Closed Communion On Threads

[mike]

There seems to be some control being placed on who can respond to a thread by the originator. This appears to be most common from conservative background originators.

Is this forum really an open forum or is it only open where allowed by thread originators ?

Seems to me there is control being taken by some individuals on their threads and I'm curious what the purpose is in this isolation.

I do it sometimes because it helps to keep the discussion limited to what I am actually interested in discussing. I'm pretty sure asking to limit thread participants is something that was discussed a long time ago and approved by board moderators. Anybody is free to do this at any time, and of course you can respond by creating a new thread of your own.

I believe I have mostly if not always refrained from responding where not invited to participate. If you can give me a reference to board moderators approving of this screening technique, I will continue to refrain where not wanted but I don't recall approval of such being granted anytime in the past.

My personal understanding is that when I was given permission to participate on this forum it was an open forum and the board guidelines under Announcements and Introductions spells out some restraints on participation which does not include a thread originator blocking participation by Christian affiliation or any other criteria.

Paging moderators... did I dream that up?

[justme]

Paging moderators... did I dream that up?

no, i don't think you dreamt it up.
but interestingly enough, i can't find proof of it.
i need to search some more.

[Josh]

I would actually welcome more threads which were limited in participation to liberal, progressive, mainstream, evangelical, non-plain, and/or theological-conservative Mennonites, Brethren, and Anabaptists. I would enjoy reading the discussion and gaining a perspective on their thinking.

[ohio jones]

I believe I have mostly if not always refrained from responding where not invited to participate. If you can give me a reference to board moderators approving of this screening technique, I will continue to refrain where not wanted but I don't recall approval of such being granted anytime in the past.

It may not be formally spelled out, but it's a long-standing practice dating back to MD.

[temporal1]

I believe I have mostly if not always refrained from responding where not invited to participate. If you can give me a reference to board moderators approving of this screening technique, I will continue to refrain where not wanted but I don't recall approval of such being granted anytime in the past.

It may not be formally spelled out, but it's a long-standing practice dating back to MD.

If i recall, admin-mods explained it’s ok to request parameters, examples, “for those who have first read/viewed linked OP content,” or, “for practicing conservative Mennonites,” etc. In attempt for more focused discussion. (i think) Robert once described, after several pages, rules can be loosened .. which often happens.

Robert/mods have described, it’s not ok to exclude members by name.
i’m not sure, my impression was, this was sometimes done on earlier MD, it’s direct+efficient, but was discontinued. It’s not to be personal.

Thing is, some problems take care of themselves.
When OPs/mods attempt to be restrictive, topics tend to end more quickly. Or even abruptly.

It’s often a trade-off. Is the goal discussion, or control?
i’ve started some topics with restrictions that received zero replies. As have others.

i don’t sense any sort of plan or conspiracy.

It’s a daily exercise in communication. Sometimes bumpy along the way.

Altho not “formally spelled out” these questions have been addressed by admin/mods as needs have appeared, within threads, maybe moved to Bunny Trails/Briar Patch, maybe archived?? .. For those not reading most posts/most days, easy to miss.

[Sudsy]

I guess those who come from more closed fellowship backgrounds with rules lean toward more control over people. The way I see it, this is not a church but a place for open discussion amongst all believers. As the heading says 'Where Mennonites and others connect'.

[temporal1]

By far the majority on this forum would refrain from posting at the hint of being unwelcome. No rule required.
There are a few who defy this and insist their posts be accepted. That’s life.

[temporal1]

I guess those who come from more closed fellowship backgrounds with rules lean toward more control over people. The way I see it, this is not a church but a place for open discussion amongst all believers. As the heading says 'Where Mennonites and others connect'.

i agree with what you’re saying, i don’t internalize it as you do.

i don’t take it personally if someone wants a more focused (public) discussion. In fact, i’m grateful to have the opportunity to read such discussions. It’s a window into a world i might learn something from. i appreciate it.

i’ve learned a lot on this forum. hope to continue. i enjoy the subjective nature. as Josh wrote above, it adds to the experience.

[Josh]

I guess those who come from more closed fellowship backgrounds with rules lean toward more control over people. The way I see it, this is not a church but a place for open discussion amongst all believers. As the heading says 'Where Mennonites and others connect'.

Anyone can ignore the request for only certain people to post and then just post away.

I still maintain we should be able to have a discussion without certain people repeating the same things they have been repeating for a decade. It seems if they want to push a particular point… can’t they start their own thread to discuss that?

[temporal1]

Anyone can ignore the request for only certain people to post and then just post away.

^^They can and do, sometimes relocated to Bunny Trails, not always.
It’s a courtesy, a request. Not “punishable by death.”

Robert’s signature line:

Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.