Churchwork
05-10-2008, 04:46 PM
Googlemaps Authority Approval System (GAAS) (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=178035)
This is what I would like to do: designate proper worker authority in an organization. Using googlemaps or other mapping system. Along the lines of Hotspot Edition.
Steps:
1. A person registers.
2. They answer a bunch of questions at registration (19 questions, let's say).
3. They can answer all the questions anyway they like (3 options: Yes, No, Not sure), but there can be no conflict with question 19 (that is, they must answer all questions Yes if they also agree with the 3 different Yes answers in question 19 for the 3 main different worker types). And after registration, some additional questions are need to all be answered Yes as well to select worker #1 in question 19. If there is any conflict, the submission is declined, and the reason given.
4. If they meet the prerequisite of #3 (no conflicts), then they would be directed to group memberships with the same 3 designations offered in question 19. If they choose a group which contradicts question 19 (e.g. joining group membership #2, when they selected #1 in question 19), then vBulletin disallows joining that group membership. (Remember, worker #1 requires answering Yes to various questions post-registration, so group #1 can't be selected at registration).
5. After choosing their membership group that agrees with their answer given in question 19 in their profile, vBulletin points them to the map.
6. The selection for the map worker category and map location also must agree with the group membership, otherwise the map submission is not allowed.
7. A nice big page for each worker's map location, to give details of whatever the person chooses with some specific categories for search purposes (e.g. name of the region, name of the locality, name of the meeting place).
8. If a change is made in question 19 the corresponding change must be made in one of the other questions so there is no conflict. Perhaps worker #1 requires more questions be answered Yes than for worker #2, and worker #2 requires more answers be Yes than worker #3. And before that can be done, the group membership must be deleted and the map location as well to start from scratch otherwise a conflict occurs between the profile questions, group memberships and the worker category on the map.
8. Also, before membership group #2 can submit their map locality, they need to give the name or nickname of the person from group #1 who selected him who is already in the database in charge of the region (about the size of a state or small country) who oversees the many localities (of which the person from group #2 is in charge of one them). Otherwise, nobody from group #2 can get their marker on the map. In fact, before the map locality can be added by group #2, the person from group #1 (regions) would need to approve by confirming they did appoint the person from group #2 (names need to be matched). Perhaps they get a popup screen when they come online. People from group #3 (meeting places) need not seek approval from group #2 (localities), for now, because starting up from grass-roots is important.
Additional ideas:
Preferably automate the whole thing without human intervention, so no need for moderators (e.g. have group memberships and the worker category for the map be automatically selected because they were already selected in question 19).
Allow the worker to edit his own information as long as there are no conflict in changing designations between question 19, group memberships and map worker category. They would have to delete the map category and group membership completely and start over when changing the answer to question 19.
Lots of programming, but simple idea. The basic idea is to allow people to come onto the internet to show agreement amongst each other on this structure and questions asked through this automated system and meet up ultimately in these meeting places.
To my knowledge, this a revolutionary idea and will exponentially move our conscience upward. In other words, it allows people to come together in agreement based on doctrine first rather than finding out after the fact they are quite far apart in their beliefs. The general public will get involved, though they may not be one of these 3 main types of workers, by coming to those meetings if they agree with the questions at registration.
My inspiration for this came from Watchman Nee teaching on Biblocality (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/bodyofchrist.htm).
This is what I would like to do: designate proper worker authority in an organization. Using googlemaps or other mapping system. Along the lines of Hotspot Edition.
Steps:
1. A person registers.
2. They answer a bunch of questions at registration (19 questions, let's say).
3. They can answer all the questions anyway they like (3 options: Yes, No, Not sure), but there can be no conflict with question 19 (that is, they must answer all questions Yes if they also agree with the 3 different Yes answers in question 19 for the 3 main different worker types). And after registration, some additional questions are need to all be answered Yes as well to select worker #1 in question 19. If there is any conflict, the submission is declined, and the reason given.
4. If they meet the prerequisite of #3 (no conflicts), then they would be directed to group memberships with the same 3 designations offered in question 19. If they choose a group which contradicts question 19 (e.g. joining group membership #2, when they selected #1 in question 19), then vBulletin disallows joining that group membership. (Remember, worker #1 requires answering Yes to various questions post-registration, so group #1 can't be selected at registration).
5. After choosing their membership group that agrees with their answer given in question 19 in their profile, vBulletin points them to the map.
6. The selection for the map worker category and map location also must agree with the group membership, otherwise the map submission is not allowed.
7. A nice big page for each worker's map location, to give details of whatever the person chooses with some specific categories for search purposes (e.g. name of the region, name of the locality, name of the meeting place).
8. If a change is made in question 19 the corresponding change must be made in one of the other questions so there is no conflict. Perhaps worker #1 requires more questions be answered Yes than for worker #2, and worker #2 requires more answers be Yes than worker #3. And before that can be done, the group membership must be deleted and the map location as well to start from scratch otherwise a conflict occurs between the profile questions, group memberships and the worker category on the map.
8. Also, before membership group #2 can submit their map locality, they need to give the name or nickname of the person from group #1 who selected him who is already in the database in charge of the region (about the size of a state or small country) who oversees the many localities (of which the person from group #2 is in charge of one them). Otherwise, nobody from group #2 can get their marker on the map. In fact, before the map locality can be added by group #2, the person from group #1 (regions) would need to approve by confirming they did appoint the person from group #2 (names need to be matched). Perhaps they get a popup screen when they come online. People from group #3 (meeting places) need not seek approval from group #2 (localities), for now, because starting up from grass-roots is important.
Additional ideas:
Preferably automate the whole thing without human intervention, so no need for moderators (e.g. have group memberships and the worker category for the map be automatically selected because they were already selected in question 19).
Allow the worker to edit his own information as long as there are no conflict in changing designations between question 19, group memberships and map worker category. They would have to delete the map category and group membership completely and start over when changing the answer to question 19.
Lots of programming, but simple idea. The basic idea is to allow people to come onto the internet to show agreement amongst each other on this structure and questions asked through this automated system and meet up ultimately in these meeting places.
To my knowledge, this a revolutionary idea and will exponentially move our conscience upward. In other words, it allows people to come together in agreement based on doctrine first rather than finding out after the fact they are quite far apart in their beliefs. The general public will get involved, though they may not be one of these 3 main types of workers, by coming to those meetings if they agree with the questions at registration.
My inspiration for this came from Watchman Nee teaching on Biblocality (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/bodyofchrist.htm).