Author Topic: Some changes afoot  (Read 18582 times)

J.L. Precup

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #105 on: November 30, 2010, 04:53:46 AM »
I said:
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.

Someone pokes:
Even Fr. Slusser?

I say:
Honorary Lutheran. Anonymous Lutheran. Lutheran-but-doesn't-know it Lutheran. And if the JDDJ works, a real Lutheran. But with a pope in Rome.  ;D ;D ;) 

What was that you said, Dcs. Schave, about an inability for some to admit they are wrong and apologize?   ::)

Mike

As the dark glass through which we now dimly see lightens, it becomes mirror like until at last we see clearly.
Keep watch, dear Lord, with those who work, or watch, or weep this night, and give your angels charge over those who sleep. Tend the sick, Lord Christ; give rest to the weary, bless the dying, soothe the suffering, pity the afflicted, shield the joyous; and all for your love's sake. Amen.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17489
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #106 on: November 30, 2010, 02:48:22 PM »
Back from a good Thanksgiving break, but headed into the busy season sans associate pastor, so I'll continue to be be checking in but only posting sparingly.

A few points about the suggestions above-- this forum does not function in relation to the ELCA. Just as Pastor Swensson can testify that his views re: Pietism are in a distinct minority here, but are nonetheless welcome, or mqll can take a position re: Contemporary Worship that is controversial here (though very mainstream in Lutheranism more generally), so people who are very pro-ELCA are welcome to post here, though most of the participants will likely disagree on many things.

Secondly, calling someone un-Lutheran, unfaithful, or non-Christian is not in and of itself out of bounds or inappropriate. Many of the discussions center around just such questions-- what is Lutheran, what are the boundaries of the faith-- so if we rule out labelling any person or position as outside those boundaries, the discussion is over before it starts. They are terms that describe things from a point of view, not merely insults. In fact, by our doctrine they couldn't possibly be insults because being a Christian is not an accomplishment. Calling someone heterodox or unfaithful is like calling them pale or unhealthy-looking. It is merely an observation, and the point of contention would then be whether the viewer is seeing it correctly or not.

Thirdly, I'm inclined to agree that hands-off moderating while allowing for annoying people and distractions is better than hands-on moderating that stifles free discussion.

Lastly, I think the moderation works best dealing with problem posters rather than problem posts. Nothing has been decided for certain yet, but the 60 day plan for old threads seems to be the working option on the table being tinkered with.

Evangel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Rev. Mark Schimmel
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #107 on: November 30, 2010, 03:05:34 PM »
Peter,

The questions about what is driving the need to trim the board are still an open question.  Is it due to using too much space or have we reached the limit of the current forum software?  IMO, either of those reasons could be fairly easily addressed (buying more server space or upgrading to a more capable software package).  Taking a collection of the members of the discussion board ought to easily net the funds for either option.
Mark Schimmel, Pastor
Zion Lutheran Church, LCMC
Priddy, TX
--
ACXXIII, "Your majesty will graciously take into account the fact that, in these last times of which the Scriptures prophesy, the world is growing worse and men are becoming weaker and more infirm."

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17489
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #108 on: November 30, 2010, 03:14:53 PM »
Peter,

The questions about what is driving the need to trim the board are still an open question.  Is it due to using too much space or have we reached the limit of the current forum software?  IMO, either of those reasons could be fairly easily addressed (buying more server space or upgrading to a more capable software package).  Taking a collection of the members of the discussion board ought to easily net the funds for either option.
I don't know. As Larry, the youngest son in the movie Parenthood once said, "That is for a man in a labcoat and glasses to decide. I make the deal."

mqll

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #109 on: November 30, 2010, 03:49:00 PM »
Back from a good Thanksgiving break, but headed into the busy season sans associate pastor, so I'll continue to be be checking in but only posting sparingly.

A few points about the suggestions above-- this forum does not function in relation to the ELCA. Just as Pastor Swensson can testify that his views re: Pietism are in a distinct minority here, but are nonetheless welcome, or mqll can take a position re: Contemporary Worship that is controversial here (though very mainstream in Lutheranism more generally), so people who are very pro-ELCA are welcome to post here, though most of the participants will likely disagree on many things.

Secondly, calling someone un-Lutheran, unfaithful, or non-Christian is not in and of itself out of bounds or inappropriate. Many of the discussions center around just such questions-- what is Lutheran, what are the boundaries of the faith-- so if we rule out labelling any person or position as outside those boundaries, the discussion is over before it starts. They are terms that describe things from a point of view, not merely insults. In fact, by our doctrine they couldn't possibly be insults because being a Christian is not an accomplishment. Calling someone heterodox or unfaithful is like calling them pale or unhealthy-looking. It is merely an observation, and the point of contention would then be whether the viewer is seeing it correctly or not.

Thirdly, I'm inclined to agree that hands-off moderating while allowing for annoying people and distractions is better than hands-on moderating that stifles free discussion.

Lastly, I think the moderation works best dealing with problem posters rather than problem posts. Nothing has been decided for certain yet, but the 60 day plan for old threads seems to be the working option on the table being tinkered with.

Got that right baby! Just call me "Mainstreet Mark". Nice ring...

A Catholic Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #110 on: December 01, 2010, 11:37:23 AM »
One thing that just occurred to me that might work for this forum is setting a time limit between posts....  I was a member of a college football forum where you could only post one post every two minutes.  Overall that wasn't too bad for people like me who think and type slowly.  But it did prevent some posters from throwing up volleys of short responses and overwhelming the flow of conversation...

Oh and yet another vote for the maximum posts per day thing...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

dkeener

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #111 on: December 01, 2010, 12:23:39 PM »
One thing that just occurred to me that might work for this forum is setting a time limit between posts....  I was a member of a college football forum where you could only post one post every two minutes.  Overall that wasn't too bad for people like me who think and type slowly.  But it did prevent some posters from throwing up volleys of short responses and overwhelming the flow of conversation...

Oh and yet another vote for the maximum posts per day thing...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


Ditto on the max posts per day thing.

dkeener

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #112 on: December 02, 2010, 10:23:03 AM »
One thing that just occurred to me that might work for this forum is setting a time limit between posts....  I was a member of a college football forum where you could only post one post every two minutes.  Overall that wasn't too bad for people like me who think and type slowly.  But it did prevent some posters from throwing up volleys of short responses and overwhelming the flow of conversation...

Oh and yet another vote for the maximum posts per day thing...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


Ditto on the max posts per day thing.

So, what are we thinking of setting the maximum posts per day at?

And I'm still for retaining a window of threads much longer than 60 days even up to a year (or two between prunings) unless we are just talking about archiving/locking threads older than that and not deleting them outright.  My assumption was that we were talking about deleting them outright since the sizxe issue was brought up in conjunction.

Mike

This is totally unscientific and based on a quick look at a not so random sample over the past few days.  Most contributors post less than 10 posts per day (this includes our moderators), a few consistantly post between 10 - 20 posts per day. From what I have observed a fair portion of these could be trimmed. So my recommendation for a daily post limit is ..........10. I don't think that this would be unduly restrictive but would cut out some of the chatter.

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #113 on: December 02, 2010, 10:24:22 AM »
Ten a day = one for each of the Commandments.

Twelve a day = one for each of the apostles


I'm sure there is a Biblical solution here somewhere.

Virgil

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #114 on: December 02, 2010, 10:46:00 AM »
I suggest a twenty-four hour delay before any given post comes up for display. Too many hotheaded reactions between the usual suspects; too many reflexive defenses of one's brand of Lutheranism; too many uncharitable imputations of one's motives---will all be mitigated by a delay, one hopes.

Say I make a hotheaded reaction to somebody's post (and I have. :-[ Mea maxima culpa). If I have twenty four hours to retract before it goes to post, I may do it 90% of the time, especially my hotheaded reactions.

What's the gosh-awful reason to rush? This forum has become too reactive, little reflective. Logorrhea city. VDMA, I say, and the patience that goes with that.

There may be an occasional need to suspend a delay, and perhaps the moderators have the wisdom to know when. I could never do their job, babysitting us.  :)

Erma S. Wolf

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #115 on: December 02, 2010, 10:52:52 AM »
   Seven posts a day, for the days of creation? 

   (Or, in respect to the season, seven swans a-swimming!)

kls

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #116 on: December 02, 2010, 11:08:11 AM »
   Seven posts a day, for the days of creation? 

   (Or, in respect to the season, seven swans a-swimming!)

I like your thinking!  But Erma, to be more gender inclusive, couldn't we go with eight for eight-maids-a-milking or nine for nine-ladies-dancing?   ;D ;D  You know I gest.

A Catholic Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #117 on: December 02, 2010, 11:15:52 AM »
One thing that just occurred to me that might work for this forum is setting a time limit between posts....  I was a member of a college football forum where you could only post one post every two minutes.  Overall that wasn't too bad for people like me who think and type slowly.  But it did prevent some posters from throwing up volleys of short responses and overwhelming the flow of conversation...

Oh and yet another vote for the maximum posts per day thing...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


Ditto on the max posts per day thing.

So, what are we thinking of setting the maximum posts per day at?

And I'm still for retaining a window of threads much longer than 60 days even up to a year (or two between prunings) unless we are just talking about archiving/locking threads older than that and not deleting them outright.  My assumption was that we were talking about deleting them outright since the sizxe issue was brought up in conjunction.

Mike

This is totally unscientific and based on a quick look at a not so random sample over the past few days.  Most contributors post less than 10 posts per day (this includes our moderators), a few consistantly post between 10 - 20 posts per day. From what I have observed a fair portion of these could be trimmed. So my recommendation for a daily post limit is ..........10. I don't think that this would be unduly restrictive but would cut out some of the chatter.

That was the number (10) that I was contemplating...

There are days when I exceed ten postings, but I think that it's rare.  And if I did, I'd just have to shelve some of my comments. 

FWIW, when I find myself in the bitterest of conflicts on this board, that's when I have to back myself off anyway.  My own mental health really suffers when I start obsessing about each and every twitter on this board.  That's one main reason I refuse to get involved with "Twitter" and "Facebook."

And maybe that would also prompt individuals to start dialoging with each other, via e-mail or messaging, rather than conducting personal debates in public.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

racin_jason

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #118 on: December 02, 2010, 11:18:45 AM »
A daily cap would be great, please consider it. A cap would cut down on tit-for-tat posts, bickering, give you more server space, and serve to promote the kingdom by lessening time spent here. Everybody wins except Old Scratch.


Recipient of the official Forum Online Get Us Back on Topic Award

kls

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #119 on: December 02, 2010, 12:29:52 PM »
I myself don't like a daily limit on posts for that reason.

And would those posts on frivolous threads where some find themselves having to defend their favorite football teams from the likes of this guy count?  ;D