"Forum Rules"?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Try looking at some of the MORMON "sticky" stuff...

You may find some information there.

(How does that old saying go?.."You can lead a horse to water...")

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Alan, for me-the "common rules" are those which one finds in "forum rules"--and I have abided by those rules, to the best of my ability, and hold no animosity toward anyone here. In fact--I have had a very enjoyable time here.

There is nothing in those "forum rules"--which states it is against the rules to claim one is a Christian. Nor is there anything which states signature lines are part of the rules.

You have claimed your signature line comes from the "forum rules"--which is just not true. There is no such rule found in the "forum rules". The posters here deserve a clear and concise "forum rules" to understand what is expected of them--not what a moderator uses as a signature line.

When one comes here--they are asked to review the "forum rules"--not a signature line. I believe we deserve a better and more concise "forum rules" than the shifting sands of someone who claims rules are part of the "forum rules"--which appear nowhere within those "forum rules".

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

again, as long as you maintain your posts "within" the guidelines set forth by the owner, I don't have a problem with any of the things people post.

However if a person breaks a rule, then there is a system set up to handle such things.

If you or anyone else has a question as to what is and is not allowed?...just ask.

I have asked--with no answer.

Again--where do we find your signature line in the "forum rules"--as you claim?

"From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

Why is a moderator claiming that is from the "forum rules"--when there is no such thing found in the "forum rules"?

What source are you claiming your quote came from? Can you share it with us--as it is not found in the source you claim? What other "forum rules" are you claiming, as such--which are not present in the "forum rules"?

[alanmolstad]

I really don't care if you like the rules or not...

Just continue to follow the rules and we will get along fine.

I will try to cut people some slack as they get used the rules if they are new here, or perhaps did not know about a few of the rules because they did not know about them until l I told them what the rules are as of right now.

But I do expect that once people have been given a clear warning what the rules are and that they are going to be enforced, that i expect them maintain their future posts within their guidelines.

do so and you won't hear squat from me.....

[alanmolstad]

so...in other words.....

If there is anything I have posted that you have a doubt about, or you think is not a "real" rule that will be enforced?...
Umm too bad.

These are the rules.
They will be enforced.

They were posted by the owner way back in 2009 and have been up for all to see from that time on.

There is a reason they are on permanent display!

I cant help it if you missed them,
I cant help if you thought they were not "real" or binding.

But I can make it very clear to anyone interested that these are the rules, have been from the start, and they will be enforced.
Go read them for yourself...learn it, live it.

Now I will cut people some slack if they are new, or did not know about this or that rule until they saw me post about it,
I understand we did not have an official MOD for a long time, so its natural to run into some who might be upset at this new development and what concern it might cause some.

but once they have received a warning concerning a rule I expect them to adapt to it...

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

so...in other words.....

If there is anything I have posted that you have a doubt about,

I have serious doubts what you have claimed is true:

"From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

Where do we find that in the "forum rules"? Please focus in on the point which I am addressing.

[alanmolstad]

They are the rules that the owner has posted, so they are the rules we will work within....case-closed.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

They are the rules that the owner has posted, so they are the rules we will work within....case-closed.

Posted where? Where do we find this posted rule?

"From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

Alan--you have claimed all who post here agree to abide by the rules. If there is a rule--then the posters should have ready access to those rules--and those rules are found in the "forum rules".

What other set of rules are you referring to? Where are they to be found, as your signature rule is not found in the "forum rules"?

[alanmolstad]

a story:

Ever notice that no one dares call another member of this message forum the term " the Circuit Mormon"?

Oh it used to come up around here all the time.
Lots of bickering and fighting, name-calling, and sooner or later a weird phrase or two would be seen on the forum.

I can remember them days...
Although it might seem like I just got to this forum back in 2011 , that date actually is only when the whole message forum was taken down and we all had to re-register under new names.
I remember that the fact we would all have our "post counts" start over at zero upset a few people that were proud of the fact they had a count in the thousands.

But I also remember that the term "Circuit Mormon" got p***ed around at that time too, when some people got frustrated with others.

Im not even sure anymore of the context of how the term was being used?..(My guess it was talking about people that made the internet forum circuit? going from place to place?
But Im not sure about that.)

What I do remember is that it was upsetting enough to other guests and for the owner of this message board to put up a rule banning it's use as well as the term "Anti-Mormon" with the posting of a sticky that has stayed up to this very day>

and i quote:
"The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. This applies to terms like "anti-Mormon" and "Circuit Mormon".

Effective immediately, members who use derogatory terms will be warned once, and the second time they will be banned indefinitely without warning. A third infraction will result in a long term account suspension.

From the moment the owner posted this, the terms she banned have disappeared from the forum, and only showed up after that when people who did not realize what a big deal it was , and how serious the owner takes them, posted them by accident. ( see http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/s...rogatory-Terms for this and other information)

[alanmolstad]

another story:


There was this one member of this forum, that got into the habit of misspelling the word "Mormon" .
He would pretend to misspell the word as "moron" .

Now at first he said it was all a total accident, and I took him first at his word.
But as he went along he kept making the same 'accident" and so it was clear he was attempting to sneak under the rules radar and call Mormons names.

I wrote to the guy a Private message and warned him that what he was doing was clearly against the rules,
But he defended his actions, saying that no one can prove it was not just a accident, and therefore the Mod could not ban him.

I responded that the MOD can sure ban him for breaking the 'spirit" of the rule, and that no list of official rules can be ever understood as covering every single thing that might come up in the future.

But my friend felt strongly that as long as he could point to a lack of a specific rule against what he was doing he could not be said to be breaking any rule.

He was wrong.
He did not last long....nor did his posts on the forum.

[alanmolstad]

Im always happy to answer any questions anyone has.
I will always feel a bit disappointed when I see someone who ends up getting the boot from here over a misunderstanding they had about the questions, what are rules? , or are they really enforced?

Trust me, if the owner of this site has posted it they did so for a very good reason, then it's a rule, its the Divine law come down from "above"....and we will step into line with it.

I really dont care if you think in your heart, "Alan I don't think that's a real rule"
Im not in charge of what you believe.
I dont really care what you believe about the rules, or how real they are to you.

But I am tasked to make sure that the rules are enforced, and so I will.
I will cut people some slack when they are new, or did not know of this or that rule, (as not all the rules are posted in the same spots on the forum.)
But once the member is informed I do expect and require them make the needed adjustments to their posts and follow the same rules that everyone else is also expected to keep.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I dont make the rules...I just enforce them..

Since you said it's okay to ask questions, and that you would answer them, I have some questions.

If you didn't make up this rule....then WHO DID make it up?

Do you know?
Is someone forbidding you from telling us?



thanks in advance for answering these questions

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Since you said it's okay to ask questions, and that you would answer them, I have some questions.

If you didn't make up this rule....then WHO DID make it up?

....

see post #26

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

thanks in advance for answering these questions

also see post # 8

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

see post #26

Alan--we deserve better answers than post # 26, IE--

post #26----(How does that old saying go?.."You can lead a horse to water...")

Shouldn't the moderator be able and willing to offer us some reasonable answers?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Alan--we deserve better answers than......

well thats an interesting opinion....

We have kinda dragged out this topic have we not?


I dont mind...Im a very easy going guy, and I understand that the sudden appearance of a MOD on a forum that has been more or less not really known for many such people will naturally cause some members to need to adjust to a new reality.

I imagine that when we started talking about people needing to follow the rules, that some members thought to themselves, "Rules?there are rules here?"...


So lets just be clear at the start-
You have seen the rule posted for a long time on my posted comments, so there is nothing new here in this at all.
I know that there was a nice Mormon lady that also questioned this same rule when she noticed my addition to my posts, , only to do a bit of digging and reading it for herself, and while not liking it, she also did not break the rule from then of too.

I think people just need to be kept informed of the real rules for this site from time to time and they will be able to adjust just fine.
I dont want ANYONE to get into trouble for accidentally breaking a rule, and thats the point of my highlighting it over the past months.
I also dont want anyone to misinterpret that the rule is not an enforceable rule, and so that is the point of me making a big deal about it now.
I want everyone to be on-board as to what the rules are, and without doubt know that I will enforce them .

This is so the issue will not come up in the future.
I dont want to hear anyone in the future try to say to me after a WARNING, "I did not think that was a real rule"

and thus---

I have told you the rule
I have shown where the rule is found
The rule is self-explanatory as to it's origin.

And I have , rather patiently explained, that the rule will be fully enforced and that breaking that or any other rule will be not allowed.

so....anything else?

we better hurry this up because this site has some maintenance to be completed soon, and so there may be some changes and interruptions .

[alanmolstad]

For more information supporting the rules that we are going to stay within, please refer to this link -
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/s...erms-part-deux
There, I would turn your attention to the posts of the owner Jill, and her postings number #16 where she makes it very clear this is a "RULE" that will be enforced,

also there check posts number #27

and finally please refer there to post number #42 and see that there simply is no wiggle room to this rule.






Once again, I don't make the rules.
But I am tasked to now step up and enforce them.....and they will be enforced !

I understand that this forum has not really been known for the use of a MOD ,


and so I can understand that some long-standing members of our message forum might struggle as they work to adapt to the new situation here.
I have no problem cutting new members a bit of slack who don't know about all the rules, and who might post in error.
I also understand that some members who have been here a while may have not known of all the rules, or have forgotten a few over the years.

But once informed of the rules and that they are now enforced, I do expect members of this forum to make a good-faith effort to conform to the rules if they wish to post comments onto the board.


If some members find that they cant control themselves, and/or refuse to submit to the stated rules, then they should consider that they don't have to come to this site.

I would like to keep all the current members and add new names to the list.
I always consider it a shame when some long-standing member gets banned.
My efforts to remind all members of the rules is aimed at helping members understand fully the rules and that they are enforced now so that in the future there is no confusion on the matter.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

For more information supporting the rules that we are going to stay within, please refer to this link -
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/s...erms-part-deux
There, I would turn your attention to the posts of the owner Jill, and her postings number #16 where she makes it very clear this is a "RULE" that will be enforced,

But it's not a rule you claim is found in the "forum rules":

"From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

There is no such rule found in the "forum rules".

[alanmolstad]

Just follow the rules....

Thats all you have to do.

All rules are from the owner, and I personally will take a very dim view if after I have made it so very clear to all that they are real FORUM RULES and that they will be enforced if someone attempts to get away with breaking them because they dont think I was serious....


I mean, before that happens, better ask yourselves - "Is Alan serious?"

These are the forum rules.
and if you have any doubts, then I might suggest you drop back and re-read what Im saying and in doing so I strongly believe you will no longer have any doubts.

[alanmolstad]

On the other hand...

If you simply think that what im saying is not a real rule?

Then one way to put your money where your mouth is, is to try to break the rule.

I mean, if its not a real listed official rule, It its not straight from the owner, If its not listed as a real rule, Then you can be sure nothing will happen right?.


But, on the 3rd hand,.if it is a rule, and you try to break it after the MOD has went on and on telling you "It's a rule, don't break it" and you break it anyway?.....well...lets just say your future as a member in good standing of this message board might be on a bit shaky ground at that point...

[alanmolstad]

so in other words...

"It's a real rule"

Don't break it...


I dont care if you dont like it.

Dont break it.




i dont care if you dont like how its listed on the board.
Dont break it.


I dont care if you dont like how its on every one of my end comments.
Dont break it.


I dont care if you think you dont have to follow it.
Dont break it.

[alanmolstad]

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

so in other words...

"It's a real rule"

Don't break it...

I dont care if you dont like it.

Dont break it.

i dont care if you dont like how its listed on the board.
Dont break it.

I dont care if you dont like how its on every one of my end comments.
Dont break it.

I dont care if you think you dont have to follow it.
Dont break it.

Regardless of what I like--your claim it is found in the "forum rules" cannot be verified:

"From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

That rule is not found in the "forum rules".