Open Journals

I sometimes forget that we don't have open journals here. They are either in private or made to not be discussion areas. I understand the want or need for someone to have closed journals where only the knights can comment, but what about those of us that prefer the open conversation? Would their be any interest in having another discussion board for Open Journals?

Given that everyone already has the ability to post in someone's journal I see no reason why we can't just use the 'Journals' Forum and simply entitle the thread as '*insert name here* Open Journal' then everyone knows that they can comment? That's basically what I've done with my 'Random Stuff' journal.

They exist. People post them in the Open Discussions section.

Yeah, I find it harder to post in the Open Discussions Section because I might go back to my journal months later- and by then OD has too many discussions to weed through to find my one journal. I do like Brick's idea. It's the huge disclaimer up at the top of the Journals area that has kept me from posting an open journal in there.

Alethea Thompson wrote: Yeah, I find it harder to post in the Open Discussions Section because I might go back to my journal months later- and by then OD has too many discussions to weed through to find my one journal. I do like Brick's idea. It's the huge disclaimer up at the top of the Journals area that has kept me from posting an open journal in there.

I find that creating links in my own signature to my various journals makes it easier to find stuff in that situation regardless of what device I'm on at the time so I don't have to bookmark it everywhere.

I'm curious what the utility of labeling journals as "not a discussion area" is? Is it simply to prevent them from getting mucked up with hundreds of posts and to make it easier for someone to go in and review for completion later?

I for one would appreciate any and every sort of feedback on my IP work...guest, member, novice, apprentice, knight...whoever actually takes the time to read it.

No...I do not want someone to jump in and start calling me an "idiot" or laugh at me for drawing my own conclusions on a piece of the material that they think is stupid...so I see that to be the only risk...but I also trust the people here a tad more to offer actual feedback or ask pointed questions that will improve my own thought process and development. Maybe people have different points of view on a subject that I never even thought of? I've got thick skin and can take some good constructive criticism...but can even see the value in moderately destructive criticism as being useful at times where it challenges me to defend my claims and assertions.

If anything, I think removing that warning and just giving me a "delete message" feature or something so I can cut people's comments out that begin appearing harassing or overly negative...maybe even allow each individual thread author to block habitual harassers from commenting or even viewing their journal if things get off track?

I think wider feedback in the IP specifically would help the learning process in those lessons...especially with Campbell and Watts...just me though?

SamThift wrote: I'm curious what the utility of labeling journals as "not a discussion area" is? Is it simply to prevent them from getting mucked up with hundreds of posts and to make it easier for someone to go in and review for completion later?

I for one would appreciate any and every sort of feedback on my IP work...guest, member, novice, apprentice, knight...whoever actually takes the time to read it.

No...I do not want someone to jump in and start calling me an "idiot" or laugh at me for drawing my own conclusions on a piece of the material that they think is stupid...so I see that to be the only risk...but I also trust the people here a tad more to offer actual feedback or ask pointed questions that will improve my own thought process and development. Maybe people have different points of view on a subject that I never even thought of? I've got thick skin and can take some good constructive criticism...but can even see the value in moderately destructive criticism as being useful at times where it challenges me to defend my claims and assertions.

If anything, I think removing that warning and just giving me a "delete message" feature or something so I can cut people's comments out that begin appearing harassing or overly negative...maybe even allow each individual thread author to block habitual harassers from commenting or even viewing their journal if things get off track?

I think wider feedback in the IP specifically would help the learning process in those lessons...especially with Campbell and Watts...just me though?

I think putting that in there is more of a "default" By default people generally don't want others discussing in their journals unless they are knights, but you can label your journal in the first thread post as open if you want to, but unless you put that in the subject title for the thread itself, its probably the least likely way of finding that out as most people stumble onto them by looking at the "recent posts" or "latest posts" sections and seeing something they are interested in reading, and/or going through and looking at other journals specifically for a lesson in the IP to get different viewpoints on a lesson they may be stuck on.

Those journals are typically IP journals. The no posting rule assists knights reviewing them so that we won't have to struggle to find which lessons are complete.

People have the option of pm'ing the poster any questions or comments.

Perhaps an IP journal area needs separated from a personal journal area?

I and many others don't solicit comments on even our personal posts within our journals. An Open Journals section may be feasible if there's enough interest, but that would be proven first by creating Open Journals in an existing forum and those being a success. There's very little point building a specific subforum for something we don't know people will use, typically they are only created to collect existing threads when demand is sufficient.