Author Topic: Questions/Comments for the moderators  (Read 16922 times)

anonymous

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2007, 10:11:57 AM »
My suggestion would be that members be requested to keep their posts to a certain number per day. This would greatly reduce the number of "Did not-did too. Did not-did too. Did not-did too." This would make people realize that it would be helpful to be thoughtful.

MSchimmel

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2007, 10:41:42 AM »
I have been a part of forums that allowed two posts a day.  That is perhaps too restrictive - but the post limit if reasonable (perhaps 5 or 6) would make for more thoughtful use of a limited resource.

Mark

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42872
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2007, 10:48:24 AM »
I have been a part of forums that allowed two posts a day.  That is perhaps too restrictive - but the post limit if reasonable (perhaps 5 or 6) would make for more thoughtful use of a limited resource.
That has been tried in other "meetings" I've been on. I log on three, four, five or more times a day. I don't remember how many posts I make. There were also some who, to reduce the number of posts, combined responses to two, three or more notes into one long post. I would rather see four, short posts, than one four-page post.

I have been in "meetings" where posts were limited to 1000 or 3000 characters. Exceeding the limit brought a warning, if it continued, posting priveleges were lost for a time.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

anonymous

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2007, 11:23:51 AM »
Name:  John Dornheim
Posts:  1092 (10.500 per day)
Date Registered:  August 27, 2007

John Dornheim

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2007, 11:49:16 AM »
I have been a part of forums that allowed two posts a day.  That is perhaps too restrictive - but the post limit if reasonable (perhaps 5 or 6) would make for more thoughtful use of a limited resource.
That has been tried in other "meetings" I've been on. I log on three, four, five or more times a day. I don't remember how many posts I make. There were also some who, to reduce the number of posts, combined responses to two, three or more notes into one long post. I would rather see four, short posts, than one four-page post.

I have been in "meetings" where posts were limited to 1000 or 3000 characters. Exceeding the limit brought a warning, if it continued, posting priveleges were lost for a time.

It would seem to me that the point of this forum is dialog. That would be severely impaired if we did not respond to those who inquire of us. Of course, we all pick and choose to whom we shall respond.
John Dornheim

jrubyaz

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2007, 01:53:23 PM »

Dialog is one thing. Monopolizing is another.  I am not too sure  1000 plus posts were in response to direct questions,  most were probably commentary offered, or multiple responses.

I would be favor of limiting posts to 10 a day. If you get in a great dialog, that gives you ten opportunities to respond. Any more or less is probably too much overkill or long winded responses, or not adequate to respond. One could argue for five even, but for some that would be restrictive.

Jeff  Ruby   

I have been a part of forums that allowed two posts a day.  That is perhaps too restrictive - but the post limit if reasonable (perhaps 5 or 6) would make for more thoughtful use of a limited resource.
That has been tried in other "meetings" I've been on. I log on three, four, five or more times a day. I don't remember how many posts I make. There were also some who, to reduce the number of posts, combined responses to two, three or more notes into one long post. I would rather see four, short posts, than one four-page post.

I have been in "meetings" where posts were limited to 1000 or 3000 characters. Exceeding the limit brought a warning, if it continued, posting priveleges were lost for a time.

It would seem to me that the point of this forum is dialog. That would be severely impaired if we did not respond to those who inquire of us. Of course, we all pick and choose to whom we shall respond.
John Dornheim

Mike Bennett

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2007, 01:58:33 PM »
this thread is devoted to comments about what you appreciate or don't appreciate about this forum and the way it is run.

I appreciate the degree of moderator control here:

+ It's clear that blatant ad hominems are off-limits.

+ All manner of opinions are fair game, even the most preposterous.

+ There are no lock-step restrictions such as 2 postings per day.

+ One doesn't get the impression that the moderator task is dominating the moderators' lives.

As a result, this forum is the second best of any to which I subscribe - second only to one that was founded a few years ago on an invitation only basis.

It would be nice if the postings could be pushed to my e-mail box so I didn't forget to read them for days at a time, but that's not a moderation question and I understand that the SMF software simply isn't designed for that.

Thanks for being the moderators.

Mike Bennett

“What peace can there be, so long as the many whoredoms and sorceries of your mother Jezebel continue?”  2 Kings 9:22

hansen

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #37 on: December 10, 2007, 02:17:37 PM »

Dialog is one thing. Monopolizing is another.  I am not too sure  1000 plus posts were in response to direct questions,  most were probably commentary offered, or multiple responses.

I would be favor of limiting posts to 10 a day. If you get in a great dialog, that gives you ten opportunities to respond. Any more or less is probably too much overkill or long winded responses, or not adequate to respond. One could argue for five even, but for some that would be restrictive.

Or how about a monthly limit?  I can see getting embroiled in a particular debate (and presuming that one has the time to spend on it, which is questionable) where numerous back-and-forths happen.  So, let's imagine the potential of ten of those in a day.  And then, let's also imagine that it's going on in two different threads (someone who has even more time on his hands) for a total of twenty in one day.  That's cool, but, if that continues 365 days out of the year, then it's forum overload.  It's one person dominating the discussion, jumping into every topic.  C'mon, is there any person on the face of the earth with that many important things to say (and with that much time on his hands, that maybe he shouldn't be out in the world doing something more productive)?  So, I'd be in favor of a monthly limit, which could allow for "bursts", but not a continuous flow.  Off the top of my head:  60/mo., for an average of 1/day + 3 "bursts"/mo..

Mike Bennett

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #38 on: December 10, 2007, 02:24:08 PM »

Or how about a monthly limit?  I can see getting embroiled in a particular debate (and presuming that one has the time to spend on it, which is questionable) where numerous back-and-forths happen.  So, let's imagine the potential of ten of those in a day.  And then, let's also imagine that it's going on in two different threads (someone who has even more time on his hands) for a total of twenty in one day.  That's cool, but, if that continues 365 days out of the year, then it's forum overload.  It's one person dominating the discussion, jumping into every topic.  C'mon, is there any person on the face of the earth with that many important things to say (and with that much time on his hands, that maybe he shouldn't be out in the world doing something more productive)?  So, I'd be in favor of a monthly limit, which could allow for "bursts", but not a continuous flow.  Off the top of my head:  60/mo., for an average of 1/day + 3 "bursts"/mo..

I've heard worse ideas.

Who would count?  I wonder if SMF has a counter than can be set to simply shut out postings that would bring the trailing 30 day total beyond 60.  That could be slick

Mike Bennett
“What peace can there be, so long as the many whoredoms and sorceries of your mother Jezebel continue?”  2 Kings 9:22

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3476
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #39 on: December 10, 2007, 02:25:27 PM »
I appreciate the degree of moderator control here:

+ It's clear that blatant ad hominems are off-limits.
+ All manner of opinions are fair game, even the most preposterous.
+ There are no lock-step restrictions such as 2 postings per day.
+ One doesn't get the impression that the moderator task is dominating the moderators' lives.

As a result, this forum is the second best of any to which I subscribe - second only to one that was founded a few years ago on an invitation only basis.
[snip]
Thanks for being the moderators.
Yes, thank you (although I shamefully enjoy a bit of moderator snippy-ness when it's been a hard week in the parish.)  For me, this is the best (and only--I don't get around much) religious forum in which I participate regularly.   ::)

I wanted to reinforce the last point above: "one doesn't get the impression that the moderator task is dominating the moderators lives" --it should not have to, and tie that to my previous comments in the "ELW favorite Advent hymn" thread concerning anonymity.  I apologize for my own counter-ambushing Pr. Austin's injection of anonymity into that thread (still not sure what prompted his original), but the periodic harping on this issue seems to be coming a rather large distraction (second only to sexuality  :o)  Many have called for some sort of ban on anonymous postings, but I see that as impractical, without a serious revamping of the forum.  Without some sort of verification by ALPB, no one can be sure that one is who he claims to be.  Forum participation could be tied to a subscription, but that might discourage potential customers.  I started with the forum first, then subscribed to the magazine/letter. 

I agree with the moderators previously expressed preference for real names.   But it's also very generous of other people to suggest making more work for the people responsible for ALPB to verify identities, not to mention any unknown legal burdens that might entail.  To be constructive, I would suggest that perhaps the sign-up/verification stage (and forum welcome area) include a gentle admonition from the moderators encouraging people to use real names, but also a disclaimer that ALPB cannot vouch for the true identities of all participants.  I say this in light of the past situation I have noticed with regards to a "John Martin" (I hope I remember that correctly), engaging with another participant who periodically questioned him on his true identity.  To me, "John Martin" seems a normal "real name", yet someone had reason to believe it was not.  I think I also recall someone else a while back using a "real name" that, when investigated was not and he was banned for one too many ad hominems.  I say this not to discredit actual names, but the danger in assuming any real name is legit.

We seem to have peaks and valleys which only occasionally call for a firmer moderator's hand.  I'm not sure post limits will have any effect on the core issues.  Sometimes people need to be sent to their rooms for a time out, or called to account for beating the dead horse.  I think this place works pretty well, considering what else is out there on the net.  It's unfair to hold this free-wheeling discussion to the journalistic standards of chain letters to the editor.

Sterling Spatz
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Pilgrim

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1634
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #40 on: December 10, 2007, 03:05:50 PM »
Peter, Richard, esteemed moderators...

First, with others, thank you.

Second, I deeply appreciate this forum, in spite of the excesses which sometimes (many times?) seem to get way off base and out of hand. Personally, I'm comfortable with your best judgment in handling and managing...my sense is that you do so, and will continue to do so with great care and sensitivity, erring on the side of grace.

Third, I've read and reflected on Charles call and the subsequent counter-challenges to anonymity. My heading dates back to earlier on line stuff where it seemed to be a necessity to have a different online name than simply one's name. I don't know the rationale, perhaps it was the newness of the whole online enterprise, or fear of the unknown destinations ones comments and opinions might wander.

Push come to shove, I'm with Charles on this one - in this forum (not all over the place). I'm not messing with Pilgrim in the corner out of sheer laziness because I'm not sure how to change that quickly, but I'll continue to sign my full name at the end of a post. I appreciate Charles, the Brians, Team Hesse, Sterling and many, many others because their comments inform, challenge, strengthen, and yes, occasionally infuriate! But over time there is a sense of consistency, of breadth, of reason that comes through. There are some folks, it seems to me, that tend to be fixed on a particular soapbox, and frankly, to me that's alright too, although it narrows the helpfulness of the contributions. I honestly believe I understand the rationale behind anonymity...but finally,in the end, drop the mask. It's like the person who walks in my office and says, "Pastor, people are saying..." And I respond, "Why are you saying that?"

I don't know if it's actually feasible, but should this forum say - Be yourself, be your name, be verifiable, if you say it, own it clearly ... or hush... I'm still in.

One final aside regarding an early comment by Charles expressing aggrivation at those who bash the ELCA: I admire your churchmanship and loyalty to the ELCA. I strive as well for such churchmanship (admitting that only others can finally help me clearly understand whether I've accomplished it or not), and I am loyal to the ELCA. It is not my desire in anyway to attack the ELCA in terms of our dwelling, role and mission within the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. However, having said that, I am deeply, deeply concerned for the future of the ELCA, our faithfulness to our rootedness in scripture and confessions, and how all of this will shake out over the coming years. I am saddened (and angered) by those who have struggled with the issues and conscience, and having decided to leave, cast stones at the ELCA and those of us remaining. For me, the integrity of their struggle and their leaving is rightly called into question by the stone throwing.

Pr. Tim Christ
Joy Lutheran Church
Pr. Tim Christ, STS

Leftcoastlutheran

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2007, 03:18:20 PM »
On an ALPB Forum, I'm not surprised to read postings that find the ELCA to be theologically adrift. Committment and loyalty has nothing to do with my view of the ELCA, except my committment and loylty to the catholic faith.

Diversity is not the issue, imho.

JRC +

navyman

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2007, 05:14:25 PM »
this thread is devoted to comments about what you appreciate or don't appreciate about this forum and the way it is run.

I appreciate the degree of moderator control here:

+ It's clear that blatant ad hominems are off-limits.

+ All manner of opinions are fair game, even the most preposterous.

+ There are no lock-step restrictions such as 2 postings per day.

+ One doesn't get the impression that the moderator task is dominating the moderators' lives.

As a result, this forum is the second best of any to which I subscribe - second only to one that was founded a few years ago on an invitation only basis.

It would be nice if the postings could be pushed to my e-mail box so I didn't forget to read them for days at a time, but that's not a moderation question and I understand that the SMF software simply isn't designed for that.

Thanks for being the moderators.

Mike Bennett




Mike:

Well stated!

Regards!

Don

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17137
    • View Profile
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #43 on: December 10, 2007, 09:29:24 PM »
Thanks, everybody, for the replies. I'm sure in the coming months we might get together and make some new policies or clarify the old ones. Whether it is anonymous posting (which I think ought to be neither prohibited nor encouraged), advertising for Lutheran CPH or AF (which doesn't both me nearly as much as it bothers some), frequency of posts, ad hominem attacks, I think it simply helps to have everyone thinking about these issues as they post. Assuming most of us are grown-ups there shouldn't have to be much moderator control of the discussions, and the discussions should not be nasty.

LutherMan

  • Guest
Re: Questions/Comments for the moderators
« Reply #44 on: December 10, 2007, 09:44:29 PM »
Those guys that post incessently (like John D who seems to be unLutheran) are easy to bypass and dismiss.  Just don't read their posts.  Like they don't read our anonymous posts.  Simple.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2007, 10:03:09 PM by LutherMan »