Forum guidelines: Write informatively
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Here's a new item I've added to the Forum Etiquette Guidelines:

    Write with future readers in mind.
    Be helpful and friendly. Write informatively and clearly for the good of the questioner and for the good of later readers. Stay on topic. Avoid inside jokes.


    Your writings on this forum can last for years, and they can be of service to musicians looking for information and wise guidance. So when you write, keep in mind that we're here to be of service.

    We especially want to be of service to people to take the trouble of posting questions and seeking information. For threads of this type, please just write informative answers, and stick to the subject.

    For example, if a questioner wants help in performing some P&W ditty, don't try to persuade him that he's wrong about it (unless some liturgical norm is being violated).

    Either
    (a) someone will know the answer, and helpfully provide it, or
    (b) someone will gently point out that we're focused on the Church's musical heritage, so we don't have expertise in P&W.

    We want to be known as a group of helpful and friendly people, not people who engage in pointless arguments.


    Thanked by 5Gavin MarkThompson doneill marajoy IanW
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    I'm wondering...

    Do writings on this forum have to last for years? It's a discussion forum, not an archive of human musical interactions. Let people have discussions in the present moment and then let them disappear.

    What if topics just went away after they haven't been posted in for 3 weeks or a month? This way we wouldn't end up with 5-10 posts about the Becker Litany that people might bump from time to time and become dated (comments on the Becker thread were about the prior edition and might confuse people), but if questions come up they come and go. This also can remove any confusion caused by inside jokes that people knew about 2 years ago but would just be confused about today.

    It might lead to better discussion and less confusion.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Gavin francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Do writings on this forum have to last for years? It's a discussion forum, not an archive of human musical interactions. Let people have discussions in the present moment and then let them disappear.


    This. Amen. Alleluia. Ain't it the truth!!!!
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    The problem is that we have different kinds of conversations, and they're interspersed. There are some which have tremendous longevity - especially for newbies starting out who want to see what worked for others in the past. And there's lots of pointers to fantastic resources posted here which will be valuable for years to come.

    I'd hate to try to be a moderator who tried to decide, though. You'd quickly become reviled, as it's all about judgment.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Let people have discussions in the present moment and then let them disappear.


    Not this. In fact, the opposite of this.

    The fact that this forum is archived and searchable from the web makes it an extremely useful resource for people who have questions. If I google "sequence before or after alleluia," for instance, the # 1 hit is a thread on this forum. Why should that resource be deleted? I would bet too that a substantial proportion of forum members came here first by searching for something and finding a relevant thread here, and not because someone told them "Hey, go to the musicasacra.com forum."
    Thanked by 5smvanroode CHGiffen francis Salieri jczarn
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    I would bet too that a substantial proportion of forum members came here first by searching for something and finding a relevant thread


    THIS. It's the way the internet works.

    I've never used this This in this way before, I feel like I'm trying to hide my geezerness.
    Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick
  • bkenney27bkenney27
    Posts: 444
    I have found very useful information in the archives of the forum and in older discussions. In fact, that's how I found the forum to begin with. It is an incredible resource for those of us who have Pastors that are very interested in what OTHER churches are doing to back up points about which he may have questions or doubts.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    This is the internet forum of a professional association. Of course we want it to be an information resource for decades to come!
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    We also want it be fun.

    I think the issue is partially how legit questions from newcomers are handled, as opposed to opinion-laden conversations about whatever people are interested in (For goodness sakes, how can anyone have so many opinions about organ voicing?!), general mayhem, and steam-blowing-off.
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    Yes, I do see/appreciate these points...

    However, I do find that some of the information does become dated as new sources come up, etc. For example the post that was just bumped by Royce Nickel from 2011 about the SEP vs. the Sacramentary (who's heard that word used in the last 18 months?). Could perhaps there be a way to archive old posts so they can't be bumped after a certain period of time but could still be found via search engines? Therefore if someone finds us after googling "Sequence before or after Alleluia" they might find older information and have to start a new thread but without bringing up the older dated thread? Likewise the Becker thread that obviously was dated.

    Not trying to make Chonak's life more difficult :) Just thinking about various things.

    EDIT: actually upon re-reading the Nickel thread, there's very little information in it that is dated, unlike the Becker thread.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    Well, it's quite possible that a conversation could be closed if it's truly become obsolete. That could be handy. But someone has to make that judgment, which takes time. Not like anyone has spare hours to go trolling through discussions from last year...
    Thanked by 1francis
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    I think it would be difficult to figure out what is obsolete also..
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    I think it would be difficult to figure out what is obsolete

    This is a common problem for religious organizations.
    Thanked by 2francis Gavin
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    I am increasingly against the notion of telling other people what they should do, or of announcing "someone oughta xyz," instead of doing it myself.

    But I don't have the time at the moment. So- here's my idea.
    (It is Free. Like a puppy.)

    What I think would be useful is a specifically question-answer site in the model of http://stackexchange.com/

    This could serve as an adjunct to this forum, and could be a place where it is normative for off-topic discussion to be curtailed, down-voted, or removed. The underlying software helps with duplicate-question-consolidation and a host of other things.

    I made a weak attempt at something like this a while ago, but it was too dependent one person (me) doing a bunch of writing/editing. Stack Exchange provides a toolset for community-centric answering in a way that is much more organized than this forum could ever be.

    (And I own sacredmusicfaq.com, if anyone wants to use it for such a thing.)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    I agree with MJM. Everything is not worth keeping. I like Adam's suggestion, too.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Not trying to make Chonak's life more difficult :) Just thinking about various things

    Oh my, I by divine default apparently exist to do just that, and RC has risen quite ably to respond in kind. It's kinda cute, actually.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,817
    o be joosy! you guys are opening pandora's box. just leave it all there, dirty laundry and all! It is a testimony of how the church works through her issues and sorts out the wheat and the weeds; it's goats and sheep, fruitful and barren, visible for all to see. over time, some will be guilty, other's will be exonerated. if you don't want to take the chance to be on the foolish side, don't post... simple as that. i am a fool for Christ... whose fool are you?

    Up to this point in time, there isn't a single post which I have made that I would retract, change or disavow. You can keep all 4,345 posts of mine right here! I don't care what the government or any one else sees or thinks (and that's for the record!)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Writing on the internet really does deserve the exercise of some self-discipline. Sometimes you need to consider the bigger purpose of the discussion and set aside the momentary purpose of proving a side point or making a distracting joke. Those who don't write under their real names especially need to watch for the temptations that come from the experience of anonymity.
    Thanked by 3francis Adam Wood CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    I deleted a bunch of off-topic comments.
    Thanked by 3Chrism CHGiffen marajoy
Add a Comment