Would it be sufficient to reorganise the forum main page so that it starts with a section for "Real Life", being all the sorts of discussions you outline, and then later there is a section for deeper discussion, but leave everyone with access to all? That way people can choose how deep they jump in and we're not offending anyone by saying "you're not ready for that", but they can stay in the first section forever if they like.
Wow. A lot can happen when one has to set aside participation for 24 hours!
I just made myself read through everyone's posts, so my following responses will reflect that. I'm most affected by what
@steve has written, and I want to know more from him about what he fears is shifting, because I consider him to be our Man In The Cave At The Top Of The Mountaintop.
I'm increasingly concluding that we're overreacting to whether or not people are offended. I know I'm one who encouraged directing some attention to decreasing certain very specific behaviors for the purpose of not driving away single women who are sincerely looking to be under the headship of true patriarchs who are already married. However, my recommendations about Milk and Meat sections (a la I Corinthians 3:2) were
not in reaction to this (as I believe that just drawing attention to those specific behaviors is sufficient to address them, as evidenced by the fact that those behaviors pretty much disappeared so quickly that by the time Rock noticed my comments he could find no instance of their occurrence) but in reaction to concerns about women (and some men) being so offended by 'rough' treatment that they would fail to stick around long enough to get help they may need.
Perhaps we should ask
@nathan what he sees the online forum's role to be in the overall BF ministry, given that this entire thing is
his and
@julieb's baby. Absent further clarification from him, though, it appears to me that the
evidence based on precedent is that the ministry is multifaceted -- and that the forum
as it has existed is one of the more important secondary facets, the primary facets being meatspace retreats and ongoing personal fellowship, whether that be face-to-face or through phone calls, texting or even (shudder) snail mail.
So I lean heavily against doing anything that suppresses what the forums have been and continue to be: opportunities for full-bore communication, which includes everything from sharing key lime pie recipes to gritty theological debate about what role Samson played in Delilah's sojourn in the lake of fire. Furthermore, I believe that people feeling 'offended' should be far from our first consideration. The first law of behavior theory is that that which is rewarded will be repeated, and our supposedly-triggered snowflake culture already over-rewards people for feeling 'offended.' In general, the degree to which a person is offended tells one much more about the offendee than it does about the offender, and we will tie ourselves up in knots trying to figure out how to tiptoe around those who are prone to
being offendees.
I therefore further suggest that we not really worry about whether offendees will be further 'offended' by being told they're "not ready for that." The average
reasonable person won't be offended by being told that further benefits are available to full members. If someone is offended by being told that, then it's just further evidence that they're not ready for prime time.
This is why I recommended and continue to recommend that we restrict new people from having full access. I also recommend that newbies be required to go through a brief orientation with one of a small group of gatekeepers (I volunteer to be one) whose function is to make sure that those who want full access (a) have absorbed the bare bones of certain key concepts [a short, objective multiple-choice test would suffice]; (b) are not antagonistic toward patriarchy or biblical polygamy; and (c) are willing to take full responsibility for any upset they experience in response to posted comments they read in the meatier discussions.
The only problem is that the deeper discussions will continue to jump up in the "what's new" feed. I don't have a technical way to limit that unfortunately. But people who aren't interested in everything, if the forum is structured more clearly, may have no need to use that feed.
I don't see it as a significant problem that deeper discussions will continue to jump up in the What's New feed, assuming, that is, that when offendees and newbies click on those links they get whatever that message is that tells them that they don't have access. For persons sincerely interested in gaining access for reasonable purposes, receiving such error messages will only increase their thirst -- and thus provide increased motivation to complete whatever processes are necessary to get past Door Number Two, which for some will include having to address whatever rackets they're running inside themselves that cause them to be prone to indirect communication and/or feeling so offended by the words of others that they feel inclined to label themselves as victims.
Part of why we're here is indeed to help other people, but we do not owe to the people who need our help having to become Stepford Wives in order to do so. We're
real people, and if someone wants our
real help, it's not too much to ask that they ask for it politely rather than expecting us to politely
beg them to let us help them.
