Some changes afoot

[Scott6]

I do hope that those who will be implementing these changes do so soon (c'mon, Pete -- ignore your family!  Be an absentee father! ).

My suggestion would be simply to make sure posts remain on topic.

Once a whiff of a personal post comes up, delete it and reprimand the person who did it.  Give them a couple chances to reform, and then get into bans.  If this is done consistently, the need for such aggressive moderation will diminish as well (I did this on my convention board, and all it took was 2 or 3 deletions and notifications for it to stop).

Similarly, if posts bring in everything and the kitchen sink, do the same there as well.  It may be work for a while, but eventually folks might learn what it's like to make an argument that stays on track.

Of course, these are all subjective calls, but such calls need to be made.

Finally, I do think that something Charles' has regularly said is correct.  This forum is largely dominated by more "traditionalist" types.  But there are some who are much more "revisionist" who are able to post here without igniting ire because they make real arguments that are presented in largely reasonable ways.  Such folks include, off the top of my head, Steve Sabin, Erik Doughty, Jim Krauser and the rare post by John Stendahl.  While I disagree with them and think many of their arguments are fallacious, at least they can present them and engage in a discussion that remains on track.  With these folks, there's an actual opportunity of not only at least improving our disagreements, but also the glimmer of hope of eventually coming to a consensus because they are willing to listen to and respond to arguments coherently.  These are the types of interactions I love, and the types that I have been able to engage in for a number of years because they at least hold out the promise of being fruitful.

The problem is, as I see it, that the posting habits of the regulars from the "revisionist" perspective draw so much ire (Charles, due to personal posts -- when he posts substantively and not personally, I quite appreciate what he says whether I agree with him or not) or frustration (Brian, due to not following a coherent train of thought), that other "revisionist" folks who might be tempted to post do not do so.  Who would, with so much negativity directed against the regular "revisionist" posters?  But I don't see that same ire directed toward the folks I mentioned above, and more interactions with folks who post like they do might actually encourage a larger presence of the "revisionist" point of view.  And folks who are willing to discuss and engage substantial issues coherently are always welcome.

My $.02.

[Charles_Austin]

I await proof that I have called anyone names. I await proof that I do not respect others. I await proof that my posts are "personal" - which I suppose is the dread ad hominem. Of course, they are "personal" in that our own experiences play a role here.
I await a clear explanation as to how one or two persons can run people off this forum.
Meanwhile, lest people forget (and they do), Pastor Stoffregen and I have been called bad or even "evil" pastors; our vocations demeaned, and - repeatedly - told that folk here would never even receive the sacrament from our hands.
We are told that we do not believe what we try to say clearly that we do believe. We are blamed for the current bad times of the ELCA and for "driving people out," when I keep saying I want traditionalists to stay in and would gladly give good references to people like Pastor Tibbetts and Pastor Wolf and - if asked - come to their defense if they were being targeted solely for their views.
Now, everyone get ready to cheer. I'm not pulling out of the discussion. But I will probably cut back on my participation, lest my views - which I still contend are the views of the vast majority of the ELCA - be so troubling as to give LCMSers and former ELCAers heartburn.

[SCPO]

I await proof that I have called anyone names. I await proof that I do not respect others.
I await a clear explanation as to how one or two persons can run people off this forum.
Meanwhile, lest people forget (and they do), Pastor Stoffregen and I have been called bad or even "evil" pastors; our vocations demeaned, and - repeatedly - told that folk here would never even receive the sacrament from our hands.
We are told that we do not believe what we try to say clearly that we do believe. We are blamed for the current bad times of the ELCA and for "driving people out," when I keep saying I want traditionalists to stay in and would gladly give good references to people like Pastor Tibbetts and Pastor Wolf and - if asked - come to their defense if they were being targeted solely for their views.
Now, everyone get ready to cheer. I'm not pulling out of the discussion. But I will probably cut back on my participation, lest my views - which I still contend are the views of the vast majority of the ELCA - be so troubling as to give LCMSers and former ELCAers heartburn.

       I feel it is worth pointing out that Pastor Austin was not on-line during last Friday's little dust up that led to two regulars pleading for more moderating and announcing to all that they were taking a personal timeout.  I believe it is also worth mentioning that this forum consists primarily of Lutheran pastors and laity who should not require a great deal of moderating. 

       Just my two-cents, on top of Pastor Scott's two-cents.  (Pretty soon we will be talking about real money)

Kyrie eleison,

[George Erdner]

I await proof that I have called anyone names. I await proof that I do not respect others. I await proof that my posts are "personal" - which I suppose is the dread ad hominem. Of course, they are "personal" in that our own experiences play a role here.

Click here.

[Charles_Austin]

Save your clicks, people. Mr. Erdner's link is to the listing of all my postings; which makes his post non-responsive and snarky. I'd even consider reporting it to the moderators, but they have enough to do, what with certain participants here being told to "shut *** **** up."

[Richard Johnson]

OK, Pete's still AWOL, so I'm stepping in to make an important executive decision. I have now set the controls here so that--presuming of course that I've done it correctly, which is a dangerous presumption--any given individual will be permitted to post only once per hour. I'd rather have it "x number of times per day" but that doesn't seem to be an option. At least I can't figure out how it could be done. So I've taken this alternative route. Once per hour--or, more precisely, when you post, you will not be able to post again until an hour has elapsed.

Perhaps this will discourage those who seem compelled to dominate the conversation, who are, as often as not, those who have little substantive to contribute. We'll try this for a few days and see how it works.

Bah, humbug, and a happy new year to all.

roj

[Harvey_Mozolak]

Sorry about decisions you have to make as moderator but this is not a good one.  It can even will curtail good discussion and is only really helpful for certain problems make all ofvus pay for the few who may over use.  Harvey Mozolak who reverently protests this. 

[Richard Johnson]

Could be you're right. We're going to try it for a few days anyway.

[Charles_Austin]

I think it's a bad idea, but totally respect the decision of our Esteemed Moderator to make such a choice.

But now, four hours past this posting, I am told that I cannot post because those 3,600 seconds have not elapsed. But they have.

Not necessarily complaining, just pointing out a possible bug in the system.

New edit later: The one-hour clamp-down apparently also applies to private messages. I tried to inform Richard of being shut out four hours after my last posting, but the  system would not let me send him a private message.

[George Erdner]

OK, Pete's still AWOL, so I'm stepping in to make an important executive decision. I have now set the controls here so that--presuming of course that I've done it correctly, which is a dangerous presumption--any given individual will be permitted to post only once per hour. I'd rather have it "x number of times per day" but that doesn't seem to be an option. At least I can't figure out how it could be done. So I've taken this alternative route. Once per hour--or, more precisely, when you post, you will not be able to post again until an hour has elapsed.

Perhaps this will discourage those who seem compelled to dominate the conversation, who are, as often as not, those who have little substantive to contribute. We'll try this for a few days and see how it works.

Bah, humbug, and a happy new year to all.

roj

I also do not think that this is a good idea. You mention "those who seem compelled to dominate the conversation", with "conversation" conspicuously singular. There are 20 separate conversations on the main page. Each thread is (or should be) a separate conversation. I can understand wanting to limit people who'll make multiple consecutive posts in any one particular conversation (thread), or who'll attempt to dominate that one thread by engaging in a "back and forth" with someone else. I cannot understand how it benefits the forum at large to prevent someone from contributing to The Service Book and Hymnal (1958) lives! because that person also responded to something in A Frivolous Thread: Football Anyone? a few minutes earlier.

I think it's a bad idea, but totally respect the decision of our Esteemed Moderator to make such a choice.

Do you respect it the same way you respected his request to not continue discussing the LC-MS practices of closed communion in The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up after Richard asked everyone to cease?

There is a way around thisnnew rule methinks.  Subversive that i am I shall try it. End ofmpost one  at 419 pm. Harvey Mozolak

Using modify this is post number two at 420 pm. Mozolak

Modifynnumber 3. At 421 pm. Harvey

There are also two very expensive (of memory) other way around the new change.  Richard find some other leash that does not noose the whole pack or one dog from barking more than one woof.  HSM at426 pm.

I added this to an older post using Harvey's method. I found that if I hit the "Modify" button, it only shows posts older than the post about to be modified. I was able to hit the "Quote" button on Harvey's post to open the edit screen with his quoted material properly formatted. I imagine that if I hit the "send" button in less than an hour, that's when the new limitation would kick in. I had to open Harvey's post in a new window, and then cut and paste the material into this post in modify mode.

The bottom line is that using the "Modify" function doesn't appear to be an especially useful "back door" to get around the one-post-per-hour time limit.

[Harvey_Mozolak]

There is a way around thisnnew rule methinks.  Subversive that i am I shall try it. End ofmpost one  at 419 pm. Harvey Mozolak

Using modify this is post number two at 420 pm. Mozolak

Modifynnumber 3. At 421 pm. Harvey

There are also two very expensive (of memory) other way around the new change.  Richard find some other leash that does not noose the whole pack or one dog from barking more than one woof.  HSM at426 pm.

[George Erdner]

There is a way around thisnnew rule methinks.  Subversive that i am I shall try it. End ofmpost one  at 419 pm. Harvey Mozolak

Using modify this is post number two at 420 pm. Mozolak

Modifynnumber 3. At 421 pm. Harvey

There are also two very expensive (of memory) other way around the new change.  Richard find some other leash that does not noose the whole pack or one dog from barking more than one woof.  HSM at426 pm.

As a kludge work around, that does have some severe limitations.

1. Assume you reply in a given thread, and a little while later, you wish to reply to a response to your post. You can use the modify function as you noted, but then your response will appear before what you were responding to.

2. One of the reasons for wanting to post more than once in an hour is to participate in multiple threads. I will often post three or four responses in a short period of time, but I try to keep all my posting in any one particular thread to one response per thread. That's why I'll try to stack multiple replies in one post, instead of making multiple posts to make multiple replies. This new system inhibits all participants from reading and participating in multiple threads.

I don't know about other people, but I find many topics interesting, and I find some that I don't have strong feelings about. I suspect that is similar for other participants as well. I'd hate to "lighten up" and post something in A Frivolous Thread: Football Anyone?, and then after I hit "send", notice a "New" button next to one of the serious threads that interests me and find that I can't post a serious reply because I blew my quota for the hour with something trivial.

On the other hand, I think it's always good to test any software for functionality.

New material in this post.

As a test, I attempted to use the method Harvey discovered to modify my old post at position #155. As I noted there, the bottom line is that using the "Modify" function doesn't appear to be an especially useful "back door" to get around the one-post-per-hour time limit.

[Richard Johnson]

When my children were young, they used to go through all kinds of contortions to discover ways to "get past" various parental rules and regulations. "Well, you said I mustn't eat candy so close to dinner, but you didn't say anything about taking a spoonful out of the sugar bowl." I generally ascribed it to original sin. You people have proven me right.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

What amazes me in parenting and pastoring is that you have to tell people not to put beans up their nose.

Peter (get the tweezers) Garrison

[Paul L. Knudson]

Is the "hourly post" a new form of governance?  This afternoon I tried to post a thought and was told in writing that I had to wait 3600 seconds.