It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

50 post minimum before you are able to create a thread?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Is there any way that a rule like this would be considered? I have noticed that during the political season, we have really had an influx of people who come in on some sort of agenda and immediately start posting inflammatory threads.

I would think that a mandatory minimum post requirement would alleviate that to some degree. They would be forced to put an effort into contributing to other peoples threads first before they create their own. This would also allow them to acclimate themselves to how ATS works.

I think this would cut down on a lot of duplicate threads and a lot of the people who come here to drive an agenda.

Anyways, I thought it would be worth bringing up.




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Imagine the one liners for points.!!!!!


(now an accredited T&C post)

Fox.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by fox_3000au
 


That's true, the one liners would probably increase. I would still rather have that than the alternative, if given the choice.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I do understand what you mean here, Karlhungis, and I think your intentions are very good.

But what if someone signs up because they have really important info/images/links to share with us? Something that needs our attention at once? Then this member is forced to post 50 (perhaps meaningsless) comments before he/she can get the info out to us. Most likely the member will just give up and go somewhere else.

But please don't send your psycho killer avatar guy after me now that I disagree with you.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


I absolutely agree. At first I thought this was questioning why we needed 50 posts before starting a thread. I figured that ATS had decided to implement this rule and someone was complaining.

However, I agree and wish they would do this. It is too easy for someone to start up multiple alias' and post tons of BS that does no good for the site.

I also know, since they have the character counter, that they can have a mininum number of characters reached before counting that post as a 'real' post. This would eliminate the simple one liners as qualifying.

This should happen.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


There is always an avenue around this. They can reply to other threads that are already in existence to get this 'vital' information before the people on this site. Just because they can't start a thread and get credit doesn't mean they have to wait to share it.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


You just made the list Ziggy.......




I see your point though.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


The problem is that when a thread is over 2 or 3 pages long, a post can easily "drown" and go almost unnoticed. It seems that many members only bother to read the first couple of pages in a thread. And what if there is no excisting thread where the new info is relevant at all? Not cool to get important, new stuff being removed because it is off topic.

And now I don't think I dare to say anything more in this thread. Karlhungis has sent his psycho killer out to get me.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I like the idea.

(Only, I would make it 36 posts, or 19, or 47, something like that, just to spite those who live and think by the decimal system
)

As for one-liners: how about allowing them - but not awarding any points for them?
(I am opposed to the point system anyway, but that's a different story.)
That would remove some of the motivation to post.

OR... the restriction proposed could only apply to certain boards/forums, which are more susceptible to "agenda" abuse and such (like Politics).




[edit on 14-10-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


That is a possibility. I guess it comes down to choosing between trolling and keeping the site clean.

Tough call.

If someone really did have ground shaking information then I'm sure there is a way for them to get hold of a site admin to bring it up that way. You just had to throw the monkey wrench into the sound idea of trying to limit the people that simply are here to muck this site up.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I suggested this once in one of the Issue's Threads, Except, I had said 200 posts lol. 50 is much more reasonable.

I agree. During the Political Season, and Summer time, I've noticed in the short months, that the ridiculous threads with no merit, pop up quite often. And most of the time, they are from members who have JUST joined.

A 50 post minimum would show dedication to the site, as it takes time to reach 50 posts. BUT if someone DID have urgent information to share, its not unattainable to reach 50 posts quickly... The one liners and "what?" posts will probably increase, but perhaps, having a minimum would deter people from starting threads which have no legs to stand on...

- Carrot



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Many people sign onto this site because they want to share their experiences, and I do not think it would be fair to make someone post 50 times before they are able to do that. I know there has been a recent influx of low quality members.. but there are still many quality posters that show up often.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Good one Karl


This seems to be a much better back door approach to getting rid of unconsidered threads!

Rather I think it should be based on a certain number of points. So for example, ordinarily you would need say 2000 points. If you have above 2000 points, you can create as many threads as you want.

If you have under 2k points, you can post, but you lose -1000 points. And nobody with a negative points total should be allowed to create a thread.

So this system means even if there is a whistleblower from area 51 who urgently needs to tell us something, he can create a thread when on 0 points... but then he goes into the negative so he cannot spam create threads. He can only create one to get this super vital info across.

Whereas miscreants who spam political threads can only create one partisan thread before being in the negative and thus barring themselves from creating aother.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Which reminds me I must create some threads.
Thanks.
However too tired now from all the days texting.
My mind must be clear.
Also get something to post and that will be posted on.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
How about a limit on how many threads can be started before you have a certain number of posts?

Don't make it based on points, because it's too easy to do what I did when I needed to buy upload space for a TinWiki project just after I joined – sign up for the Twitter feed. I had 5000 points before I had posted 10 times.

But how about, until you've made 50 responses to other threads (real responses not one-liners) you are limited to one new thread per week? Then the Area 51 whistleblower situation is covered, as well as the "help me I think I was abducted last night and I need advice" situation. But the "so-and-so is Satan/ AntiChrist/ AntiSatan/ Messiah/ pig/ terrorist/ etc" threads, while still there, are at least limited.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I like this idea and hereby second it.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 

While I like this idea in principle with a DB server that while running smoothly, is near it's limits it would be pretty much impossible to add that to its load.

This could be something to be considered after the next upgrade to co-located, direct to the back bone, TAN-owned servers however...

Springer...



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


What if it was checked in the same statement that verifies and validates Anonymous Posts? Or is it not written how I think it's written?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


You mean we have to stick with real-world, practical suggestions? You're no fun at all


EDIT: I think that Anonymous posts are actually all read and verified by human beings (well, mods anyway).

[edit on 10/14/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Great idea Karl...but I have to slightly agree with 44soulslayer's idea of it costing points to post a new thread. While I like that idea, I believe it is very difficult to get to 1000 points without actually starting a thread...what about more like 100 or 200 point cost for a thread. That would mean, if I am correct about it being 3 points per post, that new folks would have to post in 33.33337 threads before they are able to make an entirely new thread that may be already posted.

I believe the site owners should either consider this, or atleast make a poll from all the existing members about thier thoughts.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join