 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 1/15/2005 5:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Hey hey hey-
Corey has done us all a great favor in hosting this site and a great job in working out the bugs. Thanks! I'd like to bring up a topic for discussion. Not sure where to put this, but since it ultimately applies to every member, perhaps everybody ought to have some input. Corey, as I understood him, is happy to administrate the site but doesn't relish policing it as moderator. Perhaps we can all come up with a short policy statement that would serve as a guideline for online behavior. It would help Corey out. As administrator he's still the only person who can actually take action (tecnically) if action is to be taken regarding an unruley member. So perhaps we can all post our thoughts and give Corey something to work with.
My suggestions. These are not necessarily things that require disciplinary action (some are):
1) A per day, per week, or per month posting option for Corey to limit the number of posts a member posts. We faced this a bit at our previous address (members posting high numbers of posts, overwhelming the site so to speak).
2) Common sense courtesy.
3) Keep the "subject" the subject and not the "person" the subject. Rude, condescending, personal comments shouldn't be allowed. I think we should really stick to this (I didn't do so well on the previous site I don't think), but perhaps a three-strike policy. You get a first warning, a second, and with the third you're gone. Only Corey can issue a warning. Corey, perhaps you can form a committee of two or four (to form an odd number when including yourself) others to help you in this. Let members recommend to you via private email a member they think would serve with you. You take their top vote getter (or top two vote getters). Then you get to pick one or two of your own. Together, these members can keep an eye on things for you. If a member gets unruly and there are problems, all of your together can decide what to do. That would take the load off of you and members will know that if they ever are banned, it's not just because one person (the Administrator) made an independent decision. They'll know it was a consensus of trusted members who made the choice. Just an idea.
4) Some policy needs to be recognized regarding cut-n-pasting material from other sites. At our previous address we had to deal with posting swaths of material from other sites. We tried to have members post the URL only, or just a bit (paragraph) of the material. We preferred members to express things in their own words.
5) Banned members. This may be a sticky subject, but I'm of the opinion that THIS site should honor the list of banned members from the previous site. Corey should be able to find out who those members were and simply ban them here as well. True, this is a 'new' site, but's it's a new site 'venue'. We're all the same members and we carried over the same threads and history. I think we ought to carry over the same banned members list to avoid having to go through encountering them here and banning them again. If you were banned before on this site, you should remain banned on the new venue.
That's it for me.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
  |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 1/16/2005 9:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  JEE Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2004 Total Posts : 1466 | Posted 1/16/2005 4:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
First, I suggest we make a rule that accepted rules of spelling must be strictly followed by all.
e-t-i-q-u-e-t-t-e 
n : rules governing socially acceptable behavior
(Just kidding. I hope my rather lame attempt at humor isn't somehow taken as "rude.")
Post Edited (JEE) : 1/16/2005 3:21:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
  |  Violin for God Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!

Date Joined Dec 2004 Total Posts : 690 | Posted 1/17/2005 2:56 AM (GMT -6) |   | I know I'm still fairly new to this board, but here are some ideas I thought of regarding this.
Tom, about your #5 (it is a sticky subject, I agree), but I'd say that if a person writes to one of the moderators/administrator or whoever and they seriously appologize, then they should be given one more chance, but informed that if they cross the line again, they would only get one warning and that would be it. This allows for forgiveness, but with a shorter leash, so to say. Other than that, I think it would be a good idea to keep the same list.
Jo-Anne, yeah, I'd say that very blatant sarcasm should be cautioned against as well, but the whole issue of what is and isn't sarcasm is also a sticky issue. Fairly often, people can misunderstand other's intentions in writing, so I think in most cases, it should be up to the individual member (IM) to ask the possibly-sarcastic-person for clarification. This issue certainly has a large grey-area, but in cases where it is blatant and divisive, then that would fall under this category of etaqite (that was for John! Jees, being a bit too inflexible about spelling, are we??? now it's my turn to have a lame attempt at humor! ) .
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 1/17/2005 1:59:16 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
  |  JEE Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2004 Total Posts : 1466 | Posted 1/17/2005 9:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | If we can't have sarcasm, we can't have Laika anymore.
As an aside, sarcasm was used by many of the biblical writers (including the Gospel writers' presentation of Jesus' statements) in order to drive home a point.
In recommending all these rules, you're by definition going to decrease the interest of many in participation, but that's perhaps what the intent has been all along. "Discussion" boards that restrict controversy or even sometimes heated debate generally fade away into a black hole in cyberspace.
Post Edited (JEE) : 1/17/2005 9:37:32 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Truth Aficionado Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003 Total Posts : 1544 | Posted 1/18/2005 11:07 AM (GMT -6) |   |
JEE said...If we can't have sarcasm, we can't have Laika anymore.
As an aside, sarcasm was used by many of the biblical writers (including the Gospel writers' presentation of Jesus' statements) in order to drive home a point.
In recommending all these rules, you're by definition going to decrease the interest of many in participation, but that's perhaps what the intent has been all along. "Discussion" boards that restrict controversy or even sometimes heated debate generally fade away into a black hole in cyberspace.
Hello John,
What do you mean? Isn’t the hottest new forum the “Safe Haven? <Yawn> <snore> <chirp chirp> <black hole in cyberspace>.
Oops, sorry for the sarcasm.
Peace,
Mark
P.S.
I’m all for zero tolerance towards those that come here with a closed mind and an axe to grind.
Swede (aka POW) has been a sweetie on this new board.
Matthew 11:28-30 (NRSV) "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/18/2005 10:34:47 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:33 PM (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 |
|
|