Should posting in the Christian Singles Forum be restricted to users 18 and older?

GaryA · Jan 12, 2014

The following quote-referenced comments are strictly intended for the purpose of explanation, so that people will hopefully better understand my thoughts on this subject that seem to have been so monumentally misunderstood. I am not trying to start anything. In general, they are not directed solely at the person quoted; rather, I am only "borrowing" from what they said to make a point "to the crowd"...

Ugly said:

I agree.

mystdancer50 said:

And this can only be done in the Singles Forum???

wisebeardman said:

Your point is a good one; however - "it is a bit more complex than that"...

Ugly said:

'allowed' is the key word here, with regard to this issue --- which takes us all the way back to the [ original ] intent of the use of the forum...

( more on this below )

MidniteWelder said:

This is where it gets "tricky"... Both sides are perfectly valid, and must be balanced against each other.

( more on this below )

Theodore said:

Now THIS represents a VERY good opportunity for raising the CLARITY of what this issue is REALLY all about...

'children' versus 'teens'

( more on this below )

BananaPie said:

This post illustrates perfectly the confusion - and division - over the definitions of 'Adult' and 'Teen'.

I partially agree and partially disagree.

( more on this below )

keep_on_smiling said:

Exactly.

I totally agree 100 percent. Generally speaking:

If they are able to read the content -- they should be able to post.

If they should not be able to post -- they should not be able to read it.

persNickety said:

It is entirely unfruitful to allow this mentality to pervade the decision-making process when defining the proper use of any particular forum. A forum may very well be deleted because it has been found to not measure up to the original intent for the forum when it was created; however, for as long as it exists, it should be regarded and handled according to that original intent -- or, the original intent may be 'modified' or 'updated' as appropriate - based on the will of the site owner.

This is why I have compared different forums like as to neighborhoods -- which, ideally, need to be "cleaned up" rather than disguarded -- and, if any particular forum simply cannot be "cleaned up" satisfactorily - then, it should be disguarded... ( deleted, in favor of a better idea for the 'theme' of a forum )

The mentality of - "just let them go down, and avoid them" - is utterly un-Christian - not to mention, lazy and selfish - and, the epitome of "giving up on the community" - and says a lot about anyone who would support this idea...

The number of people who "came crawling out of the woodwork" on this issue - to express just how much they possessed this mentality - "and could really care less about the rest of the community" ------ this is very "enlightening" indeed!

"I would have hoped that a more mature reaction - grounded in Christian morals - would have been expressed..."

zaoman32 said:

I like them, too; however, this type of decision should not be based on "one, two, or a few" people who happen to have been posting in the forum. One of the important questions to answer is:

"How will the current decision affect the forum in the future when there are 100 teens posting in the forum."

( And - many of them may be as well-liked as lil_christian and Loveneverfails - and many of them not... )

zaoman32 said:

Yes. Absolutely. Subject matter is exactly and precisely what is at the center of this whole issue --- should teens be able to read - and engage in the discussion of - certain topics, issues, etc. that are intrinsic to 'singles' and "single life"...?

zaoman32 said:

This very thing is central to this whole issue --- everything in the Singles Forums should be [ specifically ] relevant to singles --- this is what the whole 'theme' of the forum is --- anything that is not [ specifically ] relevant to singles ( generally speaking, at least ) should go somewhere else -- in a more appropriate forum, based on 'theme'.

zaoman32 said:

I actually tend to agree with what is being said here. I believe that - in general, at least - the access privileges for 'reading' and 'posting' should go together -- both available - or both not...

zaoman32 said:

This apparent "perceived threat" has nothing to do with it. Ultimately, this is about trying to do the overall-best-thing for the community-at-large...

~

Let's start with definitions.

By definition -- the age range of 'teen' is 13-19 -- fixed - "in concrete" - unchangeable - period. This should be acceptable to all without any debate whatsoever, for painfully obvious reasons. Any departure from this defined age range - in the slightest - would completely "undo" the entire process of any good and successful reasoning with regard to defining anything on the site -- and, we should just "give up" and let chaos reign...

I suggest, first of all, that nothing on the entire site be labeled 'teen' unless whatever-is-being-labeled is expressly intended to be specifically and particularly associated with [ only ] members who are in the age range of 13-19 - according to the intent of the 'theme' of the forum.

This means that you can actually have a 'Teen' forum where adults can post -- if the 'theme' of the forum is based on subject matter rather than member access.

The definition of 'adult' is not as well defined -- the minimum age of which is determined differently in different countries. Nonetheless, it needs to be well-defined in order to minimize confusion on the site. This is obviously ultimately up to the site owner. Whatever age he decides is considered to be an adult - according to the context and the purpose of the site - should be accepted and respected. Otherwise, it should be petitioned for further consideration.

The minimum age for 'young adult' should be the exact same age as the minimum age for 'adult'.

The maximum age for 'young adult' should be the exact same age as the maximum age for 'youth'.

The maximum age for 'child' should be one below the minimum age for 'youth'.

The maximum age for 'youth' should be one below the minimum age for 'mature adult'.

What if --- something like this were defined:

[TABLE="align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]Term[/TD]
[TD]-[/TD]
[TD]Minimum[/TD]
[TD]Maximum[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]child[/TD]
[TD]-[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]youth[/TD]
[TD]-[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]young adult[/TD]
[TD]-[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]adult[/TD]
[TD]-[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]mature adult[/TD]
[TD]-[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Whatever the terms, and whatever the numbers - the point is -- define some clear-cut terms, with meaningful boundaries, overlaps, etc.

( to be continued... )

GaryA · Jan 12, 2014

OOPS!

GaryA said:

'disguarded' -> 'discarded'

EDIT: "Can you tell that I am tired... ?"

Braveheartgal · Jan 12, 2014

people are going to do what they're going to do anyway, IMO. The only way to "govern" such restrictions is to remove the forum all together, and I don't think that is necessarily beneficial for many reasons. I personally have mixed feelings on this forum as a whole in all the rooms, for many of my own reasons. I feel that reform is definitely needed. I know that the nature of forums is debating and discussing. BUT, things get blown out of proportion way too fast and hang on for so long that people just get "forum coma brain" and don't want to read it anymore and it therefore becomes useless. Something definitely needs to be improved, but I'm not sure how that can be accomplished. Just my two cents...

Stuey · Jan 12, 2014

I don't think you should close this...

You want teens involved in most of these sorts of discussions and to be honest - not many of them post here.

GreenNnice · Jan 12, 2014

I am late to the party here, I was off c.c. a couple weeks, the Lord leads, but, the insight alone that I've read in ALL 7 pages resonates clearly to me as from His leading, I hope and pray. And, littleC brings proof once again that her insight is readily seen, noting unregulars taking over the poll votes after regulars mostly voting for under-18s posting. And so....

And so, Satan's hand was allowed to fruit a bit here in this thread that was needed to be a thread.

But, as this younger Christian, 17-year-old says, the first 20 responses were dominant 'no,' as in , under-18s are to be welcome to input good, Godly thought, but, then, as the regulars were no longer posting votes in the poll, the names saying 'yes' to under-18s not alllowed to speak in Singles Forum exponentially increased to where now it's more con than pro for under-18s speaking here.

As long as the teens are speaking in a mature fashion, then, they should be allowed, even, immaturely is OK, because I have faith that our Singles Forum folk will maturely help them understand rightly of His leading. And, no, posing as a different age is not right, I don't understand why Hisbuckets did that, but, the Lord leads. That's happened, we are not to deceive. Satan deceived. Look what happened there

That said, I spoke His wisdom given me to Hisbuckets (AlexHis,too) the few times I spoke it.

This poll has more votes than any other poll I've seen on c.c., I'm pretty sure, and , from unregulars skewing the poll greatly, who have no clue of what under-18s offer olders in the Singles Forum
.
I don't want to seem incendiary, but, I spoke with Hisbuckets a few times and she always was cordial with me and seemed on fire for God and never said anything that I perceived as spotty or questionable reponse against the Lord's leading of her life. I'm not sure what 150 posts in two weeks (as audio clip said) was bad but, maybe, I'm missing something. Again, I was not here when this thread was made and what happened prior with Hisbuckets, AlexHis.

Teens have sooo many issues in life, in these days, soo many comes from broken homes, divorce rate well over 50% now (think it's closer to 70% actually!). And, I rarely go into Teen Forum but the time or two I have I, immediately get led by the Lord to comment and speak to these kids dealing with issues that a grown up should say something to, to help them understand God's Love for them, really.

That said, we do have a close-knit community here in the Singles Forum , where, sure, things are said, sometimes, not perfectly understood, not perfectly related, not perfectly conveyed but, there is a spirit of Him in here, I see, where things get sorted out !

I guess, in other forums, things don't get sorted out so well, from what I've been reading of Young Adults forum ( I don't frequent hardly at all) ,or, Family Forum (nope, not there hardly ever either) or Teen Forum, and, Bible Discussion forum.

I do go into Bible Discussion forum often, not lately, but, yes, I'm quite vocal there. which is where I, almost, can see not a place for teens because, I think, AlexHis, had problems with someone's doctrine to her that upset her, I think, I could be wrong on the reason she left. Just saying. Someone mentioned problems in these forums, anyhoo, I think, in past posts of this thread by our great roboservant.

That said, WE, in our Singles Forum, ARE, perhaps, being called by God to branch out, to go into these OTHER forums and speak a little wise-worded wisdom to them that God puts on our hearts. I know, there are some here who are single fathers, not mentioning names, but, they would have some great insight, I think, for the Teen Forum, even Young Adults Forum. And, the marrieds, they, who are led by God to speak of their learned experiences, can speak in the Family Forum .

So, hopefully, this all makes sense. My green brains !! They so often like to just start craniumating and I just have to pray God's bringing the words to them that need to be said, that need not to be kept unsaid.

We MUST be bold in this world, we MUST follow Him in our lives, saying, doing, what He wants us to do. The Jonah story is a story, but, it's real, isn't it, and, it's real of God showing a man that following Him is how it's gonna be, better be, as God does shew mercy but He gets tired, too, after awhile, like Genesis 6 flood, and, other examples (Ezekiel 24 'who will stand in the gap') and just wipes out , totally desecrates and destroys when our faith wavers past the point of where we KNOW that we are NOT following Him and are NOT going to follow Him. That's tough words, perhaps, tough love, said there, the Lord leads, though, so.....................God bless you, I love you, I see much insight and, even, as, zaoofmen said, 'intriguing,' and, desirous thoughts of under-18s in the Singles Forum wanting to speak with those who are showing a maturity that they do not see in the other forums.

Be proud, well, not proud, but, be thankful of that, singles, that God is using you enough that young people are coming here to listen to you speak to them of how not to do things as your heart was deceptively led by the Enemy growing up.

antiquity · Apr 9, 2015

Thank you Jon Dale, for your concern regarding children 13-17 Posts.

My vote is NO!

Though there are some children I use to communicate with, that are under 18 yrs., it is because I mentor them directly. It is a one-on-1 professional relationship; otherwise, I do not.

p_rehbein · Apr 9, 2015

antiquity said:

How in the world are you finding these ancient threads to resurrect them? And why?

blue_ladybug · Apr 9, 2015

This thread is two years old. Please stop pulling zombie threads forward. They clog up the forums.

CatHerder · Apr 9, 2015

But if a new thread is started on an old subject, then people Will say that the subject has already been discussed ad nauseum and that there are old threads dealing with the topic - so zombie thread of redundant thread - you can't win if you come in late to the discussion.
Those new to the site should be able to voice their opinions on these topics without being made to feel unwelcome.

Blain · Apr 9, 2015

We have a zombie in the forums-this thread

seoulsearch · Apr 9, 2015

CatHerder said:

I personally vote that everyone who barks at someone new for bringing up an old thread be required to write an interesting, brand-new thread about a totally novel subject we've never talked about before here in singles.

I can understand "oldies" being concerned about zombie threads. But at least be kind enough to contribute something positive in its place and understand that some people here are new and trying to check out discussions that caught their interest.

I also wonder if the "old timers" here who hate zombie threads even realize that when you read a thread, the site shows a list of "similar" threads at the bottom of the page, REGARDLESS of how old they are. I would guess that many new users are taking a look at this list, then clicking on a thread title they can relate to and are innocently replying to the discussion.

I know that I myself have almost done this a few times without thinking. And then I remember that if I do, I will surely have my thumbs cut off by the Zombie Thread Police (which, I admit, is sometimes a risk I'm willing to take.)

Just like a Zombie Thread, my rebellious side will never truly die!

wisebeardman · Apr 9, 2015

great its the buckets ordeal all over again.....

heh, seriously need autolock on threads..

ServantStrike · Apr 9, 2015

CatHerder said:

But if a new thread is started on an old subject, then people Will say that the subject has already been discussed ad nauseum and that there are old threads dealing with the topic - so zombie thread of redundant thread - you can't win if you come in late to the discussion.
Those new to the site should be able to voice their opinions on these topics without being made to feel unwelcome.

Danger zone!!

blue_ladybug · Apr 9, 2015

Then someone should make a thread in each forum, detailing how newbies can use the advanced search button to look for recent threads on whatever subject, AND urge them to look at the thread creation date, and whether the OP is still a member or left/ was banned/hasn't posted in a long time...people pull zombie threads forward and respond to the OP, and many times that person left or was banned. So that person ends up responding to a banned member, or one who left the site. just sayin'..

p_rehbein · Apr 9, 2015

CatHerder said:

Hundreds, or more, new threads are started every day here on CC about the very same topics that have been discussed since CC opened for business. So that isn't an issue, other than the issue of beating a dead horse.

The problem with "zombie" threads such as this is that there usually are posters who are not even part of CC anymore. Besides, it isn't REALLY all that hard to start a new thread IF THIS TOPIC is a burning issue with the person who is rebirthing an old one.

CatHerder · Apr 9, 2015

p_rehbein said:

And I say that if it is a relevant topic, then what does it matter if someone resurrected an old thread or started a new one on an old topic?

I have seen here zombie thread references when an old thread is brought back to life. I have even made such jokes when the topic is not a serious one or when someone other than a newbie does it.

I have also seen when someone starts a thread on a subject that has been discussed many times, "Oh great! Another thread on _______________."

Neither of these responses seems very welcoming. If I got that sort of response as a newbie, I would have bailed on CC after one post.

I think it is a reasonable expectation that newbies follow the basic chat rules posted on the site. However, it is not reasonable to expect a newcomer to observe all the nuance of the chat culture that is specific to CC Singles (I say that because I have only seen such objections to old posts/topics here in singles, not elsewhere on this site). That is just plain ridiculous.

I suppose we could make a "one-stop thread" for oft-posted topics, but this leads to its own problems. A Christian site I used to frequent had one-stop threads on such topics as remarriage after divorce, masturbation, mental illness, same sex attraction, and a "trying to conceive" thread that I accidentally linked to sometimes since it was in the women's forums. The remarriage thread had scores of pages. If someone made a comment contrary to the current conversation, someone would get snarky and direct them to pages 17-24 of the thread, where their point of view was considered and rebuffed, because apparently, people were expected to spend hours reading from the OP to the last entry before posting.

So I don't see this as a reasonable alternative either.

I suggest that we just accept that sometimes we will get annoyed, and that we remember that we have the option not to open a thread on a topic we don't wish to read about yet again, or if we are bothered by zombie threads, not to open those.

MissCris · Apr 9, 2015

While I occasionally roll my eyes at a zombie thread, I find them far less irritating than some more current, "nothing" threads...the ones that never seem to go away, serve no apparent purpose, and are almost exactly like three or four others that all end up on the front page frequently.

As for locking older threads...if that happened, how would we all get our missing rip fix?!

Oncefallen · Apr 9, 2015

Since the Admin team made our decision on this subject a long time ago there is no reason for this thread to keep getting bumped to the front page.

Should posting in the Christian Singles Forum be restricted to users 18 and older?

Should posting in the Christian Singles Forum be restricted to users 18 and older?

Yes

No

GaryA

Guest

GaryA

Guest

Member

Senior Member

GreenNnice

Guest

antiquity

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

The Word Weaver

OutWrite Trouble

Banned

ServantStrike

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

MissCris

Guest

Idiot in Chief