Closed Communion On Threads

[Sudsy]

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.

[cooper]

I'm not a conservative Anabaptist (anymore) and I don't really have a problem with it. You can always start a thread to discuss the same topic. In the past, I've seen non-conservative Anabaptists rehashing the same critiques of conservative Anabaptists over and over. The conservative Anabaptists one here understand the reasons others disagree with them. I think the restrictions on conservative Anabaptist posters are an attempt to avoid that when discussing certain topics.

[Sudsy]

I'm not a conservative Anabaptist (anymore) and I don't really have a problem with it. You can always start a thread to discuss the same topic. In the past, I've seen non-conservative Anabaptists rehashing the same critiques of conservative Anabaptists over and over. The conservative Anabaptists one here understand the reasons others disagree with them. I think the restrictions on conservative Anabaptist posters are an attempt to avoid that when discussing certain topics.

I wonder how Conservative Anabaptists would like it if Liberal Anabaptists started the same thing and locked them out of giving their views on a thread. I believe some have split off into a fairly new, more Conservative Anabaptist forum where they can isolate themselves and I don't know how this is going. Someone may want to give directions to that forum if you are interested.

I'm not sure if I chimed in on a thread that tried to restrict certain Anabaptists whether my posts would be removed on that thread but I guess I could give it a try. I think some CAs are trying to make this forum something that was not originally intended.

[Soloist]

I wonder how Conservative Anabaptists would like it if Liberal Anabaptists started the same thing and locked them out of giving their views on a thread. I believe some have split off into a fairly new, more Conservative Anabaptist forum where they can isolate themselves and I don't know how this is going. Someone may want to give directions to that forum if you are interested.

I'm not sure if I chimed in on a thread that tried to restrict certain Anabaptists whether my posts would be removed on that thread but I guess I could give it a try. I think some CAs are trying to make this forum something that was not originally intended.

They are perfectly welcome to do the same. No one is telling them they can’t.

[Sudsy]

I wonder how Conservative Anabaptists would like it if Liberal Anabaptists started the same thing and locked them out of giving their views on a thread. I believe some have split off into a fairly new, more Conservative Anabaptist forum where they can isolate themselves and I don't know how this is going. Someone may want to give directions to that forum if you are interested.

I'm not sure if I chimed in on a thread that tried to restrict certain Anabaptists whether my posts would be removed on that thread but I guess I could give it a try. I think some CAs are trying to make this forum something that was not originally intended.

They are perfectly welcome to do the same. No one is telling them they can’t.

I doubt they would as liberal is defined as 'willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own'.

[Pelerin]

Back when iPhones were new and cool there was a joke that went around:

Q: How can you tell if someone has the new iPhone?
A: Oh, don’t worry, they’ll tell you.

There’s a lot of versions of this joke. I started off the iPhone example because it’s the first version I heard and also because of all the versions I’ve heard it steps on the least amount of toes. Other versions include:

Q: How can you tell if someone on the internet is an atheist?
Q: How can you tell if someone is an anti-vaxxer?
Q: How can you tell if someone is an ex-conservative Mennonite?

That last one isn’t entirely true—actually none of them are, but they’re true enough that the joke is funny. Some people have their hobbyhorses and are going to show up and make the same points they and others that have already been made and rejected.

Take a hypothetical topic: The value of the plain suit for plain people today. The discussion will be of most value to those who wear (or would consider wearing) a plain suit. The person who shows up and and talks about why plain dressing is bad in the first place isn’t contributing much of value but might make those who do have something of value to contribute to just keep quiet or avoid reading further in the thread. That’s not to say that non-plain people wouldn’t have valuable insights, but it’s not hard to understand why someone might decide the signal:noise is worth asking posters to filter themselves. Obviously none of this is limited to conservatives, liberals, atheists, or iPhone users.

[Neto]

I understand it as an attempt to maintain a more limited focus in the discussion. Another approach might be to ask that all responders comment only from a basic point of view, or assumption. For instance, you might start a discussion on some fine point of what happens after death, but ask that everyone comment from a starting assumption that punishment in hell is not eternal. This would cut out all of the "noise" of arguments against the basic context of your question. But when I've seen "restrictions" that stated some kind of assumed starting point, the nay-sayers chime in anyway. I would say that they can discuss your basic assumption elsewhere, or learn to think things through from someone else's point of view. (There was a guy on an old auto forum that was quite skilled at "thread-bombing". It was irksome to me at first, but I had to admire how he was able to pick up on some really minor point or comment you had made, and carry the discussion way off track. But then I saw an opportunity to do it to him, and I saw how well he took it. So then it didn't bother me anymore; you might say I even learned to appreciate it.)

[ohio jones]

I doubt they would as liberal is defined as 'willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own'.

That is of course an archaic definition. Modern liberals, especially of the political variety, are some of the most intolerant people around.

[Bootstrap]

Take a hypothetical topic: The value of the plain suit for plain people today. The discussion will be of most value to those who wear (or would consider wearing) a plain suit. The person who shows up and and talks about why plain dressing is bad in the first place isn’t contributing much of value but might make those who do have something of value to contribute to just keep quiet or avoid reading further in the thread. That’s not to say that non-plain people wouldn’t have valuable insights, but it’s not hard to understand why someone might decide the signal:noise is worth asking posters to filter themselves. Obviously none of this is limited to conservatives, liberals, atheists, or iPhone users.

I agree. And limiting a thread to people who have actually read something is also constructive. Both result in more informed discussion.

I do find this kind of "closed" thread problematic when:

1. Such a thread is used to make negative comments about groups not invited to the thread, or
2. A series of threads are created with the clear implication that other people don't belong here.

But I also find "open" threads frustrating when:

1. The thread turns into a debate about whether a group has a right to believe and practice as they do, or
2. People who have never ever been part of a group insist on speaking for that group.

I guess the worst of both worlds is when someone who has never ever been part of a group starts a "closed" thread for members of that group, excluding others, and also acts like they are a spokesman for that group. That's happened too ...

[Sudsy]

Some good observations, imo.