Appeal (see Bill Gothard for development) means reaching out with a request for remedy; what you did I'd call "distance", which is a totally useful method too.
I'm not afraid of light; you may not have yet realized how seriously I take the Bible's instruction that we must first attempt privately and that against elders (tangentially connected) we must have more circumspection, as you haven't addressed those implications directly. It's not about votes either, as mod tools are generally irrespective of votes, as the GAW board's decision to delete as off-topic shows (we requested instead deletion for the rule "respect other readers"). We crossed to this forum to follow your attack. Of course we should have anticipated that we might have that need if we chose to ban, and for neglecting that I apologize.
My protestation that I serve Jesus and have public earthly lines of accountability has not been received. There, I "named the Jew", the only man in heaven and earth who is my master. If you think I serve any other Jew, or any Roman or other, name him. Your hints are not useful and are damaging to the flock, and for them I may need to take personal steps if you think I've left anything unresolved that might invite such an accusation. But for now this page should suffice for that, as long as you honestly tell me what you mean. We can always get witnesses to judge.
No, this a forum that is conducted in the Name of Jesus Christ.
If only! GAW and even Christianity at large are officially conducted by Win Communities, which has an LLC that is responsible, and neither has ever been at large publicly responsible to Jesus. The tagline of Christianity, "in Jesus's name", was not originated as a guarantee of church discipline. However, since I had previously developed a model of how church discipline would work online, I discussed the matter with admin and was permitted to implement a true accountability structure under Jesus, for those members willing to commit to Bible study (not for all). We have just yesterday implemented another phase, allowing us to conduct more discussion among those members with greater enforcement against disruption. Now, technically we can count these two threads as duly constituted under the mod board which is under First Century Bible Church which is under Jesus, and believe me you will have every response Jesus directs; but it's not on account of GAW, but only by their permission. The question is: are you conducting yourself as if in a public forum under his name?
We have been instructed to love all in Christ, islamists, freemasons, everyone.
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you" (Matt. 5:44). However, I find David was also charged with loving his enemies too much (2 Sam. 19:6), so I can understand if you'd like to refine this charge to be more specific.
In reality, the only true forum guideline is Do Not Point Out The Errors Of The catholic "church."
This seems an exaggeration of one or two events. Catholic criticism is welcome if it's not creedal criticism (which is regulated). We had u/Joujigun all over the place and I let him rant and barely engaged except to point out things like the word "priest" does appear in the Bible, which he had flatly denied as a proposition. I'm taking this as a concern about specific events that means we should (1) research and remediate the events and (2) establish a baseline understanding to prevent recurrence.
You have lords as you have stated and they have instructed you to assign a watchdog to me so that I do not violate the Golden Rule. I know this. I upset your lord's agenda.
I have Jesus and, on earth, the FCBC lines. We're pretty hard against soft Catholics. u/CuomoisaMassMurderer, did anyone assign you as a watchdog so that Andy not violate some pro-Catholic rule? It's more likely that Jesus assigned him to you to build toward the airing and resolution of your grievances, and that he and I have misused the good-cop bad-cop dynamic. He's been harsh, and we'll address that, I'm sure I have been too, but the use of tools has been level and we'd be happy to document details. You cannot upset my Lord's agenda.
The board's goal, for the sake of the forum and flock, is to negotiate so that CIAMM and I may be "gained" by you (Matt. 18:15) in relation to the offenses stated, that you may forgive the trespass. So my immediate purpose is, insofar as it is possible within me, to be at peace with you and obtain your forgiveness. This is why they permitted us to structure this discussion for this purpose. Another resolution is if you flatly state you cannot forgive us, in which case we have done our duty to you by making the attempt and we can watch for opportunity for another attempt. We hope we can resolve this bilaterally. Leaving the forum, badmouthing us and the forum, IMHO those are less important, but retaining an offense and holding a request in Jesus's name over us are matters I seek immediate reconciliation for.
Now to get to repeating your specifics, (1) You state you were called a liar, given false unproven charges and false accusations, and deleted, as "personally motivated attacks". (2) You allude to past events where you believe handling of Catholicism was imbalanced. (3) You cite "crap", "garbage", and "baby" in this thread as indication that more needs to be done. These all fall in a category that can be addressed by determining the extent of the offenses described here, remediating them through tools, apologizing honestly, and taking steps to prevent recurrence. While other issues might arise, it seems like these plus my initial list constitute enough to go forward with. CIAMM and I have already apologized and begun retractions of our behavior to address this list.
Only real question then: Do you consent to this previous paragraph's approach as an equal hearing conducted in Jesus's name?
You see, the thing about upvotes, people do not upvote what they do not agree with. Are you calling all of them liars that just want to "attack" you, as you've done with me?
I don't know what you mean, I upvote things I don't agree with all the time, if I think the line of thought needs encouragement or my disagreement is over a technicality.
Would you please not pick out one statement and ask me if I'm charging all these anons of lying when I have no idea who they are? Can you see how your question is less conducive to advancing dialogue?
What more sincerity can I give you beyond my profession before Jesus and my human accountability line? Should we invite Dr. Lively into our discussion around his busy schedule? Have you learned who his Lord is yet?
But those are just for my information. My real question is: how can we offer you the equal hearing conducted in Jesus's name that you seek?
Incidentally, and pertinently, I was led for other reasons to review this thread, where you promised to participate in a study that included your commitment to follow Matt. 18 if you had a dispute with me. CIAMM signed on as an auditor rather than a participant. Wouldn't you agree that your initial post in Christianity, "Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules", "False witness ...", contradicted your promise to participate? Asking for CIAMM and the flock. Or, I can give you an outclause, maybe when you transferred the Revelation study to me, you meant that you wanted me to strike you from the roll? Not important, just a matter bearing on how you want this hearing conducted.
I'm working that we see each other's problems. CIAMM has admitted conducting the deletion and ban, and as I said we were both in consultation at that time and tentatively permitted it to stand to determine developments. If either of us had unbanned at that time without the full consent of the other, don't you see how that would be a greater hit on the unity of the leadership than the events that actually happened were?
We have for some months been in discussion about special handling of posts that accuse moderators, and the procedures we prepared for such an event failed us this time. Part of this discussion is to strengthen those procedures to prevent it from happening that way again. It doesn't need formality, but CIAMM has said that at least both of us signing off as to texts making implications against mods would be the path most related to what we can actually do. Does that sound reasonable? I would agree with him that if the post says this mod or all mods are bad or are deleting content, the first mod to spot it may not want to act alone. We are never to delete content solely because it accuses us of deleting content.
You've always had freedom to speak. You crossed a line, a forum rule, by charging the mods with "false witness" and saying that we ourselves use "false" with a double standard. The means to determine and address how much abuse we've engaged in is not splashing the front page, as your past agreement with the Matthew 18 rule implies. But again that part of the overstep is not the issue, as you have not sinned against me, I just need to determine if your actions were injurious to the flock, such as by resolving your concerns to prevent escalation. And protecting the flock was consistent with the ban, which is why I upheld it for the time it would take to research that. Since you currently claim no interest in the forum, that would technically mean you don't care about appealing your ban that will expire shortly anyway; but the real issue is whether this thread is a realm where you agree the Lord can use human means to grant you satisfaction for our offenses, that you may gain us as brothers.
If your speech has ever been chilled by mod action, that is wrong and I apologize. The goal of rules is to offer limited free speech with regulation that respects God and the speech sponsor (the LLC). If someone gets a wrong impression about any enforcement of the rules, there is no rule preventing them from asking, investigating, stating sincere charges, and so on. But use a little care for the flock, don't go oblique for awhile and suddenly burst out on the front page with the gratuitous headline. I'm sure you've been in a congregation where we really do all hold each other accountable, and that is what Jesus has empowered the three of us to do here.
Placeholder acknowledgment, will answer next.
Appeal (see Bill Gothard for development) means reaching out with a request for remedy; what you did I'd call "distance", which is a totally useful method too.
I'm not afraid of light; you may not have yet realized how seriously I take the Bible's instruction that we must first attempt privately and that against elders (tangentially connected) we must have more circumspection, as you haven't addressed those implications directly. It's not about votes either, as mod tools are generally irrespective of votes, as the GAW board's decision to delete as off-topic shows (we requested instead deletion for the rule "respect other readers"). We crossed to this forum to follow your attack. Of course we should have anticipated that we might have that need if we chose to ban, and for neglecting that I apologize.
My protestation that I serve Jesus and have public earthly lines of accountability has not been received. There, I "named the Jew", the only man in heaven and earth who is my master. If you think I serve any other Jew, or any Roman or other, name him. Your hints are not useful and are damaging to the flock, and for them I may need to take personal steps if you think I've left anything unresolved that might invite such an accusation. But for now this page should suffice for that, as long as you honestly tell me what you mean. We can always get witnesses to judge.
If only! GAW and even Christianity at large are officially conducted by Win Communities, which has an LLC that is responsible, and neither has ever been at large publicly responsible to Jesus. The tagline of Christianity, "in Jesus's name", was not originated as a guarantee of church discipline. However, since I had previously developed a model of how church discipline would work online, I discussed the matter with admin and was permitted to implement a true accountability structure under Jesus, for those members willing to commit to Bible study (not for all). We have just yesterday implemented another phase, allowing us to conduct more discussion among those members with greater enforcement against disruption. Now, technically we can count these two threads as duly constituted under the mod board which is under First Century Bible Church which is under Jesus, and believe me you will have every response Jesus directs; but it's not on account of GAW, but only by their permission. The question is: are you conducting yourself as if in a public forum under his name?
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you" (Matt. 5:44). However, I find David was also charged with loving his enemies too much (2 Sam. 19:6), so I can understand if you'd like to refine this charge to be more specific.
This seems an exaggeration of one or two events. Catholic criticism is welcome if it's not creedal criticism (which is regulated). We had u/Joujigun all over the place and I let him rant and barely engaged except to point out things like the word "priest" does appear in the Bible, which he had flatly denied as a proposition. I'm taking this as a concern about specific events that means we should (1) research and remediate the events and (2) establish a baseline understanding to prevent recurrence.
I have Jesus and, on earth, the FCBC lines. We're pretty hard against soft Catholics. u/CuomoisaMassMurderer, did anyone assign you as a watchdog so that Andy not violate some pro-Catholic rule? It's more likely that Jesus assigned him to you to build toward the airing and resolution of your grievances, and that he and I have misused the good-cop bad-cop dynamic. He's been harsh, and we'll address that, I'm sure I have been too, but the use of tools has been level and we'd be happy to document details. You cannot upset my Lord's agenda.
The board's goal, for the sake of the forum and flock, is to negotiate so that CIAMM and I may be "gained" by you (Matt. 18:15) in relation to the offenses stated, that you may forgive the trespass. So my immediate purpose is, insofar as it is possible within me, to be at peace with you and obtain your forgiveness. This is why they permitted us to structure this discussion for this purpose. Another resolution is if you flatly state you cannot forgive us, in which case we have done our duty to you by making the attempt and we can watch for opportunity for another attempt. We hope we can resolve this bilaterally. Leaving the forum, badmouthing us and the forum, IMHO those are less important, but retaining an offense and holding a request in Jesus's name over us are matters I seek immediate reconciliation for.
Now to get to repeating your specifics, (1) You state you were called a liar, given false unproven charges and false accusations, and deleted, as "personally motivated attacks". (2) You allude to past events where you believe handling of Catholicism was imbalanced. (3) You cite "crap", "garbage", and "baby" in this thread as indication that more needs to be done. These all fall in a category that can be addressed by determining the extent of the offenses described here, remediating them through tools, apologizing honestly, and taking steps to prevent recurrence. While other issues might arise, it seems like these plus my initial list constitute enough to go forward with. CIAMM and I have already apologized and begun retractions of our behavior to address this list.
Only real question then: Do you consent to this previous paragraph's approach as an equal hearing conducted in Jesus's name?
You see, the thing about upvotes, people do not upvote what they do not agree with. Are you calling all of them liars that just want to "attack" you, as you've done with me?
I'm not feeling the sincerity.
I don't know what you mean, I upvote things I don't agree with all the time, if I think the line of thought needs encouragement or my disagreement is over a technicality.
Would you please not pick out one statement and ask me if I'm charging all these anons of lying when I have no idea who they are? Can you see how your question is less conducive to advancing dialogue?
What more sincerity can I give you beyond my profession before Jesus and my human accountability line? Should we invite Dr. Lively into our discussion around his busy schedule? Have you learned who his Lord is yet?
But those are just for my information. My real question is: how can we offer you the equal hearing conducted in Jesus's name that you seek?
Incidentally, and pertinently, I was led for other reasons to review this thread, where you promised to participate in a study that included your commitment to follow Matt. 18 if you had a dispute with me. CIAMM signed on as an auditor rather than a participant. Wouldn't you agree that your initial post in Christianity, "Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules", "False witness ...", contradicted your promise to participate? Asking for CIAMM and the flock. Or, I can give you an outclause, maybe when you transferred the Revelation study to me, you meant that you wanted me to strike you from the roll? Not important, just a matter bearing on how you want this hearing conducted.
"Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules"
I had to go to another forum to even speak at all and I'm at fault? You just don't see the problem, do you?
I'm working that we see each other's problems. CIAMM has admitted conducting the deletion and ban, and as I said we were both in consultation at that time and tentatively permitted it to stand to determine developments. If either of us had unbanned at that time without the full consent of the other, don't you see how that would be a greater hit on the unity of the leadership than the events that actually happened were?
We have for some months been in discussion about special handling of posts that accuse moderators, and the procedures we prepared for such an event failed us this time. Part of this discussion is to strengthen those procedures to prevent it from happening that way again. It doesn't need formality, but CIAMM has said that at least both of us signing off as to texts making implications against mods would be the path most related to what we can actually do. Does that sound reasonable? I would agree with him that if the post says this mod or all mods are bad or are deleting content, the first mod to spot it may not want to act alone. We are never to delete content solely because it accuses us of deleting content.
You've always had freedom to speak. You crossed a line, a forum rule, by charging the mods with "false witness" and saying that we ourselves use "false" with a double standard. The means to determine and address how much abuse we've engaged in is not splashing the front page, as your past agreement with the Matthew 18 rule implies. But again that part of the overstep is not the issue, as you have not sinned against me, I just need to determine if your actions were injurious to the flock, such as by resolving your concerns to prevent escalation. And protecting the flock was consistent with the ban, which is why I upheld it for the time it would take to research that. Since you currently claim no interest in the forum, that would technically mean you don't care about appealing your ban that will expire shortly anyway; but the real issue is whether this thread is a realm where you agree the Lord can use human means to grant you satisfaction for our offenses, that you may gain us as brothers.
If your speech has ever been chilled by mod action, that is wrong and I apologize. The goal of rules is to offer limited free speech with regulation that respects God and the speech sponsor (the LLC). If someone gets a wrong impression about any enforcement of the rules, there is no rule preventing them from asking, investigating, stating sincere charges, and so on. But use a little care for the flock, don't go oblique for awhile and suddenly burst out on the front page with the gratuitous headline. I'm sure you've been in a congregation where we really do all hold each other accountable, and that is what Jesus has empowered the three of us to do here.