All About Discussions and Categories
  • As this forum is discussion-centric versus category-centric, visitors will see updated and recently opened discussions first.

    The discussion categories that you see in the "Categories" folder are some of the broader topics that can serve as launching points for discussion. More likely than not a topic will fit into one of these categories. Unfortunately at this time there is no cross-listing functionality; that may change if enough demand arises.

    Members can create discussion topics within a category; Administrators and Developers can create discussion categories in addition to discussion topics. If a member has a subject that he or she believes warrants its own discussion category, please e-mail cmaa.forum.admin@gmail.com
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I've been on a few forums, so let me make a couple suggestions for new categories. I'm dealing with this in public so that others can chip in what's a good idea also.

    "General Music Discussion": discussion of anything musical (church or otherwise)
    "General Catholic Discussion": discussing liturgy, Catholicism in general
    "General Discussion": anything goes; politics, TV, fun threads
    "Music Program Management": doing music in the context of an average (or exceptional) parish
    "Choral Topics": self-explanatory
    "CMAA Issues": for anything concerning the CMAA or Sacred Music (the magazine) Topics like conventions, questions about CMAA's work, etc.

    I also think the "Ward" category is redundant with the "Gregorian Chant" one, or at best something less specific like "pedagogical methods" would be more appropriate.
  • Gavin: These ideas have merit; so much so, in fact, that they've been implemented. :)

    I've also moved your music program management thread to the Music Program Management category.
  • G
    Posts: 1,384
    I am thrilled that you have begun this.
    Looking forward to explring the site and the discussions.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • It is very important that everyone here write to others to join this forum.

    I'm really very pleased and a bit astonished that we seem to have Finally found the venue that draws people out into "active participation" with the growing sacred music community.

    But it will require that everyone do what he or she can to get others to join. One thing we might need is a a little banner ad of some sort, something to display on blogs.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    What does "sink discussion" mean? Do I have it right that it means "don't push the thread to the top of the list whenever a new comment appears" so that the thread gets pushed further down, making it easier to see new threads? If so, that seems a polite thing to do. Any ideas for rough guidelines?
  • Pes:

    That is correct.

    Well, a couple of good rough guidelines are:
    - use discernment before sinking a discussion
    - sink sparingly (usually on those that have been resolved)
    - sink primarily the discussions you initiate
    - don't take offense if someone else sinks your discussion
    - don't take pride if someone unsinks a sunk discussion

    I have initiated discussions that I have sunk initially, only to have another unsink it.
  • Maybe it is time to revisit the categories to make sure they are all working?

    One cat just occurred to me: Lists. These would be readings lists, music lists, chant lists, things like that. Is there anything to this idea?
  • I love the idea of a list category. I've been trying to compile my own list from recommendations on various threads...
  • G
    Posts: 1,384
    List?
    Yes, please!
    (Someone as disorganized as me likes to be able to pretend to have a handle on something by having it in list form...)

    Save the Liturgy, Save the World
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • Should we start with a list of lists? Or maybe a list of lists of lists?

    (ok teasing)
  • tdunbar
    Posts: 120
    >list of lists of lists

    Depends on the M.I.T. of the lists: the Maximal Informational Transfer as defined in DARPA 1017.3B which, as a gross rule of thumb also suggested skepticism regarding lists with mit > 12.
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions