I've recently been involved in a thread in which one of the participants, member of this board since April last year and who has made over 1200 posts, had not been aware of the 1975 failure. Isn't that unusual? It tells me that this board is inefficient at getting the message out. If newbies do what is suggested and read the board's top topics then that will do the job, but this appears not to be happening in all cases. I might suggest as part of the sign-in process for newcomers that there be a short introduction that must be read before admission is granted with a mechanism to ensure that the introduction is actually read. There should not be a simple selection of Agree or Disagree at the bottom of the terms and conditions of this board but a significant number of buttons at the bottom - could be lettered, numbered, colored, whatever - only one of which will signify that the registrant has actually read the words and agrees. I am not suggesting that people have to agree with the board's mandate (whatever that is) in order to register. But they should at least be made aware of the key issues being discussed in this board that might help them decide whether or not the WTBTS is what it says it is.
participant awareness
by Nickolas 17 Replies latest forum suggestions
-
-
Mythbuster
Nickolas, you have a PM.
-
Nickolas
I responded to your mailbox, Mythbuster.
-
Broken Promises
It tells me that this board is inefficient at getting the message out.
Just what is the "message" this board holds?
-
AudeSapere
You want they should take an IQ test??
There are soo many issues related to JW's and the org has distanced itself from 1975 and just about done with 1914.
There are many reasons why someone would not be aware of 1975. I don't think it's necessary to create a test to make sure they are educated enough before they join the site.
Also, some issues that are important to one poster, are irrelevent to another. Why should someone have to know all the issues when they only need/want to discuss one?
-Aude.
-
Black Sheep
It's a forum.
People come here to talk about stuff, not to have someone's agenda rammed down their throat.
-
troubled mind
I agree with Black Sheep's post . There is no agenda for this forum ....it is a place to discuss Jw related issues . Many in their 20-30's have no real knowledge of the 1975 fiasco ....those that lived through it are really the only ones that really know what happened . Since the 1980's the society has downplayed anything to do with that date so why would anyone in the last few yrs think it was a big an issue ?
In fact I think most people that have come into the org. in the past 20 yrs have such a basic ,simplistic knowledge of the JW history it pales compared to what we studied back in the 60's.
-
Palimpsest
In addition to what Black Sheep said: A lot of people simply do not care about theological points, which is perfectly fine. Most of the JW-related problems people look to recover from are social and psychological ones, not spiritual. So if posters don't want to get weighed down in matters of eschatology, good for them. Maybe that's part of their recovery.
-
GrandmaJones
Nicholas, I think I know what you mean. As a new poster, it was a little while before I figured out the whole "Best of Topics" thing. I couldn't figure out how to get or send a pm. Heck, I didn't know what pm meant. I had to ask what btt meant. I have just been schooled about the most effective way to use the "search" function. Of course, not everyone wants to research doctrine and history as much as others, but the information would be good to have for those who want to use it.
I tried as a newbie to read posts on the tech/forum threads, but without the information to begin with, I couldn't find the topic to begin with. Perhaps the first thing a newbie should know is how to use the "search" with the + sign. It would have saved me from bothering people with questions they must have answered a hundred times before. Sorry guys...........
-
Nickolas
You want they should take an IQ test??
No, not a test. What I had envisioned is somewhere in the text of terms and conditions it saying something like, if you agree with these terms and conditions, click on the green button below. I don't think it is a bad thing for a site like this one to ensure that those who are joining know what it is all about - which I will get to in a moment. I am not suggesting new registrants be forced to read anything beyond that, but should be made aware, for their own benefit, that there are some things they may wish to educate themselves on depending on what specific interest prompted them to join in the first place. Even something as simple as "you are strongly encouraged to read the Best of Topics threads" (which is already labeled the "First stop for new visitors", after all.)
As to the other comments, I can agree to all of your points. A site like this one holds out different values to different people. As to agenda, it appears to me that what it is not speaks more loudly than what it otherwise might be - it is not a site that generally supports the legitimacy of the WTBTS and when one reads the Best of Topics threads that is clearly understood.
Finally, I do not see the fiasco of 1975 as a theological subject at all. I see it as a key issue of credibility that goes to the much larger question of the legitimacy of a Society and what it claims to be. The fact that 1975 has become a non-issue to so many, and that so many aren't even aware that it happened, is mute testimony to the efficiency with which the WTBTS has been able to sweep it, and other facts that reflect badly upon it, under the carpet.