 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > rules of engagement | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 10:48 AM (GMT -6) |   |
adiaphora
(Community Owner)
02/20/01 5:01 PM
rules of engagement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several people have inquired about the rules of discussion board participation. So far I have played a minimal role in moderating this discussion. I like it that way, but it doesn't have to stay that way. We currently have only 3 official rules. In addition to the rules listed below, I am open to exploring other options per your suggestions (e.g. I could make it so that messages must be approved before they are posted, or I could make it so that only certain people have the privilege of posting new threads, we can agree to forbid or continue to permit "masquerading," or we could just leave everything the way it is). If you don't feel comfortable posting suggestions here, then send me an email. I assure you that I will respect your confidentiality.
Here are the "official" rules that we have established so far, and the threads they were first posted in:
1. notice: minimum expectations for discussion
12/09/00 1:01 PM Generally the posts in this discussion have been civil and productive. We at Christus Victor appreciate this and moreover we expect it to continue. As administrator, I reserve the right to ban participants who fail to maintain the minimum standard of respect for the inhererent dignity of all people.
2. NOTICE TO ALL DISCUSSION PARTICIPANTS: New posting policy 12/26/00 12:28 PM If you wish to post to this discussion board, you must now create a log-in name and choose a password, if you have not already done so. Logging-in will not prevent you from remaining anonymous, if that is a concern. It will, however, protect your name so noone else can log-in as you, and it will enable you to edit your own posts. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact me via email.
3. Read here why the Jews are right and the Christians wrong! 01/12/01 10:46 AM t is tacky to post on this discussion board with the sole intent of advertising for a different site (aka spamming). I usually delete posts like that, [unless it seems like the person who started the thread] might stick around for discussion--which he or she is certainly welcome to do.
In closing, let me just say that although we've encountered some snags along the way, I have been pleased with this discussion overall. Thanks to all and God bless. ~ a d i a p h o r a
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/20/01 6:21 PM
RE: rules of engagement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good rules adiaphora. But here's some more.
1. Read the rules of engagement. Seriously though. Sup-po-sitions!
2. These were put up by LL after he called Plebe a coward for chewing his (beep) out. <---Icon for confused. I know, I know LL. EASY!! No he said, she said thing at the moment. LL said:
They are as follows. This is for Ghost-Dog-Girl. Here are a few basic ethics of discussion fora, not to mention basic decency and respectfulness.
a) Logging in as double-characters is not acceptable. When discovered, severe penalties are imposed.
My (BBBCanada) insight: The penalities are left up to the (Community Owner). Make a list of rules. Stick by them.
B) Anonymity is to be respected. If a person logs on with a moniker to remain anonymous, all other participants are to honor that person's desire to remain anonymous, even if a person knows the anonymous person's identity.
My insight: Don't ask for telephone calls. Creeps me out kinda. See the envelope icon? It's there for a reason. I let my name be known!? People are free to e-mail me!? I'm right open about a lot of stuff. But respect others boundaries. We let you know as much as we want you to know. If you even want to e-mail a person asking for that info, then that's ok, *if* the person has provided their envelop icon. Then that person can respond if they want and tell you to blow or whatever. Love ya Meph Man.
C) What Plebe claims to have done is wholly unacceptable. If there is a need to uncover a participant's identity, it is wholly the prerogative of the board owner or manager, never the right of another mere participant.
My insight: True. True. True.
D) Furthermore, what Plebe has done to me is also entirely unacceptable in every discussion forum I have participated in. Not only has Plebe made unfounded and outrageous accusations against me, Plebe has also brought the real life of a person who chooses to keep personal identity anonymous into the discussion of the board. That is entirely improper.
My insight: Same as above. Times 2. Even in cyberland, people on this side of the 'puter feel as though people "on the other side of the screen" are "right there" even though you are a million miles away and will never see the other person. And when things like trashing the other person takes place? It is not cool. Like if, Greg trashed me? Aside from converting to Calvinism, (joke, not!) there would be one place on God's green earth that I would probably not want to visit. And I hate not *feeling* the freedom to do so.
E) Misconduct on the board should be addressed on the board, not off-line.
My insight: That's an iffy in my book. Depends on how bad the offense was. That is going to be a "judgement call." It's like when I worked in the factory. I would hate it that the foreman would walk up to me infront of my peers and lamblast me in front of the others. The community owner should be made aware of the situation and then the community owner should then take the person aside (in an e-mail) and in a kind and gentle way, with the love of Christ, help the person see the error of their ways. And then "gently restore" them. If they don't listen? As they say in baseball? "You're outta there!!!" Now this can be done several ways. For example, if *you* are offended, let the community owner know. Then they can let the *offending* party know. I've seen this done at "about.com". It's happened to me, for pete's sake. In one forum, I was exile to Siberia. Too religious or sumthin'.
Also, sometimes a public apology (a rarity) is required. The Shine thing may be one of them. See, for CHF to come to Greg's aid? Well that's fine and dandy...IF YOU KNOW GREG! But we don't. There are people here who have the utmost respect for Greg. As Meph does. And he feels somewhat let down by "Shine" trashing him, etc. But Meph doesn't know Greg. Sooo. It don't mean a lickity split to us. Eat some humble pie. Public apologies are rare. Banishment is the norm. Greg, should we ban you from your own forum? Adiaphora!!!
My rule. Try not to take things personally as much as possible. I know it's hard sometimes. But it can be done. And this is the reason why we have these rules in these forums, etc. Well, there you go. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Love ya all
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/21/01 4:48 AM
RE: RE: rules of engagement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon jokingly says perhaps adiaphora should banish me from my own site. (There IS a sort of ironic humor to the fact that I foot the bill to take this criticism! ). But maybe there's truth in this. As I said in the Love ya Shine thread (or whatever its called), I think the issue Shine raised was not in being Shine -- for we can have no "rule" about how close a psuedonymous character reflects real life vs. role playing -- te issue was in ME coming on as ME. This sets a different, non-role playing, set of expectations.
So perhaps I should log off as me and join the rest of the role playing, or perhaps authentic life-reflecting, participants.
Greg
ps. Either way, I agree with Modes, Brandon, CHF and others... participants need to chill a bit. I never could get how a psuedonym could take something personally. (think about it). Light'n up. Have fun.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
02/21/01 6:45 AM
RE: RE: RE: rules of engagement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I recall Greg Boyd originally came on after people had requested that Greg give his input. I don't see how Greg could have come on any other way but as Greg Boyd after this request was made.
Greg, I think it's fair to say that you've apologized and therefore are forgiven Now it's just a matter of everyone letting this one go.
Let's chill out,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/21/01 8:12 AM
power trippin'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adiaphora, if I were you, I'd be power trippin'! Edgren Fellowship, eat your heart out--only adiaphora's got the power to Ban the Man!
Here's an idea, but I'm not sure if it would follow the rules...maybe adiaphora SHOULD ban Doc, but let him log-on under a different alias--and ONLY ONE different alias, as long as he behaves (i.e. something between GregBoyd and Shine150). That way Doc can participate in the discussion without all the clout and controversy that seem to follow him around in spite of himself, and he can be free-er to let his little light shine on. Fair? GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:55 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|