This recent article By Abp Peter Jensen explains where the diocesan mission is at now.

Someone asked me recently to explain the relationship between Connect09 and the Diocesan Mission. I think he was concerned in case it looked as though we were abandoning the Mission for the sake of this new initiative. Of course nothing could be further than the truth. Connect09 is a key contribution to the Mission.

The Mission has asked us to work towards 10 per cent of the population of the diocese in Bible-based churches. One aim of this challenge was to get us to look beyond our churches and to think of the world around us, in our parishes. There is a certain responsibility which we have to see Christian work conducted not just in our churches but in the surrounding regions. We already do this, of course, in that we teach Scripture and engage in the communities in which we live. But it still remains a fact that many people living around us have no contact, no connection, with someone who can introduce them to personal faith in Jesus.

Surely you would agree Melinda, that if said communicant Anglican employees of Sc began espousing ‘Spongism’ contradicting the resolutions of their funding body (Synod) that their financial lifeline is going to be cut off quick smart.

I would agree Jeremy but that doesn’t mean I think it is right.

I don’t agree that requiring the journos be an active and communicant memvber of an Anglican church is either too specific or too vague.  I think it is quite reasonable, I would at a pinch restrict it to an active and communicant member of an ANglican church wihin the Sydney diocese.  I think it is sufficiently restrictive but not too narrow.

For those that live outside the Diocese of Sydney that is somewhat problematic!

For those that live outside the Diocese of Sydney that is somewhat problematic!

NOt a great argument Jeremy, Spong supporters might find your prohibition problematical too doesn’t mean the “problem” is valid or relevant either ethically or in terms of ensuring good journalism.

Hmm…

Gordon Cheng - 27 May 2008 11:27 PM

I was just observing that Luke was suggesting that his role was more that of a janitor than a moderator, especially when he said…

My point with the janitor description is to dispel the notion that seems to be persisting, despite my efforts, that moderators do not play a role in the direction, promotion or suppression of views allowed within the Posting Policy.

To give an example, this is what I have done as a moderator in the last month or so:
- Moved “Apocalyptic scenarios (the sequel)” to dead horses
- Moved “Apocalyptic scenarios #3” to dead horses
- Moved the “Happy birthday Israel” thread to dead horses and locked it as people were calling for legal opinion, which is generally a good hint the discussions has run its course.

That’s it. That is, by and large, what being a moderator entails. It is not, again, the promotion or suppression of any particular view, within the bounds of the Posting Policy.

I don’t think a moderators should be required to run a pro-diocesan agenda, or be barred from making critical comments in their capacity as a member of the community.

We’re wading into very murky water when we start talking about changing the forums from a place of open discussion - which is what they have been for the past 5+ years - to a place of a particular agenda. For instance, Jeremy disagrees with a point made by the Dean here - should he be censored or discouraged from posting such comments because they disagree with a prominent diocesan clergyman?

It’s the thin edge of the wedge.

And that is fine. It just means that we need to come back to this question of what good moderation actually looks like.

What do you think it looks like Gordon?

I don’t mind if Luke is left out of that question entirely, especially if he finds the discussion personally upsetting.

I don’t find it personally upsetting, I just think it is disingenuous of you to start a claimed “general” discussion and then cite me as the sole and specific example. If you don’t want to personalize it around me, then it probably wasn’t a great idea to cite me as your sole example.

One of the things that I would hope is that good moderation would include not just vaguely assenting to the diocesan mission, but being enthusiastic about it.

Sure, who isn’t enthusiastic about seeing more of Sydney converted? What moderator are we talking about that isn’t keen to see more of Sydney converted?  However I sense a trojan horse here for creating criteria for assent which are popular at a given time, and worry very much about who would set the agenda there. Again, moderators should not be the thought police for people behind the scenes, if people want to express a particular view, they should join the forums and do so, that’s why they exist!

I just would expect that the person arguing that line would not themselves be a forum moderator.

Perhaps we can cross this bridge when this mythical moderator does such a thing?

NOt a great argument Jeremy, Spong supporters might find your prohibition problematical too doesn’t mean the “problem” is valid or relevant either ethically or in terms of ensuring good journalism.

???

I have no idea what you are saying Melinda… that Anglican media can’t employ people who live on the Central Coast (ie outside Sydney Diocese)?

The fact is that from my observation of the industry your employment ‘policy’ would be unworkable and would not result in the best candidates being employed.

Jeremy Halcrow - 27 May 2008 11:19 PM

In my mind a football analogy is more helpful:

You can’t be both the referee and a player. You end up confusing the roles and have other players accusing you of being biased/unfair in your decisions.

i think that’s what happened in a number of recent cases.

I’ve heard this over the years but disagree, mostly because I have quite happily been a moderator and active member since I created the forums back in the day.

Moderators make calls on behaviour, not the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in a debate. It is not moderating a panel of experts on a given topic, for instance, which is what I think people first assume it is, which is why I think it is the visibility of the label that causes confusion, and why it could easily be removed.

Obviously, using your moderator powers - editing posts, closing topics etc - when you disagree with someone is inappropriate, and the only person who has done this in the past had their role quite specifically curtailed (and it wasn’t me ;).

I also hope it remains inappropriate in the future - having moderators enforcing particular views is a very dangerous thing imo.

Beyond that, being a moderator doesn’t confer any special status on your opinions, it doesn’t make you more right than anyone else, it doesn’t make you above criticism, it doesn’t make you a cheerleader for any particular view, it just means you keep an eye on things to make sure the Posting Policy is being followed and you tidy up where appropriate.

Luke Stevens - 28 May 2008 12:02 AM

We’re wading into very murky water when we start talking about changing the forums from a place of open discussion

It’s not a place of open discussion. It’s good that the reference to ‘free’ discussion has been dropped, as it’s not that either. The posting policy matters, and remains grounds for banning some, suspending others, closing some threads, moving some to Dead Horses, and completely deleting things that may be legally actionable. Remember that Nunc Dimittis, one of our top posters, was banned permanently (while you were sole moderator, IIRC) because he or she refused to use their real name when posting.

So let’s be clear that the discussion has never been open or free, much as you or I might value those things.

What we’re discussing, then, is whether it might be a good thing to bring the posting policy further in line with the idea of promoting the diocesan mission. We have to lose the mythology of ‘freedom’ and ‘openness’, because it really only existed for a brief instant in 1985, a very good year.

One could easily justify that in order to be a good journalist within a Sydney ANglican context, then one should be a Sydney Anglican.  So an employee could live on the Central Coast but would need to go south to worship.

But let’s cut the geography then I’ll return to my original position that a sufficient guiddeline to be employed by SA media is that one should be an active and communicant member of an ANglican church.

Luke said:

You are not a cheerleader for a particular view

I’m not saying you can never play (thats what we are doing now)

Just that you can both play and moderate at the same time on the same thread otherwise you do end up becoming a cheerleader for a particular view..

Goodness, Gordon, it seems that my constant references to the Posting Policy must have passed you by.

I’ll make it simpler for you though - by ‘open’ I mean members can “express both supportive and dissenting views”. Which is why we don’t, say, ban Rob C for being an atheist. I take the deeply profound point about free speech not being 100% free, however there is obviously a specific context we’re discussing here.

Indeed, I’d like to make an equally profound point that there are degrees of freedom in speech, and we have a certain freedom here now that you seem to desire to curtail, if I’ve understood where you are coming from. Saying that these forums have “never been open or free” is just plain silly.

The freedom allowed here allows you to question the Posting Policy, which you’re certainly welcome to do (while such freedom lasts) but all I’ll say is that such freedoms are easily done away with, but hard to get back (I’m sure there’s an aphorism for that!), and you never know when you just might need it.

Jeremy Halcrow - 28 May 2008 12:22 AM

I’m not saying you can never play (thats what we are doing now)

Just that you can both play and moderate at the same time on the same thread otherwise you do end up becoming a cheerleader for a particular view..

Sure, as I said above it’s obviously not a good idea to start editing/deleting other people’s comments in a debate because you disagree with them! Thankfully, the only time I’m aware that was a consistent problem action was taken to rectify the situation, as mentioned.

Where has the israel topic gone? I can’t find it anymore.

Sorry to but in,

And yes I know I’m slow…

But am I right in thinking, that the ‘Happy Birthday ...’ thread has been removed?

I did a search, but when I tried to access was informed:

“YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED”

So: Was there an announcement? Was it discussed?

Removing offensive posts I can understand - but an entire thread?

Or am I way off beam.

I await enlightenment

Rob

Yah I can’t find it either, I swear I only locked it & stuck it in DH, honest guv! It was fairly contentious though so perhaps an editorial decision was made, I dunno.