the odd paying member that we have said goodbye to. The subscription primarily gives extra technical perks such as more PMs and permissions to more fun fora.

To be continued again!

[Twilight]

We are supposed to be Christians.

We are a community that answers to God.

And God has given us guidance on how to organise ourselves.

A totalitarian system, is not that system.

Talk about a "lone voice crying in the wilderness"...

If this board is not founded on Christian principles, then it is not a Christian board and should not pretend to be.

It is a social board that talks about Christian things, that is run by an owner and his friends, who have their own rules that are not derived from Gospel order.

[Twilight]

I was a paying member by the way Gail...

[Twilight]

Until this afternoon, when I decided I could no longer support a board that was not run on Christian Principles.

[Bravus]

Sorry, I modified my post above about umpire's calls with a lot more detail about the idea of a 'Site Discussion' forum: please read and respond.

Incidentally, the rule structure that John317 quoted earlier in this thread was modeled on the Matthew 18 model of Christian conflict resolution: if you have an issue with a moderator, got first to the individual. If not satisfied there, take it to 2-3 others. I agree with you that making that next step the prerogative of the moderator only is not a good model. We're always open to better ways of doing things.

[Gail]

Another point is that no one enjoys being moderated. A person's posts are their babies. To edit them is like crushing THEM. I realise that.

Sometimes I say to someone who is having a problem, "Listen to what people are telling you." There could be rational counsel being offered from different directions and there is one person that is just not getting it. I'm not saying that the person has to agree, but a, "I hear ya, brother" goes a long way in getting to the place where folks can agree to disagree and still receive respect.

[Gail]

Until this afternoon, when I decided I could no longer support a board that was not run on Christian Principles.

And I appreciate your viewpoint :)

[Twilight]

You have not been able to prove that and many have given you proof of the opposite, which you do not accept. I believe that is part of the issue here. You are not accepting of others positions but want them to accept yours.

I answer this post with the full awareness that you are consistently hostile to most posts I make CoAspen.

I have already proven that this board does not run on Christian principle.

But I will lay it out again for you:

1. In a Christian community, everyone is accountable.

2. In a Christian community, everyone should be able to appeal against anothers behaviour.

3. In a Christian community, no single person should set themselves up as king over another.

These three points have all been broken by the current system this board operates.

As has been clearly displayed on this thread.

You may deny that if you wish, but it does not take this simple truth away, or stop it being the truth.

[Twilight]

I agree with you that making that next step the prerogative of the moderator only is not a good model. We're always open to better ways of doing things.

Thank you Bravus.

This is exactly the point I am making and seeking for others to understand.

Let us say that I had been pulled up.

Then appealed.

Made my case before a council.

Listened to their counsel and decision, and discussed that.

I would have at least had a hearing for my concerns.

And I would not have had to resort to a public appeal against the decision.

That public appeal of course broke the rules, but when the rules conflict with my sense of Christian principle, I had to disregard those rules.

Now the question is, do the moderator's and ownder respect that a man must sometimes go against the flow to maintain his principles?

[Twilight]

Another point is that no one enjoys being moderated. A person's posts are their babies. To edit them is like crushing THEM. I realise that.

Sometimes I say to someone who is having a problem, "Listen to what people are telling you." There could be rational counsel being offered from different directions and there is one person that is just not getting it. I'm not saying that the person has to agree, but a, "I hear ya, brother" goes a long way in getting to the place where folks can agree to disagree and still receive respect.

The problem with this Gail, is when a moderator says something along the lines of:

"You are wrong and if you continue to disagree, you are out of here."

The current system does not allow for moderation and counsel, unless the moderator is very humble, as in the case of John317 who I deeply respect.

A true Christian system allows all sides to be heard and allows genuine "counsel" to take place.

For instance, I know I am very direct.

But I do not see that as a sin, because directness is something that God engages in when oppossing error.

But some here think that directness is a sin.

So they would judge and condemn my behaviour, without any counsel, biblically supported of course, why that is wrong.

I stand a man with flaws and faults that Jesus is overcoming for me.

I recognise that.

But to just treat a man as if he is a dog and should sit when commanded, is the deepest insult you can lay on a soul...

[Gail]

We are supposed to be Christians.

We are a community that answers to God.

And God has given us guidance on how to organise ourselves.

A totalitarian system, is not that system.

Talk about a "lone voice crying in the wilderness"...

If this board is not founded on Christian principles, then it is not a Christian board and should not pretend to be.

It is a social board that talks about Christian things, that is run by an owner and his friends, who have their own rules that are not derived from Gospel order.

And you could very well be right about that. Stan would have to have the final word on it.

It sounds as though you have expectations that will not be realised here.

If this is not what you are seeking in your journey toward finding a social circle, then I am sorry. I have never asked you to leave at all, nor would I like you to. But your idea of what the site should be and what it is may be two different things. It may be that simple.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

We are supposed to be Christians.

We are a community that answers to God.

And God has given us guidance on how to organise ourselves.

A totalitarian system, is not that system.

Talk about a "lone voice crying in the wilderness"...

If this board is not founded on Christian principles, then it is not a Christian board and should not pretend to be.

It is a social board that talks about Christian things, that is run by an owner and his friends, who have their own rules that are not derived from Gospel order.

And you could very well be right about that. Stan would have to have the final word on it.

It sounds as though you have expectations that will not be realised here.

If this is not what you are seeking in your journey toward finding a social circle, then I am sorry. I have never asked you to leave at all, nor would I like you to. But your idea of what the site should be and what it is may be two different things. It may be that simple.

Then every Christian here needs to answer themselves this question:

Can I support a board that operates a system that is opposed to gospel order, Christian accountability, and operates the principles of satan, encouraging lordship of one over another?

[Twilight]

We should not seek to sit as kings over our brethren!

[Bravus]

Please do feel free to outline, clearly and in detail, an alternative model that is actually workable within the constraints that operate. You have outlined your issues with the current model, but so far I have not heard a description of a better alternative.

[Gail]

I think he has given some :)

[Amelia]

Right on the money Bravus. This is a circle we have gone round and round before.

I would like to point out that everyone on the board is more than welcome to take issue with any moderation of this board. One thing we ask is that it be done via PM. When posting a PM, you can add as many members as you want to be involved. But it stays private. Honestly, we have young people visit here. Do you really want them to see thread after thread of rants? We need to be uplifting not deconstructing.

We have rules regarding how we treat each other. Sadly, we shouldn't have those rules because we should all treat each other with respect, but we are human and a moody lot.

Also, this board hashes out rules on a regular basis. Stay tuned for that next go round.

Believe it or not, moderators are also moderated. So are the admins. We take each other to task but do it off the main board.

If every jot and tittle were to be argued here, this board wouldn't have room for Jesus.

[Twilight]

Please do feel free to outline, clearly and in detail, an alternative model that is actually workable within the constraints that operate. You have outlined your issues with the current model, but so far I have not heard a description of a better alternative.

You currently already have the system in place, just needs expanding.

A contended post or pm from a moderator that a poster has objected to is moved to another private board.

Here the moderator and poster express their concerns.

The other moderator's then can openly discuss the issue.

The poster can also invite another poster to the discussion that they feel would be a witness or support for them.

If other witnesses are needed, they can also be invited to the discussion to give evidence only.

When all points have been made, the moderators (not including the one at issue), vote and the judgement is binding on all parties.

This would follow gospel order.

All users, including moderator's and the owner would be held accountable by the system.

[Twilight]

Right on the money Bravus. This is a circle we have gone round and round before.

I would like to point out that everyone on the board is more than welcome to take issue with any moderation of this board. One thing we ask is that it be done via PM. When posting a PM, you can add as many members as you want to be involved. But it stays private. Honestly, we have young people visit here. Do you really want them to see thread after thread of rants? We need to be uplifting not deconstructing.

We have rules regarding how we treat each other. Sadly, we shouldn't have those rules because we should all treat each other with respect, but we are human and a moody lot.

Also, this board hashes out rules on a regular basis. Stay tuned for that next go round.

Believe it or not, moderators are also moderated. So are the admins. We take each other to task but do it off the main board.

If every jot and tittle were to be argued here, this board wouldn't have room for Jesus.

The current problem, as has been accepted by many here Amelia, is that a poster cannot raise issue against a moderator and discuss that issue with the other moderators.

They are excluded from the "court", judged and condemned, with no say whatsoever.

This is the criticism I am raising.

Mark :-)

[Gail]

I apppreciated the comment (I think of Pam's) where some Chritian behaviour falls lower in common courtesy and respect than that of the secular-minded. I have thought hard about that many a time and wished it (and I) could be better!!