Cat, I feel that it was inappropriate to ask people not directly involved in the Greatest Issue discussion to not post to the thread. While that may be how you envisioned the process, it is nowhere specified that that is the way it works. The post on the moderation process does talk about the complainants and the moderators working things through. But it is silent on the subject of outside participation. In fact, the few times we have tried this process pretty much everyone who wanted to has participated. It just seems like a capricious and sudden direction change to only now start requiring that participation be limited to specific individuals. Let's stick to the written rules. In fact, it could be interpreted by someone who doesn't know you as odd that you started enforcing that rule only when members posted and supported my position, which you disagreed with. In order to maintain moderator neutrality, we must be very careful to avoid the appearance of favoritism. Let's stick to the written rules as closely as we can. Unwritten rules have no place on this forum. If you feel that that rule should be added, that's another issue entirely, and we can discuss that.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Well, we have identified a "growth" issue for the forum. I agree with you Arbilad. I went back and reviewed the description we included for the Moderation Process, and it does not explicitly state that third parties can not participate in a mediation without direct invitation of the moderator panel. I think I implicitly meant to have that as part of the process, as a check to keep things from derailing or flaring up worse within the mediation, but we did not actually state it. We kind of lumped mediation and moderation discussion into one concept.
Ladies (and anyone else who was upset), I am sorry for asking you to withhold comment.
I think we should put out for public discussion and vote whether what I had implied but is not explicitly state should be part of the policy of the forum.
Proposed: Forum members who are not directly involved with a mediation as a participant or panel member agree to withhold direct comment to the respective thread until such time as they are invited to make comment. A moderation discussion, is open for public comment without invitation.
Proposed: A differentiation between mediation and moderation discussion shall be defined as: a mediation is to define the basis of a conflict and to create a resolution between two or more individuals (including moderators not acting in official capacity); whereas a moderation discussion is discussion of a grievance concerning an action of a moderator acting in official capacity.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Thanks Cat. I was a little confused, not so much by the written rule as by the fact that it's in a publicly posted thread. If mediation should be considered confidential, then it should (IMHO) be taken up privately in e-mail or PMs because I'm not so sure the rest of us need to be a party to a mediation (especially since there's usually an air of reprimand in a case like that). Though there may need to be an explanatory post if a thread is temporarily or permanently locked. If something is up for public discussion, then by all means there should be a public thread.
The vision originally was that both mediation and moderation discussions would be public and open to scrutiny, that unless something was expressly confidential in nature, it would occur in the open... Unfortunately, there is no practical way of limiting a forum thread to just a few for posting (without making them moderators) and yet also have view only for everyone else.
And, whenever a moderation activity occurs, one of our policies is that a description of what happened and why is posted in this area in case there is any concerns or disputes about it.
We're still growing and learning as a forum and support staff, so it is wonderful that most everyone is patient. We've made a few mistakes and had some misteps, but probably 99% of folks have worked through them with the rest of us.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Also, as I re-read the Other Thread, the definition of 'doctrine' came up. I used to be the Teacher Development coordinator in my ward, and according to that manual and the things I have learned (which of course are up to debate ;) ), it was fairly clear, but we might want to discuss them and set a rule as to what constitutes 'doctrine' so that if it comes up again we have something to fall back on. From my experience, what constitutes doctrine includes: 1. The Holy Scriptures, including the Old and New Testaments, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. 2. All current manuals, pamphlets, books and magazines published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (NOT Deseret Book). This includes conference materials, by definition, but also includes the Proclamation on the Family and the Testimony of Jesus Christ. There are actually VERY few things published by the church, for the express reason of keeping doctrine clear.
This is quite a narrow definition, but it adheres to the standards for teaching that were set forth in the Teaching Development course. This doesn't include everything ever said by the prophets and apostles, though some things may be doctrine to a particular locality or generation, but includes everything set as a standard by which the current church must judge things.
