Ship of Fools: Have the ship boards had their day?

Thread: Have the ship boards had their day? Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003446

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I know this is a terrible and outragous thing to say, but that is why I am saying it. Is it time to close the boards?

Let me just make a couple of important points:

1. There is nothing less unrestful that keepign something going just because we like it and it has always been there.

2. I would like the boards to continue because I like them and they have been there.

What I am trying to do is get some better reason for the boards to continue than the fact that we like them. I have noticed, over the last year or so, that new shipmates seem to have somewhat dried up, and that discussions are much less buzzing than they used to be. Far too much agreement/avoidance.

And this goes with the fact that discussion boards are not the thing in social media any more. This is not the way that people discuss stuff. Facebook groups are more likely to be the places.

So maybe the boards should be reimagined as Yammer groups or suchlike? It is not that I am not interested in the issues raised, just that I am not sure the boards as they are serve the purpose any longer.

The truth is, I don't want the boards to close. I want htings to carry on as they are. But I find I am coming here to discuss things less and less. This may just be me, but the activity level indicates that many people take their discussions elsewhere. It would seem appropriate if we also took our discussions elsewhere, where others are discussing.

I know this is unthinkable. I have been a member of these boards for 17 years or so. This is NOT SOMETHING I am suggesting lightly. It would break my heart to lose this place. But that is not a good enough reason for maintaining it (especially given the shipmate-power required to do so).

I am aware that I am off to Greenbelt tomorrow, so please forgive me if I don't respond to any thoughts here quickly. In truth, I needed to get this off my chest before I went away.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Well, here is one who agrees. The boards have been part of my life for 12 years, and I have made many good friends here. Most I see on Facebook, including some forcibly removed.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

While many responses are immediately crushed by the unanswerable ITTWACW, then those of us on the fringes, but likely to take things too seriously, may begin to doubt.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Everything in its season. I was very active in several newsgroups when usenet and text was the way of interacting (1980s into the 90s). They dried up with the advent of a visual internet, and the dropping of newsgroups by most ISPs.

From there to stopping with commercial operating systems and moving to Linux, I was a moderator (host) on a Linux forum which had a very good community feel, and much discussion of non-computer issues. When it ceased development I was an admin on the forum. It had dwindled. I joined this ship forum after it quit. (I've also seen two churches close, found another.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The first question I would ask, is whether there is a need for serious discussion of things of faith and the world from a faith perspective?

I would say that that need is possibly even more important than it was 20 years ago. In a world of tweets and soundbites, of celebrity preachers and authors producing theology shallower than a duck pond at the end of a drought, a world where the idea of facts and truth and expertise are replaced by alt-news and Trump and Brexit ... serious, robust, intelligent discussion of issues is more important than ever before.

Some people may be lucky enough to have access to such discussion space in their own churches, or local debating societies or wherever. I expect for the majority of people they will only ever get that online.

So, the question is where online can you have that sort of debate? Twitter isn't a place for more than short notes. You can put your ideas into a blog, but usually blogs don't accomodate much scope for discussion. Facebook is a great place for sharing stuff, but awful for discussion¹. Which leaves places running software designed for running discussions, with the infrastructure (ie: people) to support that. So, I think we still need something like the Ships discussion boards. The question is one of how to maintain the infrastructure, to keep people here and interested, and to get new people with new insights to bring to the discussion? Which brings us to the question of how to achieve that?

¹ Just because it will come up. Why I don't think Facebook is ideal

The format of Facebook doesn't lend itself to responsive discussion - the options for quoting others, for example, are clunky at best. There is a strange mid-ground between nested responses (a reply being placed under the post you're replying too) and single strand discussion (as we have here with all posts in order of posting) - it's a strange mid ground because there is only one level of nesting, making replies to replies not work right. And, even though I know it, my posts always get broken because it won't let me just use the return key to insert breaks between paragraphs and it interprets that as me wanting to post what I'm part way through writing (yes, I need to ctrl-return, I know, it just irritates me).
Facebook mostly uses real names, with links through to profiles with personal information. Many people simply don't want that when they're posting here - they may not want to be seen as "heretics" by their church, for example. Personally, it's not an issue (I've never hidden my real life identity), but it will be for some people. I suppose you can set up a second FB profile without the personal information ... but, that seems very clunky.
Facebook has a "like" button.

On the otherhand, Facebook is a great place for community building (for those willing to share their personal information). A great place to share photos from meets, to share prayer news and requests, to wish people a happy birthday or anniversary, etc. It has strengths, serious discussion isn't one of them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

As Alan mentioned Facebook and Twitter, they fucking suck bloody, pustulent* balls for real discussions.
They have, however, managed to dominate the way people communicate.
Reddit is for trolls.
Face to face discussion is fun, but less considered and less elegant.
I think places like SOF are more vital rather than less. As far as not gaining as many new members, I think it a combination of fewer religious people, the above mentioned trinity of evil and the rather, erm, quaint style of the website.

*Intentional neologism.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Just to be clear, I think there is a place for quality, inteligent theological discussion. That is not the issue. Whether the structure of the boards is right is part of this.

And yes, Facebook and twitter are not right, which is why I mentioend Yammer as a possible option, but I am not saying "we should move to x" - that would need further exploration.

It is trying to start a discussion, not suggest a clear solution. It is about asking if there is another style and format for the important discussions that we have, that is also more up to date in style and format (that is not just the software, it is the environment).

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

The Marshall McLuhan philosophy about "the medium is the message" still rings true for me. While our apparent heyday was when every conceivable social interaction was foisted awkwardly onto discussion boards, I think our steady-state future and real purpose is the ongoing desire for series text-format discussion. It is a unique medium for exploring ideas with the capability for as-available engagement. Similarly, the ability to have moderated discussion with user-generated topics is a quality standard not generally possible for simple comment-threads on other content.

No, it's not exciting. Worse, the potential revenue stream is non-existent, which makes support hard to justify. But I find it valuable enough to volunteer to keep afloat. And as long as there are others who wish to avail themselves to it, I'll keep bailing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
that is also more up to date in style and format (that is not just the software, it is the environment).

Unfortunately, the up to date style of interaction isn't reasoned discussion. Again, all the more reason to keep that here.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[...] I think places like SOF are more vital rather than less. [...]

Agreed.

When SoF offspring Church of Fools moved over to FB, they lost me. FB et al are purely commercial. SoF isn't. You have reasonable privacy here, divulge as much as you want, or not, are not pestered by spam mails offering, for shedloads of cash, to enlarge and broaden just about anything you might desire, with the notable exception of the mind. Which is what SoF caters for.

Which reminds me, I need to donate again to the Floating Fund.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I think it's fairly obvious that the boards are dwindling, but I think there's still a lot of life left in them, and there's no need to be talking about euthanizing them yet. While there's life there's hope, and who know's things may pick up at some turning in the zeitgeist of the net.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I'd have an extra 45 minutes per day - but I'd lose contact with people and ideas I'd not normally encounter.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I'm not sure we're dwindling, per se. The Ship has lots of ups and downs--long stretches of intense, tooth-and-claw discussion; running jokes; mourning; making sense of news; sorting out personal theological angst together, etc. Maybe the Ship seems quiet simply because there isn't a lot of yelling going on right now?

If we need a nudge or jump-start, though, maybe an H/A day? Or some kind of project? Find a cousin to Sven the Moose (stuffed critter), and send it around again? (Whether literally, or maybe a pic that we can forward to each other, and paste it into scenic pics for a virtual journey.)

Please, please do not close the boards.

Thanks to Simon, all the H/As, backstage folks, etc., for your wonderful work. This place *matters*.

[Overused]

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Oh my word!
I started reading and my heart lurched....
As a relative newcomer I would be really,really sad if the boards closed. Perhaps it is because this is still new and fresh for me or perhaps it is because this forum really fits well with the point I have reached in my faith journey....the Ship has become such a source of fruitful reflection for me and I would hazard a guess that I am not alone.
We may not often post but reading what the rest of you have to say is really important to the more reticent members of the Ship's company.

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Oh my word!
I started reading and my heart lurched....
As a relative newcomer I would be really,really sad if the boards closed. Perhaps it is because this is still new and fresh for me or perhaps it is because this forum really fits well with the point I have reached in my faith journey....the Ship has become such a source of fruitful reflection for me and I would hazard a guess that I am not alone.
We may not often post but reading what the rest of you have to say is really important to the more reticent members of the Ship's company.

Oh, I very much agree! I have learnt and honed/developed my ideas so much.

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

As a relative newcomer I would miss the boards terribly. I learn so much from those in other church and national settings, and from those more educated and wise (and oft times more lightsome) than I am. Locally I have colleagues, but they are not always helpful, nor, in a small diocese, can discussion always stay confidential. The Boards offer the confidentiality that allows for questions or ideas to be phrased more honestly.

I must admit sometimes the discussion gets a bit arcane, and the snarkiness that often appears one to the other is off putting. At times like that I fast from checking the boards a bit, to let the energy and fumes clear. One is never sure of the tone of voice that others use : is it sarcastic? Then why? Is it truly nasty? Again, then why? As a newcomer, I find that concerning. It seems at times as if a group of children had grown tired of playing a game and have decided to throw the bits about instead. [Sorry -- that in itself is snarky! -- mea culpa!] Maybe some are tired of the game: and some may simply need a break or a sabbatical from reading or posting.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

For clarification, I am absolutely for the discussions and content on these boards. I am also absolutely for the fact that there are discussions and explorations that are unique.

The question is about what the most appropriate way of continuing these important conversations is, in ways that are possibly more accessible.

I absolutely and totally support the work that the H&As do. If anything, I am only asking if this effort could have a greater impact. If the work being done is properly focussed.

I don't want to be the bad guy. I love these boards. But because I love them, because I think that the quality of the debates and discussions can be so good, I want to ask if we - all of us - are doing the best.

I see it like being in a church that is losing numbers. The questions of whether it should close need to be asked - these are horrible questions, and so often, the same points are raised "The vicar and wardens do so much good work", and "But there is nowhere else like this. We need it to continue".

I think it is negligent to not ask them - either publically or privately. And hopefully, the answers find new life, new expression. This comes from asking. To be unrestful means asking, means being prepared to say "this is finished", or "this needs to change". Or "We could do this", and revitalise the place.

Every so often, we ask if we are being unrestful enough. This is the same question. We are sometimes too comfortable, even here, and we need to ask difficult questions. And sometimes, we need to find difficult answers.

So please don't hate me! Please treat this as a serious question and a serious challenge. Because it needs to be said sometimes.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I believe the boards should continue as long as there are people who are willing to moderate them. That's not me any more, but I'm glad some people are still willing to do so.

I wasn't there right at the beginning, although am part of the second tranche. It gladdens my heart that there are still people on here contributing who have been doing so for more than 15 years, plus newcomers. Yes, some subjects have come around again and again and again. But isn't that true of theology over the centuries?

While the ship is still afloat I shall keep boarding it from time to time, and joining in with whatever is going on. Ahoy there, Shipmates! (Shitmates, if Pyx_e is following....)

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I'm in agreement with Alan Creswell. I took a long break after some heavy usage years, and these days I tend to float in and out - but it is reassuring to have the boards and the community here, whether it's to ask or offer prayer, to have a serious discussion, or to snark.

I would be willing to put in time to help out in some capacity, and I have just made a contribution to the Floating Fund.

I think the boards serve a purpose, and should be maintained.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

(Posting to apologize for misspelling the name of Alan Cresswell. I hate it when I do that.)

Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on :

A SoF Haiku

If the Forums cease,
Will the website still exist?
I fear it will not.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What I am trying to do is get some better reason for the boards to continue than the fact that we like them.

Why isn't that good enough? You seem to be saying, "I'm losing interest, so shut it down." Clearly other people aren't losing interest. Maybe it's just time to say goodbye gracefully.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What I am trying to do is get some better reason for the boards to continue than the fact that we like them.
Why isn't that good enough? You seem to be saying, "I'm losing interest, so shut it down." Clearly other people aren't losing interest. Maybe it's just time to say goodbye gracefully.

I am not losing interest. Not totally at least. I have taken a time out before. I engage less than I used to in some areas.

If it was just that I was bored, I would go. I wondered if there was something else I was seeing. The first couple of responses I think were indicating that others detected this malaise too.

And we had to have this discussion before I could know whether others also experienced this. I want the boards to continue. In terms of the church analogy above, is meeting in the same building the best thing? Or is there soemwhere else that we could be more effective at what we do? Becasue what we do at its best is brilliant.

ETA - you know why I struggle to stay in a church now, don't you? I really am a PITA.

[ 25. August 2017, 09:11: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Sail on, sail on in majesty.

I can't imagine life without the Ship.

Posted by Celtic Knotweed (# 13008) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And yes, Facebook and twitter are not right, which is why I mentioend Yammer as a possible option, but I am not saying "we should move to x" - that would need further exploration.

My workplace has a Yammer set-up. I have a login for it, but it's pretty poor for any sort of discussion. Fine for disseminating info and people passing comment on it, but it keeps on hiding earlier replies (even when you haven't read them yet!), and it's very hard to find something you were reading yesterday due to no titles or any sort of index.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

One of the things I appreciate about the boards here is how clean they are. So many discussion sites allow so much crap in each person's response that two or three one-line posts can fill a whole screen. It is very wearisome to follow a conversation in such an environment.

Now if we could just get people here to stop quoting a 100 line post to make a one-line response.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One of the things I appreciate about the boards here is how clean they are. So many discussion sites allow so much crap in each person's response that two or three one-line posts can fill a whole screen. It is very wearisome to follow a conversation in such an environment.

Now if we could just get people here to stop quoting a 100 line post to make a one-line response.

OK. I'll stop

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One of the things I appreciate about the boards here is how clean they are. So many discussion sites allow so much crap in each person's response that two or three one-line posts can fill a whole screen. It is very wearisome to follow a conversation in such an environment.

Now if we could just get people here to stop quoting a 100 line post to make a one-line response.
OK. I'll stop

Someone was bound to do this.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One of the things I appreciate about the boards here is how clean they are. So many discussion sites allow so much crap in each person's response that two or three one-line posts can fill a whole screen. It is very wearisome to follow a conversation in such an environment.

Now if we could just get people here to stop quoting a 100 line post to make a one-line response.
OK. I'll stop
Someone was bound to do this.

They were.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

An interesting question...

I too come and go. Probably because 2001 and the years following were a time of great questioning for me. Discovering the Ship was a lifeline to sanity, and a voyage that rocked, battered and overcame my faith, then brought it to a safe harbour. Unrest indeed. Issues which were intense and fiercely debated now seem to be Dead Horses now (rightly, to me).

Debates seem much more political, but I may be misremembering. Agreement seems more pronounced here now too; or maybe I just liked the disagreeable threads in the past. It seems the lefty liberal and highly educated poster (guilty) is common. Maybe I did not notice it before.

But I still see unrest here. And long may we be unrestful. And I think long form discussion is something that has its place as was more eloquently expressed above. Fresh and new expressions may be needed, cf St Pixels, but as was said above Yammer, which I've used in 2 work places, does not seem to be answer. Maybe there are other options out there.

An interesting question. A good debate to have. The Ship has been wonderful to me, and I hope many others can find the benefits I did.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I'm not sure that it's a matter of the boards not being fit for purpose. For my part I'd say that it's the devices on which I'm accessing them which are not fit for purpose.

In other words, I'm far more likely to be browsing on tablet or phone rather than a PC than I was in the past, which is fine for reading but a right pain if I want to contribute...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

One thing I've noticed is that there are significantly fewer shipmeets now than there used to be. I'm sure that's just a product of the core membership growing up and getting jobs and families, but it must be having an impact on our community.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Or is there soemwhere else that we could be more effective at what we do?

I'm probably unimaginative, but like what?

It seems to me the boards are very effective for what the type of discussions we have here. Different discussions can be had on twitter or facebook. If people don't generally like the board-type of discussion, then I don't know what can be done to reverse that.

There is more competition now from other social media platforms and habits are changing. Personally I like the boards-style and would be happy to carry on with it, but if people change then I guess I'll eventually have to decide whether to change with them or do something else.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Debates seem much more political, but I may be misremembering.

I don't think you're misremembering. I'd put it down to the influence of Trump and Brexit bringing politics much more to the fore. Though there may be other factors.

But, ultimately, such changes in what sort of subjects are more common here is a reflection of what people want to talk about. We can't force people to engage in discussions that don't really interest them.

quote:
But I still see unrest here. And long may we be unrestful. And I think long form discussion is something that has its place as was more eloquently expressed above. Fresh and new expressions may be needed.

There are technical issues with the current software in accessing the boards on mobile platforms. Addressing those issues would involve a software change, and provide an opportunity to renew and freshen things. We're always willing to get ideas on how things might be freshened up.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Alan mentioned Facebook and Twitter, they fucking suck bloody, pustulent* balls for real discussions.
They have, however, managed to dominate the way people communicate.
Reddit is for trolls.
Face to face discussion is fun, but less considered and less elegant.
I think places like SOF are more vital rather than less. As far as not gaining as many new members, I think it a combination of fewer religious people, the above mentioned trinity of evil and the rather, erm, quaint style of the website.

*Intentional neologism.

I totally , totally agree with the substantive content of your post. But [pedantry] - pustulent - been around for a while, actually.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[...] I think places like SOF are more vital rather than less. [...]
Agreed.

When SoF offspring Church of Fools moved over to FB, they lost me. FB et al are purely commercial. SoF isn't. You have reasonable privacy here, divulge as much as you want, or not, are not pestered by spam mails offering [snip] [/URL].

Me too. I mean, I know I'm no-one in particular, here, but I'm not on Facebook, and I'm never going to be. If SoF moved over there, I'd miss it terribly, but...still no.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I mean, I know I'm no-one in particular, here, but I'm not on Facebook, and I'm never going to be. If SoF moved over there, I'd miss it terribly, but...still no.

Absolutely. For reasons I won't go into, I absolutely refuse to join Facebook -- even for the Ship (which I'd also miss tremendously). I miss many Shipmates who have apparently gone over to the dark side of FB.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think the visuals here are rather strange. If the site wants to attract a range of people and views it might be a good idea to revamp the general look, since the images and jokes used on some pages seem designed to keep 'the wrong sort' well away.

OTOH if the Ship is happy to provide an 'unrestful' space for a specific kind of Christian, as opposed to dealing with 'Christian unrest' in a very broad sense, then that's fair enough, I suppose.

But I can see ongoing challenges for the Ship in its present form. As has been said, there are fewer Christians in the Western world than before, and there's less interest from non-Christians in Christian matters.

Also, I wonder if there's been a kind of hardening of doctrinal positions as dissatisfied worshippers have either given up on churchgoing or just died. E.g., by now evangelicals have already heard the arguments in favour of SSM. It's possible that those who were going go change their minds have already done so. The rest may feel they have little to gain from debating the matter any more.

Moreover, as congregations struggle with a lack of manpower and resources I imagine that many serious Christians simply have too much to do to get involved in discussions that don't address the very practical kinds of unrest that they have to deal with.

[ 26. August 2017, 13:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
To be unrestful means asking, means being prepared to say "this is finished", or "this needs to change". Or "We could do this", and revitalise the place.

Thanks for raising the questions. I think you’re right: they do open up the possibility of change and new life.

And thanks to everyone who’s given to the Floating Fund via this thread. It helps makes revitalising the Ship practically possible.

This thread is really timely, because after several months of planning and preparation, we’re about to begin work in September on a relaunch of Ship of Fools. I’ll post more details about this soon, but just to say at this point that we’ll be moving to new board software, and that the Ship as a whole will be redesigned and restructured, for access via desktop, tablet and phone.

One of the things which won’t change is our commitment to Christian unrest.

I’ll post a separate thread on this in the Styx next week.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Simon:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
To be unrestful means asking, means being prepared to say "this is finished", or "this needs to change". Or "We could do this", and revitalise the place.
Thanks for raising the questions. I think you’re right: they do open up the possibility of change and new life.

And thanks to everyone who’s given to the Floating Fund via this thread. It helps makes revitalising the Ship practically possible.

This thread is really timely, because after several months of planning and preparation, we’re about to begin work in September on a relaunch of Ship of Fools. I’ll post more details about this soon, but just to say at this point that we’ll be moving to new board software, and that the Ship as a whole will be redesigned and restructured, for access via desktop, tablet and phone.

One of the things which won’t change is our commitment to Christian unrest.

I’ll post a separate thread on this in the Styx next week.

Wow!

That's great news Simon [Big Grin]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
One of the things which won’t change is our commitment to Christian unrest.

Amen

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

Great to catch a glimpse of Simon. [Biased]

I agree with those who say keeping the Ship in message board form is important. Following a serious debate on Facebook is very hard work and we have Yammer at work too - I'm far from impressed.

I was never a massive poster, even less so at the moment, but I am here every day and have learned so much from the discussions here. I think this is a very important space, including for dedicated lurkers. I recently saw a tweet from Vicky Beeching saying that she is a huge fan of SoF. Some of the finest minds and most skilled and succinct debaters I know are here on the Ship.

Nen - having a moment of pride about being one of the six posters who use Preview Post. [Big Grin]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It will be nice to be able to view the ship easily on my phone. The software does very strange things on the phone.

Looking forward to the new thread. To me the most urgent of questions is, will we be able to access the archives from the UBB days? It would be sad (not world-stopping of course) if not.

Think I'll go pull a stop on the organ fund. Also everybody get Simon's new book. Very enjoyable.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I can -read- SoF on my Android, I just can't log in or post. A good thing, you might say.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Good news from Simon and I'll be making a contribution to transitional costs.

I was pleased to hear that Vicky Beeching is a huge fan.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Looking forward to the new thread. To me the most urgent of questions is, will we be able to access the archives from the UBB days? It would be sad (not world-stopping of course) if not.

I imagine that we could keep these boards as a static archive if/when we get new software.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Having been very sporadic for the last couple of years (or isi it more?), I came in today to look up an archived thread.

And I found this discussion.

I have to say that some of the discussion seems to be a recycling of ones that went before, but that is to be expected, since many people who are now "in" weren't there the first time around, and my enjoy the topic.

But, generally there is lively discussion. Unfortunately, fewer people want to actually discuss: it seems that shouting at each other is more likely. The take-over of FaceBook by advertising and agenda-followers has meant that there is little civil discussion. Plus, you can't even find a thread of discussion after a very few days, let alone find anyone who is interested once the thread has moved down the ladder into Oblivion.

It is good to see that a technological revamp is in the works. This kind of discussion would work well for me accessing through my phone or the tablet I am about to buy. Donation will be coming once I finish here

Probably the wrong place, but can I put my vote in against "nested" threads? I like having to see all the sides of the argument while reading through to find the specific post about one aspect.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Probably the wrong place, but can I put my vote in against "nested" threads?

Yes, right alongside mine!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And mine.

Funny, but I just recommended against nested thread software at work based on my experience on the Ship.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

What Lamb Chopped et al say. There's no resting / when a-nesting.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And mine....

And mine.

I'd also like to vote for maintaining the archives.

Rossweisse // another of the Six

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I certainly hope the Ship continues to use the forum medium. Far too many forums have been dropped by their sponsors, the BBC being a prime example.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[...] I'd also like to vote for maintaining the archives.

Rossweisse // another of the Six

Yes, please. There's some invaluable stuff in there which ought not to be lost. Safeguarding them if ever possible, preferably in their entirety, would seem a very wise thing to me. This is mostly about the boards, which are what I find the lifeblood of the Ship, but also the other parts, like Mystery Worshipper etc.

And - with all due respect - there could be Chat Café again, accessible to members, please? That'd be lovely. It really did help for more immediate interaction, if desired. (It would test my time management skills to the limit though! [Hot and Hormonal]

)

Thank you to the Powers That Be.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

Guess I am the only one who likes nested comments? By which I mean threaded conversation. By which I really mean usenet. Yeah I know that ship sailed long ago. I was one of the last wandering the lonely empty decks looking for others.

Good news about the new software. Prepare yourselves for the digital equivalent of taking out the pews and replacing them with chairs. [Big Grin]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Guess I am the only one who likes nested comments? By which I mean threaded conversation.

I was waiting for the thread Simon has mentioned to appear before addressing this, but Good Gods NO!!!!!!!
Nested threads are proof of the Anti-Christ and Cthulhu and are preferred by the same sort of people who jump queues.
They do nothing to facilitate community discussion.
I participate in a forum that uses them and they make following a thread tortuous.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Threads, and threaded readers, were a necessity with usenet because of the asynchronous nature of the medium. When posts routinely arrive a day or more out of order, you require both threads, and a degree of discipline, to make sense of the conversation.

Failure to understand this was one of the big problems with the Eternal September.

Web forums are not asynchronous, so you don't need nested threads. I'm with lilBuddha.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Good Gods NO!!!!!!!
Nested threads are proof of the Anti-Christ and Cthulhu and are preferred by the same sort of people who jump queues.
They do nothing to facilitate community discussion.

I see that on this point our doctrines are perfectly aligned.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Astonishing, isn't it? I foresee a new kind of ecumenism.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Threads, and threaded readers, were a necessity with usenet because of the asynchronous nature of the medium. When posts routinely arrive a day or more out of order, you require both threads, and a degree of discipline, to make sense of the conversation.

Failure to understand this was one of the big problems with the Eternal September.

Web forums are not asynchronous, so you don't need nested threads. I'm with lilBuddha.

Of course web forums are asynchronous. Only live chat live the Cafe is synchronous. For a facile example it's now nearly 9 hours since my last post and I'm reading and responding to yours, itself 4 hours old. A lot of other posts could have come and gone by then.

What is true is that web forums handle asynchronous conversation by encouraging folks into a single joint conversation. If the topic has moved on since the last time you posted, well maybe you can get people to backtrack with you, maybe not. Usenet allowed a thousand flowers to bloom.

And I don't think Eternal September killed usenet. I was a heavy user of newsgroups after that, between 2001-2003 and there was plenty of traffic. What really killed it was spam and trolls. Both of which could be filtered out easily but the tools to do so weren't easy enough to use.

I'm not agitating for threads - sounds like the software decision's been made - but I do think if you've seen it work well then it is a beautiful thing. For example I could continue having this discussion about threads separate with those interested, whilst others could simultaneously discuss archiving or whatever.

The trouble is there are a lot of examples of threading done badly. Facebook, blog comment threads, reddit to some extent.

The real problem is the eternal one - the network effect - I loved usenet. It was an online space for discussion that worked really well for me. Maybe it could never have scaled to the size of FB but it didn't need to. There just needed to be enough people who also liked it to have a decent conversation with. And for a long time there were. Gradually that changed and now there aren't any more. Oh well. It was great while it lasted. Never mind.

And it seems like Schroedinger's Cat felt the same way about these boards. AT least that we were in the "gradually fading" stage. Hence this thread.

Interested to see how the next phase plays out.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I'm a very new poster here, and a heavy FB user too.

I agree with all of Alan Cresswell's points about the advantages of this board system over FB. One of the things I value above all else about the Ship is the archive, and the megathreads (ok, two things....and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) Reading the DH megathreads has been an invaluable insight into others' perspectives and experiences. I have learned so much from those threads - and they're discussions I would not have been able to have at my church, or with Christians I know IRL. So I suppose I am feeding, vampire-like, on others' wisdom, for which I shall be off to pay penance to the Floating Fund. [Smile]

The tone of conversation in those threads is also unlike anything I have read on FB, where things become very echo-chambery very quickly, and where requests for information or insight can be shut down with claims that it's not someone's job to educate someone else (which is true as far as it goes, but not always helpful).

Like Brenda, I can't log in anywhere but a laptop at home, but this may be a good thing for all concerned!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Of course web forums are asynchronous.

No - web forms are not real time, but they are synchronous. If you and I look at the forum at the same time, we see the same state. If you post a message, then I am guaranteed to have it the next time I look.

With usenet, different readers will see messages arrive in different orders.

On a web forum, if you see a question and no answers, you know that nobody has answered it yet. On usenet, there may be a dozen answers that just haven't made it to you yet. Dealing with that lack of synchronization requires different tools.

quote:

And I don't think Eternal September killed usenet. I was a heavy user of newsgroups after that, between 2001-2003 and there was plenty of traffic. What really killed it was spam and trolls.

By about 2000 or so, I found the signal/noise ratio had dropped too far - and it had really been in a steady decline all through September.

Certainly part of the problem was the scale issue that you mention - just as in real life, communities find it easy to absorb and acclimatize small numbers of immigrants, but don't deal well with large waves of new arrivals.

I find the ship has a pretty good signal/noise ratio.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

If anything, I find the Ship TOO active, in comparison to other boards. It's kind of hard to get into following threads here, because before you know it, a given thread is piled up with dozens of posts, some of them quite long, and my internet time-budget doesn't permit following all of the topics. And since I don't like just skimming threads, so I tend to stay away from most of them.

But I know what people mean about this particular format being on the decline. and it's certainly true that the Ship(along with most other message boards) is in a period of dwindling numbers. But I have no plans of switching over to Facebook(too many horror stories about privacy snafus etc), much less twitter. And since as far as I can tell there are no other message-boards dedicated to discussing Christianity from this particular perspective, I would sincerely mourn the demise of the Ship.

[ 27. August 2017, 20:12: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
If anything, I find the Ship TOO active, in comparison to other boards.

That's interesting, because from my perspective the Ship is very quiet - the discussions we have are more about why the boards are a lot less active than they used to be.

For perspective, when I was hosting Purgatory I used to read the board before going to bed, by the time I got up the next morning it was not unusual for all the threads on p1 to have new posts on them. Now it's unusual for the thread at the bottom of p1 to have it's last post less than 8d old, let alone 8h.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

AC:

Yes, I was comparing the Ship to other boards at the current time, not to how the Ship used to in the past. Specifically, I was thinking about how long it takes a given thread to rack up posts.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Of course web forums are asynchronous.
No - web forms are not real time, but they are synchronous. If you and I look at the forum at the same time, we see the same state. If you post a message, then I am guaranteed to have it the next time I look.

With usenet, different readers will see messages arrive in different orders.

That may have been true in the early days, but when I was using it it wasn't. Are you talking about pre-internet? When news servers were communicating via uucp?

quote:

On a web forum, if you see a question and no answers, you know that nobody has answered it yet. On usenet, there may be a dozen answers that just haven't made it to you yet. Dealing with that lack of synchronization requires different tools.

On usenet, as I used it, if there were no answers to a question it meant they hadn't hit my news server yet. If they had hit someone else's then yes we were out of sync but it didn't have a practical effect. Technically it would be possible to see a reply-to-a-post where I hadn't seen the original yet - but I don't remember that happening really. Maybe it did and I forget. Even then that would really only have happened during the times when I was sitting hitting the new posts button obsessively and trying to treat it like it was real time.

I more remember those sorts of issues later when people would cancel posts after they'd been replied to. Of course that sort of thing never happened on web forums. [Biased]

quote:

quote:

And I don't think Eternal September killed usenet. I was a heavy user of newsgroups after that, between 2001-2003 and there was plenty of traffic. What really killed it was spam and trolls.
By about 2000 or so, I found the signal/noise ratio had dropped too far - and it had really been in a steady decline all through September.

Fair enough. I can't argue with your subjective experience. Which sounds like goes back farther than mine. I first used it in the mid-90s but sporadically. Funnily enough I went back to usenet to find more in depth discussion than was happening on web forums. By the time I was using it a lot I had learnt how to filter out most of what I would consider real noise. What remained was on topic if not necessarily interesting to me - but that's true anywhere.

quote:
I find the ship has a pretty good signal/noise ratio.

Well it is moderated, and that done well usually. If you define signal as on-topic, non-spam, non-troll, non-flameworthy - as I do - then the discussion outside hell pretty much ought to be signal.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A thread on SOF is one path, start to finish. A nested thread can be many paths, some of them parallel, some of the tangents. The other one I mentioned can be viewed flat or nested. Though one can view flat, many don't use it that way and what results is many posts and sidebars on the same topic instead of one conversation about it.

[ 27. August 2017, 23:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
That may have been true in the early days, but when I was using it it wasn't. Are you talking about pre-internet? When news servers were communicating via uucp?

I was routinely seeing messages out-of-order by a day in the late 90s. Not really from people on well-connected core systems, I suppose.

quote:
I more remember those sorts of issues later when people would cancel posts after they'd been replied to. Of course that sort of thing never happened on web forums.

Given that a good chunk of the servers decided on principle not to honour cancel messages...

I'm agreeing with lB on the desirability of "flat" organization. Even though sometimes we get threads on the ship that are really two or three parallel conversations interwoven, the flat presentation gives you the best chance of recombining the loose threads.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It was possible from about 1980 to view newsgroups on usenet (via Netnorth in Canada) as either sequential in time or nested. We connected via telephone modem at 300 baud. I usually had newsgroups going in one of 2 or 4 ASCII windows in Emacs while I ran multiple regressions. Before that it was computer cards, tape drives and printer terminals. Which did allow for connection but because most of the users were from universities and government institutions and were in science (yes it was originated in military), it did pretty well at self-regulating. When the general ignorant public started into the internet with home computers and phone modems, it became troubled as you note.

I was on rec.arts.episcopal a lot. (I might be scrambling "rec.arts" into it from rec.arts.startrek; there was no decent Anglican newsgroup) One of the big controversial threads I recall just before it completely imploded was "Here comes Harry Potter" with debates about the possible satanic overlay. No one had any idea about the future we're living with Voldy running a country.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
I more remember those sorts of issues later when people would cancel posts after they'd been replied to. Of course that sort of thing never happened on web forums.

Given that a good chunk of the servers decided on principle not to honour cancel messages...

Which it was why it wasn't really problem early on (my early) but later when people were using Google Groups (what had been DejaNews) to post and it was possible to get Google to remove messages at any point. And I was using Google to read least some of the time, nntp being blocked at work by then. (Probably talking 2006 by now).

quote:

I'm agreeing with lB on the desirability of "flat" organization. Even though sometimes we get threads on the ship that are really two or three parallel conversations interwoven, the flat presentation gives you the best chance of recombining the loose threads.

Yes and this is where I came in, because I genuinely don't see 'flat' as more desirable but I am apparently alone in this.

I've been thinking about why. Someone earlier mentioned 'community' and I wonder if that has something to do with it? If the discussion is there to serve the sense of community then I can see why people would value a single conversation that everyone experiences together. That might explain why I'm different because I value a thread based on how interesting it is, for the discussion itself. Lots of tangents, providing they are interesting are fine therefore. Also, I wouldn't say I've felt part of a Ship community for years. And that was based around the cafe not the boards.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul
I more remember those sorts of issues later when people would cancel posts after they'd been replied to. Of course that sort of thing never happened on web forums.

This is why the ship gives posters only a few minutes to alter or delete what they've just posted.

Moo

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Yes and this is where I came in, because I genuinely don't see 'flat' as more desirable but I am apparently alone in this.

For me, it's because "flat" encourages reintegration of threads.

Threading tools all imagine the conversation as a tree. You begin with the trunk, and then branch off into all kinds of different directions. Branches can die off, but there's no sensible way of reconnecting branches.

Real conversations might well split off sidebars to analyze particular points, but tend to reintegrate the conclusions into the main thread.

"Flat" encourages this to happen; threaded discourages it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Yes and this is where I came in, because I genuinely don't see 'flat' as more desirable but I am apparently alone in this.

I've been thinking about why. Someone earlier mentioned 'community' and I wonder if that has something to do with it? If the discussion is there to serve the sense of community then I can see why people would value a single conversation that everyone experiences together.

Community is the name of the forum section of SOF. And we are discussing your suggestion as a community.

quote:

That might explain why I'm different because I value a thread based on how interesting it is, for the discussion itself.

Nested doesn't facilitate conversation. It isolates interactions. Unless one wishes to wander down each branch, something that would be a nightmare on the longer threads. And, if a comment on one branch related to another, tying them together would be horrific and clunky as the different participants might then need read multiple branches to comprehend.

quote:

Lots of tangents, providing they are interesting are fine therefore.

'Cause we don't have enough now?

quote:

Also, I wouldn't say I've felt part of a Ship community for years. And that was based around the cafe not the boards.

This is sad. Truly. But your suggestion would break the community that many of the rest of us feel. How is that a good idea?

[ 28. August 2017, 14:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

One of the reasons I don't use the Ship as much as I used to, is that I can't read threads on my phone. If Simon has a way round that I would expect to pop in here more frequently.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The new software does, indeed, work better on phones. You're still stuck with a tiny screen and touch keyboard - but, we can't do anything about that.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I can biggify to read the text, but I can't log in. Hopefully the redo will fix that.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I can use the Ship on my phone and could on the previous phone too, so it's not the Ship software that is the problem. Previous phone was Android, current phone is Windows. This post comes care of the Windows phone.

The Ship cafe is still there, I checked last night, but I like my tablet too much to load faverolle on it.

The Ship is much quieter than in the past, and I've noticed the fewer meets too. As someone who used to organise some of the London meets and turn up to the Yorkshire meets, the combination of pressure of work, taking a long time to recover from shingles and other things going on have meant that I've either been in Yorkshire for a flying visit and a purpose, not getting to half the stuff I plan in London and not wanting to set something up and not be able to go.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Yes and this is where I came in, because I genuinely don't see 'flat' as more desirable but I am apparently alone in this.

I've been thinking about why. Someone earlier mentioned 'community' and I wonder if that has something to do with it? If the discussion is there to serve the sense of community then I can see why people would value a single conversation that everyone experiences together.
Community is the name of the forum section of SOF. And we are discussing your suggestion as a community.

I haven't made a suggestion.

But what is "discussing ... as a community."? How does it differ from simply interested parties on this website discussing this?

quote:

quote:

That might explain why I'm different because I value a thread based on how interesting it is, for the discussion itself.
Nested doesn't facilitate conversation. It isolates interactions. Unless one wishes to wander down each branch, something that would be a nightmare on the longer threads. And, if a comment on one branch related to another, tying them together would be horrific and clunky as the different participants might then need read multiple branches to comprehend.

And yet it worked for me and several thousand others for years. My experience was there really wasn't a need to re-integrate branches, and what tended to happen was a few branches grew strongly. And in any case you went down the branches you cared about/were interested in.

quote:

quote:

Lots of tangents, providing they are interesting are fine therefore.
'Cause we don't have enough now?

I neither want nor don't want more tangents. I just don't think they're inherently bad. More so where the software supports it properly.

quote:

quote:

Also, I wouldn't say I've felt part of a Ship community for years. And that was based around the cafe not the boards.
This is sad. Truly.

I wasn't saying it to make you feel sorry for me. I was wondering aloud at a possible reason why my perspective is different.

quote:
But your suggestion would break the community that many of the rest of us feel. How is that a good idea?

Check again, I didn't make a suggestion. I specifically said I wasn't looking to influence change. If I was I'd be too late. If I wasn't too late this is not a democracy. If it were a democracy I'm clearly in the minority. So I think you can relax.

At least on my account. If it turns out the new software has nested threads that's on Simon. [Biased]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
I haven't made a suggestion.

Perhaps not intentionally or directly. But functionally you did.

quote:

But what is "discussing ... as a community."? How does it differ from simply interested parties on this website discussing this?

All Saints and Shipmeets should be answer enough to that.

quote:
And yet it worked for me and several thousand others for years. My experience was there really wasn't a need to re-integrate branches, and what tended to happen was a few branches grew strongly. And in any case you went down the branches you cared about/were interested in.

Many things work. Doesn't mean they are truly fit for purpose. Or not every purpose at least.

quote:
If it turns out the new software has nested threads that's on Simon.

Nested v. flat was the first thought that occurred to me and why I jumped so quickly when you mentioned it. As I doubt we are getting bespoke software, I wanted to address my concerns early in hopes that was not an option or it was one that could be turned off.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was waiting for the thread Simon has mentioned to appear before addressing this, but Good Gods NO!!!!!!!
Nested threads are proof of the Anti-Christ and Cthulhu and are preferred by the same sort of people who jump queues.

Maybe the new Hell alone can have nested threads...just to make it that slightly more...hellish.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was waiting for the thread Simon has mentioned to appear before addressing this, but Good Gods NO!!!!!!!
Nested threads are proof of the Anti-Christ and Cthulhu and are preferred by the same sort of people who jump queues.
Maybe the new Hell alone can have nested threads...just to make it that slightly more...hellish.

You are Evil

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Nested threads are intended to allow large threads to deal with tangents. Our approach on the Ship has always been to deal with tangents by starting new threads, rather than try and nest them within the thread they started.

IMO, the advantages of our approach are several. Top of the list for me is that it allows tangents to be taken to a different board if appropriate (which includes taking tangential personal spats to Hell), and it allows people who may be interested in the tangent to contribute if they weren't interested in the original thread.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I used to use usenet. The single-line unnested thread format of the Ship put me off for a while.
Now I'm used to the single line format I don't know whether going back to the nested format would be equally offputting (aagh change bad).
The chief advantage of the nested format it seems to me was that it made the shape of a conversation more obvious. And if one branch of a conversation consisted entirely of two unintelligible bores having at each other it could be entirely ignored instead of having to scroll through it looking for anything more accessible to pick out.
As I say I might feel differently if I move back to the nested format.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I used to use usenet. The single-line unnested thread format of the Ship put me off for a while.
Now I'm used to the single line format I don't know whether going back to the nested format would be equally offputting (aagh change bad).

As I said earlier, I currently use both. Flat is better.

quote:

The chief advantage of the nested format it seems to me was that it made the shape of a conversation more obvious. And if one branch of a conversation consisted entirely of two unintelligible bores

Yeah, that happens. But you assume they will not also be on the tangent you like. Yes, you could start yet another tangent, but that further fragments and isolates.

Otherwise, why not just have a series of limited participation chat rooms?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

When you come to pull the plug, give me a weeks notice so I can splurge 222 post in the Circus. Thank you.

Also: The ship is the only form of internet communication I have ever come across that does not suck dingo balls. Most other forms seem to be a direct result of Satan's plan to conquer the world.

Looking forward to "NEW SHIP" "Ship 3.0" "FRIEND_SHIP" ..... whatever.

Pyx_e

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
When you come to pull the plug, give me a weeks notice so I can splurge 222 post in the Circus. Thank you.

Also: The ship is the only form of internet communication I have ever come across that does not suck dingo balls. Most other forms seem to be a direct result of Satan's plan to conquer the world.

Looking forward to "NEW SHIP" "Ship 3.0" "FRIEND_SHIP" ..... whatever.

Pyx_e

So glad we do not have massive flashing GIFS all over pages as signatures etc.

[ 30. August 2017, 22:26: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Also: The ship is the only form of internet communication I have ever come across that does not suck dingo balls. Most other forms seem to be a direct result of Satan's plan to conquer the world.
Pyx_e

I think you are right here. And that aspect I think is so valuable to us.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I've had another Ursula Le Guin quote floating round in my head following this discussion, from her short story The New Atlantis (and thanks again to Huia for my copy!):

quote:
it's too hard to get books; all you can buy is bestsellers.

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :

I would hate for the boards to close.

However I can't really expand on this because I have to get up and go off to a farm with some children who would probably not exist if it was not for the Ship.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
When you come to pull the plug, give me a weeks notice so I can splurge 222 post in the Circus. Thank you.

Also: The ship is the only form of internet communication I have ever come across that does not suck dingo balls. Most other forms seem to be a direct result of Satan's plan to conquer the world.

Looking forward to "NEW SHIP" "Ship 3.0" "FRIEND_SHIP" ..... whatever.

Pyx_e

Surely 'Shiphead'

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I can use the Ship on my phone and could on the previous phone too, so it's not the Ship software that is the problem.

The current software is hardly a pleasant experience on a phone, though. You have to keep scrolling horizontally or else have the writing too small to read. I can just about get by browsing, but I wouldn't want to post anything.

A design that is actually adapted for mobile would make the experience much smoother.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

I find turning the phone sideways helps a bit, saves the horizontal scrolling, you just need to do a lot more scrolling down to read, as there are fewer lines of text on each screen.

But I have never tried posting from the phone ... in fact I can't as I've forgotten my password to log in!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I post from phone a fair bit, and can code and link if so minded

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

Also: The ship is the only form of internet communication I have ever come across that does not suck dingo balls. Most other forms seem to be a direct result of Satan's plan to conquer the world.

Yes.

This is the only internet discussion forum I have stuck with - for more than 11 years now. It's also one of the few places I can be relaxed and relatively open in my posting. I'm identifiable everywhere else I go on the internet.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

The thing that puts me off SOF is the bad language and blasphemy which should never be allowed on a Christian discussion board.
I would be ashamed to introduce anyone that I know to it. That is a pity as I have met some very nice people on here.
I have tried to get my name off but apparently once you are on there is no getting off.
I like the some of the debates very much but feel I should not be part of it. If it closed down I think it would be a good thing, some people just cant seem to discuss anything without swearing and spoiling things for others.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I would argue that if swearing puts one off interactions, there might not be much substance in one's beliefs.
I would rather rudeness and love than civility and none.

ETA: It is not that I do not understand those who do not care for swearing, but that this should not be the most important issue.

[ 14. September 2017, 19:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Good to see you back, Barrea.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I have tried to get my name off but apparently once you are on there is no getting off.

There's always a way off the Ship. It's called "stop posting". The record of your 15 years of posting will survive as long as the threads still exist.

quote:
If it closed down I think it would be a good thing, some people just cant seem to discuss anything without swearing and spoiling things for others.

And, others can't seem to stop spoiling things for others by focussing on trivia when the rest of us want to discuss important issues, often things that we are passionate about which is reflected in the passion of the language we use.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I learned to swear here. Bunch of crazy pirates.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

It's actually a good test. I reckon that if the faith is stronger than my language, I'll probably get by. Which is a good thing, because there are days when my language would melt solid granite.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I learnt to do pastoral care in swearing, which gurns out to be curiously comforting to some.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re UBB archives:

Yes, please do keep them easily accessible for reading, quoting, and linking. "Profitable for faith and practice"*, or something like that. [Biased]

*Luther, about the Apocrypha, IIRC.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
The thing that puts me off SOF is the bad language and blasphemy which should never be allowed on a Christian discussion board.

I fucking thought this was a fucking Christian web site.

Posted by Greenend (# 15674) on :

Just to chip in, I am a dedicated lurker - I love to read all the posts and discussions here, which I do nearly every day. I think it's fair to say I get most of my information on what is happening in the world from here! On behalf of the invisible lurkers I wanted to let you know the forums are important. Thanks to all posters!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Greenend:
Just to chip in, I am a dedicated lurker - I love to read all the posts and discussions here, which I do nearly every day. I think it's fair to say I get most of my information on what is happening in the world from here! On behalf of the invisible lurkers I wanted to let you know the forums are important. Thanks to all posters!

Thanks for your input, Greenend! It's sometimes very easy for we who post lots to forget that lurkers like yourself are out there reading the boards every day, and that the boards are just as important to you as they are to us.

The silent members of our community are still members, and your opinions matter just as much as anyone else's (when you choose to state them, that is!)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
The thing that puts me off SOF is the bad language and blasphemy which should never be allowed on a Christian discussion board.
I fucking thought this was a fucking Christian web site.

There's a difference between "anglo-saxon" swearing and malevolent speech. People can speak malevolently without ever using "anglo-saxon".

To judge from the Sermon on the Mount, I think Jesus is more bothered about malevolence in terms of thoughts, words and deeds than about bad language per se. It's quite a good topic for discussion, so I might try my hand at a thread OP.

[ 15. September 2017, 18:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There's a difference between "anglo-saxon" swearing and malevolent speech.

There's also a difference between "Anglo-Saxon" and invoking the Holy Name.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There's also a difference between "Anglo-Saxon" and invoking the Holy Name.

Hmmm, isn't there something about that in the Ten Commandments? The ones Moses brought down, not these.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I did start a thread and I guess Styx Hosts might appreciate further discussion there.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I did start a thread and I guess Styx Hosts might appreciate further discussion there.

Thank you

Tubbs

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

The silent members of our community are still members, and your opinions matter just as much as anyone else's (when you choose to state them, that is!)

I love the lurkers and have always been confident that they agree with everything I say and am on my side in every argument!

However, and at risk of losing such a fine delusion, the one thing I would change about this board would be to add "like" buttons. I waste many hours on the Previously TV* forums and when I switch to the ship I find my fingers twitching for a like button after every brilliant post. "Like" buttons would also serve to give the lurkers a chance to express themselves without actually steeping out into the light.

* A fine, clean, well moderated forum with no nesting and, as I always say, if a show is worth watching it's worth picking apart later.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
the one thing I would change about this board would be to add "like" buttons.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

'kay

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

What Marv said, but with much much more emphatic and potentially eye-blistering language.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
What Marv said, but with much much more emphatic and potentially eye-blistering language.

<Like>

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
<Like>

The really, truly brilliant part is that I am trapped being both appreciative of the support and enraged by the modality. Brilliant. I'm almost moved to using a smiley.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm almost moved to using a smiley.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for this!

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
the one thing I would change about this board would be to add "like" buttons.
Not. Going. To. Happen.

Grateful thanks.

[Overused]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Read my lips!* There will not be "like" buttons, and there will not be nested threads.

*Yeah, okay, not designed to inspire hope, I admit.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
the one thing I would change about this board would be to add "like" buttons.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Grateful thanks.

How that "notworthy" smiley is better than a simple "like" I do not know.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The really, truly brilliant part is that I am trapped being both appreciative of the support and enraged by the modality. Brilliant. I'm almost moved to using a smiley.

But that would be wrong.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

(I should perhaps add a note to clarify that I am not among those who would add a "Like" button to the Ship boards. I just couldn't resist that one.)

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Who needs a like button? I want a hate button. Failing that a steaming turd smiley.
poo emoticon

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Huh. Flies. Nice touch.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
But that would be wrong.

I insist that you stop posting cleverer things than I can.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Just for you, RooK: [Two face]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

"Why was she banned?"

"I HAD MY REASONS."

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

At least it wasn't the hearts-cascading-over-a-smiley-face emoji.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

I've had a ponder about this.

There were times I felt as welcome as holy water in a an Orange lodge here, because for a long time any time I mentioned anything about my dissatisfaction with my cradle religion of Roman Catholicism, I'd get studs-on from the then resident Defenders of the One True Faith. One person decided to follow me on a Twitter alias I no longer use and pretty much stalked anything I said for a number of months until I discontinued that handle.

Hence, self-censorship.

It begged the question for me, how could I express my own unrest when I was getting highly assertive and, for a time, constant questioning of my position, which only the university educated theologically literate could bat back and forward?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I've had a ponder about this.

There were times I felt as welcome as holy water in a an Orange lodge here, because for a long time any time I mentioned anything about my dissatisfaction with my cradle religion of Roman Catholicism, I'd get studs-on from the then resident Defenders of the One True Faith. One person decided to follow me on a Twitter alias I no longer use and pretty much stalked anything I said for a number of months until I discontinued that handle.

Hence, self-censorship.

It begged the question for me, how could I express my own unrest when I was getting highly assertive and, for a time, constant questioning of my position, which only the university educated theologically literate could bat back and forward?

I don't know the history of your posting, we missed each other. I recall feeling attacked in my first foray into posting, not saying it resembles your experience closely.

I have noted change and improved respectful discussion over time, as well as support and more openness to discussion of my things, with less personalization by others of my things. I'd certainly suggest trying again, if your post here suggests you might like to.

Posted by Edmund (# 18855) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Is it time to close the boards?

Another lurker here coming out of the woodwork, simply to say - please don't close the boards!

I've been a lurker, on and off, for years. During certain periods of my life I've been here regularly, at other times, years have gone by without a visit; but I have always found myself coming back.

Thank you for years of great discussions. I'd hate to see them cease.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edmund:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Is it time to close the boards?
Another lurker here coming out of the woodwork, simply to say - please don't close the boards!

I've been a lurker, on and off, for years. During certain periods of my life I've been here regularly, at other times, years have gone by without a visit; but I have always found myself coming back.

Thank you for years of great discussions. I'd hate to see them cease.

Thank you for this!😀
And my apologies to every newcomer and lurker I’ve not welcomed. I’m horrible at that. 😔

[ 16. October 2017, 20:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There is a thread in All Saints for introductions and welcomes. But, I'll say ようこそ anyway.

And, rest assured, there are plans afoot to update the board software. But, the boards will still remain and continue.

Posted by Edmund (# 18855) on :

Thank you LilBuddha and Alan.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

New Ship sounds a splendid idea. It would be a shame to see it go but, as others have said, it's a bloomin' nightmare to post via phone and I'm far too old and grown-up and respectable now to post at work...

Thurible

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Keeping the old ship[ afloat has required a lot of patching and bailing.
So bring on SOF 2.0, I'm sure she'll leak in new and more efficient ways.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Keeping the old ship[ afloat has required a lot of patching and bailing.
So bring on SOF 2.0, I'm sure she'll leak in new and more efficient ways.

Technically, it will be SoF 3.0 if counting by online format. And we think you'll be impressed with its improved functionality. Well, actually, the main functional benefits are behind the scenes - where all the frantic leak-patching currently happens on the current Ship. Still: SHINY.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Keeping the old ship[ afloat has required a lot of patching and bailing.
So bring on SOF 2.0, I'm sure she'll leak in new and more efficient ways.
Technically, it will be SoF 3.0 if counting by online format. And we think you'll be impressed with its improved functionality. Well, actually, the main functional benefits are behind the scenes - where all the frantic leak-patching currently happens on the current Ship. Still: SHINY.

OoooOooh, SHINY! Still, I was merely trying to...shiny..um, just note that the grass is always SHINY shinier on the other..erm, greener on the.. shiny.. on the shiny side..I mean that nothing is perf..SHINY!
Yes... [Eek!]

...shiny... [Yipee]

...shiny... [Axe murder]

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I've had a ponder about this.

There were times I felt as welcome as holy water in a an Orange lodge here, because for a long time any time I mentioned anything about my dissatisfaction with my cradle religion of Roman Catholicism, I'd get studs-on from the then resident Defenders of the One True Faith. One person decided to follow me on a Twitter alias I no longer use and pretty much stalked anything I said for a number of months until I discontinued that handle.

Hence, self-censorship.

It begged the question for me, how could I express my own unrest when I was getting highly assertive and, for a time, constant questioning of my position, which only the university educated theologically literate could bat back and forward?
I don't know the history of your posting, we missed each other. I recall feeling attacked in my first foray into posting, not saying it resembles your experience closely.

I have noted change and improved respectful discussion over time, as well as support and more openness to discussion of my things, with less personalization by others of my things. I'd certainly suggest trying again, if your post here suggests you might like to.

I can relate to this. I enjoy popping onboard every now and then to read the discussions - but have become very wary of posting anything as I've occasionally felt attacked rather than listened to or debated with when I've just been trying to explore an idea or understand a point of view. It could of course be my own ineptitude but it has made me reluctant to post (yes I am aware how ironic it is to post about not posting). However - highly value the boards and would very much like to see the discussions continue - but as to the mechanism by which that happens I really don't mind. Bring on Ship v3.0!!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I enjoy popping onboard every now and then to read the discussions - but have become very wary of posting anything as I've occasionally felt attacked rather than listened to or debated with when I've just been trying to explore an idea or understand a point of view.

I think some of this might be due to the imprecise and incomplete nature of online communication.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I enjoy popping onboard every now and then to read the discussions - but have become very wary of posting anything as I've occasionally felt attacked rather than listened to or debated with when I've just been trying to explore an idea or understand a point of view.
I think some of this might be due to the imprecise and incomplete nature of online communication.

Fair play. Maybe I'm over sensitive. [Biased]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think some of this might be due to the imprecise and incomplete nature of online communication.

There have been far too many times online when people have clearly underestimated how much I hate them. The struggle is real.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think some of this might be due to the imprecise and incomplete nature of online communication.
There have been far too many times online when people have clearly underestimated how much I hate them. The struggle is real.

Well you are so cuddly on the ship.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think some of this might be due to the imprecise and incomplete nature of online communication.
There have been far too many times online when people have clearly underestimated how much I hate them. The struggle is real.
Well you are so cuddly on the ship.

Right? Scratch him between the horns, I bet it makes his leg move.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Q.E.D.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Q.E.D.

What?! No, say it isn't so. [Tear]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Q.E.D.
What?! No, say it isn't so.

Which leg?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

amateurs

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0