YOu are missing my point, amigo. I didn't say that "XX is/are evil and going to hell" should be sanctionable. I said that "You are evil and going to Hell because you are XX" should be sanctionable. Making it personal makes the difference. It is changing it from theology to insult and is most likely to be used to shut down discussion (as in "why should I talk to you if you are evil?").

Mendalla

Bans are permanent unless rescinded by Council.

Or do you think we actually need to define being banned as no longer being able to sign in to an account that is capable of posting, sending PMs, etc on WC2?  I think ban is a pretty well understood word already, just like suspension didn't have to be defined beyond the amount of time.

redhead wrote:

redhead

Posted on: 05/15/2014 12:54

 

 

"Members who have been banned at any time may not serve until at least two years after they are allowed to return."

 

Banning is still not defined, and is still an important issue, especially the definition of banning.  Since it is brought up in process, it means that banning can happen, and there is some kind of not banning for life since one can return, and at least after two years upon returning, may serve.

 

So seeking clarification of a banning process, and the timeline of banning someone, seems to be a good question. 

 

Obviously, it has been considered, otherwise the above conditional statement would not exist.

 

Seeking clarification and definition is only responsible.  It is in no way being difficult.

Banned - your login won't work, you won't be issued another one, and if you try to register again, that account will be banned as well.

Bans can, upon discussion with and amongst council, be overturned. Happens here. Happens at lots of forums. Sometimes it's a case of a member regaining their senses. Sometimes it's a case of management recognizing their mistake. Sometimes it's just the passage of enough time for heads to cool. It's different in every situation.

Actually, I never said you were difficult. That was chemgal. However, I have answered your question to the best of my ability multiple times and there will be clarification in the next draft, partly because of your questions.

Mendalla

What about defining prebanned?

Right, and those are still not uncommon Christian sentiments, and I'm fine with them, too. If there is debatable religious justification for a targeted charge of evilness or sinfulness or whatever, all I'm saying is that they should be allowed to make it.

And I'm fine if people disagree with me.

Disagreement is one thing but calling someone "evil" to their face, even their virtual one, is over the line into insult territory to my eye. If you are fine with it, that's cool. I would likely just shrug it off, too. However, not everyone who joins WC2 will be and, to my eye, when it gets personal like that is where the line gets crossed and someone would be justified in hitting the report button to get a mod ruling on it. Depending on the context, it may or may not merit a warning.

Mendalla

Prebanned = Banned.

Gays, pagans, and atheists, etc. are evil and going to hell.

We're friends now, right?

Fair enough. I just want to make sure that the depth of the holes some people dig for themselves is not limited by the size of the shovel we allow them to carry.

Like there was ever any doubt.

Saying, "You're XX and therefore going to hell" is certainly not traditional Christian doctrine. For that matter neither would be saying "You're XY and therefore going to hell." Traditional Christian theology doesn't base who's hellhound on genetics.

I'm sure that if I hunt around enough, I could find someone who believes that about Baptists.

See you down there!

Mendalla

Yep,

From this thread:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/social/show-yourself-are-you-moving-...

This was Redhead's response: definitely no.

To the question about joining the new site.

Other people have been critized for questioning things here when they have flip-flopped about whether or not they will join.  Redhead isn't one of them.  I feel like she is intentionally ignoring posts that would negative many of her posts.  Instead of asking for clarification she takes the negative response, ie. the code of conduct not being open for a vote, when I feel it's pretty obvious this is being handled like everything else, and even if that was questioned, it could have been easily clarified.

Redhead, in the past I've enjoyed reading your posts.  I would like to see you on the new site if you acted in the mannar I was used to you from before.  Lately though, you seem to just be making everything difficult even though you have made it pretty clear you don't even care to join.  What's the point of being disruptive to this process?

WC2 Admins, sorry for going off topic, hopefully we can get back to reasonable discussion.  I'm frustrated and thought this little tangent was worthwhile.

Not as sure about today, but historically Catholics and even some other Protestants would agree. They used to persecute us hard, including by burning some of us at the stake. Course, that was when we were wild Baptists.

Somehow, "Baptist" and "wild" don't fit together in my vocabulary. You guys must have gone downhill over the years.

End of derail, I promise.

Mendalla

Are you tame now? Domesticated? Even docile?

To a very large degree we have become suburban and milquetoast, I agree. There are some fresh, new church plants doing exciting stuff, and even some established churches are taking baby steps out of their comfort zones, but, from what I've read, we used to be so much more.

Okay, guys. I did say "End of derail."

*sees Pinga coming and runs for a hiding place*

Mendalla

I am not going to belong to a site where I have to pay-and any in-kind offer that I have made has been rejected, on many threads, and in many ways.  And according to WC2, active, ongoing membership does include

“Active” is defined as posting regularly, being involved in community activities, contributing in kind or financially, or other activities related to the community. (Define: or other)

That said, it does not mean that I do not have concerns about how the new site will function, nor does it mean that I will not continue to care about members.  It does mean that most likely I will not join a site for a few months, and then be asked to pony up, when I offered many months ago to seek funding in a number of ways so that members of WC2 would not have to pay - but my ideas were seen as not necessary, jumping the gun, or not required.

Clearly,  there is and will be a financial component to operating WC2.  I will not be a paying member.  I see that there are other ways to operate this site and not charge membership fees.  However, that is not the vision of WC2 at this time.

Did you see the Trudeau is banning anyone who values preborn human life from being a Liberal?

Hello majority Conservative Govt. again.

Sorry, I was working on another derail.

Pay? Who said anything about payment being required. Giving financially is just one option among several for being an active member.

Hi Redhead,

maybe this will take off and then it can be sold back to the UCC for a cool $10 million dollars. If you were a paying member you may get a piece of that.

I think we can conclude that it doesn't matter what the code of conduct says. If we don't like you, you're out of here. And if we do like you, there are no rules.

Yet you and I are still here. Explain that one.

Are you still on about Stephen, or is that just your general observation?

If it's not about Stephen, then you should realize that no one from WC2 has ever banned anyone from WC1, nor has anyone had that ability.

If it is about Stephen, I covered that. I even sent you a PM on the topic. We're not covering it here any more.

oh my God.

Once and for all 

There will be no charge to join wondercafe.

Well, then, perhaps definitions regargarding contributing finanancially. or in-kind or other activities related to the community, could be plainly explained.  And very happily I will be proven incorrect.

You didn't say it loudly enough.

Mendalla

It means (very clearly if you read it correctly) that contributing to the community is a way of demonstrating commitment for the purposes of being a member of Council just as being an active poster is. It isn't even about joining Wondercafe, it's about being nominated for Council. That's all. It does not mean you MUST contribute anything to be a poster or even to be on Council, it is just a way of acknowledging those who have contributed (there are a couple already) or will contribute in future should get some recognition for doing so.

Mendalla

PS. Damn, now I know why Kimmio posts the way she does. I've edited this sucker like 6 times. I need to slow down and review what I want to say before hitting Save.

That is not at all how it reads.

Read it again

Which part of "or" did you not understand?

Members are members.

If members can and choose to do so, they may make a contribution - that in no way should alter membership.

Members who cannot do so and members who make a contribution financially or in kind should have no difference in standing or contribution to the community site

It is the wording and intention outlined by WC2 admin that makes the distinction - not me.  I merely observed it.

Here is the complete quote taken straight from the document. You show me where it says a financial contribution is necessary to be a member:

"Council members must be registered users of Wondercafe2. Candidates should have an active, continuous history of posting on the forums during the 12 months preceding nomination or have a combination of posting history and contributions to the operation of the site through financial or other contributions during the 12 months preceding nomination."

Mendalla

All that you need to be a member is to sign up. All that you need to be on Council is be an active, continuous poster. And that is, in fact, what that says.

Mendalla

We're not a community of pedants. Nobody is going to be holding a stop watch between posts to determine "active" status. If someone is away from the community because they are on a mission to a third world country, or because they hit hard times and couldn't afford access, or just needed a well-deserved break from posting, and when they came back they were nominated for a council position, they'd be considered.

Do you have to be active to maintain an account? Of course not. Come and go as you please. No one is forcing you to be here.

Define "or other"? Be a friend. Be away for a very good reason. Hell, just be away on good terms. If you leave in a huff, stay away for months, and when you come back think you should be nominated to council? Probably not. We likely don't even need that clause, but some people think it should be there, and that's fine. I don't get hung up on that.

Actually, they were seen as all three, though numbers one and three are pretty much the same thing.

And again, who do you apply to for money so that adults can discuss religion online? We'd deserve a handout more than an orphanage...why? I wouldn't have the guts to ask any organization for money for this. I'd be too embarassed.

You were insisting this site would cost tens of thousands of dollars, and require a literal staff to maintain. We tried telling you that you were wrong, in increasingly exasperated ways. Now, our year 1 costs are covered, and based on the experiences of this admin team, we expect the ongoing costs to be much less, assuming membership doesn't demand a yearly redesign.

Above, you're insisting that discussion isn't important because "there will not be a vote at this time." Yes, Mendalla did write that, but like everything else, he also wrote that we will "bring a final draft back for a final public discussion and vote."

Put simply, you've been wrong an awful lot. You do make the occasional good point, but you're so insistent about what you're clearly wrong about, it's incredibly difficult to get through your posts. I'm trying.

No one asked you to pay. We are not charging membership fees. You're wrong about this, too. We've always said that if WC2 is a good site, then there will be members who will offer to donate to it's upkeep. Without even seeing it, some member already have. I have seen it, and it's good. We're working through user permissions behind the scenes. We're working through user agreements here. We are attempting to bring as much to the future membership of WC2 as we can. That has been made more difficult as we have to wade through your incorrect assumptions and assertions on every WC2 thread.

Then present a 3 to 5 year business plan that explains no costs to members, and cotradicts the definition of:

"Active is defined as posting regularly, being involved in community activities, contributing in kind or financially, or other activities related to the community. (Define: or other)"

Hey- I did not write this- WC2 admins did.  If ther are no ongoing costs, why write this into membership ?

We DID NOT WRITE IT INTO MEMBERSHIP. In fact, you aren't even quoting it correctly (or maybe you're quoting the first draft). As approved, it reads:

"Council members must be registered users of Wondercafe2. Candidates should have an active, continuous history of posting on the forums during the 12 months preceding nomination or have a combination of posting history and contributions to the operation of the site through financial or other contributions during the 12 months preceding nomination."

That is copied and pasted directly from the document. Note that "or" that Jae mentioned. If you are going to comment on the document, at least comment on the final, approved version, not an old draft.

However, we are not discussing the Council model here. We are discussing the Code of Conduct. I'm outta here.

Mendalla

I will say that I am not in a position to contribute very much, if anything, financially yet I fully expect to be welcomed as a member.  I don't have computer skills, so there won't be any contribution that way either.

But I hope that my presence will be considered valuable.  I think I can start or contribute to posts that raise awareness, ask questions, offer opinions, offer comfort and reassurance, and maybe even be amusing.  I think that counts.

bump

Redhead, are you familiar with the difference between "and" and "or"?

If there are 3 points to being a member with an "and" all 3 must be met.

If there are 3 points to being a member with an "or" only 1 of the 3 must be met.

I don't know why you're so hung up on the requirements to be on council.

Trying to get this back on track:

Did my addition of public domain images make sense?  Maybe I'm getting a bit too hung up on details, I just wasn't comfortable with the working originally presented.

okay.  what is defined as other contributions?

and could the final approved (voted upon ) document be posted so that one may view it easily - trolling through old postings is not easy - a clear posting with a link may help many.  Don't that I caught any such posting- but openly I admit that I may be wrong.

Sensible addition. If it's out there in the media or something, then it is no longer private. Had trouble finding it amidst the clutter (which is why I emphasize the need to keep these threads on topic).

Mendalla

Mendalla has been putting up new threads with clear links in the first post every step of the way.

It was linked in the opening post of the thread announcing the vote, redhead (which I have posted a link to below). But if you want to discuss it for some reason, please open a new thread or discuss it in that thread. I will not discuss anything other than the Code of Conduct on this thread at this point.

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-how-are-we-governed-...

I have responded to the question about other contributions in the thread below. Let's carry on the discussion of Council and membership there.

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-governance-vote#comm...

Mendalla

I am like seeler and I know that she and  I have been valuable members on WonderCafe and we will be on WC2. along with everyone else here.( No money involved)

Where is John when you need him?. I have never seen a thread be controlled by one person who is causing havoc.

Too bad this is not the same person who added so much to threads even in the midst of her illness. 

yes, I am very familiar with grammar.

Here is what to be concerned about:

Council members must be registered users of Wondercafe2. Candidates should have an active, continuous history of posting on the forums during the 12 months preceding nomination or have a combination of posting history and contributions to the operation of the site through financial or other contributions during the 12 months preceding nomination.

If one wants to be clearly concerned, then examine what the requirements are for becoming a Council member.

NOW TELL ME WHAT OR MEANS?

NOW TELL ME THAT FINANCIAL, AND STILL NOT DEFINED OR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS, MEANS?

AM I STILL REFERRING TO AN OLD DRAFT?

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

What financial contributions???? OR in kind???? OR Other????  And what does that have to do with Council????  How is that in any voluntary, nominational, elective process feasible?

Redhead, are you okay?

No, redhead. Other thread.

Mendalla