NazBoard -- why the low useage?

[Dave McClung]

I am really puzzled by the low level of usage at NazBoard.Com. When it started about six months ago, I really expected that it would attract a lot of use. I am a member of NazBoard and have posted a few times myself. NazNet.Com will have more posts today than NazBoard has had since it was created. Are there lessons that we can learn?

The reason for my question is that I have been asked for advice by some leaders at Nazarene Headquarters who are thinking of starting an online community for a specific group of Nazarenes. I have given them some opinions, but I am not sure I know why NazNet has continued to grow over a long period of time and most other efforts to create an online community among Nazarenes have not had such growth.

My own opinion is that it takes a certain critical mass to keep an online board going. If there are not at least a few posts every day, people stop checking. When a site is divided into a lot of subgroups, like NazBoard, it is difficult for any of the subgroups to get enough critical mass.

Am I overlooking other issues?

[Jon Twitchell]

Dave,

While I'm not familiar with NazBoard, I think you've hit some of the major issues. In addition to the software and interface being clean and usable, you need a dedicated core of people who will jump in and post interesting topics. Critical mass is key...and I would say that a core group who can help set the tone of the board is vital in the beginning. I think that part of NazNet's success came about because it had only a couple of forums to contain the discussion...so users were nearly guaranteed to find something new whenever they logged in.

I would also want to make sure that the proposed board meets a real need, and that there are people ready to use it. If it's just because "someone thought it would be a good idea to have a message board," then that's probably not enough of a defined need.

[Hans Deventer]

Am I overlooking other issues?

Well, what does NazBoard offer that NazNet doesn't have? I'd say you have to offer something different, find yourself a new market, to succeed.

Secondly, why allow nicknames? One of the strengths of NazNet is not allowing nicknames.

And I agree, it is complete overkill to create that many forums. Start out with one, and when it gets too crowded, one can easily create more.

[Jon Twitchell]

To add what I said about meeting a real need... let me add, that it should uniquely meet a need. If another board is already meeting that need, then why would we expect a second board to succeed?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dave, to be truthful, I was not even aware of Nazboard. I like the way Naznet is divided. Is Nazboard sponsored by our denomination, and who would the select group be that could post on it? Others would feel left out, if there was a board as such.
There are enough people that get basicaly ignored now. I wish, we did not have the IGNORE on Naznet. You could have a select grouep for DS and GS, and General board members.
Maybe, I don't understand, what you are trying to say.
Anne

[Mike Schutz]

Am I overlooking other issues?

Dave -
I agree that critical mass is a key issue. I've been involved in several other boards, including several for pastors, and nothing happens.


Also, I'm not very bright, and I was confused by the NazBoard interface.
and that
I thought it was just me, and that more internet savvy folks (especially younger - the target audience for NazBoard) would not find it that way.

Perhaps it is that there are other places (Facebook, My Space) for the same targeted audience as NazBoard.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dave, I was told that I was registered, and that I could log in, but they keep saying I am using an incorrect user name or password. They accepted In His Service for my user name. What should I do now? I signed in as Dwayne and Anne Hood.

[Ian Gentles]

I think another board, however well intentioned, is a waste of Time. NazNets secret is its openness, not only to fellowship, but very open debate!

[Barbara Moulton]

Well, I didn't know anything about it but when I just went and looked at it I realized it is "strictly" for the Nazarene Community. So I wouldn't feel comfortable registering.

One of the nicest things about NazNet (to me) is that it really does make everyone welcome...not just Nazarenes.

[Roland Hearn]

I think some of the factors are coincidental. When Naznet started it was a very simple board and there were some very interesting people with strong, varied opinions that were willing to accept each other's point of view. Once those ingredients came together it got the thing that has been mentioned "critical mass". I don't know if you can orchestrate that. A bit like a church plant. Many many just do not get going but some do. The planting pastor, always assumes it had something to do with his planting ability, and it probably does to some extent, but as much as anything is simply the coincidental factors. If you want 10 new churches on a district you should probably start 25. If you want a new interactive discussion board you should probably start four or five.

[Ian Gentles]

Well, I didn't know anything about it but when I just went and looked at it I realized it is "strictly" for the Nazarene Community. So I wouldn't feel comfortable registering.

One of the nicest things about NazNet (to me) is that it really does make everyone welcome...not just Nazarenes.

That is a very good point in which i totally agree, its Nazarenes, and friends of Nazarene church in here, very valuable to open ,friendly, discussion!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Gary Swartzlander]

Dave, I was told that I was registered, and that I could log in, but they keep saying I am using an incorrect user name or password. They accepted In His Service for my user name. What should I do now? I signed in as Dwayne and Anne Hood.

Ann, the sight isn't operated by Dave. Does the sight have a help link?

[Hal Paul]

I joined NazNet about the time NazBoard came online. The interface on NaBboard isn't as easy to use as NazNet, and I also thought some of the discussion forums on NazBoard were a bit artificial. I mean really, why would I go onto a forum that is set up principally for people that attended NNU? I also like NazNet in part because we use our real names. I've been on forums that use alias' but the discussions don't seem as honest, and are often much more hostile when disagreements arise.

As far as our youth are concerned, I think MySpace and FaceBook are more appealing because they have friends who are not Nazarenes, who might feel out of place on a forum specifically targeted toward Nazarenes. Josh has friends of different faith backgrounds who are attending college at state universities, Baptist schools and Nazarene schools, their faith claims range from Christians from a variety of theological traditions, to agnostic to wiccan and neopagan. MySpace and FaceBook provide a neutral forum for them to meet and share with each other. They are also more likely to instant message chat on MSN or Yahoo than participate in a forum like NazNet or NazBoard.

[Bob Evans]

Naznet is simply more user friendly.

[Dave McClung]

Dave, to be truthful, I was not even aware of Nazboard. I like the way Naznet is divided. Is Nazboard sponsored by our denomination, and who would the select group be that could post on it? Others would feel left out, if there was a board as such.
There are enough people that get basicaly ignored now. I wish, we did not have the IGNORE on Naznet. You could have a select grouep for DS and GS, and General board members.
Maybe, I don't understand, what you are trying to say.
Anne

Ann, Nazboard.com is a web site that was set by Mike Cotton, a NazNetter. When you have time, you should check it out. I really expected that it would appeal to some of the Nazarenes who spend time on MySpace.Com. The link is http://www.nazboard.com

The site being considered by some Nazarene leaders is entirely different. I don't want to share too many details because I don't want to spoil their surprize. I like the idea and will support the effort if they decide to go forward.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

This is basically the same discussion we had last week, only then it was focused on why NazNet has been successful rather than why some other forum has not had the success:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=16555

At least some of the conclusions apply in the reverse:

Lack of Critical mass
Lack of the use of Real Names -- especially true for a "classmates" type of operation
Lack of Key players
Unfamiliar Software
Too focused on one topic
Not enough active leadershipBy the way, in response to the Facebook comments - the new version of our own vBulletin software will feature a Facebook-like User CP. You'll be able to have friends, and comments, etc. much like Facebook. The new version is in beta right now. I plan on waiting until they release it and then let others find the bugs for a few months before upgrading NazNet to it.

[Dave McClung]

I think some of the factors are coincidental. When Naznet started it was a very simple board and there were some very interesting people with strong, varied opinions that were willing to accept each other's point of view. Once those ingredients came together it got the thing that has been mentioned "critical mass". I don't know if you can orchestrate that. A bit like a church plant. Many many just do not get going but some do. The planting pastor, always assumes it had something to do with his planting ability, and it probably does to some extent, but as much as anything is simply the coincidental factors. If you want 10 new churches on a district you should probably start 25. If you want a new interactive discussion board you should probably start four or five.

I had not thought about the similarity between starting an online forum and planting a new church, but there are a lot of similiarities. I really agree with your statement that a pastor can do everything right and still have a church plant fail.

[Ryan Scott]

I just spent five minutes cruising around NazBoard and I'll give you the reasons why I probably won't go back.

One, in terms of niche communication (within Nazarene circles) it is not as nice as this site is, nor is it as easy to use. It is less established, and (we've gone over this) it would be a reproduction of services if that was the focus.

Two, it seems the main purpose of the site is to be a sort of FaceBook for Nazarenes. One of the biggest positives about FaceBook is the ability to network with just about anyone. The idea that we need specifically Nazarene things like this is sort of a dead concept. We had our Nazarene bubble identity and we've realized that's not a great way to be. I don't think it could ever be more than a secondary (at best) page for people who are serious about using the internet for social networking.

Third, it's not that pretty or easy to navigate. I respect people who have the ability to develop and maintain software like this (I don't have that talent), but it looks second rate. If it doesn't offer the same functionality as the big sites and doesn't even appear to be better, it's going to be hard to build any sort of consistent base.

I like the phrase about local congregations, if people aren't constantly bragging about your service to their friends, then there is something wrong. When people see something great they tell others about it. I don't think NazBoard provides anything worth writing home about, to use the colloquialism. I avoided MySpace because it seemed like (and still is, in my opinion) essentially a vanity. I joined FaceBook because I was bombarded with FaceBook references in my daily life. People were constantly telling me about this thing they did on FaceBook or this news they got via FaceBook or referencing the photos and video they posted on FaceBook. It would be impossible for me to maintain the relationships with friends and family without being a part of that website. It's going to be awfully tough to compete with that.

[Joe Hittle]

... Are there lessons that we can learn?

...

Am I overlooking other issues?

While your "critical mass" observation is valid, I think that even that is more crucially rooted in a term that we looked at very carefully here during the early days of naznet, that being "community."

A few factors are necessary for "community" to happen:

a) Common love
b) Common purpose
c) leadership that will not allow the "tie that binds" or the function of it to be spoiled
d) leadership that understands that "declaring community" in itself does not necessarily make it happen
e) simplicity of format

Like many of the rest of the responders here so far, I was not aware of Nazboard's existence. Having now been made aware of it, I must say, I didn't bookmark it after looking at it.

Here are a few of the things I liked about Naznet 11 years ago:

1) People's opinions were based in something other than their personal need to be heard on them
2) People were approachable
3) People were responsive
4) People were open and willing to be surprised
5) People were able to respond to remarks made in response to their efforts without flaming the other participants
6) People attempted to make sense, even in times of disagreement

Even after pretty much letting the whole online "church experience" go for a period of nearly 5 years now (a matter which had nothing at all to do with naznet itself) and hopefully not being seen as a "prodigal returning," I'm still finding those basic elements in place.

That's a positive experience that very few other places I've ever been to, whether online or "real" have ever provided for me. It also makes it hard for another site to "compete against."

For any other Nazarene forum site to ever succeed, it will take at least 2 people willing to invest themselves into it, not only behind the scenes, but interestingly at the public level itself. Like many of the recent political forays into talk-radio that have not succeeded, the "other" Nazarene sites have not bloomed. The reasons for both may not be totally uniform, but it usually is based upon "not catching wide-spread interest."

"We" have morphed from a single board format to a multi-layered phenomena because credible people have chosen to enjoy the experience, together. Not every new board we've put up here has succeeded either, and for much the same reason here as anyplace else.

Is there "room" for another Nazarene bulletin board system? Probably so.

But, it will have to be interest driven, not compulsed and definitely not relegated. And, if for some reason it is seen as a need by the General Church, it wouldn't hurt to get some of the hierarchy actively involved, not in a "this we say" capacity, but as geniunely interested participants willing to risk showing their real self. (Which, by the way, if any of you are reading, is really not all that bad to begin with!!)

Frankly, I think the Church is long-past needing that to happen, and if it ever did, would be a force that would be hard to extinguish.

For whatever it's worth.

Joe

[Dave McClung]

While your "critical mass" observation is valid, I think that even that is more crucially rooted in a term that we looked at very carefully here during the early days of naznet, that being "community."

A few factors are necessary for "community" to happen:

a) Common love
b) Common purpose
c) leadership that will not allow the "tie that binds" or the function of it to be spoiled
d) leadership that understands that "declaring community" in itself does not necessarily make it happen
e) simplicity of format

Like many of the rest of the responders here so far, I was not aware of Nazboard's existence. Having now been made aware of it, I must say, I didn't bookmark it after looking at it.

Here are a few of the things I liked about Naznet 11 years ago:

1) People's opinions were based in something other than their personal need to be heard on them
2) People were approachable
3) People were responsive
4) People were open and willing to be surprised
5) People were able to respond to remarks made in response to their efforts without flaming the other participants
6) People attempted to make sense, even in times of disagreement

Even after pretty much letting the whole online "church experience" go for a period of nearly 5 years now (a matter which had nothing at all to do with naznet itself) and hopefully not being seen as a "prodigal returning," I'm still finding those basic elements in place.

That's a positive experience that very few other places I've ever been to, whether online or "real" have ever provided for me. It also makes it hard for another site to "compete against."

For any other Nazarene forum site to ever succeed, it will take at least 2 people willing to invest themselves into it, not only behind the scenes, but interestingly at the public level itself. Like many of the recent political forays into talk-radio that have not succeeded, the "other" Nazarene sites have not bloomed. The reasons for both may not be totally uniform, but it usually is based upon "not catching wide-spread interest."

"We" have morphed from a single board format to a multi-layered phenomena because credible people have chosen to enjoy the experience, together. Not every new board we've put up here has succeeded either, and for much the same reason here as anyplace else.

Is there "room" for another Nazarene bulletin board system? Probably so.

But, it will have to be interest driven, not compulsed and definitely not relegated. And, if for some reason it is seen as a need by the General Church, it wouldn't hurt to get some of the hierarchy actively involved, not in a "this we say" capacity, but as geniunely interested participants willing to risk showing their real self.

Frankly, I think the Church is long-past needing that to happen, and if it ever did, would be a force that would be hard to extinguish.

For whatever it's worth.

Joe

Thanks, Joe. Perhaps I left the impression that the General Church is considering starting a site that will compete with NazNet. That isn't the case at all.

Those who are considering an online forum are looking for possible ways to address a specific problem. Our general assembly and conventions have become so large and the number of resolutions are so many that there just isn't enough time to adequately discuss them during the meetings. The idea is an online forum where delegates can discuss resolutions immediately prior to the general assembly and conventions.

Personally, I think it is a good idea. I have no way of knowing how much the discussions on NazNet impacted the last General Assembly, but I observed that a lot of the delegates had read the NazNet discussions prior to coming.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Did you get my note about registering, and being given permisssion to post, but they kept telling me that either the user name (which they accepted) or the password were incorrect. I was not able to post.
That happened years ago, when I tried to join Naznet, and I decided it was for a selct group, that I must not be a member of. so , a few years later someone, apparently, helped me get registered.
Anne

[Joe Hittle]

Quote from Dave McClung:

Those who are considering an online forum are looking for possible ways to address a specific problem. Our general assembly and conventions have become so large and the number of resolutions are so many that there just isn't enough time to adequately discuss them during the meetings. The idea is an online forum where delegates can discuss resolutions immediately prior to the general assembly and conventions.
===============================


Okay, with this focus in mind, let me offer a few logistical suggestions:

a) Make 2 forums: 1) generally open to all; and 2) specifically for the discussions and exchanges of registered delegates and officers of the Assembly.

b) restrict participation in #2 to only delegates, but allow delegates to exchange ideas in forum #1 if they see a productive reason for doing so

c) Forum #2 might have to be a closed forum (restricted only to registered delegates) in regard even to viewing the interaction there for the first trial... HOWEVER the Church-at-Large will feel better served if we can at least observe those exchanges happening

d) Do not allow either forum to become a venue for "deal making." Having never been a General Assembly Delegate, my guess is that there probably isn't a lot of that going on, but to resist the temptation to do it at all, much less publicly, gives the Church-at-Large a broader image of credibility in the greater public opinion.

Of course the usual limitations of words only forums will be in play:

a) inability to communicate fervor and other emotional responses
b) ease of misread of fervor

Along with a few specific potential problems:

c) potential misunderstanding because of language issues in the International Church.
d) lack of availability of internet connections in non-US world areas may prompt an image of disenfranchisement for those delegates.

While d) could be a stumbling point, c) actually should be better served by the attempt, in that whatever language issues needing to be overcome would have more time in which to correct the misunderstanding

Here's hoping you find a way!!

Joe

[Gary Swartzlander]

Naznet is simply more user friendly.

Didn't you mean "more friendly users"? :basic05

[Hal Paul]

Did you get my note about registering, and being given permisssion to post, but they kept telling me that either the user name (which they accepted) or the password were incorrect. I was not able to post.
That happened years ago, when I tried to join Naznet, and I decided it was for a selct group, that I must not be a member of. so , a few years later someone, apparently, helped me get registered.
Anne

Anne,

Maybe you need to wait until the administrator approves your registration. I hope you wrote down your user ID and password. Try again in a couple of hours.

[Charlene Clevenger]

I went to NazBoard for a while, but there just wasn't enough activity to keep coming back. Even the most used forums would only have a few posts on it. I would post and come back a few days later and there would be one or no replies.

I go to another site where each participant has their own profile page where they can post a blog and people can comment. It works well on the site I go to. I think that's what they tried to do at NazBoard, but nobody ever visited my page, from what I could see, and when I left a comment on someone else's page the people never replied.

I also had the same trouble Anne mentioned, where I couldn't sign on, at least on one of my computers. Maybe something was accidentally set to block it.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Hal, I got a notice that I was registered and could post.

[Dave McClung]

Hal, I got a notice that I was registered and could post.

Anne, I was not aware that NazBoard had a problem with people signing on. Perhaps that is one of the reasons participation is low.

Remembering the problem you had with NazNet, did you write down the user name and password exactly the way you typed it? Remember that it has to be exact. With computers "close" isn't any good. As I remember it, when you had so much trouble signing on to NazNet, you were trying a password that was slightly different from the one you used when you signed up. They have to be exactly the same.

[Robin Hatcher]

I joined Nazboard before I even knew that Naznet existed. Nazboard was mentioned in the Nazarene News email that I receive periodically. I was frustrated at Nazboard because of the length of time it would take to get a reply. I found out about Naznet only because Dave suggested I check it out in a response to a question I posted at Nazboard. I really wasn't interested in joining another group especially since the one I joined was going so slowly, but I checked it out any way. I was a bit nervous about putting my name out there, but decided to give it a try. As soon as I first posted responses started coming in and I realized that the activity level was much higher here at Naznet. I joined a couple days before my birthday and bingo - huge surprise to me I got birthday greetings from people I didn't even know (thanks for starting the thread Jim Franklin). I was also touched by a thoughtful replies from Brad Mercer to some questions I posted. Nazboard doesn't seem as real as Naznet probably because of how long it takes to get a reply - on Naznet replies come pretty quickly and you know someone is out there. Anne mentioned sign on problems - sometimes it doesn't let me on either - too much effort for too little reward. A few minutes ago I went to Nazboard and found that not much had changed in the couple of months since I had checked it out last. Maybe it will take time for people to build community there?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dave, I was making a mistake. Of course, you know that my age doesn't have a thing to do with it. ha But, it is my memory. Joe Hittle was on, and I saw Robin,s picture.
There is hardly anything at all going on, on Nazboard. I have no idea where they posted the profile I wrote, but the picture I posted went to a place for me to post photos. So, I don't know how to get it, or my profile post where they belong.

[Billy Cox]

As far as our youth are concerned, I think MySpace and FaceBook are more appealing because they have friends who are not Nazarenes, who might feel out of place on a forum specifically targeted toward Nazarenes. Josh has friends of different faith backgrounds who are attending college at state universities, Baptist schools and Nazarene schools, their faith claims range from Christians from a variety of theological traditions, to agnostic to wiccan and neopagan. MySpace and FaceBook provide a neutral forum for them to meet and share with each other. They are also more likely to instant message chat on MSN or Yahoo than participate in a forum like NazNet or NazBoard.

When I look to the center of my religious 'solar system', I see the Church of the Nazarene. NazNet is well-suited for people with a strong sense of affiliation to the 'social network' called the Church of the Nazarene.

People for whom the center of their universe is something else (or who have no identifiable center) will probably apply themselves to something other than NazNet or Nazboard.

[Billy Cox]

I think that part of NazNet's success came about because it had only a couple of forums to contain the discussion...so users were nearly guaranteed to find something new whenever they logged in.


One of the quotes that I made up just in case I am famous some day:

"The most significant obstacle to building something big is the impatience with starting something small."

I occasionally check-in on the forums at www.kcchristianmusic.com. If it were a church, it would be that sad church of 180 meeting in a sanctuary that seats 1,000. The level of participation on the boards could be high, but it is spread out over so many boards that it looks like nothing is going on.

NazNet is a model of how to build a viable forum-based community: Start with one board, and create additional boards only as the need arises.

[Mike Wooldridge]

I was originally on NazBoard before finding out about NazNet. I went back to NazBoard to find out why the board isn't used. The user interface appears to be friendly. There are a lot of good features. The board "feels" more like MySpace and other "social networking" sites where NazNet "feels" more like a BBS from "back in the day." Maybe that's some of the reason for the lack of use.

[Glenda Harvey]

I agree with Bob Evans that NazNet is more user friendly. Especially for those of us over 40 who are not part of the My Space generation.

[Ian Gentles]

Personally, accept for maybe a few, not being bad, dont think we care over much about GA! Not knocking it, but in end we live our Christian lives as best we can and GA dosent affect us over much!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Nelson Bradford]

Flossing my cat

[Marsha Lynn]

I am really puzzled by the low level of usage at NazBoard.Com.

Coincidentally, I created a Facebook account today before reading this thread. I didn't immediately find a Nazarene community to join there, or much of anyone from my own peer group for that matter, and wandered over to NazBoard, knowing that it was created as a Nazarene alternative to Facebook. The difference is like being in the convention center at General Ass'y in Indianapolis versus sitting with a dozen other people in an auditorium designed to hold a thousand or more. How much fellowship can you really have with just a few acquaintances whom you're unlikely to get to know well?

I think those who see the initial core group as the secret to NazNet's success make a good point, however, that's not the Facebook model. There's no 'core' at Facebook. Rather, it's an organic model -- I have friends who have friends who have friends and the network branches out in all directions and occasionally forms circles. The first step is to gather old friends around me before I consider making new friends. Right now I don't feel comfortable there because I'm a "senior citizen" in that world. Most of the potential 'friends' being suggested to me are actually friends of my children. However, I'm even less comfortable on NazBoard because it's a bunch of strangers and I have no way to get to know them. There's not enough conversation happening to get acquainted. My NazFriends are all over here on NazNet.

I think the Facebook model could work if it started as a group of friends/acquaintances with something to discuss (such as General Ass'y resolutions or the emergent church) and others were slowly invited to join and the range of topics expanded as interest developed (much like the various NazNet forums have developed under good leadership). Rather than having a dozen people scattered around the huge auditorium, things need to start with focus groups.

Maybe. I think.

Marsha

[Scott Hilton]

I went there and signed up. The only reason I signed up was just in case they had hidden sections that can be only seen when you are logged in. A lot of sites are like that. Anywho, I didn't get all warm and fuzzy when I logged in.

1st problem I noticed for me was that when you are on the forum page, my member menu popped up underneath the add at the top of the page. So I wasn't sure if I couldn't see an option or not. No big deal, but strange to me.

Next thing I wondered was if this site was for only students and alumni of Nazarene colleges. The section for that was so big, I didn't know if the site was for just your average church member like me who has no ties to the church before coming to Christ.

I see the district area as well, but I am not sure what to do with it. it kinda helps to have the starters of the board give some direction as to what they want happening in those areas.

I know Naznet does not have a "new member" area anymore, but I think when site is getting started that is a must to have. You also need to have designated people to go to that area and greet the new people who post there. It will at least start some posting at some point.

The site just feels disjointed to me and I am quite comfortable here, so...........yep.

blessings
Scott

[Scott Hilton]

Oh, and I have logged on 3 different times today and all 3 times I have been the only one online. That is never a great feeling, lol

[Terri Knoll]

ps to my thanx, I really dislike Facebook user interface...I only use it for the online scrabble game!

I do play a game at www.playbabble.com that a user made a beta browser for hard core users that is awesome. Instead of the links for clues, and the dictionary links on the regular website, all of that is incorporated into one browser (for members only at this point) along with some other personal things.

...as always I will be an avid follower/fan of Naznet, cuz I just love ya'll! Thanx for all you do.

blessings,
Terri

[Michael B. Ross]

Good question, Dave. Posts in this thread might be helpful to NazBoard leadership. My quick knee-jerk responses include:
NazNet has a long history. I consider myself a charter member, and I remember times of low usage. You and others, however, had staying power. NazBoard is new; it will take time.
I feel NazBoard is using passe models. We are not as self-identified by which college we attended or by which district we live in as we once were. I wonder if it would be better if they initially focused on one or two big ideas or issues.
I think NazNet has a great corps of moderators. They have allowed the open exchange of ideas, but they also have known when a discussion has become too heated or too personal.Somewhat related to this discussion, Dave: I think NazNet took a giant step forward when you provided the new software, vBulletin. Thanks.

I am really puzzled by the low level of usage at NazBoard.Com. When it started about six months ago, I really expected that it would attract a lot of use. I am a member of NazBoard and have posted a few times myself. NazNet.Com will have more posts today than NazBoard has had since it was created. Are there lessons that we can learn?

The reason for my question is that I have been asked for advice by some leaders at Nazarene Headquarters who are thinking of starting an online community for a specific group of Nazarenes. I have given them some opinions, but I am not sure I know why NazNet has continued to grow over a long period of time and most other efforts to create an online community among Nazarenes have not had such growth.

My own opinion is that it takes a certain critical mass to keep an online board going. If there are not at least a few posts every day, people stop checking. When a site is divided into a lot of subgroups, like NazBoard, it is difficult for any of the subgroups to get enough critical mass.

Am I overlooking other issues?

[John Kennedy]

This is coming from an 'NNN" Naz-friendly, non-Naz Naznetter (try saying that real fast 15 times and you'll probably win the glossalalia contest). I think one of the most positive things about Naznet is that it is NOT an official Nazarene forum, but it is Nazarene-friedly.

I think people who post on this board, both Nazarene and non-Naz, feel more free to post what they really think than would be the case if it were an official site. Also, I think the moderators are more willing to post items where there may be some difference of opinion than they would be if they were having to maintain the church's official position.

I agree with Barbara Moulton's point of view that non-Nazarenes are more likely to participate on a non-official site.

As far as providing a place for posting and discussing resolutions proposed for GA consideration, I think Naznet did a real good job at that the last time around. Even though I refrained from responding to them, it was interesting to see what others had to say.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Those who are considering an online forum are looking for possible ways to address a specific problem. Our general assembly and conventions have become so large and the number of resolutions are so many that there just isn't enough time to adequately discuss them during the meetings. The idea is an online forum where delegates can discuss resolutions immediately prior to the general assembly and conventions.


I suggested this for our church board and for a time, it was used by church board members to discuss what a two-hour monthly meeting could not. The downfall was that only a few people were technically savvy, though just about everyone has an email address. In the first year, there were some board members who were shut out of the conversation because they didn't have a computer (or being not technically savvy, didn't know how to access the "board board" despite simple instructions). Unlike for me and a few other board members, the computer is not a prominent appliance in the home or workplace. And for some, logging in to talk about church stuff wasn't as much fun as watching TV.

I really thought it had potential for deeper discussions, and several of us were able to pull that off for about two years. When a board member would ask about a subject, sometimes we'd respond, "several of us discussed this at length on the 'board board.'"

So, the questions, if this would be used for general assembly delegates, are what to do about the people who are not connected because they don't have computers?, about the people who have computers but are not very savvy?, or don't have a lot of extra time to get into a discussion deeply?, or don't have the articulation skills of some who might tend to dominate a conversation, or.... ???

Mark

[Jon Twitchell]

Mark,

Those are great observations/concerns/cautions.

On the one hand, technology can help bring together people with geographical separation or different time availability. On the other hand, it can create huge separation based on economics or age/technological ability. In addition, it's much easier to actually moderate a face-to-face meeting than an online discussion board.

A delegate who is not able to participate in an online discussion (for whatever reason) should not arrive in Orlando to find that everyone else has already decided how to vote on the resolution, because of officially sponsored discussion that they weren't able to join in.

I have great concerns about the ability of the NYI to set a global bar for the next convention. On the one hand, I believe it's vitally important for us to figure out a way to "get everyone to the table." On the other hand, I'm not sure that a model will be developed that allows delegates from around the world to clearly discuss resolutions. Global participation doesn't simply mean global voting.... but global dialogue. (Im not entirely sure how this last paragraph relates...but I'm sure that it must!)

[Mark Metcalfe]

I am for the online dialog, but someone may need to be responsible to send out snail mail with a summary of the discussions, perhaps to include formal salient Pro and Con statements prepared by selected members for consideration.

Mark

[Terri Knoll]

I think Hans should be top moderator (next to you of course) and Scott the updater, and Barbara to make sure women keep quiet (tic of course...love you Barbara!)

good idea