Stmatt- One of the best things about the forum was that Bro. Yohe was using it more or less like a think tank.
He invited people with substance behind their opinions to write articles that were in fact "peer reviewed" on the board. This does not happen anywhere else in our Apostolic circles so far as I know.
The Pentecostal Herald avoids any real debate or thought-provoking articles, contininuing to only allow what speaks the party line. Pentecostal Publishing House only prints books that line up with the manual.
Bro. Yohe was interested in ideas of whatever stripe so long as they were articulated well and had substance to them. Opinions off the top of one's head and and/or unexamined traditional rhetoric wouldn't make a good article for the forum and Jim Yohe knew that.
His vision made for interesting reading and lively debate as we dug into the topic; and drew in quality posters.
It would be good to have articles again. Peer review is something that is sorely lacking in most circles that think we must all speak with the same voice.
There you go. THE difference.
__________________ "I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
I have to be honest in saying that I am growing more and more bored towards the forum. I am finding less and less substance, and more and more bickering taking place. It is slowly becoming a "I know you are but what am I" type place.
At the beginning it was not so. Anyone that was at the original Faithchild Forum will tell you that there was a dynamic that was there like I have not seen since. There was heated discussions, and debates on subjects that still interest us today. There was still the views of those ranging from Conservative to Liberal there. But there was a respect for each other that caused most folks there not to become cynical, sarcastic, and attacking in their posts. So as I have pondered all this, I see that maybe it is that respect has come up missing. I really don't know.
Maybe some of you that where there can help us out?? How did Jim do it?? How did he make a forum where folks could discuss things the way we did then, and yet still be respectful?? And in your opinion, what can we do to duplicate it??
I haven't read this whole thread but I will attempt an answer from my perspective. I was the 83rd member to sign up on Faithchild Forum, so I was around almost from the beginning. I primarily came there to defend the uncut hair doctrine that was being written against by Newman.
One difference that I see is there were articles written that people were discussing and it made it easier to stick with the topic at hand. Many times I quoted directly from the articles and challenged the author to defend her position with scripture. It was a very mind sharpening exercise.
The second difference is that -like it or not- Jim and Mike Flemming ran a tight ship with regard to anyone who was seen as attacking another poster for any reason. I know, I was banned 3 times - the first by JHY himself. I wish I still had the e-mail he sent me. He clearly stated that the forum was for the discussion of ideas not personalities. When I compare the things I said to get banned with what posters get away with here and at the nFCF the difference is dramatic.
Jim wanted a place for good discussion of doctrine and ideas, but not a place for people who just wanted to take cheap shots at people they would otherwise have no access to. That's what many of these other forums have in common. They provide an opportunity for the walking wounded to be heard, and often it takes the form of immature insults and outright mockery - something that was not allowed on Jim's watch. I know, I learned the hard way.
Stmatt- One of the best things about the forum was that Bro. Yohe was using it more or less like a think tank.
He invited people with substance behind their opinions to write articles that were in fact "peer reviewed" on the board. This does not happen anywhere else in our Apostolic circles so far as I know.
The Pentecostal Herald avoids any real debate or thought-provoking articles, contininuing to only allow what speaks the party line. Pentecostal Publishing House only prints books that line up with the manual.
Bro. Yohe was interested in ideas of whatever stripe so long as they were articulated well and had substance to them. Opinions off the top of one's head and and/or unexamined traditional rhetoric wouldn't make a good article for the forum and Jim Yohe knew that.
His vision made for interesting reading and lively debate as we dug into the topic; and drew in quality posters.
It would be good to have articles again. Peer review is something that is sorely lacking in most circles that think we must all speak with the same voice.
I was one of the first to be on Bro Yohe's forum...I think.
I'll tell you one difference. I actually worried about getting banned... I don't think he would have allowed half of what we've become. Maybe he would, we just didn't get the opportunity to see. I know Bro Yohe even banned himself once. He was a stickler for the lines he did draw and when he crossed it himself...he gave himself a temp ban as far as posting opinion.
Newman is right. Bro Yohe's articles were there, then he invited others. He had writers from Newman to Kansas Preacher on the hook to write. We might have vehemently disagreed but we respected each other...and if we didn't we got dumped.
I will say this. You can't recreate the old fcf. There is too much disrespect already and no one will write an article and put it out as fodder for ridicule.
There are very few posters who will attempt anything of substance here. I come here for the banter and to see if there is anything noteworthy, but I save my views for safer climes.
FCF was growing rapidly at the time of Bro Yohe's death. Yet, I do believe it still had the same flavor and discipline as when it was smaller.
I think the only way it can be recreated is with a more tightly controlled environment...and I doubt that many here want that to happen. Say what you want...Bro Yohe was as firm and hard about how he wanted his forum to be as the administration of CAF or Goodnewscafe. He wanted more diversity...but he rode herd as the strong-armed segundo with a quick triggered ban button. It was fun....
I think the only way it can be recreated is with a more tightly controlled environment...and I doubt that many here want that to happen. Say what you want...Bro Yohe was as firm and hard about how he wanted his forum to be as the administration of CAF or Goodnewscafe. He wanted more diversity...but he rode herd as the strong-armed segundo with a quick triggered ban button. It was fun....
And when we tried to be a little stricter, people screamed that we were "censoring" them...
But just for the record...(I'm saying this as a regular member, and not a moderator) I will say I think you are exactly right. The admins need to tighten up a little... and stop allowing so much of the stuff that has been going on. JMO, for whatever it's worth. (And now I'm going to go back to my quiet little corner as mostly an observer)
We had a different flavor of posters on FCF, for the most part. As someone else said, their was respect even when we disagreed. Topics were discussed and goofing off was at a minimum.
Jim liked to pick the UPC brains of people and bring them to their senses without them realizing it. He had a sense of humor that I didn't realize fully until his passing, and I wish I'd known him better.
His forum had purpose other than just a place to chat. Mike tried to continue that idea, but it just wasn't the same after Jim was gone.
The question to ask here is, what's the purpose of this forum, and why are we here?
I know what I'd answer.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
And when we tried to be a little stricter, people screamed that we were "censoring" them...
But just for the record...(I'm saying this as a regular member, and not a moderator) I will say I think you are exactly right. The admins need to tighten up a little... and stop allowing so much of the stuff that has been going on. JMO, for whatever it's worth. (And now I'm going to go back to my quiet little corner as mostly an observer)
Well on FCF, if you argued with a moderator even one time you were banned. I know it happened to me. I was warned because I told another poster that he was obviously a racist and when I disputed with admin's assesment of the situation - I was gone for 14 days. One warning, no slack. The mantra was always discuss ideas not personalities, period.
Well on FCF, if you argued with a moderator even one time you were banned. I know it happened to me. I was warned because I told another poster that he was obviously a racist and when I disputed with admin's assesment of the situation - I was gone for 14 days. One warning, no slack. The mantra was always discuss ideas not personalities, period.
And when he banned someone, nobody questioned his authority on it either. Nobody.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
I have been a part of FCF and its various permutations.
One of the great strengths of FCF were the articles that were presented monthly. Much of the discussion flowed from the articles.
It is also worthy of note that many of the "simpleton" threads that pop up here would never have been tolerated. That being said there were some epic battles waged on FCF, but waged within bounds.
FCF depended on the personality of its founder for much of its success. With his passing some of what made FCF successful went AWOL.
Finally, the big question is how sustainable a forum is hashing over the same old thing again and again. This even became an issue on FCF.
Finally, hate it or love it, Doubtful Thomas was a must read each month. Kind of like a car wreck, you just couldn't help looking.
I have been a part of FCF and its various permutations.
One of the great strengths of FCF were the articles that were presented monthly. Much of the discussion flowed from the articles.
It is also worthy of note that many of the "simpleton" threads that pop up here would never have been tolerated. That being said there were some epic battles waged on FCF, but waged within bounds.
FCF depended on the personality of its founder for much of its success. With his passing some of what made FCF successful went AWOL.
Finally, the big question is how sustainable a forum is hashing over the same old thing again and again. This even became an issue on FCF.
Finally, hate it or love it, Doubtful Thomas was a must read each month. Kind of like a car wreck, you just couldn't help looking.
Agreed.
__________________ Smiles & Blessings.... ~Felicity Welsh~ (surname courtesy of Jim Yohe)
I have been a part of FCF and its various permutations.
One of the great strengths of FCF were the articles that were presented monthly. Much of the discussion flowed from the articles.
It is also worthy of note that many of the "simpleton" threads that pop up here would never have been tolerated. That being said there were some epic battles waged on FCF, but waged within bounds.
FCF depended on the personality of its founder for much of its success. With his passing some of what made FCF successful went AWOL.
Finally, the big question is how sustainable a forum is hashing over the same old thing again and again. This even became an issue on FCF.
Finally, hate it or love it, Doubtful Thomas was a must read each month. Kind of like a car wreck, you just couldn't help looking.
From the many comments here tonight, it is obvious that we want/need the aricles to be a part of what is happening here.
Linear Mode
