Both ideas sound to me like a way to increase drama and partisanship and decrease scholarship on this forum. If you want a "like" button and private messaging, there's always facebook.

Gavin, people do not post because they are afraid of being attacked.

People can form the direction of a forum by rating their reaction to posts without stepping into the fray.

People posting, like myself, can see what the general population thinks and be encouraged or discouraged as a result. Otherwise, a forum becomes a jousting match for a few and the most vicious can take over. This should encourage scholarship and discourage pettiness...

Here's an example. You and Jeffrey posted right after this topic popped. Hundreds of others did not. How many read this topic and had a comment but did not post?

I'm afraid that a polling system would start turning into a popularity contest, which would just make a lot of this stuff worse. It is better for those who have something to say to say it. If people are lurking, there is nothing wrong with that, and they will come out of their lurking when they feel the need; we don't have to reach out to them in their anonymity.

Rather than adding that feature, we should rather work on ourselves so that people aren't afraid of posting anymore. If we can cut out the backbiting, the provocative posts, and also extreme sensitivity to posts and disagreements, then we won't need to fear scaring people off.

As for the whisper feature, I don't even know if it works, but let's give it a try. Perhaps it'll cut back on chatter between two or three people and keep threads on track. Since this forum does not have a PM feature, whispering is probably a good idea.

I suggest that if one likes another's comment, they can click on an "Amen!". Conversely, there could be an "Anathema sit!" option.

Flagging posts as "Off-topic" wouldn't hurt.

Also, it could be good to allow a favorable rating ("kudos") without offering any negative option.

Some modern bulletin boards will offer a whisper feature, so that one poster may direct his/her comments to another poster without the knowledge of the entire group. I'm going to test the feature on you, Joseph, let us know if you get it!

Mandee

Good point!

Perhaps... people are afraid to post because they risk getting a response of "You're Eastern Rite/Orthodox/Protestant/Not in a cool enough parish, so your opinions are irrelevant and your traditions an affront to God. Get off our forum." Or maybe some self-proclaimed King sinks a topic because everyone's not agreeing with him. Or maybe it's the anger directed against the composers whom it's ok to hate, thus making anything but "may they and their seed for five generations rot in Hell!" into heresy punishable by a 25 post pile-on.

I myself HAVE refrained from posting what were (IMHO) intelligent and charitable comments due to the following fears:
- Attacks on the basis of my protestant religion and employment (even while the topic is my former employment in a Catholic church)
- Moderate comments along the "can't we all just get along" line, or supporting the work of some composer which is a respectable example of the pop-influenced style, will be attacked by extremists
- Expressions of any piety short of uber-traditional Latin Rite piety could be attacked
- Strange compulsions of a few to contradict anything I say. If I say Skinner is the greatest organbuilder, I get told his instruments are all tubs. If I extol trackers, I'm guilty of overusing zimbels that leave the congregation deaf

To some extent, this is necessary. This forum, although open to all, is primarily for CMAA members and furthering its good and holy agenda, and comments by those who don't share in the traditional Latin Rite or moderate that agenda DO distract from the great work that you all are doing in your parishes. So I don't resent my self-moderation in those areas, and I hope others will exercise the same restraint in similar problems that pop up from time to time here, be it uncharitable attitudes towards other musicians who aren't on here, extremist positions, political commentary, personal drama, or whatever.

I reject this idea of a tragic poster frightened to solve the Church's problems by being challenged online. As Jeff O. demonstrated in his comments on Paul Innwood, we CAN challenge ideas without being hostile to the presenter. As the remaining comments demonstrated, that's easier said than done, but I believe we can all commit to making this board a friendlier place for anyone who wants to join the discussion. But publicly stated innovative positions DO call for response, such as the ideas presented by Innwood.

Making the board a better place doesn't require ratings or whispers (the very idea conjures up a notion of gossip). All it requires is a commitment from EACH member to concentrate on the matter at hand and follow the principles outlined in the forum etiquette.

Dear Gavin,

I have been disturbed by the tone of several of the posts on the forum lately. I had a phone conversation with someone about this late Sunday night.

This forum is simply too awesome to start allowing nasty comments from ANYONE.

I think it would be amazing if we could all renew our good resolution to always be professional, respectful, and friendly.

I also think much trouble could be avoided if people simply REFRAIN (no pun intended) from responding to comments that they feel are mean, dumb, etc.

I think this is the most powerful governing force we have.

If someone posts something you think is bad, ignore it. I promise: it will help.

.

Ach. I got the two comments whispered to me, and they were on lavender stationery. I replied to both. Now I see what I sent to Amanda on rose stationery, and that to Jam on white.

Now that I know what "whisper" is, I am for it. There are many legitimate reasons why one might want to reply only to a commentator and not to the whole world.

In my capacity as a professional programmer, I will pontificate and say that a label that describes succinctly, like "private reply", is to be preferred to something cute but vague, like "whisper".

The colors are a good thing: if you're reading a post in a funky color, you'll realize that it is directed only to you and not to everyone else. Then you ought to likewise reply in another funky color. That's a good element of this function, I think, so that no one replies to the wrong folks.

And while we're discussing features..... wouldn't it be fantastic if comments had permanent time stamps, or another variety of permanent identifier? I would like to be able to cite a particular post without actually quoting it. As it stands, it is very difficult to cross-reference. ("George, Sarah addressed your concern already in post #5.")

Carl D -- I just sent you a whisper

And while we're discussing features..... wouldn't it be fantastic if comments had permanent time stamps, or another variety of permanent identifier? I would like to be able to cite a particular post without actually quoting it.

This is an awesome idea. I've often thought of sending links to people who don't actively participate here, but frequently haven't because I can't link directly to the post in question.

Beware the heavy hand of moderation, except to deal with the most egregious cases. This community works - don't spoil things by trying to fix it.

Can we change the litle box to say "Whisper your comments but not your gossip"? (just kidding)

It ain't broke, so....

It's called a "conversation" now. You can find the button for it on your "inbox" page.

Both ideas sound to me like a way to increase drama and partisanship and decrease scholarship on this forum.

Woo hoo! Make it so.

Yes, I liked that.

:(

TMI, RC.
Of course, TMI is my metier.