• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Why this section

FollowingHim

FollowingHim

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
This forum has been running for many years, and over that time many topics have been discussed. This can make it difficult for a newcomer looking for information on plural marriage or patriarchy to find what they are looking for, particularly because there's only so much you can say about marriage, so people tend to branch into other topics, meaning that the most active discussions at the time a new person is looking for information may be completely off topic.

This section is for us to collate a short list of the most valuable discussions for a newcomer to read.

Anybody can participate in the discussion in this section, but new threads can only be added by a moderator, so it doesn't get cluttered. If you know of a thread that you think should be in this section, please click "report" on the first post on that thread, and write "best of the forums" in your comment. If you could explain why you think the thread belongs here that would be helpful. The moderators will consider it, and if they agree will move it here. (The "report" button is usually used to report inappropriate content, but don't worry about that, it's the most convenient way for us to do this also).

If you see a thread in this section that you think should not be here, use the "report" tool to suggest removing it.

All decisions on what threads are in this section will be made by the moderators at their sole discretion. Putting a thread in this section does not imply official endorsement of anything in it. Some content might be quite controversial. It just means that one or more of the forum staff thought the thread would be worth reading for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Will the submission and acceptance/rejection process be entirely transparent?
 
It will be informal and undocumented for efficiency, but any questions about decisions made will be answered transparently.
 
Does that mean that we will be informed of what threads are nominated as well as being informed of which threads are accepted or rejected?

I have my own preference about the direction of this; however, I don't own biblicalfamilies.org, but I would like for biblicalfamilies.org to be transparent about whether or not it's being transparent.
 
Keith Martin said:
Does that mean that we will be informed of what threads are nominated as well as being informed of which threads are accepted or rejected?
Click to expand...
No, because I am not taking the time to document every thread the moderators shift. We shift threads all the time and have never documented it before, I am not starting now as nobody has given me any reason to. I really cannot understand what you're worried about, but something about this seems to be bothering you deeply. I'll send you a private message to discuss further so I can understand where you're coming from.
 
FollowingHim said:
No, because I am not taking the time to document every thread the moderators shift. We shift threads all the time and have never documented it before, I am not starting now as nobody has given me any reason to. I really cannot understand what you're worried about, but something about this seems to be bothering you deeply. I'll send you a private message to discuss further so I can understand where you're coming from.
Click to expand...
As always, I'll welcome your private message, Samuel, but we don't need to go behind the curtain for you to discover my concerns:
  • Very recently, you and others were expressing tangible concern about what could be done to improve engagement at biblicalfamilies.org. In fact, I believe this endeavor to beef up the use of The Best of the Forums grew out of that discussion. Well, my observation based on heavy engagement on these forums over the past several years is that The Best of the Forums has indeed included some stellar threads and contributions, but certain kinds of threads that featured tremendous discussion and inspired very high engagement seemed to never be granted that Best of the Forums recognition.
  • I'm always an advocate for Sunshine, transparency, etc.: no fan of smoke-filled back rooms where decisions are made without public scrutiny, because it smacks of an overclass who believes the common folk are simply incapable of comprehending how the cheese is made. I don't like it from elected representatives, and I don't like it much better from those who run supposedly public venues.
So, transparency and eliminating the impression of bias are my concerns.

The old pre-Musk, pre-Twitter-Files Twitter (now X) had the approach that those who hid behind their firewalls were the possessors of the ultimate enlightenment required to both (a) regulate the behavior and even thoughts of the platform's pedestrian plebes, and (b) create the perfect information source perfectly designed to provide the perfect information set to give newcomers the perfect framework within which they could perfectly experience and absorb the perfection of Twitter.

X has not entirely shed this foolish attempt at utopianism, but they've made great strides since my participation there began. biblicalfamilies.org may have been less oppressive than the old Twitter, but the roles have now been reversed, and I believe biblicalfamilies.org would do very well to follow the X example when it comes to transparency about how certain participants and viewpoints are promoted.

What can it harm to let some sunshine in about which threads are nominated and how the staff came to its conclusions about which ones to accept or reject?
 
Unlike X / Twitter, we don't have paid staff. Everything that would add additional workload must be only done for a very good reason. I do not see sufficient reason here to add a whole new thing that staff have to remember to do every time they move a thread and will be accused of breaking a promise to document everything when they inevitably forget. The answer is no.

Stop worrying that we might do something wrong. If you have threads you think should be here, just nominate them. If we actually have a disagreement about what threads are appropriate (which I presume is what you are worrying about) we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
 
I asked. You denied. Such is the distinction between our authority levels.

So now I accept that that is your position.

That doesn't mean that I believe that it has anything to do with workload.

If workload and not unwillingness to be transparent is the issue, then I very humbly volunteer to conduct every single aspect of the workload related to posting results and reasons -- and without seeking any power whatsoever to affect the outcome of Staff's decisions about which threads make the grade. I'm even willing to commit to refraining from criticizing any such decision.

My intention here is to establish transparency in such a process. If transparency isn't a priority in this regard (or if it's not in any other, for that matter), then at least it's transparent that it's not.
 
Keith Martin said:
I asked. You denied. Such is the distinction between our authority levels.

So now I accept that that is your position.

That doesn't mean that I believe that it has anything to do with workload.

If workload and not unwillingness to be transparent is the issue, then I very humbly volunteer to conduct every single aspect of the workload related to posting results and reasons -- and without seeking any power whatsoever to affect the outcome of Staff's decisions about which threads make the grade. I'm even willing to commit to refraining from criticizing any such decision.

My intention here is to establish transparency in such a process. If transparency isn't a priority in this regard (or if it's not in any other, for that matter), then at least it's transparent that it's not.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that transmitting the information to you so that you could make it transparent is itself a workload.

The truth of the matter is that this will most likely be a very loosey-goosey process hat involves a whole lot of in the moment, “Oh yeah, that is good. I should move it now before I forget.”

A level of transparency could be achieved from the bottom up by making your nominations public with a post explaining why you value them. A discussion could then ensue if others either agree or disagree with you strongly enough to so engage.
 
The Revolting Man said:
A level of transparency could be achieved from the bottom up by making your nominations public with a post explaining why you value them. A discussion could then ensue if others either agree or disagree with you strongly enough to so engage.
Click to expand...
I agree that the transparency of the nomination process is the most crucial aspect of what I'm suggesting, but that would also require moderators to make public nominations rather than just shifting behind the scenes.

The only required real workload I can see would be to require moderators to click Reply on a nomination and Post a Reply that says either, "Granted," or "Denied."

But please be clear: I do not expect to get what I want in this regard. I don't own this platform, so I accept that I've requested and that my request has been denied.
 
The Revolting Man said:
A level of transparency could be achieved from the bottom up by making your nominations public with a post explaining why you value them. A discussion could then ensue if others either agree or disagree with you strongly enough to so engage
Click to expand...
Good point.

Ok @Keith Martin, if you would prefer to make your suggestions publicly, post a link to the thread here.

Honestly everyone, feel free to make suggestions however you prefer. Suggestions made in public will be public. Suggestions made in private will be private. There is probably a time and a place for both. Just tell us what threads should go here however you prefer.
 
Nomination:

Kingdom courts

The whole marriage thing hasn't been good for a very long time. Whether people have the license or not isn't the issue, it's the commitment to the relationship; it's determining to stay together through all the challenges that come along and it's no different for any number of wives a man may...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org

Polygyny and Male Attraction

UntoldGlory Trigger Warning: Epic Long Posts Ahead. This has kind of been bubbling its way to the surface, not so much in response, but as a result of some of the recent posts and comments over the past 6 months or so. Ginny's "Letter From The Front Lines" finally got me going. Samuel...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org

@Eristhophanes remains unbeatable in category "How attraction works".
 
Nomination:

Prayer request - Turmoil Ahead

Catie and I are asking for prayers this week and next, basically all this month. We are being forced into a position where we must discuss our beliefs with her parents, and siblings, and some close church friends and family. Added to this we are most likely leaving our church family this week...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org

A dating daughter is a father's failure

Subtitle: arranged marriages are not human trafficking Sub-subtitle: so-called "courtship" is to dating as trunk or treat is to trick or treat, a "Christian" whitewashing of darkness (aka syncretism) This is an opinion piece right now, but close to becoming a conviction. Before I settle my...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org
 
Nomination:

Polygyny and Male Attraction

UntoldGlory Trigger Warning: Epic Long Posts Ahead. This has kind of been bubbling its way to the surface, not so much in response, but as a result of some of the recent posts and comments over the past 6 months or so. Ginny's "Letter From The Front Lines" finally got me going. Samuel...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org
 
Keith Martin said:
I agree that the transparency of the nomination process is the most crucial aspect of what I'm suggesting, but that would also require moderators to make public nominations rather than just shifting behind the scenes.

The only required real workload I can see would be to require moderators to click Reply on a nomination and Post a Reply that says either, "Granted," or "Denied."

But please be clear: I do not expect to get what I want in this regard. I don't own this platform, so I accept that I've requested and that my request has been denied.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine why a nomination would get denied anyway. I’m sure there some that could but I question if anyone would nominate such a thread. Do you have an example of a thread you think belongs that might get denied?
 
The Revolting Man said:
I can’t imagine why a nomination would get denied anyway. I’m sure there some that could but I question if anyone would nominate such a thread. Do you have an example of a thread you think belongs that might get denied?
Click to expand...
I'm not at all interested in making this be about me or what threads I might hypothetically fear would be disrespected, and I honestly never gave myself brain time to contemplate such specifics, but perhaps the next time you and I are shivering around a fizzling campfire, I'll tell you privately my personal suspicions -- if, that is, I come up with any candidates between now and then!

I am, however, mighty pleased to see the implementation of a transparent nomination process!

The whole point of keeping full sunshine on this or any other similar process is to prevent such clandestine denials from occurring. As long as all nominations are made out in the open, and as long as we get to see the majority result of the secret staff voting process, that should prevent particular valuable threads from being suppressed and prevent particular less-than-valuable threads from being promoted, because it gives all members/participants the opportunity to see whether staff lines up with membership. The only leap of faith required of us is then to trust that no one on staff would silently tolerate circumstances in which decisions weren't really being made by staff as a whole but instead were being made unilaterally against the collective wisdom of the staff.

I'm gratefully humbled that biblicalfamilies.org reversed its opposition to my suggestion. Again, I don't own this place, so I have no authority. All I could do was make the request and defend my rationales when challenged. In fact, I'm not even entitled to voice an opinion, so I'm especially grateful for being granted the opportunity to do that.
 
Keith Martin said:
as long as we get to see the majority result of the secret staff voting process
Click to expand...
There is no "secret staff voting process". If @The Revolting Man agrees with a thread he'll move it. If I do I'll move it. We are not wasting time discussing this.
Keith Martin said:
I'm gratefully humbled that biblicalfamilies.org reversed its opposition to my suggestion.
Click to expand...
Nor have we reversed anything. We just want to know what threads people think should go here. I don't care how you tell us what they are, feel free to post a link to them here if you like. Suggestions made elsewhere will not be here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top