Some changes afoot

[Harvey_Mozolak]

But then again we are not i say with respect we are not children or yours.  We are adults and this forum exists because of us good bad and lurking. Moderation is not what this rule is about.  Restriction unneeded for most is what it is. I am getting a bit offended ( not religiously Brother Richard. Harvey.     If the rule continues we may not need moderators at all or a this will no longer be a forum and more an hourly bulletin board.

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.

[racin_jason]

i applaud the change. great idea.

too often i've seen substantive posts relegated to the backwaters due to two parties going back and forth for pages on end. The change forces people to prioritize what they want to communicate, keeping the main thing the main thing rather than complaining about what the other person said. 

there hasn't been a lot of news lately, not a lot of new grist for the mill for our frequent posters to process. seeing some people sign-off due to the tone of late came as no surprise, since it was inevitable that the subject would change from lutheranism in north america to how people were relating to each other. it's the same reason why communes don't work. 

so let's try this.

might i humbly suggest that the Lord might have other uses for our time other than posting more than once an hour?   

[Dave_Poedel]

For the good of the cause, I hereby grant permission to the ALPB and their designated Moderators, in order to save precious space for the good of the community, to remove all of my prior postings.  There is certainly nothing in them that merits archiving.

I often enjoy parts of this forum but weekly consider withdrawing completely. The level of discourse is getting to be so petty and self-serving that I often leave my time on this forum weary and irritated.  Those emotions are mine, and I do not blame anyone else for my reaction.  It just seems like we in the Church of our Lord Jesus, especially those of us Ordained to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, can and should do much better.

[George Erdner]

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.

Did your children investigate options for getting around something and then subsequently report that the workarounds weren't really effective, implying that they weren't worth attempting?

[pastorg1@aol.com]

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.

Did your children investigate options for getting around something and then subsequently report that the workarounds weren't really effective, implying that they weren't worth attempting?

cf: Saint Augustine's Confessions, Book II.

Peter (Happy Accidental Tourist) Garrison

[SmithL]

It looks like I won't be getting my next star, at least not this week.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

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.

I TOTALLY agree with George.

My participation is sporadic, an hour or so on line a couple of times a day (that hour not exclusively on this Forum, but doing multiple on-line activities).

I may wish to respond to multiple topics during that hour.  Or carry on a public "conversation", particularly on a topic that I intitiated, such as the "2 x 9.5 Theses". 

Or maybe just read the comments of others without responding.

But I would like the freedom to choose. 

If I become an obnoxious pest, deal with ME---individually. 

There is no need to restrict the entire Forum community because of the excesses of a handful.

[SmithL]

My participation is sporadic, an hour or so on line a couple of times a day (that hour not exclusively on this Forum, but doing multiple on-line activities).

I may wish to respond to multiple topics during that hour.  Or carry on a public "conversation", particularly on a topic that I intitiated, such as the "2 x 9.5 Theses". 

Yeah, me too.  Unlike some folks who seem like they're always here, I'll hit the site and try to catch up on everything all at once.  A daily limit would be less onerous than an hourly limit. 

And it looks as if some are trying to respond to several threads in one post, thus contributing to the threadjacking and confusion.

I can appreciate that the moderators have a tough time here, and since this is their board, they may run it anyway they see fit.   But I'll go on the record as not liking this rule change.

[A Catholic Lutheran]

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."

For the record, I was the one who told Pr. Stoffregen to "shut the (ahem!)...heck...up".

And I publicly beg forgiveness for doing so.

Brian, I have offended you and I ask for you to forgive me for my uncharitable language and harsh judgment of you.  I was wrong and have no excuse.

To my brothers and sisters on this forum, I beg your forgiveness as well and apologize for letting my temper get the better of me.  I am most sincerely sorry and will strive to do better in the future.

In Christ;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

[Pilgrim]

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."

For the record, I was the one who told Pr. Stoffregen to "shut the (ahem!)...heck...up". And I publicly beg forgiveness for doing so. Brian, I have offended you and I ask for you to forgive me for my uncharitable language and harsh judgment of you.  I was wrong and have no excuse. To my brothers and sisters on this forum, I beg your forgiveness as well and apologize for letting my temper get the better of me.  I am most sincerely sorry and will strive to do better in the future.
In Christ; Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Pilgrim comments: When my kids were young, one habit my wife and I tried very hard to cultivate when they misbehaved was to say, "I love you. But, your behavior stinks, and here is why." It would seem to me that misbehavior is not age limited. Is it possible for us to say to one another, "I love you (insert desired name). But your behavior in this forum/conversation/thread stinks and here is why"? I must confess, your comment to Brian spoke what I have often thought, not even due to disagreement but simply the electronic argumentative diahhrea from which he (and others) often seems to suffer in these environs. I don't know if the "one hour" rule will suffice, but I stand behind the moderators in whatever means they deem necessary to maintain quality and a modicum of civility on this board.

[Richard Johnson]

It was also proposed at one time that the Your Turn section would be pruned down to holding only the last sixty or so days of threads.

Is that still being considered?  I hope not, and I don't see how it would help with behavior or easing moderation at all.

Mike

Probably wouldn't help with behavior, but the way it would ease moderation is that the software seems to like to dump new threads somewhere way back in the pack, they don't get moved to the front page without moderatorial intervention, and about five or six times a week we get emails saying either "please move this one to the front" or "where the x#@&*$ is this one?" A two month cut off would immediately prune the current "Your Turn" to about 9 pages rather than 112. I'm just sayin' . . .

[George Erdner]

It was also proposed at one time that the Your Turn section would be pruned down to holding only the last sixty or so days of threads.

Is that still being considered?  I hope not, and I don't see how it would help with behavior or easing moderation at all.

Mike

Probably wouldn't help with behavior, but the way it would ease moderation is that the software seems to like to dump new threads somewhere way back in the pack, they don't get moved to the front page without moderatorial intervention, and about five or six times a week we get emails saying either "please move this one to the front" or "where the x#@&*$ is this one?" A two month cut off would immediately prune the current "Your Turn" to about 9 pages rather than 112. I'm just sayin' . . .

What sort of answer did the people at Simple Machines support forum give you when you asked about the problem? I've been on several other forums that used Simple Machines 1.1.12 that don't have that problem.

[Charles_Austin]

PRUNE

[G.Edward]

PRUNE

Which fits best?  You decide:

a) Your favorite fruit

b) Description of your mood today

c) Treatment for hair, shrubbery, and organizations that have become unruly and disorganized

[Charles_Austin]

I was referring to the moderator's words. If space is a problem, prune old threads, ancient threads, dried-out, worn-down, unused threads.