I wonder
Since my thread in All Sainti on Yeheil Curry was closed after 24 hours of no activity, should that be the same rule for all threads. I mean. I have seen threads pop back up after months of no activity. Shouldn't be there some consistency with all the threads. Even if the thread did not have any more activity, it would slowly sink to the bottom of the message board. I feel slighted with this decision.
Comments
Presiding Bishop Curry, and the ELCA in general, may well be of interest, but Lutherans are very thin on the ground in the UK, so rather beneath our radar on this side of the Pond.
The subject might make an interesting thread in Ecclesiantics, though.
There are a lot of threads in All Saints that are still open even though no one has posted in them for over a year. One thread in All Saints hasn’t been posted in since December 2023, but it’s still open. I recently posted in a Heaven thread that hadn’t had a post since November, and posting has now continued in that thread by a number of people.
So I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to ask how a determination could be made in this particular thread that no comments in 24 hours meant there was nothing more to be said and the thread should be closed.
Why closure rather than moderation and redirection?
The frequently UK-centric assumptions of the Ship not withstanding, there are lot of Shipmates who are not from the UK, including a number of Lutheran shipmates. Maybe those for whom this is beneath their radar could read and learn, or just ignore.
@Gramps49 first posted it in Ecclesiantics, but that thread was quickly closed as not having anything to do with worship and liturgy, which is what Ecclesiantics is for.
ETA: Cross-posted with @Nenya.
I appreciate the explanation, but I must say that I still think the decision wasn’t a good one. I assumed no slight was intended, but thought should also be given to perception, and in light of two other recent threads by Gramps being closed very quickly, the perception was inevitable.
As for it being an announcement, why not a quick question from a host at least asking whether there is something to be discussed before closing?
So just say that on the thread.
IMO intent doesn't matter as much as effect. This was heavy-handed.
Closing it didn’t seem in the spirit of All Saints as a community focused board.
You know, if the moderator had just let things stand, it would have just quietly gone into oblivion in due course, but the arbitrary closure resulted in this thread. I just think it was ill advised to cut the thread off, especially when there have been many other threads going back years that can still be bumped up if someone had a mind to say something in it. The inconsistencies I have seen on this forum are very frustrating.
FWIW, I raised a question on The Styx about the closure of the initial Ecclesiantics thread about Bishop Curry.
I was surprised to see the subsequent All Saints thread closed so soon but respect that decision, particularly if it was going to turn into a wearying spat between you and I over comparisons - inane or otherwise - between Pope Leo and Bishop Curry.
I agree with @Nenya that there wasn't really anything more to be said. Bishop Curry. Good appointment. Hurrah! End of.
I don't take umbrage at the Hostly admonitions and advice I received. I felt they were appropriate and yes, I should have backed off rather than continue to yap at you over your apparent misrepresentation of my position - effectively accusing me of sectarianism when I was guilty of no such thing.
If I was guilty of anything it was continuing to post on a thread where anything useful that could be said had been said already and where I'd ignored pleas for me to desist.
I'll leave it there.
And I frankly don’t know how anyone could reasonably know that. Maybe someone who would have liked to have said something just hadn’t had a chance yet because life kept them from having time for those 24 hours,
If it was really believed that there was probably nothing more to be said, why not just let the thread sink, as appears to be done as a matter of course with most other All Saints threads? Intended or not, treating Gramp’s thread differently from other All Saints threads and making a point of closing the thread so quickly, and on the heels of the quick closure of two other threads Gramps started recently, sent the message that he’s being singled out for more strict treatment.
I'm not saying they are ...
But as my post was the last one on that thread before it was closed, I could take umbrage if I wanted to. But I'm not.
Of course I take full responsibility for my posts and am not saying or implying that I have 'no control' over them.
I was advised to skate past that thread. I didn't take that advice.
That's my responsibility and my 'problem' as it were.
I'll admit and acknowledge that much.
The Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation are in communion with each other. Your bishop Curry had quite an impact on Lutheran perceptions when he preached at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Merkle. He also led a very important delegation to Rome.
The Anglicans, Lutherans and Roman Catholics have been working long and hard to create a more unified body of Christ this side of eternity. That also goes with the Orthodox, though on a different plane. To have leaders of the different communions who appear to have close connections only helps in further dialogues I would think
There is a current thread about what forms of Christian Union was there in the 1800s. I am not so interested in that history, but I am interested in the attempts at unity in the 2000s.
I have caused some disquiet on these boards and will voluntarily take some shore-leave for a week or two.
Please accept my apologies, both posters, Hosts and Admins for any extra stress or hassle I've caused.
I'll try to maintain a Ship-fast until at least after the Feast of The Dormition and thereafter attempt to post more constructively.
Peace be to all.
No. Ecclesiantics is for discussion about liturgy and/or worship practice.
Spike
Ecclesiantics Host
Fair comment. I should have suggested *Purgatory*. My bad.
If I am to be completely honest, I do think that is the fundamental reason the thread was closed rather than left to sink or swim on its own merits. I believe hosts felt closing it when it wasn’t posted on, was a way of avoiding a prolonged negative interaction that was not quite crossing the line into a commandment breach.
It appears the community would have preferred some form of hostly admonition - we will take that under advisement.
Doublethink, Admin
There have been times when I had posted what amounted to an announcement and a moderator will come back and ask what is there to debate and shortly thereafter it would get closed. I knew the simple announcement of Yeheil Curry would have gotten the same treatment. I thought, since it was church related, Ecclesiantics would be appropriate, but as Spike and Piglet to me said, it is not liturgical or worship related. Looking around, then, it seemed announcements are to be in All Saints, so I posted a follow on article about Curry's background, comparing it a bit to Leo's. @Gamma Gamaliel replied back with a chip on his shoulder, lambasting my comments. I specifically said I did not want to make the thread purgatorial; yet he persisted, even when the administrators admonished him to back off.
There have been other times when participants have not heeded admonitions, and they ?faced consequences. But, this time, while I am trying to follow the rule, it is me that gets slapped down as it were.
There is no consistency here. Lately, it seems whatever I have posted will be summarily closed without much explanation.
Is that fair?
(1) Gramps49, for attempting to drum up interest in a not-very-interesting topic by desperately linking it with a non-relevant topic of possibly greater interest
(2) GammaGamaliel, for yammering
(3) Nenya, for overly anxious hosting
None of these is terrible on their own, but combined, they made for a trifecta of discussion thread problems.
Gramps49: I understand that you think the election of a new national bishop for the ELCA is interesting. The truth is, in the context of this discussion board, it's really not. Shipmates may be too polite to tell you that, but you know that yourself. Your embarrassing attempt to create some sort of link between Bishop Curry and Pope Leo (because maybe more shipmates would find him worthy of discussion!) shows that.
Hey, guess what? The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada also elected a new national bishop! Woo hoo! Do you know why I didn't post about it? Because nobody here fucking cares . Social awareness of Ship culture helps to know how to post discussions here appropriately. The election would probably be an interesting topic for my local clergy group, for synodical events, and for other ELCiC Lutherans. Shipmates may manage an "oh, okay" response... and I would expect nothing else, given the kind of discussions we have here.
GammaGamaliel: you correctly identified the spurious nature of what Gramps49 was attempting to do, but you wouldn't shut up about it, even when advised and you agreed with that advice. Wtf.
Nenya: I understand why the closure of the thread seemed prudent, given the above two factors. I agree that a host post, prior to closure, would have been a good move. I also think it would have been preferable to let the thread sink under the weight of its own idiocy, even at the risk of continued pointless exchanges.
If I wanted to be hellish, though, I would point out that your intial posting in All Saints said: I know that the Pope is technically "Bishop of Rome" but, as a Catholic, I found you referencing Pope Leo as "Bishop" offensive. But I did not call you on it. I let it slide, because I was sure that your response would be "but he is just bishop of Rome." And that is technically correct as Pope Francis himself emphasized. But it does not change the fact that, as a Catholic, I found it offensive that you referred to Pope Leo in that manner--and in All Saints of all the boards! If you said that in Hell, I would have no quibble. But in All Saints? Really? You cannot respect other Christian faiths enough to call the head of their faith by the proper title? Really?
But, as I said, I was willing to let it go until I saw you here, in Styx whining about how your pointless thread telling me that somebody I never heard of was appointed to a post I never heard of was somehow important and needed discussion because it was geographically close to some place where "Bishop" Leo had stepped. I am with the Hosts on this one. It was a non-topic for non-discussion.
You are currently posting over 100 times a month, which is fine. However, it reads as if you are posting without thinking some of your OPs through - with the result that some of them get closed, because they are not a good enough fit to the forum on which you are posting.
The functional result of an ill-fitting OP is likely to be some kind of dispute on the thread with other shipmates. Sometimes this impacts the thread in such a way, that it works better to start over with a new thread than try to salvage the original.
This is because people coming to the thread later start responding to the dispute and not the OP.
Doublethink, Styx Hosting
My apologies.
A point worth remembering, and @Nenya did mention backstage discussion in an earlier post.