This Appeal Looks Interesting

[drstevej]

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35564863&postcount=1

FrenchAffair

My name is Pastor George and I will be handling your appeal since it deals with the MJf and Messianic issues.

I am requesting Tishri1 post summary of staff discussions regarding this issue in this thread.

Also so I may get a clear understanding from you sir you say that your profile has been vandalized what do you mean by that?

Also I see your faith icon is listed as Oriental Orthodox is this correct?

Also I see that you were born in Israel may I ask if your mother is Jewish?

Thank you

PG

Is your mother Jewish? :popcorn:
Looks like fun.

Thank you for the quick response P_G, though I am faced with some concerns as to you handleing this situation.

First would be your profile picture, it appears that you are Jewish. Nothing wrong with this, however given the details and circumstances of this situation and opinions/feelings of the majority of Jews towards this situation I feel it poses too great of a possibility for bias, the very bias that this ban exemplifies in the first place.

There is also this picture in your signature

http://www.nehemiah-center.org/2flags.jpg

With the words “Kulanu K'Echad” (as one). It appears you are a supporter of the Zionist entity, a staunch supporter it seems as you equate Israel to Christianity. Again concerning the circumstances of this situation I feel again this furthers the chance of undue bias being practiced.

P_G biased... NAH say it ain't so.

:popcorn:

[CaDan]

This one should be interesting.

[ravenscape]

Heh. Maybe he'll defer to AA.

[drstevej]

first since August 2006!

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35570169&postcount=5

I have been invited to contribute here as a consultant as it were from Orthodoxy. I must declare my hand. I take a very strong anti-Zionist position and regard chiliastic political support for Israel as a grievous heresy in eschatological terms. However, I am going to try to be fair here. Because I do not easily find my way round CF and its complex moderation procedures, could someone other than the complainant furnish me with links detailing the alleged infringements that led to this person being banned? Thank you. (Be aware that I am on vacation from Monday through Friday this week but please write as soon as you can.

[chaoschristian]

And Father Gregory weighs in - like a ton of bricks.

Oops. Didn't see drstevej beat me to that.

[drstevej]

This is the reason that you gave:

Violation rule 2.1

***Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please***

I take a very strong anti-Zionist position and regard chiliastic political support for Israel as a grievous heresy in eschatological terms.

[CaDan]

*shnort*

I notice he claims to be Britishm and I have no reason to doubt that. Watching a real Orthodox priest from another country deal with the minefield of incredibly messed up American pro-Israel fanbois should be a hoot and a half!

[Jello]

dammit, I have to log in to read.

Can't you all please do a complete copy paste so I don't have to log in.

Nevermind. I really don't care.

[drstevej]

Tishri adds:

Our search functions are down so I am unable to gather all the links involved with this poster. From what I know he was banned as a troll in the MJ Forum with excessive reports made against him, and excessive reports made by him against other members.

Because he had more than 100 posts he could not be ebanned and so was normal banned....His PMs to me requesting assistance came on Friday during a time when the Supervisor who issued the ban was away, and when I did get back to him I asked him to wait while I ask the Admin team if perhaps his ban should be lifted.... but that he shouldnt have been in MJF especially as long he was posting(1.4) and reporting(2.3) the way he was. That is all I can give you at this time since our search functions are down.

Since when do we ban based on the number of REPORTS on someone.

Hmmmmmmmm.

[chaoschristian]

And P_G completely disregards the appeals protocols.

[mel brooks]It's good to be the king.[mel brooks]

[Jello]

I really don't get the whole MJ/Zionist thing.

Jesus made things simple. Man makes things complicated.

[ravenscape]

I guess since the protocols for banning someone were completely disregarded, another wrong makes a right. Or something like that.

[Tears of Ash]

Report away.

[ToyotaCamry]

Hang on, I'm going over to DR. They need to post the report threads in the appeal thread.

[ToyotaCamry]

I guess since the protocols for banning someone were completely disregarded, another wrong makes a right. Or something like that.

I suspect it was done from error and not from malice, although it doesn't sound like a long-term ban was justified in this situation. (Short-term, perhaps so. But if it took a week to find out who banned him and why, that's too long as is.)

The parts that trouble me most are that a) nobody posted the report contents and it's a public appeal and b) P_G isn't supposed to be issuing an FSB at all.

[ToyotaCamry]

Working on my list of appeals concerns:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5352727-public-appeal-adjesumpermariam-infraction.html

In post #11 Swart makes a very good point that using unappealable warnings as fodder for infractions is a bit skewed. How to change that I don't know, but it's definitely a topic that needs to be explored.

I'm not comfortable with conciliator communications being private. Why are they not being revealed?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5507239-public-appeal-tishri1-banned.html

1. Contents of reports need to be posted.
2. P_G has no standing to do an FSB.
3. There should not be infractions for each post made on an FSB.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5483353-public-appeal-jeffreylloyd-infraction.html

This is not a violation, but the idea that stopping the clock waives the 30 day requirement needs to be clearer.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5427254-public-appeal-petrarch-infraction.html

Report content needs to be posted.

This is better than it may have been in the past, but there are still some troublesome issues that need to be addressed.

[chaoschristian]

I suspect it was done from error and not from malice, although it doesn't sound like a long-term ban was justified in this situation. (Short-term, perhaps so. But if it took a week to find out who banned him and why, that's too long as is.)

The parts that trouble me most are that a) nobody posted the report contents and it's a public appeal and b) P_G isn't supposed to be issuing an FSB at all.

I interpret P_G's actions this way:

To his credit, I think P_G views CF as his congregation (he is a Pastor after all) and he takes the wellfare of its members seriously. I may not always agree with how he cares for his flock, but that he cares, I think, is a hard thing to dispute.

P_G, in the public appeals at least, seems to have a habit of disregarding established process and protocol and getting at a solution that he things best serves the system and the individual member. In this was he cares for the member by getting resolution quickly and providing what he believes is a fair solution.

This behaviour doesn't surprise me, it's something that I observe in pastors across denominational lines.

It doesn't make what he did right, or his solution the best solution overall, but it does demonstrate that he has a definite pastoral inclination. Nothing to be ashamed about to say the least.

Now, the cynical side of me also observes that this was the quickest way to close up the situation and quash any messy disagreement over Israel/Zionism that exists between two members of Exec. It also fails to address a number of issues, namely what TC pointed out: the cockup of the permament ban and the question of whether of not P_G can unilaterally issue FSBs. There are other issues of detail as well, like the posting of the record, allowing the member to respond, conciliator input and all the timing restrictions.

I've worked with one other member of Exec on an appeal and from that experience I can say that Exec doesn't seem to be too familiar with the appeals process and protocols. This one can work to one's advantage, but it can also cause of a lot of headache as well.

[ToyotaCamry]

I do see that pastoral inclination in PG, definitely. I work in accounting. I'm fairly far on the other side.

The problem is that there needs to be some discretion allowed for staff, but protocol should still be followed. When you can both follow protocol and be pastoral, that is the absolute best way to do things. In this case I don't see anything that would prevent that from occuring.

Then sometimes the solution PG arrives at turns everything into a royal mess (see pro-life only in signatures for a good example). That's the problem is that it can't be fixed either.

[Joykins]

Conciliator communications don't need to be private.

However, posting 'em in appeals *BLAM* without asking or even bothering to tell the conciliator--and this was something new--had to be addressed. Still does, probably.

[kiwimac]

I agree,

Good on Father Gregory

[littleflower]

So, where is CF?

Did it simply disappear?

Other than this information:
Domain : WWW.CHRISTIANFORUMS.COM

IP address : 206.251.73.52
ISP : LinkLINE Communications
Organization : LinkLINE Communications
Location : US, United States
City : Ontario, CA 91761
Latitude : 34°02'73" North
Longitude : 117°58'78" West


This is what it says:

Whois Server Version 1.3

No match for "WWW.CHRISTIANFORUMS.COM".

>>> Last update of whois database: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:06:36 UTC <<<


In the past when CF has been down, the whois information was always available.


No longer. . .


.

[drstevej]

Hi TLF!

[Glass*Soul]

I know nothing of technicalities.

On one of my browsers I get the message: The page cannot be displayed

On the other I get the message: Your search "www%2echristianforums%2ecom" returned no results.

[Swart]

Conciliator communications don't need to be private.

However, posting 'em in appeals *BLAM* without asking or even bothering to tell the conciliator--and this was something new--had to be addressed. Still does, probably.
Well, SB now seems to be taking the complete opposite tack and is refusing to post conciliator communications even with the conciliator's permission unless each and every PM specifically says this is okay.

[Joykins]

Well, SB now seems to be taking the complete opposite tack and is refusing to post conciliator communications even with the conciliator's permission unless each and every PM specifically says this is okay.

I'm sorry you got caught in a pissing match between me and suzybeezy.

On the other hand, if you have CaDan's permission and access, there's no reason why you can't post them.

[Swart]

I'm sorry you got caught in a pissing match between me and suzybeezy.

On the other hand, if you have CaDan's permission and access, there's no reason why you can't post them.
The big problem I have is that the entire record seems to have been ignore by her. In addition, she seems to be denying statements made by her and her team about impartiality.

[KeithJM]

So, where is CF?

Did it simply disappear?

Man, I hope so. Then you guys could get over the ungodly obsession you seem to have with it and it's associated drama.

[drstevej]

This is the reason that you gave:

Violation rule 2.1

***Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please***

No action taken

[monkeywrench]

FrenchAffair says he was posting on an [OPEN ]thread. Doesn't that mean he can post there?

[kimber1]

that's what i was wondering

[Tears of Ash]

Hi TLF!

If by TLF you mean Tastes Like Future at CF, then the answer's no. I haven't been to CF in a few days anyways, nor have a done a whois on it. The dude who posted that wasn't me. Good try though.


Though it is information interesting to me. :-o


I did a new whois and it says it expires July 19th, which I think I've posted before. Where did that guy get june 11?

[drstevej]

If by TLF you mean Tastes Like Future at CF, then the answer's no. I haven't been to CF in a few days anyways, nor have a done a whois on it. The dude who posted that wasn't me. Good try though.


Though it is information interesting to me. :-o


I did a new whois and it says it expires July 19th, which I think I've posted before. Where did that guy get june 11?

TLF in this case was a reference to Therese Little Flower. I assumed the member Little Flower might be her. sorry for the initial-confusion.
Steve

[Tears of Ash]

abbreviations for the lose :(

sorry about that

[CaDan]

Although it would be incredibly awesome if tlf was your sock! Two cans of Cheez Whiz, for sure!

[jenda]

FrenchAffair says he was posting on an [OPEN ]thread. Doesn't that mean he can post there?

He still can't debate there. The [open] tags just open it for non-NC icon holders. His posts need to be fellowship posts or questions.

[ToyotaCamry]

While that's widely known on staff, it isn't clear to members that that's how open tags work. So...time to lobby for it to be made clearer.

Or maybe time to quibble for dramarama, whatever.

[monkeywrench]

He still can't debate there. The [open] tags just open it for non-NC icon holders. His posts need to be fellowship posts or questions.Now that you mention it, I'm starting to remember that.

While that's widely known on staff, it isn't clear to members that that's how open tags work. So...time to lobby for it to be made clearer.

Or maybe time to quibble for dramarama, whatever.I guess you have a point. I pay attention and I wasn't remembering how that worked.