Thread starting privileges

[Éperons]

I'm not super familiar with how things typically work on an internet forum, but the only other one I ever used had certain rules regarding starting threads, namely that a user had to be registered for a certain period of time, the text in the thread had to be a certain length (discouraging posting a link and boogying off), and a certain number of threads were available to the author over a certain period (one a day, I think). A fourth parameter, which wasn't used at the site, but could have been, was that a certain amount of rep was needed.

Obviously all four points can be rather easily beaten by determined spambots (that mass register at once, post once or twice somewhere and mutually rep the shit out of each other, then wait to spam with lorem ipsum threads featuring a link at the top), but I don't think spambots are a problem here.

Instead, we're having a certain amount of topic duplication I don't recall before (save having about six anti-Harry threads going on at once) that's related to either people's trying to get their voices "heard above the din" (by starting a thread instead of making comments in a thread that's many pages deep) or by starting a thread simply without making the effort of getting to know the community at all (or hoping that the new thread garners some kind of ancillary revenue for the original poster).

Of course as long as people are responding higgledy-piggledy to nearly any thread out there, I reckon it's not a problem, but I'm throwing the idea out there that maybe starting a thread should be a privilege that's earned.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

 

[Admin]

I think I can set this up but I'm not sure it's worth it just yet.

We might get a situation where people are emailing/PMing asking us how they post new threads because it's not obvious (people rarely read rules). Don't really want to discourage people posting just because a few duplicate threads have cropped up.

 

[Raitei]

If these restrictions happen, we'll never have another cameltoe thread again.

I vote nay

 

[Éperons]

We might get a situation where people are emailing/PMing asking us how they post new threads because it's not obvious (people rarely read rules). Don't really want to discourage people posting just because a few duplicate threads have cropped up.

Ah, that's a good point. On the other site, I think there were ways it was made clear why it was impossible. OTOH, I also tend to read the rules, so maybe I'm overestimating how clear it was. (it would warn you if your post was too short, and it'd also tell you if you were over your limit. Don't know how it told you you had to wait for the privilege in the first place)

I know on Reddit, the option to start a subreddit simply isn't available until you've been registered for a month. And I'm also not even sure that's answered in their faq. But I asked google instead of their mods

Anyway, I'm not sure it's a problem, and like I said in the OP, if people are responding to threads, then obviously they're serving some value to the community, even if it's cameltoe shots.

 

[parklanephil]

If these restrictions happen, we'll never have another cameltoe thread again.

I vote nay

This is the most eloquent and compelling reason for not doing this.

 

[ArcspacE]

That's how is started on GG . . . . .

Spoiler

 

[yiddo2786]

That's how is started on GG . . . . .

Spoiler

:gomes:

Next thing you know, someone starts a thread with "it would be great if some people were banned for posting certain things" "hey great idea, how about we introduce infraction points"


Not again, man, not again.

 

[Burko]

And miss out on Scorned Wife threads?

 

[Admin]

We'll probably just do a bit of tidying up. Merge the same player threads n' shit.

 

[Éperons]

That's how is started on GG . . . .

I've never been on GG, but from Smoked Salmon 's horror stories, it's a cult of personality surrounding the mods, suggesting that posting a new thread requires mod approval. [Edit: SS had SC in mind, not GG, and I also exaggerated his description of the site]

Recall from the OP that I make no such recommendation: all my mentioned thresholds are quantitative (length of post, time since registration, number of posts per day, rep points), which is precisely why they would be easy(ish) for a spambot to beat, but in beating them a spambot would necessarily reveal itself as such. For humans, it would have, imo, a qualitative effect.

But again, no mods would be involved in the process. As for fantasizing that this is some kind of anarchistic place w/o rules (in comparison to GG?), well… this isn't /b/, either.

 

[ArcspacE]

Not sure about Smoked Salmon - but I've been a poster there for nearly 6 years (although increasingly less so lately) - trust me, I know the script first hand.

My comment was tongue in cheek btw - I'm all for eliminating spammers and shamless 'pluggers'

 

[Burko]

Think of the ostriches guys... Where would they go?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I've never been on GG, but from Smoked Salmon 's horror stories, it's a cult of personality surrounding the mods, suggesting that posting a new thread requires mod approval.

Recall from the OP that I make no such recommendation: all my mentioned thresholds are quantitative (length of post, time since registration, number of posts per day, rep points), which is precisely why they would be easy(ish) for a spambot to beat, but in beating them a spambot would necessarily reveal itself as such. For humans, it would have, imo, a qualitative effect.

But again, no mods would be involved in the process. As for fantasizing that this is some kind of anarchistic place w/o rules (in comparison to GG?), well… this isn't /b/, either.

I've never been a member of GG, just Spurs Community and COYS. COYS is an utter joke and not even worth discussion. The place is so santitised it is an impossibility to function normally there. SC has some good people as members, but some of the mods are egotistical cunts. Their rules over things like their ITK threads are really quite something.

I'd really be loathe to see this place go down the road of rules and regs. It's such a refreshing alternative to the other shitholes. The mods here use their judgment and do it sensibly. The other places are run by people without common sense, that's why they need so many rules IMO.

 

[Éperons]

Ah, I confused GG with SC. Cheers.

Anyway, again, I'm not sure thread proliferation is an actual problem, but I'd also not be against mechanical means to limit it. I don't think that's rules or regs or murky or anything. But Case's point that it'd be more work for him dealing with confused n00bz is a good one, so there you go.

 

[Someareteeth]

Think of the ostriches guys... Where would they go?

Glad I scrolled down through the thread before posting something similar.

 

[Raitei]

Thinks people are making too many threads

.... makes a thread about it.

 

[S.L.R]

I fear this place ending up like all the other shit forums out there, part of its charm was always the lack of thread police cunts. If a poster acts like a twat on here they generally get told it, which seems fair to me. I get the feeling the majority agree with what you suggest Ep, which would mean you're right probably. Just thought I'd stick my fairly unsubstantiated opinion on it.

 

[RockTrumpet]

Agree with S.L.R - been on forums with arsehole mods, been on forums that are generally self policing. The latter makes for a much better atmosphere.

 

[S.L.R]

Lol tbh, when I said "I get the feeling the majority agree" with the rules suggested, I hadn't read most of the posts between the op and the one I was creating. Actually seems a few people have said something along the same lines as me.