Focused Discussions

[Calm]

There should be a "dumpster" bin where the OP can put off-topic posts, rather than deleting them.

Viewable or not?

Besides the posters that get distracted by side issues easily even though they are interested in serious discussion (such as myself) and whose posts might have value in another discussion so it would be a shame to completely lose them, there are some posters who post simply because they like to see their name out there in the public and enjoy the attention of any response, in other cases posters like to push buttons. In the first case, one gets a lot of substanceless chatter for the most part; in the second, the poster is rewarded for bad behaviour by the public slapping of his hands if others can still see his posts. I think that at least in the second case, the posts should be consigned to a nonviewable dumpster, in the first case if the viewable dumpster does not allow replies, that should be enough to encourage the poster to keep more on topic and get some substance added.

And in the case of the substantive, but off topic poster a viewable, but no replies allowed 'dumpster' would allow a copy and paste for a new topic if they cared enough.

At least the moderators should be able to view deleted replies to make sure that no author is taking advantage of deleting on topic posts he just does not want to deal with.

[Bob Crockett]

I like the idea except that I would rely upon pinned topics in this forum. That way, you can control the destiny of your board a little better by having your favored topics at the top of the most popular forum.

[Nemesis]

There should be a "dumpster" bin where the OP can put off-topic posts, rather than deleting them.

We can enable the soft delete function for the thread moderators. That means the admins can see it and make a decision if it warranted deletion or not.

Nemesis

[Mortal Man]

We can enable the soft delete function for the thread moderators. That means the admins can see it and make a decision if it warranted deletion or not.

There needs to be a check on the OP's power to simply delete any contrary post. Putting them in a viewable-only folder would provide that check by letting the public judge the deletions sans moderator intervention. If only the admins can see them, then the lack of transparency will lead to suspicion and lack of trust in the process. If I spent a lot of time on a substantive rebuttal only to have it go poof, I would not be happy. The discard folder should be in an obscure but accessible location. Ideally, everyone would think twice about their posts and/or smiting power and the discard folder would stay empty.

[Stargazer]

I've noticed that some people are Members and some others are Contributors. I suspect Contributors can start threads in the new forum. I am posting this right here just to find out what I am. Heh.

Edit: Dang. I'm "just" a Member.

[MorningStar]

I've noticed that some people are Members and some others are Contributors. I suspect Contributors can start threads in the new forum. I am posting this right here just to find out what I am. Heh.

Edit: Dang. I'm "just" a Member.

I think you have to have an obscene amount of posts like me, as much as I'd like to think I was hand selected because I'm super duper smart. *snicker*

[Libs]

How many posts do you have to have to be a "contributor"?

[Chaos]

There needs to be a check on the OP's power to simply delete any contrary post. Putting them in a viewable-only folder would provide that check by letting the public judge the deletions sans moderator intervention. If only the admins can see them, then the lack of transparency will lead to suspicion and lack of trust in the process. If I spent a lot of time on a substantive rebuttal only to have it go poof, I would not be happy. The discard folder should be in an obscure but accessible location. Ideally, everyone would think twice about their posts and/or smiting power and the discard folder would stay empty.

I assume that if an OP has to be watched she/he could be prevented from opening threads?

[Nemesis]

I assume that if an OP has to be watched she/he could be prevented from opening threads?

We wouldn't even invite a person that we would have to worry about this happening.

Nemesis

[TAO]

How many posts do you have to have to be a "contributor"?

3000.

[Stargazer]

I vote for subforum.

My reason for this is idiosyncratic, as with the previous incarnation of this board I would virtually never visit the other forums (social, introduce self, pundits), just because they were separate. I am always in the one place, and a subforum would make it possible to see if there was anything new and interesting more quickly, from the point of view of the place I spend the most time in.

[Stargazer]

We wouldn't even invite a person that we would have to worry about this happening.

Nemesis

OT: I was wondering if there had been some thought to providing a "donate" link to this forum, so as to give folks the ability to contribute to upkeep here? I mean, bandwidth and server space aren't free, after all. I had never thought of this until someone mentioned that you, Nemesis, paid for this place out of your own pocket! I run a forum, myself, and I know it's not free.

[Libs]

3000.

Thanks, TAO.

[rockslider]

Upper right hand corner "View new content" button.

If you want to see what's active and don't care what forum/subforum it coming from.

I think you can customize what this button does to some extent in your profile settings.

[Mortal Man]

I am about to build the new forum on focused discussions for the board.

ETA?

In this section we plan on inviting members of the LDS community to create a topic in which they can individually control all aspects of the discussion and the rest of the board members can interact with them.

I take it that "members of the LDS community" does not include critics. Would you entertain requests from critics to start topics?

[Nemesis]

ETA?

I take it that "members of the LDS community" does not include critics. Would you entertain requests from critics to start topics?

As soon as I have time. As for the second question you are wrong. We expect to ask critics to post some op's as well this has always been the plan.

Nemesis

[bookofmormontruth]

Sounds good!

[Kiviuq]

I know how easy it is to make a typo/spelling mistake, believe me. But a mistake in a Forum Description just begs to be corrected. It

[BCSpace]

I think the new format is still not working. For example, the recent "newcomer" thread on Book of Mormon socialism, a topic that has everything to do with the LDS Church, gets closed with a ridiculous moderator statement like "Can this get any more political?"

That Socialism is or is not consistent with LDS doctrine or is or is not found in the BoM is a perfectly legitimate topic according to the posted rules. Perhaps it would have been better to move it to the "In the News" forum. In that forum, a similar thread was shut down by the thread originator which is okay. But I think a pretense of acceptance and then a sudden shutdown is not what is wanted by those in the discussion. Perhaps someone felt like they were losing the argument and complained? That is no reason to shut down a thread and I think the moderators are intelligent enough to see through that.

I appreciate getting in the last word, but surely supporters of the opposite view would have wanted to respond?

[Mordecai]

I think the new format is still not working. For example, the recent "newcomer" thread on Book of Mormon socialism, a topic that has everything to do with the LDS Church, gets closed with a ridiculous moderator statement like "Can this get any more political?"...

That's a shame. That's a very important topic within our religion. We ought to be discussing how to best help the poor, and what role the gov't should play. There is a huge amount of discussion the BoMormon and Bible on the importance of helping the poor and allusions to the government playing a role in that. Pres. Monson has added "giving to the poor" as one of the missions of the Church, for crying out loud. We ought to be exploring this issue more than ever.