Talk:Furs For Christ

Explanation after edit comment

Wanted to start of the discussion page here since someone decided to post a direct jibe to me in the edit history. First of all, I do not work for FFC, but I am staff on other Christian communities. We don't see FFC as competition, although we do often question their competency. Let me attempt to clarify the accusations in the edit statement.

Wolfin, you lie. There's nothing about disallowing a consensus or challenging the moral authority of the forum's leadership. You're the only other furry religious community who's spoken up about it. -- User: IantheGecko

So, first of all this isn't a lie; and, consensus is almost always disallowed under both the "All views, no matter how contrary to one's own, must be treated with respect." rule and the "Be willing to listen with understanding and in the end "agree to disagree."" rules. I would invite you to show where this has ever allowed a full consensus to be reached. This may not even be a bad thing; but, it is an actual fact. Also; the serious discussion being the most actice forum by far is also factual; and I've added references for both.

As for challenging forum staff, there is "Do not publicly question the competence of our staff, unless in the Bug Reports/Site Suggestions forum. Either use that forum or a private message to a higher-up if you have any concerns with a staff member." also in the forum rules; I've now altered the sentence in question to be clearer and hopefully address this issues. Remember that this /is/ supposed to be a non-biased medium and you cannot just remove factual material because it may cast an unpleasant light; it's important there be balance. Most of the communities I represent don't even have a full article here, so, it's not like I'd want to redirect attention. Hopefully this clarifies the matter. --Wolfin 22:00, 26 January 2012 (EST)

OK, I'll concede the staff competence point, but the rules say nothing about challenging the mods's moral authority. I quote Sleet: "this does not mean you aren't allowed to disagree with a moderator in a controversial thread. When it comes to that kind of thing, a moderator is no different than any other user. However, if a moderator tells you something as a moderator, failure to comply can result in disciplinary action. This includes but is not limited to being told to calm down, stay on topic, or change offensive information in your profile." Furthermore, you were the only "other ministry" to complain about our site, on the site. Furs of Faith, the U&G Pub, Open Arms, & FurryChristians haven't said anything about it, nor has Oren, so it's a personal issue you have with us. And that too keeps the article from being neutral. IantheGecko 23:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)

I'm just shocked you decided to include two (mostly) dead ministries and open arms in that list... that's pretty pure desperation. I'll leave it be for now and have someone else who can be more assured of impartiality look over it. --Wolfin 00:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

That's what I was hoping. :) IantheGecko 01:16, 27 January 2012 (EST)