Some changes afoot

[George Erdner]

Yeah, well, I'm just hoping that the decision to start deleting old threads has been reconsidered.

It is helpful for me to refer to old threads to see what insights are available when subjects have been discussed before.

Mike

If the reason why old threads might need deleted is that too much server space is being used, then my advice regarding not over-quoting would be, if followed, a positive step towards reducing server space usage. It is good to expess the hope that old threads won't be deleted because of server space usage. It's even better to support reducing the use of server space to help minimize the root cause of needing to recover server space.

[Drive-by Lutheran]

Is it possible to offer these options at the end of each thread:

(Yes, it is in German, but you can figure it out)

Themenstrang als PDF (save thread as .pdf)
Themenstrang als Textdatei (save thread as text)
Jemanden per E-Mail auf dieses Thema hinweisen (recommend this thread to a friend)
Dieses Thema abonnieren (subscribe to this thread)

Provide a date when the thread in question expires and is automatically removed from the server (perhaps after 3 months of inactivity?)

Source:  http://www.politik.de/forum/innenpolitik/228395-nach.html

By the way, would blog meta tags have any value on this website?

[George Erdner]

Is it possible to offer these options at the end of each thread:

(Yes, it is in German, but you can figure it out)

Themenstrang als PDF (save thread as .pdf)
Themenstrang als Textdatei (save thread as text)
Jemanden per E-Mail auf dieses Thema hinweisen (recommend this thread to a friend)
Dieses Thema abonnieren (subscribe to this thread)

Provide a date when the thread in question expires and is automatically removed from the server (perhaps after 3 months of inactivity?)

Source:  http://www.politik.de/forum/innenpolitik/228395-nach.html

By the way, would blog meta tags have any value on this website?

Those options do not appear to be part of the Simple Machines package.

[George Erdner]

As long as this thread hasn't been shut down, I assume it's still a place to make suggestions.

I suggest creating a special thread for "Recommended Links". Instead of launching a whole new thread to simply share a link to something interesting that isn't really a discussion topic, start a permanent thread where anytime anyone wants to simply share a link to something they can do so as a post in the thread. That way, there won't be a bunch of itty bitty non-discussion threads cluttering things up, and all such links will be in an easy-to-find location on the main page, with no need for the moderators to push the threads to page 1.

I still think that this is a good idea.

[Scott6]

FWIW, I'm a mouse's whisker's breadth away from deleting my account and walking away permanently from the forum.

I've found that not posting at all or deliberately not posting anything substantive is much better than participating in the endless personal bickering (with Charles invariably being involved [I almost wrote "almost invariably" but I can't recall anyone else being involved in personal bickering so I deleted it]) or in the amazing inanities (Brian's Joycian approach) and the vast number of red herrings thereby spawned.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.  This forum needs more moderators b/c the number of moderators is not sufficient for the traffic of the forum, and neither Peter nor Richard have the time to police what has become a free-for-all after CWA 2009.  Which means it is now dysfunctional, and I no longer desire to participate.  YMMV.

[Charles_Austin]

I note again my rough count:
Participants with more than 500 posts -- 66.
Participants favoring the ELCA and its current direction -- about six or seven.
Participants not members of the ELCA or having stated their desire to leave -- about 50.
So just what is the problem here? I dunno. (Though I have my opinions.)
I have explained my participation here.
1. I answer questions put to me.
2. When someone comments on one of my postings, I may answer.
3. If someone gets something wrong about the ELCA, I may try to provide correction.
4. Sometimes, I respond to the more blatant oddities declaimed in these precincts.
5. Sometimes I ask questions.
I said upstream:
...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

[Scott6]

I note again my rough count:
Participants with more than 500 posts -- 66.
Participants favoring the ELCA and its current direction -- about six or seven.
Participants not members of the ELCA or having stated their desire to leave -- about 50.
So just what is the problem here? I dunno. (Though I have my opinions.)
I have explained my participation here.
1. I answer questions put to me.
2. When someone comments on one of my postings, I may answer.
3. If someone gets something wrong about the ELCA, I may try to provide correction.
4. Sometimes, I respond to the more blatant oddities declaimed in these precincts.
5. Sometimes I ask questions.
I said upstream:
...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

Charles, when you participate, the discussions almost (and I use that word hesitantly b/c even my typical understatement is strained by the adjective) invariably devolve into a discussion of you, essentially making your "rules" the rules of the forum itself.  Which is not interesting.  I really don't care how people interact with you and what gets your goat so that you respond, and I'm quite sure I'm not alone.

What I am interested in is the topics raised by folks in the forum and not your rules that, in all honesty, are the ones that tend to rule how this forum actually runs thereby making you de facto the dominant moderator (sorry Pete and Dick, but the fact that Charles has time to spend on this forum [which he deems "small" and inconsequential] and you guys actually have ministries to look after, combined with the fact he's willing to use his time in retirement on this "small" forum, means that his participation far outclasses your own [objectively, Pete posts 2.7 times per day and Dick registers 2.4, compared with Charles' 11.4 that are almost invariably not to substance but rather to what should be classed as distinctively moderatorial issues means that he rules the roost]).

[Keith Falk]

I note again my rough count:
Participants with more than 500 posts -- 66.
Participants favoring the ELCA and its current direction -- about six or seven.
Participants not members of the ELCA or having stated their desire to leave -- about 50.
So just what is the problem here? I dunno. (Though I have my opinions.)
I have explained my participation here.
1. I answer questions put to me.
2. When someone comments on one of my postings, I may answer.
3. If someone gets something wrong about the ELCA, I may try to provide correction.
4. Sometimes, I respond to the more blatant oddities declaimed in these precincts.
5. Sometimes I ask questions.
I said upstream:
...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

I'll just note that every other time you have posted who you deemed is pro or anti ELCA, who is going to leave and who is going to stay, you have been inaccurate.  But one small example, this time, I saw 64, not 66 (granted - you said it was a "rough" count this time).  In any case, please, please, please, stop assuming you know who is planning on leaving or wanting to leave.  Just because someone does not favor the CWA09 does not mean that the person is planning on leaving.

[TravisW]

...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

The thing that is so incredibly obnoxious is that Charles does all of the the things  that he gripes about others doing.  He complains about people griping about the ELCA, but then does the exact same thing with the LCMS.  
He posts stupid, irrelevant things.  I was particularly glad when he corrected Rob Buechler's spelling of "Chaplain" in the thread about the Moravian church.  That added a lot to the discussion.  The gumbo critique that he offered up was also remarkably pointless.    The only thread that seems even somewhat unsullied by this is the "Baseball and a Bad Night for Atheists" thread.  

So, I guess an "ignore" feature would be a nice way to keep the various topics cleaner.  That way, you can try and reply to a post without it being 3 pages removed due to a bunch of childish back-and-forth.

[peter_speckhard]

 Again I'll note my rough count. Of the literally hundreds if not thousands of "reported posts" we moderators have gotten since I came on board, I'll estimate that least two thirds have been about Charles or from Charles. Even among people polar opposite views I get almost no reported posts not involving Charles. For example, I don't think swbohler has ever complained to me about jpetty or vice versa. Somehow there never seems to be an ugly spat when the Orthodox Boris or high liturgy-inclined Weedon discuss things with mqll, the coiner of CoWo. But when Charles enters the discussion it is ruined. Hmmmm. It is a puzzler.

[revklak]

WOW -- I didn't know we could complain and report people here!  That changes the whole game:

I'd like to start by reporting/complaining that PILGRIM doesn't post nearly enough for my enlightenment.  Or that DADOO needs to start singing more for us - DOBEE DADOO DOO!

             

[Scott6]

Again I'll note my rough count. Of the literally hundreds if not thousands of "reported posts" we moderators have gotten since I came on board, I'll estimate that least two thirds have been about Charles or from Charles. Even among people polar opposite views I get almost no reported posts not involving Charles. For example, I don't think swbohler has ever complained to me about jpetty or vice versa. Somehow there never seems to be an ugly spat when the Orthodox Boris or high liturgy-inclined Weedon discuss things with mqll, the coiner of CoWo. But when Charles enters the discussion it is ruined. Hmmmm. It is a puzzler.

And of course my point is that enough is enough.  If the forum enjoys the current situation (and I don't think I'm alone), I don't care to participate in the forum in this incarnation.  It may simply be a matter of my preferences and aesthetic visions, but that may be just me, so I'm OK with simply leaving.

[jeric]

...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

The thing that is so incredibly obnoxious is that Charles does all of the the things  that he gripes about others doing.  He complains about people griping about the ELCA, but then does the exact same thing with the LCMS.  
He posts stupid, irrelevant things.  I was particularly glad when he corrected Rob Buechler's spelling of "Chaplain" in the thread about the Moravian church.  That added a lot to the discussion.  The gumbo critique that he offered up was also remarkably pointless.    The only thread that seems even somewhat unsullied by this is the "Baseball and a Bad Night for Atheists" thread.  

So, I guess an "ignore" feature would be a nice way to keep the various topics cleaner.  That way, you can try and reply to a post without it being 3 pages removed due to a bunch of childish back-and-forth.

I don't need an "'ignore' feature."  I just do it.  Does wonders for my blood pressure and makes it possible to consider the real meat chunks -theological and practical- that occasionally appear from posters who address the concern of the topics.

John Ericksen

[Charles_Austin]

Examine, friends, the threads where I do not take part.
-Take the thread on order of creation where Peter and Scott beat up on Deaconess Meyers. I'm not there.
-Take the kerfuffle and more over contemporary worship in the LCMS. I'm not there.
-Take the antinomian/legalist thread. Never posted once.
-David Lose: Is the Bible True? I made seven brief comments, none in the last five or six pages of discussion which went on its own not-so-merry way.
-Romans 14:5b. No comments from me there.
-Baseball? Football? Not a word from me, back then nor will there be in the future.
-Biblical Archeology. I'm not in that one.
-Scott's thread on Lutheranism and Judaism: Nary a single post from this humble correspondent.
-Top 50 hymn tunes: Nothing from me
-ELCA Statement on Genetics: Not sure, but I doubt I've posted at all there.
-Reshaping Missouri's Presidency: Only one post from me, saying that I thought it was a good idea for the synod president to be attached to a parish.
-Koinonia Project: Not there.
-ESV, NIV or HSV: I have not posted in that discussion about Bible translations.

I don't think you can blame me if there is a dearth of discussion. Did things reach the heights of the theological Super Bowl here during the month I was under the ban?

I have said how I choose to participate here. Others can choose their own way of participating. I'll cop to being bitchy about the sniping and unctuousness that comes from Pastor Buechler, Pastor Awtry and a few others. Will try to ignore, but my tolerance for arrogant piety is low.
Peter says people complain about me. Sorry about that, but as I have said; I do not call people names or write them out of Lutheranism or Christendom. Others do that to me and a couple of other people here all the time. I have heard from five people who have cut back on their participation here or stopped posting because the response they get from the majority opinion here is so nasty. They tell me that some of the nastiness they feel comes from frequent posters and high-level "officials" here.

I continue to marvel that my comments seem to cause so much agita. And that Pastor Stoffregen's patient teaching sends people wall-crawling.

Start up a discussion, Scott and bring in all your doctoral erudition. I'll probably not jump in on that one. Peter, rally the troops for your version of the Order of Creation and I'm not likely to disturb the ranks that march to your drum. Keep counting up those leaving the ELCA, Mr. Erdner, I've said upstream that's a good service your provide. But do us a favor and shut up about some other things. If Pastor Weedon wants to continue to post about the church fathers, I'll be delighted, 'cause I like those guys too. But I'm not that interested in deep discussions about them. Start a thread where certain folks can whine and grouse about how badly their bishop or synod has treated them. I'll leave them alone.

Do what you wish. It's a free country.

I'll continue to contend that the ELCA is a fine church body, flawed as are all other church bodies, but the place I am called to my vocation and a place where I am proud to exercise that vocation. It has some fine leaders, outstanding institutions and I have always been surrounded by pastoral colleagues I admire, lay people that inspire me, worship and theological studies that nurture me and convince me that God is blessing what we do.

[George Erdner]

I'll continue to contend that the ELCA is a fine church body, flawed as are all other church bodies, but the place I am called to my vocation and a place where I am proud to exercise that vocation. It has some fine leaders, outstanding institutions and I have always been surrounded by pastoral colleagues I admire, lay people that inspire me, worship and theological studies that nurture me and convince me that God is blessing what we do.

I don't think anyone objects to you defending the ELCA per se. I suspect it's the fact that instead of bringing some positive things to the discussion, your defense usually consists of little but whining about the credentials of those who hold a different view of the ELCA from yours. Do you really believe that whining about the nature of posts that are not positive about the ELCA will persuade or convince anyone? Do you honestly believe that your whining casts the ELCA in a positive light?