Require minimum number of posts before starting new threads

NUance

NUance

New member
Have you guys ever thought about requiring new members to have a minimum number of posts before they can start a new thread? Maybe 50 posts or so? Or perhaps a short waiting period--say, a couple of days?

 
Why? I guess you object to the thread I started on Hawaii football problems, huh?

Between you and the EZ-U (or whatever his name is) it seems you guys sure don't want any new posters around here.

Since that seems to be the case, why don't you just petition to rename this place BRB2?

I thought this seemed like a good board to come to.

Guess I was wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rochelobe said:
Why? I guess you object to the thread I started on Hawaii football problems, huh?

Between you and the EZ-U (or whatever his name is) it seems you guys sure don't want any new posters around here.

Since that seems to be the case, why don't you just petition to rename this place BRB2?

I thought this seemed like a good board to come to.

Guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure NUance had a number of people in mind. Don't want to speak for him, but I think you may have assumed too much. Flame/troll threads are often started by people who are just trying to rile people up and draw attention to themselves. They typically have no intention of sticking around the board and engaging in legitimate conversation.

Cool avatar, btw. (Seriously.) Stick around ;)

 
Nebula said:
I'm pretty sure NUance had a number of people in mind. Don't want to speak for him, but I think you may have assumed too much. Flame/troll threads are often started by people who are just trying to rile people up and draw attention to themselves. They typically have no intention of sticking around the board and engaging in legitimate conversation.

Cool avatar, btw. (Seriously.) Stick around ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, its just that last week or so EZ-U had a thread started about "not liking having any new posters", and several interesting responses. The thread was then trimmed, I assume by a mod.

I lurked but never joined pedia, since it seemed like the ultimate clique club. To some extent max is the same way. I'm not part of the "inner circle" for BRB. I guess I just don't get the attitude. I know trolls exists. They are usually hammered out of existence pretty quickly, if people notify the board mods. However, unless you want to make a board pay-to-post (max) or invitation only (BRB), trolls are just something that must be dealt with.

I used to read rec.sport.football.college back in the early 90's. Talk about a troll fest. You just learn to ignore them and the threads they start, and they tend to be minimized.

I apologize to NUance and EZ-U if I came across too harsh, its just that seeing two posts like this in so short of a time is discouraging.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rochelobe said:
Nebula said:
I'm pretty sure NUance had a number of people in mind. Don't want to speak for him, but I think you may have assumed too much. Flame/troll threads are often started by people who are just trying to rile people up and draw attention to themselves. They typically have no intention of sticking around the board and engaging in legitimate conversation.

Cool avatar, btw. (Seriously.) Stick around ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, its just that last week or so EZ-U had a thread started about "not liking having any new posters", and several interesting responses. The thread was then trimmed, I assume by a mod.

I lurked but never joined pedia, since it seemed like the ultimate clique club. To some extent max is the same way. I'm not part of the "inner circle" for BRB. I guess I just don't get the attitude. I know trolls exists. They are usually hammered out of existence pretty quickly, if people notify the board mods. However, unless you want to make a board pay-to-post (max) or invitation only (BRB), trolls are just something that must be dealt with.

I used to read rec.sport.football.college back in the early 90's. Talk about a troll fest. You just learn to ignore them and the threads they start, and they tend to be minimized.

I apologize to NUance and EZ-U if I came across too harsh, its just that seeing two posts like this in so short of a time is discouraging.
Click to expand...
Naw, I did not have your Hawaii thread in mind when I posted this. Or any other single thread for that matter. And it's not that I dislike all the new posters we've picked up on this board. Having all these new contributors to HB is GREAT! But I do think it would be a good idea for newbs to have a chance to read some of the existing threads before putting their own out there. It might reduce a lot of the redundancy, and allow people to get a feel for HB.

Oh yeah, welcome to HB, Rochelobe!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NUance said:
But I do think it would be a good idea for newbs to have a chance to read some of the existing threads before putting their own out there. It might reduce a lot of the redundancy, and allow people to get a feel for HB.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. I lurked here for few weeks just so I could see which topics had been beat to death already, just like I did on the other Husker BBS. That I can understand.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NUance said:
Have you guys ever thought about requiring new members to have a minimum number of posts before they can start a new thread? Maybe 50 posts or so? Or perhaps a short waiting period--say, a couple of days?
Click to expand...
I 2nd this...... see the "Pelini's future" thread. Along with a host of others.

Rochelobe---- If you have not been called out by any of the members then its a good sign. We welcome all new members. Its just really irritating when people just start posting random threads about a topic already being discussed to great length and that topic happens to be on the first page. Its like they want more attention or think they will get +1, if they take something out of an existing thread and create a new one. These people know who they are.

 
An interesting idea. Out of the box, the software doesn't exactly allow it, but I can think of a couple of ways around that.

One concern I have is that while it would certainly act as a kind of bar to some trolling, it won't stop a determined troll, of course. But the real concern is that it could actually discourage some "legit" folks. Assume they've lurked for a while, figured out the Board culture, and decide they want to join and post some topic they feel strongly about - only to learn they have to post some number before they can start a topic. I could see them saying, "To hell with it, I'll just join a different board."

Sometimes, you just have to accept the bad with the good. But, as I said, we'll discuss and see about this. It certainly has merit and might be a good idea to implement. Thanks!

 
Interesting idea......

If someone really wants to troll (and take the hate) they will do so no matter the cost (time/energy)

I am guessing for the most part here is a sample exposure to a message board (1) Find the board (2) Lurk for a few days/weeks (3) Register (4) make a few posts on non-conversial topics (5) become a full-time poster (6) start threads.....so there is currently a trial period although self-policing

Question:

How would this proposal effect newbies from opposing teams that are just visitors for the week of the their game?

 
If you think someone is trolling, you can report the poster and the thread can be taken down quickly.

It's an interesting idea, though. I've seen this on other boards before so it's not uncommon.

 
Back
Top