|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Unofficial MW report admonition
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Sorry to take issue again with a hostly admonition, but I am slightly surprised that S Bacchus was told off for posting an "unofficial MW report".
Mr Bacchus made it absolutely clear at the start of his OP that he was raising issues about a worship service at his own church, then stating that the best way by which he could describe his concerns wss by way of a "mock" (his word) MW report.
The report itself followed the MW format but nobody reading the post could be under the misapprehension that this was a genuine MW report.
I thought Mr Bacchus' post, using the MW format, was an amusing and interesting way to convey what, to him, are genuine concerns about sloppiness and lack of organisation in worship at his C of E church.
As I understand it, a real MW report involves the reporter attending a church which is not his/her own place of worship and filing a report about his/her experience.
I can well understand why SoF do not wish unofficial MW reports to be posted on the discussion boards. However, I dont think that Mr Bacchus has breached this rule on this occasion.
[ 16. December 2013, 09:28: Message edited by: Francophile ]
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
We have, in the MW project, a certain level of quality that is ensured, to the best of our ability, by an editorial process and the requirement that MWers report on churches to which they have no connection. That product and the associated quality we have come to expect is something we would like to protect.
Producing a description of a service that looks like an MW report, but isn't, blurs the distinction between the genuine product and an interesting starter for discussion. Therefore, we would very much prefer it if people didn't do that.
You will note that the OP of the thread has not been edited to remove the MW-like structure, nor has the thread been closed. The hosts have simply reminded people that we would prefer it if people didn't copy the MW style in that way.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
As per Alan’s post, the MW report format can only be used for MW reports that are officially submitted so anyone who borrows that format and uses it for another purpose – like a mock MW report to highlight the issues they see at their church - has broken a rule.
As it’s not something that comes up that often, S Bacchus may have not known this so made an honest mistake. Allowing the discussion to continue whilst reminding people about the correct use of the MW format seems reasonable.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
Well, I didn't know the rule existed (it's not one of the 10 Commandments, which are the only rules I've actually seen), but now that I know that it does, I'll make sure not violate it again.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Thanks, S. Bacchus, much appreciated. I wouldn't want to add anything to what Tubbs and Alan have said other than to point out that no-one was "told off" - my post simply pointed out the policy on unofficial MW reports and asked that it be borne in mind in future.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
The H&As are being consistent, too. I once made the same mistake and was told that wasn't a good idea as the thread was being closed. It was closed because there wasn't a specific question being asked in the OP, unlike the current issue under discussion. I think it's a reasonable request, although I wasn't aware until just now that it was actually against the rules, per se, just not in good taste.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I think it's a reasonable request, although I wasn't aware until just now that it was actually against the rules, per se, just not in good taste.
It's not so much that it's against SoF Forum rules, it's more that (as Alan and Tubbs have said) the Mystery Worshipper brand and format is the intellectual property of Ship of Fools, and each official report has to meet various conditions (e.g. not MWing a church you are connected with) and go through an editorial process before publication to ensure that the quality and integrity of the Mystery Worship brand remains high. Naturally, unauthorised and unedited reports that mimic the MW format but without any official approval or quality control tend to be frowned upon.
[ 17. December 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
