Future of this Forum - for AGM on Saturday

[SOP]

Keith, obviously there cannot be a formal discussion about this forum at the AGM but there should at least be some informal chit chat and any trustee there will be able to pass on views at the next meeting.

This thread has brought us back together!

[Vox Americana]

I propose:
1. That this forum is now shut down.
2. That this forum is restricted to members of the Society of Saint Gregory (and invited guests)
3. That this forum is restricted to members of the Society of Saint Gregory (and invited guests) and that those who post do so under their own names.

Some of you may be aware that over here, we're on the countdown for Thanksgiving. Yeehah! In a couple of weeks, it's time for a vacation. I was telling one of my UK in-laws about the cranberry salad it's traditional to have with the turkey: cranberries are crushed with sugar and pineapple, some pecans and the whole mess folded into Cool Whip with mini-marshmallows. He was astounded that we'd eat what he considered to be a dessert with the hot turkey and, from the look on his face (God bless Skype), the very idea was abhorrent. I think his attitude is best summed up thus: . Perhaps they'll not be visiting us for Thanksgiving this year, after all.

As members of the Society of Saint Gregory, you and I may disagree with NB and CC and the posts that flew between them on Saturday. But from here, it looks as your reaction is kinda over the top. I just read the posts as the two of them looking more and more silly in reacting to each other and moved on to more interesting corners of the web. Why react against everyone here on these forums and not just against those two posters who, in your opinion, have abused the Society of Saint Gregory's forums' hospitality? I feel a bit like Abraham arguing with God here: Genesis 18:23!

I guess I'm saying "be cool" : some of us actually like turkey with marshmallow

[Peter Jones]

In the meantime, the Chairman has decided that members should be invited to express their views in a discussion at the AGM so as to enable the Trustees to take them into consideration during their deliberations.

My apologies I cannot be there (AGM) in person. Enjoy your deliberations in early December. Meanwhile I will sit back and observe. At least I've managed to get a debate going.

[MaryR]

Keith, obviously there cannot be a formal discussion about this forum at the AGM but there should at least be some informal chit chat and any trustee there will be able to pass on views at the next meeting.

SOP, just to confirm that there will be a discussion about the forum during AOB at the AGM:

In the meantime, the Chairman has decided that members should be invited to express their views in a discussion at the AGM so as to enable the Trustees to take them into consideration during their deliberations.

Speaking as a forum member (in various guises) since its inception, my personal view is that the value of the forum far outweighs the bickering and occasional unpleasantness. I now ignore anything that degenerates into a petty squabble where one person just has to have the last word over another. I've become adept at skipping over those bits and getting to the more interesting and helpful stuff. And I don't believe that what is posted brings the Society into disrepute. DT's downright nasty blog doesn't make me think any differently about the Telegraph (though I shan't say what I thought of the Telegraph in the first place!). It's a fact of cyberspace, the computer age we live in, or whatever, that blogs and forums have posters of all shapes and sizes and views. I feel that, on balance, the SSG forum provides a valuable resource/source of information for many and, often, an opportunity for reasoned arguments and debate. And I welcome contributions from non-members (who are often encouraged to become members after a while).

I would not close the forum, nor would I restrict it to members only. However, those are my personal views. With my trustee hat on, I'm willing to listen to the views of anyone who cares to proffer them and to relay them faithfully to my fellow trustees. The trustees will then have what is likely to be a pretty lively debate about it at their next meeting, before any final decisions are made.

[Nick Baty]

I would not close the forum, nor would I restrict it to members only.

What about restricting comments to members but still allowing the rest of us to read?

[docmattc]

I now ignore anything that degenerates into a petty squabble where one person just has to have the last word over another. I've become adept at skipping over those bits and getting to the more interesting and helpful stuff.

The problem is that it seems this happenes to most threads. I would no longer seek advice here because in all likelyhood the thread would degenerate into a slanging match between posters with intransigent points of view, leaving me, the poster, in the middle and damned for whatever I did, and unlikely to be persuaded by the liturgical ideologies of either side in the squabble precisely because they are expressed in such a negative manner.

The tedious inevitablity with which so many threads degenerate into these petty squabbles is driving away the very people this forum should best serve. As such, it is not fit for purpose.

[MaryR]

I agree we need to review the rules of the forum, and perhaps be tougher on the troublemakers, or even the bickerers, but they're not a reason to shut the forum down. I said I was against closing it; I'm not against reviewing how it's moderated and perhaps revising the rules.

Nick, I'm happy for everyone to contribute, member or non-member and that's what I'll be voting for when the trustees revisit this at their December meeting. I don't see what's to be gained by closing it to non-members and letting them just peer in. We would potentially lose some valuable contributors.

[Nick Baty]

But I suspect it's we non-members who cause most of the hassle.
Do we know the proportion of members v non-members who post?

[HallamPhil]

I agree with Mary. We need views from members and non-members alike. Moderators can deal with the miscreants if they will and we can all assist by refusing to give these oxygen. See you Saturday.

[mcb]

Two suggestions. (Afraid I've been avoiding the forum of late because the headbangers have made it so tiresome.)

(i) give the moderators the power to lock an individual out of a particular thread if they're repeating themselves, or becoming unduly personal or aggressive, or are patently (as MaryR astutely suggested) just in it to have the last word. Observing the discussion continuing without them might be enough of a sin bin to instil a bit of common sense and courtesy.

(ii) add a label under the username adjoining each post: either SSG Member or SSG Non-Member. Then there's less likelihood of the Society's reputation being harmed, and slimmer grounds for claiming that the forum represents (...or is in danger of being taken to represent...) the Society's views.

Beyond that I see no merit at all in closing down the forum, limiting it to members, banning pseudonyms or any other drastic measure like that. Long may it (we) continue!

Martin

[gwyn]

(i) give the moderators the power to lock an individual out of a particular thread if they're repeating themselves, or becoming unduly personal or aggressive, or are patently (as MaryR astutely suggested) just in it to have the last word. Observing the discussion continuing without them might be enough of a sin bin to instil a bit of common sense and courtesy.

(ii) add a label under the username adjoining each post: either SSG Member or SSG Non-Member. Then there's less likelihood of the Society's reputation being harmed, and slimmer grounds for claiming that the forum represents (...or is in danger of being taken to represent...) the Society's views.

Excellent suggestions MCB & MaryR.
Re. (i), time out is a most effective response to childish/childlike behaviour.
Re (ii), Time I rejoined the Society

Please keep the forum goiing. I love it. I've learned so much here. I've really benefitted from the support and advice that I've received not to mention the fatherly/brotherly/sisterly Christian correction on no few occasions.
Gwyn.

[musicus]

For information: your moderators already have the power to exclude ('ban') posters, either temporarily ('time-out', eg 24 hours, a week etc) or permanently. To do so does raise issues of freedom of speech and censorship, but these must always be balanced by charity, civility, decency, etc. Maintaining this balance is a challenge, I have come to the conclusion that when the poster is going after the person as opposed to the person's argument, then the balance has been lost.

At the risk of repeating myself, we need to give some thought to the staffing of the forum. As we saw last Saturday, when both moderators are otherwise engaged in other matters it is possible for things to blow up. Perhaps it is no longer sufficient or prudent to rely on two volunteers to cover this.

[SOP]

I think we cannot close down the forum as so much valuable information is on here.

Many good suggestions/possible solutions being made so this item in AOB should indeed lead to a lively discussion.

Is there wi-fi available in the meeting room? Is there any point bring laptops so we can actually refer to this thread at the AGM?

[contrabordun]

To do so does raise issues of freedom of speech and censorship

I don't think it does, actually. Participation in any communal activity implies acceptance of the rules governing that activity. Nobody has any rights to post on a privately owned and volunteer-run internet disussion board save by the enrollment agreement. Abuse those rights (I'm not saying anybody has - I haven't read the relevant thread recently, and anyway I'm assuming that most of it has been deleted) and forfeit them. End of.

[mcb]

For information: your moderators already have the power to exclude ('ban') posters, either temporarily ('time-out', eg 24 hours, a week etc) or permanently.

Actually I was thinking of something milder: excluding someone from a particular thread that's become overheated. It needn't even be presented as a ban: I hope you don't mind if I ask you to sit this one out now and let other people have their say.