What would you like to see?

[tango]

Well that would involve linking the profile fields to the back end to grant access, which wouldn't be easy. I'm thinking along the lines of having individuals requesting access to those respective areas would be easier to manage and do.

The user data must be stored in the back end, the system knows my user ID and so can look up my gender with the same query as it looks up everything else.

To serve a list of forums or new posts it needs to know which forums I have access to already, so all it needs to do is add a user.gender field to the query and process based on that. Define it all in the back end and it should all work easily enough.

 

[tango]

On another note, it seems odd to me that we've got so many ways to tag a post. We can "thank" for it, we can "like" it and we can give reps for it. Is there a purpose for having so many ways to give someone a pat on the back for a post they made?

If it's considered useful to collect "likes" (which seems a very Faceache-inspired thing), do we need thanks and reputation? Why not simply show how many likes someone has rather than dealing with reputation, reputation power, likes, thanks and all that?

 

[Romanos]

On another note, it seems odd to me that we've got so many ways to tag a post. We can "thank" for it, we can "like" it and we can give reps for it. Is there a purpose for having so many ways to give someone a pat on the back for a post they made?

If it's considered useful to collect "likes" (which seems a very Faceache-inspired thing), do we need thanks and reputation? Why not simply show how many likes someone has rather than dealing with reputation, reputation power, likes, thanks and all that?

Great suggestion about the Thank button, I've disabled it. Reputation is a private way of thanking or agreeing with the poster, while the Like button is a public way of showing agreement. I've also sent you the CH Cash for your suggestion.

 

[Josiah]

I participate in forums like this because....


1. I want to LEARN. I'm a self-confessed theology junkie and I'm eager to learn other perspectives. I consider myself a theology seeker and appreciate when posters teach me something in theology I didn't know or a new "spin" on things.

2. I want to pursue TRUTH. I'm a theology "seeker" and I like joining with others who have the humility to realize they aren't infallible and they aren't The Truth... but who want to find it. I can "tolerate" know-it-alls (they can teach - at least THEIR perspective) but I appreciate those who WANT to know more.

3. I desire to gain/grow in true doctrinal UNITY - a unity of agreement in what we embrace as Dogma (necessary, binding doctrine). I think it's good to agree.... and I think many of our disagreements are more a matter of articulation than true disagreement. I LONG AGO gave up on any formal, institutional agreement (too much ego.... too much institutionalism) but I think this CAN happen on individual levels, among brothers and sisters in Christ. It sure is rare - but it does happen, even if just on an individual issue. I rejoice in that.



What does NOT interest me is....

1. Fellowship. I do not come to the internet for friendship kind of things, I go to church and things for such.

2. While I may briefly participate in threads such as "who do you support for president?" or "what toppings do you order on pizza," those sorts of things are WAY, WAY off my "radar" for CHRISTIAN forums. I only visit two types of forums: Science and Christian. I keep them separate and I keep my visits to those issues.

3. Fights. I'm pursuing TRUTH, not engaging in personal issues or fights or debates. Nothing frustrates me more than posters who seem to make EVERYTHING about them, everything personal, everything emotional. To ME, it's very simple: if a topic makes you uneasy: leave... don't participate. Ain't rocket science. And it's not WHO is right, it's WHAT is right.... it's about truth, not personalities and egos.

4. Mr. Rogerism. SADLY..... very, very SADLY.... a lot of sites begin as refreshingly open. But Staff - dealing with whining members who report anything that hurts their feelings - eventually try to shut up all the whiners who don't have the common sense to just not read threads that bother them. What happens (and this is VERY, VERY common)... the site slowly becomes more closed to anything honest or real or meaningful, and pretty soon, we have YET ANOTHER (oh, there are HUNDREDS of these sites!), yet another "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood" where "nice" is all that matters, and the one over-riding rule is "you are bad if someone chooses to feel badly over something you posted." The whole site devolves into relativistic meaninglessness where feelings matter over all and truth matters not a bit - which is VERY harmful to Christianity, such sites (IMO) actually are negative and hurtful.



MY perspective....


- Josiah

 

[Romanos]

Hi Josiah,

You need not worry. Your input this in this topic is greatly valued, but I will stress that you again need not to worry about CH becoming one of those sites.

 

[tango]

I've also sent you the CH Cash for your suggestion.

Thanks! I just ordered a pizza, can I pay for it with my new CH Cash?

Seriously, what can I do with it?

 

[Josiah]

Hi Josiah,

You need not worry. Your input this in this topic is greatly valued, but I will stress that you again need not to worry about CH becoming one of those sites.

With all due respect.... and with great hope..... ALL sites SAY that, at first. Erwin began what once was the largest Christian website on the 'net DEDICATED to not letting that happen.... it did. I've not yet seen a website that did not devolve into that (actually, most of them don't even exist anymore.... once they became another Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, they couldn't complete with the much bigger ones, and died).

But I can hope, lol



- Josiah



PS. I know of about a dozen (maybe more) websites created by senior staffers of CF who left there (voluntarily or otherwise - or some combination of the two) over the past 10 years. I'm SURE there are many, many more than that. I joined all of them. All for the same reason: to create what CF once was - an open, honest, real forum to pursue truth and unity in truth. I only KNOW of two that still exist (and I'm not sure about one of them - haven't been there in over a year).

 

[Lamb]

I like sites that "LISTEN" to the members. Of course you're going to get people who don't like what the majority want and not everyone will be pleased. So where is the balance?

PS. I had joined some other sites as well that were runoffs and I was EVEN ON STAFF the same time I was on staff at my former forum ahh, good times

 

[tango]

In a similar vein to Josiah's concerns, I used to be an admin on another board until everything went silly. A few of us that had been pushed out went to one board, then another, then another. In the end one of the guys started a new board so we'd have a place to hang out. It was a very small thing, for the most part it was a bunch of us who used to hang out on the first board. We really tried hard not to just be a clone of the board we all left, although with the best will in the world when everyone has come from one place that seems depressingly likely to happen.

One other thing we did on that board was to make the "Chat to staff" area public. Everyone could see all the threads but only the original poster and staff could post in it. If the original poster requested to talk in private they could do so but the assumption was that the conversation would be visible to all. That was after one particular lesson from the board we left, where a poster commented that the "chat to staff" area seemed to have become little more than taking someone behind the bike sheds for a kicking with no witnesses. Certainly when things started to get silly it became worrying how often one or two of the more senior mods (who seemed to be above reproach, which was another problem in itself) would pile in with both feet, bypassing any form of discussion and demanding that the "errant" member toe the line or be banned. Not surprisingly many ended up banned.

It says something about the management of a board when a large number of people who were once trusted with moderator privileges ended up banned.

 

[psalms 91]

Very true, hope this board will meet your expectations

 

[tango]

Another thought, I see in the rules that "promotion of non-Christian beliefs is not allowed". That's a good thing for sure, although it might be useful to have a summary of what the board considers to be "Christian beliefs".

It might sound like a nitpick but, for example, some teachers within the Christian community teach some strange concepts of Jesus. They may not explicitly come out and state it as overtly as this but it's hard to conclude from their teachings anything other than Jesus being demoted from "the Christ, the son of the living God" (as Peter put it) to "a Christ, a son of the living God".

It could open up a big can of worms saying that some of these teachers' offerings aren't allowed to be promoted here, but unless the board defines its own view of core Christian beliefs now it could cause problems later.

 

[Romanos]

Another thought, I see in the rules that "promotion of non-Christian beliefs is not allowed". That's a good thing for sure, although it might be useful to have a summary of what the board considers to be "Christian beliefs".

It might sound like a nitpick but, for example, some teachers within the Christian community teach some strange concepts of Jesus. They may not explicitly come out and state it as overtly as this but it's hard to conclude from their teachings anything other than Jesus being demoted from "the Christ, the son of the living God" (as Peter put it) to "a Christ, a son of the living God".

It could open up a big can of worms saying that some of these teachers' offerings aren't allowed to be promoted here, but unless the board defines its own view of core Christian beliefs now it could cause problems later.

Thank you for this, we'll take a look at this.

 

[tango]

Thank you for this, we'll take a look at this.

Cool. Do I get any more CH cash? I was hoping for another pizza this evening

 

[Romanos]

Cool. Do I get any more CH cash? I was hoping for another pizza this evening

Haha sure, I've sent it your way. And to answer your earlier question, CH Cash can be used among members for games, etc, and used officially in the Site Shop we're working on adding.

 

[tango]

Another question about the roolz here.

Some of my "poor theology" threads look at teachings. Is it considered permissible to name teachers who teach such things, as long as their sources are adequately referenced so people can confirm they aren't being misquoted or quoted out of context?

Some forums have rules against naming people because they aren't here to defend themselves but, for example, Paul named Alexander the coppersmith who "did him great harm" despite him presumably not being there to defend himself from the allegation. I would like to see naming names permitted as long as sources are provided - I wouldn't regard "I heard that Pastor Joe Blow teaches Jesus never really walked on water" as being acceptable because it's little more than spreading rumors but "Pastor Joe Blow teaches Jesus never really walked on water (see his book Did Jesus Walk On Water?, page 34)" as entirely acceptable.

 

[GenesisGirl]

If you are merely stating what someone else teaches and you have proof, but aren't flaming by calling names, it seems that we will allow it because it could be relevant to a conversation.

Another question about the roolz here.

Some of my "poor theology" threads look at teachings. Is it considered permissible to name teachers who teach such things, as long as their sources are adequately referenced so people can confirm they aren't being misquoted or quoted out of context?

Some forums have rules against naming people because they aren't here to defend themselves but, for example, Paul named Alexander the coppersmith who "did him great harm" despite him presumably not being there to defend himself from the allegation. I would like to see naming names permitted as long as sources are provided - I wouldn't regard "I heard that Pastor Joe Blow teaches Jesus never really walked on water" as being acceptable because it's little more than spreading rumors but "Pastor Joe Blow teaches Jesus never really walked on water (see his book Did Jesus Walk On Water?, page 34)" as entirely acceptable.

 

[tango]

If you are merely stating what someone else teaches and you have proof, but aren't flaming by calling names, it seems that we will allow it because it could be relevant to a conversation.

I'm not interested in flaming, just calling out what I believe is false teaching, stating who teaches it (with references, so people have chance to verify and/or call me out on misquoting them) and why I believe the teaching to be unbiblical.

 

[tango]

I'd like to see vast amounts of CH cash sent to anyone whose name ends with -ango

If anyone lacks the CH cash to send, don't worry, I accept real cash in any hard currency

 

[Romanos]

I'd like to see vast amounts of CH cash sent to anyone whose name ends with -ango

If anyone lacks the CH cash to send, don't worry, I accept real cash in any hard currency

I've actually just given you 100 CH Cash for one of your suggestions I just put in place. I'll announce it later with another change.

 

[Romanos]

Another bump on this.