Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Make the Rules


Bravus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Woody

    58

  • bonnie

    57

  • David Koot

    51

  • CyberGuy

    43

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Originally Posted By: bonnie
Since this all began with redwoods plea once again and again to do something about personal attacks he would maybe be the one to address that

As I stated a long ways back .... I go along with Wayne's two cents.

I guess then it is a little puzzling as to why you continue to bring it up. No change is actually helpful to you. You have the full approval to continue on as you enjoy doing

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least it is helpful to know where one stands. Who is allowed and encouraged to behave in the manner they choose.It appears to be settled once and for all and that will be a major relief to some

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see that this little thread has grown and thrived while I've been sleeping! A couple of quick addenda, though:

1. I should have made clear at the beginning that none of this is binding on Stan or the admin team in any way. If a set of 'official rules' emerged from this process they would be that way by acclamation, not legislation.

2. I do not believe that there are different rules for different people here. Some seem to believe so, but from my experience this is a matter of perception more than reality.

3. There are some very nice, sensible, well laid out sets of rules that have been proposed here, and it wouldn't be hard to merge them or to adopt one. But also part of the point of this activity was to say "Clearly we know what would constitute good behaviour - whay don't we just act on that?"

I'm afraid that I do see Stan's point - that everything listed here already falls under 'common sense'. Some detail does help, though, since common sense is somewhat subjective. But I was only half-joking when I suggested 'Be excellent to each other' and 'Party on, dudes!' as my two rules.

To put it another way, as my guru Paul Feyerabend did:

1. Anything goes

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, except for the general terms defame and flame. I've seen nothing that deals with some of the chronic problems.

Making negative statements (including in rhetorical questions and innuendo) about another's intelligence, motivation, moral condition, or Christian experience.

Fillibustering-- writing the same things again and again with no new evidence, no new approach. Merely asserting again and again till everyone gives in.

Blocking. Simply saying "No, no, no" to another's reasoning or conclusion, without counter evidence or logic. This takes various forms.

Playing the victim. Taking statements about propositions and turning them into personal insults.

Quote:
I do not believe that there are different rules for different people here. Some seem to believe so, but from my experience this is a matter of perception more than reality.

Is that your 'experience,' or your 'perception' of your experience?

OH, yeah. And a clear definition of 'conflict of interest.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have kind of changed my perspective. I am beginning to believe this may have been a good thing. Has certainly cleared the air and clarified certain things.

Only a few of things need clarification and this can become a far livier forum, even bigger than it is now.

Can all of us if we choose to behave in the same manner without fear of reprisal,deletion, banning.

If not who can and cannot.

Can we, in attempt to get even or take another shot go back several years and begin an old feud.

I had assumed that one was ended.

I did at one time blame the man in question for something he had not done. Foolishly I think now,I apologised to this man publically as I had accused him publically. I was told on the forum by the administration I was a liar and was not believed.I was banned at that time and nothing further was said. Down the road I find myself accused of the crime of stalking. Not right out front of course but under the cover of pm's.

Can we in a not so subtle way claim our job was threatened by that nasty one that did so before.

With these items stated clearly we can all have a very good time

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, that's my perception of my experience.

How is it a conflict of interest? I have no formal position of any kind at Club Adventist. I am a former moderator and a poster, that's all. Oh, hang on, I think I'm the absentee moderator of the Humor forum. You're a moderator of one forum too, ichabod.

I do like your suggestions above. Are you able to encapsulate them in the form of rules? They do seem to go - more directly than some of the rules proposed so far - to the heart of the issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like your suggestions above. Are you able to encapsulate them in the form of rules? They do seem to go - more directly than some of the rules proposed so far - to the heart of the issues.

Agreed. I would like to see these suggestions merged with the other suggested "rules".

If simple use of common sense would prevail, there would be no need for rules. Sadly, common sense rarely prevails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like them, they sound a whole lot like Crickets' list.

There's a reason they sound a whole lot like "Cricket's". I used those and modified them to better suit them to Club Adventist. They are a set of rules that work, rather effectively, at the largest Christian forum on the Internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
How is it a conflict of interest? I

"Conflict of interest" was not about or addressed specifically to you. It is a general principle.

Quote:
Are you able to encapsulate them in the form of rules? They do seem to go - more directly than some of the rules proposed so far - to the heart of the issues.

Anyone can. Simply change them to the negative imperative (Do not).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ack, one more example of misreading: I read what you'd said as 'a clear example of conflict of interest' and as applying to what I wrote. Now I go back I see that you were simply saying we need a clear definition to work with.

You (everyone, not just ichabod) see how tricky this gets? But a little goodwill goes a long way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not make negative statements (including in rhetorical questions and innuendo) about another's intelligence, motivation, moral condition, or Christian experience.

Do not fillibuster. Do not write the same things again and again with no new evidence, no new approach. Merely asserting again and again till everyone gives in.

No Blocking. Simply saying "No, no, no" to another's reasoning or conclusion, without counter evidence or logic. This takes various forms.

Do not "play the victim." Do not take statements about propositions and turn them into personal insults.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off to buy the kids their school supplies and rent their textbooks - will have a bash at editing together some sort of consensus set later this evening and see how it looks.

Thanks all for your contributions - very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna add another "rule". Don't know exactly what it's called, but I don't think it right for one member to talk about another member in a thread in which the second member isn't even a part of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw come on Cricket, it is alright if your name is Redwood and you "love won another".

You can go at it as long as you wish. Evidenced by the fact it goes on and on. Many times a warning will be given publically to others, not Redwood. What s the matter, you want to spoil good clean christian fun?? You must not have any friends and don't know how to have fun

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of like rules we have. They're pretty simple and clear.

Imo, it doesn't really matter what the rules are, they will be misinterpreted and/or stretched to the limit. And the more rules you have, the more that will be the case. In the end, someone has to be the judge, and the judge usually goes by what a "reasonable" person would think, whatever that is. It's all subjective, so it just doesn't matter much.

My only suggestion, if the rules must be changed, is this: Have Big Shoulders. If you think someone has offended you or been offensive in general, it's ok sometimes to just roll your eyes and move on. You don't have to respond to every little injustice or stupid comment. Try to believe that everyone here means well, even when they slip up now and then.

Seriously, if something offends me that much, I should give myself a time-out for a day or two. Then, if I'm still upset, I might consider a PM to the person and calmly explain my feelings. If that doesn't work, well, there's no rule that says you have to read or respond to that person ever again.

I wonder what would happen if everyone on this forum would take it upon themselves to cease the nit-picking, complaining, and criticizing this very minute. Let's try to grow up and realize we don't have to take offense, or take every bit of bait that's offered to us. That is OUR choice, and when we keep it going, then we are part of the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...