Things I miss about the old, pre-update, board

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm finding my way around the newly updated board fairly well. But I've encountered the absence of two or three things that I will miss:

-- Speed. When I click on a different page of posts, it is taking a couple of seconds to load. Not a big thing, but it makes it clunkier. Also, when I go to edit a post, it takes several seconds to load. Sometimes, it gets frustrating, as I think it's not going to load at all. Hopefully, this is a glitch that will be worked out.

-- Ability to pull up lists of one's own posts that others have "liked" (or awarded rep points to). I've found a function that I think is supposed to do this, but for some reason it is not working for me.

-- Ability to lock one's own threads (or re-open threads one has locked). I know this is a sore point with some, but I am going to miss having that functionality.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

What about signatures? Are those lost?

[Daniel2]

I am grateful and glad that the thread originator no longer has the ability to lock or re-open threads.

Once others begin to post in a thread, they become just as much "co-owners" of the discussion, by way of their active participation, as the individual who initiated the discussion.

I always found thread closures by the instigator to be, in many/most cases, an exercise of what felt to me to be unrighteous dominion and, in many cases, silence potentially-valuable ongoing dialogue.

If a thread initiator no longer finds value in the ensuing discussion, he/she is welcome to withdraw.  Allowing others to continue respectful conversation robs the initiator of nothing, while offering other participants the benefits of ongoing dialogue.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

What about signatures? Are those lost?

Wow. I hadn't noticed this. Apparently so.

And apparently no way to reconstruct them.

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I am glad that the thread originator no longer has the ability to lock or re-open threads.

Once others begin to post in a thread, they become just as much "co-owners" of the discussion, by way of their active participation, as the individual who initiated the discussion.

I always found thread closures by the instigator to be an exercise of unrighteous dominion.

No more an exercise in unrighteous dominion than those who endeavored to flood a thread with obnoxious or impertinent chatter -- which is the only reason I would ever close a thread.

It amounted to limited ability to moderate one's own threads, saving the moderating team from having to do it. Sometimes, I would lock a thread because I could see the imminence of a thread closure by the moderating team. If I were to lock it, conceivably I could reopen it later, after a "cooling off" period, which I wouldn't be able to do if the moderators closed it.

And there really wasn't a matter of "dominion," unrighteous or otherwise, as one who didn't like it that an thread originator closed a thread, could always originate one of his/her own.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm getting about a thousand emails per day notifying me of every reply. I've done all I can to remove any notifications but it doesn't seem to be working. Anyone else getting this?

[Daniel2]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No more an exercise in unrighteous dominion than those who endeavored to flood a thread with obnoxious or impertinent chatter -- which is the only reason I would ever close a thread.

It amounted to limited ability to moderate one's own threads, saving the moderating team from having to do it. Sometimes, I would lock a thread because I cold see the imminence of a thread closure by the moderating team. If I were to lock it, conceivably I could reopen it later, after a "cooling off" period, which I wouldn't be able to do if the moderators closed it.

And there really wasn't a matter of "dominion," unrighteous or otherwise, as one who didn't like it that an thread originator closed a thread, could always originate one of his/her own.

To paraphrase the adage, "One man's trash is another man's treasure," in my observation, all too often, this rule could be seen through the lens of "that which one thread initiator judges to be 'obnoxious/impertinent chatter' is very often seen by other posters to be 'meaningful engagement in dialogue'."  While you may feel that the reason you listed "is the only reason you would ever close a thread," others have commented their perception that you would often close threads when individuals who held a divergent view from yours were making strides in the conversation that disagreed with your position.  I have agreed with that perception, on more than one occasion.

While we each are responsible for our own personal conduct, moderators are the ultimate arbiters in whether something needs to be censured because of inappropriateness.

Not all post-ers have the ability to start threads, so it is inaccurate to suggest that they could simply start new topics.  Additionally--I find it nonsensical to advocate for closing your threads in the name of attempting to control "obnoxious or impertinent chatter," while simultaneously recommending that others can start NEW threads... That's just moving alleged "clutter" from one place to the next.  If it's truly inappropriate, posts can be reported to the mods and removed, as necessary.  Additionally, given there's already a thread with a historical discussion in progress, it limits the effectiveness of the new thread to start mid-stream, without the context that preceeded it.  Unnecessary work and not as effective.

Kudos to the removal of that feature!

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

What about signatures? Are those lost?

 

Testing........

Edit: They took away my beautiful quote:

"We enter this world naked, screaming, and covered in blood. The fun does not have to end there."

Edited December 4, 2015 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm getting about a thousand emails per day notifying me of every reply. I've done all I can to remove any notifications but it doesn't seem to be working. Anyone else getting this?

The key is to develop a colossal ego so you imagine that every notification is people liking your stuff.

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I am grateful and glad that the thread originator no longer has the ability to lock or re-open threads.

Once others begin to post in a thread, they become just as much "co-owners" of the discussion, by way of their active participation, as the individual who initiated the discussion.

I always found thread closures by the instigator to be, in many/most cases, an exercise of what felt to me to be unrighteous dominion and, in many cases, silence potentially-valuable ongoing dialogue.

If a thread initiator no longer finds value in the ensuing discussion, he/she is welcome to withdraw.  Allowing others to continue respectful conversation robs the initiator of nothing, while offering other participants the benefits of ongoing dialogue.

I completely disagree.

When I start a conversation (which happened recently) on contending for the gospel and it quickly degenerates into global warming, evolution, and SSM I think I should maintain the right to close that derailed thread.  The Mods will do it anyway if I ask.

If someone doesn't like it they can always start their own thread on global warming, evolution, or SSM, and leave mine alone.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

To paraphrase the adage, "One man's trash is another man's treasure," in my observation, all too often, this rule could be seen through the lens of "that which one thread initiator judges to be 'obnoxious/impertinent chatter' is very often seen by other posters to be 'meaningful engagement in dialogue'." 

While you may feel that the reason you listed "is the only reason you would ever close a thread," others have commented their perception that you would often close threads when individuals who held a divergent view from yours were making strides in the conversation that disagreed with your position.  I have agreed with that perception, on more than one occasion.

Well, this is begging the question. Those who are engaging in the obnoxiousness are of course going to claim I closed the thread because they were getting the upper hand.

Quote

While we each are responsible for our own personal conduct, moderators are the ultimate arbiters in whether something needs to be censured because of inappropriateness.

In theory, the moderators could judiciously grant some limited ability to others to moderate their own threads; if anyone abused that privilege he could theoretically be slapped down for it. That never happened to me.

And there's something to be said for being able to control the usurpation of a thread by others who have no interest in it accomplishing what the originator set out to do with it. (Edited to add: See above post by JLHPROF, who stated this better than I.)

Edited to add: Furthermore, this conceivably lessens the burden on the moderators in that they don't have to adjudicate every little thing.

 

Quote

 

Not all post-ers have the ability to start threads, so it is inaccurate to suggest that they could simply start new topics.  Additionally--I find it nonsensical to advocate for closing your threads in the name of attempting to control "obnoxious or impertinent chatter," while simultaneously recommending that others can start NEW threads... That's just moving alleged "clutter" from one place to the next.  If it's truly inappropriate, posts can be reported to the mods and removed, as necessary. 

 

They could always start their own threads unless they had exhibited a pattern of misbehavior that had caused them to be placed on "limited" status -- a method the moderators had at their desposal for enforcing compliance with guidelines.

Or if they hadn't been registered for very long. So that would amount to an incentive for complying with the guidelines long enough to attain a certain status.

Quote

Additionally, given there's already a thread with a historical discussion in progress, it limits the effectiveness of the new thread to start mid-stream, without the context that preceeded it.  Unnecessary work and not as effective.

A reasonably able person could always reconstruct the context with minimal effort. If nothing else, he or she could link to the prior thread. Whether it's "unnecessary work" is, of course, a matter of opinion.

Quote

Kudos to the removal of that feature!

I'm not certain there was a conscious effort to remove it, or if it's simply a matter of selecting software that does not include that feature.

But I suppose that's a moot point now.

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Notifications...try going into your browser's preferences.  Mine has a button for "notifications".  One of the websites listed there is this one.  I chose "deny".  I will see if this works in turning on that function.

[KevinG]

Sustaining living moderators is more important than following dead moderators.  

Clinging to the past will lead to apostasy.

Accept the calling of the new format and the board will qualify you.

 

[Calm]

There is a reputation section in the profile, but I know I've done "likes" and gotten "likes" (the notification option was working overtime for awhile till I shut if off) and it shows no activity, so probably hasn't been turned on by mods.

 

Board speed is faster for me in most cases.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a reputation section in the profile, but I know I've done "likes" and gotten "likes" (the notification option was working overtime for awhile till I shut if off) and it shows no activity, so probably hasn't been turned on by mods.

 

Board speed is faster for me in most cases.

Well here's me urging the moderators to "turn on" the reputation section in the profile as soon as possible.

 

[Ares]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well here's me urging the moderators to "turn on" the reputation section in the profile as soon as possible.

 

I hate to test your faith in us, but some of the moderation team are as lost as you are.  We are hoping to get a handle on some of the new functions as soon as possible.  

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Notifications...try going into your browser's preferences.  Mine has a button for "notifications".  One of the websites listed there is this one.  I chose "deny".  I will see if this works in turning on that function.

That's what i did as well. No notifications  for me. 

[Tacenda]

Ares and other mods....

Thanks for giving me freedom, lol!  I hope I don't land in jail again though.  Walking as carefully as possible. ;)   For those that don't understand...I've been let off the "limited" status of which I had earned for not following guidelines properly.     

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Ares said:

I hate to test your faith in us, but some of the moderation team are as lost as you are.  We are hoping to get a handle on some of the new functions as soon as possible.  

Which is not unexpected when it comes to figuring out new software.

Thanks for your efforts.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Ares and other mods....

Thanks for giving me freedom, lol!  I hope I don't land in jail again though.  Walking as carefully as possible.   

 

Hey, Tacenda figured out how to include sig lines. Just put them in your "interests" section.

Well done, Tacenda.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hey, Tacenda figured out how to include sig lines. Just put them in your "interests" section.

Well done, Tacenda.

I didn't have anything substantial in my sig line, but thank you for the tip! 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't have anything substantial in my sig line, but thank you for the tip! 

Well, your "interests" look like sig lines to me.

By the way, congratulations on the amnesty.

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Ares said:

I hate to test your faith in us, but some of the moderation team are as lost as you are.  We are hoping to get a handle on some of the new functions as soon as possible.  

Does this mean I have some hope of getting my thread-locking power back?

 

[cynth]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No more an exercise in unrighteous dominion than those who endeavored to flood a thread with obnoxious or impertinent chatter -- which is the only reason I would ever close a thread.

It amounted to limited ability to moderate one's own threads, saving the moderating team from having to do it. Sometimes, I would lock a thread because I could see the imminence of a thread closure by the moderating team. If I were to lock it, conceivably I could reopen it later, after a "cooling off" period, which I wouldn't be able to do if the moderators closed it.

And there really wasn't a matter of "dominion," unrighteous or otherwise, as one who didn't like it that an thread originator closed a thread, could always originate one of his/her own.

I appreciate that having limited moderation abilities over what one considers obnoxious or impertinent chatter is no longer left with an OP.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, your "interests" look like sig lines to me.

By the way, congratulations on the amnesty.

 

Oh, I didn't notice until you pointed it out, thank you.  Now I see that it is why I'm taking up so much blank space in each of my posts.  I have tunnel vision I guess.  I will try to change my "interests".