posted
Please limit your posts to two a day (unless you haven't posted for a while) to insure equal access and fairness to the others. Besides, space is limited as is the amount of time most of us have time to sift through things. Hope this makes sense - even the NT church had limits on participation.
Some confuse this forum with a chat room... and I hope that it doesn't come to resemble some house church meetings I've attended where one person dominated the entire meeting.
posted
Moderator ! I have a clarifying question on this.
Limiting posts to once a day. Does that mean on one topic? Creating a new topic? Or do you really mean you want us to wait a day before responding to a different topic?
I tend to come "from time to time" and respond to new posts since my last visit, but it is kind of bad to see my name four or five times as the last post-er under "recent topics" simply because I had a lot of catching up to do.
I know we want to keep people from being "board hogs" but I benefit so much when a good topic really takes off with lively discussion. It also appears that sometimes people drop in for a very short time and may want a response pretty quickly.
Maybe we need a "board hog" discussion topic for those of us for whom House Church is the main thing for us every day.
Blessings, Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
As it stands now and it certainly can be changed again, two (2) times is the suggested number of posts per day. The exception to this guideline is for the person who hasn't participated in a while. Therefore, there should be NO embarrassment upon seeing one's name several times on the 'Recent Topics' page.
I hope this guideline doesn't seem restrictive or legalistic. Obviously nobody is going to be locked up.
If a person, say, comes along and posts and posts every few minutes or hours, others can sometimes be intimidated or not know where to start. Then, poster A may post yet again leaving would-be poster B with the impression that he/she has been and will be totally outgunned, so to speak.
Another issue: The (false) presupposition that the person to reply "gets the last word in" and thus wins the dispute, if there is a dispute.
The idea of the guidelines is just to slow things down, lessen the chance of disputes which spiral out of sight, and give others a chance to meditate, pray, then reply.
posted
Haha, D Poag. Does that mean you think I am a board hog? Or you wish I were? You gotta understand, my first forum was, and continues to be, one of the most active boards on the internet. I just went to take a quick look and there's a post that was made an hour ago and already has over 100 "views" and 10 "replies.
Thanks, D, for your response. I'll try it your way and see how it goes.
Blessings! Laurie Ann (And that is my second post of the Day!)
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
posted
We'll certainly leave these matters open for discussion and perhaps change. Bandwidth is getting faster and cheaper, true. Storage is cheaper than before as well. I have some polls to open soon and we can gauge interest on some new things.
Over my years of doing internet communicatons, getting moderators to hang around for long has been one of the biggest challenges. I have a number of dear friends who used to be active on the house church lists and forums which we sponsored but they are still burned out from all the hate speech. (Jeff may recall a mail list which we set up with no modertors, no posting limits, no rules of any kind - HCTalk 2. It melted down in less than a year. Hate speech and profanity finally prevailed.)
LA, please feel free to post a link to your board and or site. Sounds interesting. Others of you with sites of any kind, feel free to add them to your signatures.
Lord, help us to redeem the internet for your purposes and glory. Amen.
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
