A new 100 posts rule, what do you say?

Currently new members must have at least 20 posts before they can open a thread. The idea I'm proposing is too increase this to at least 100 posts, I'm thinking this will reduce some of the redundancy in the forums.

Originally posted by cripmeister
Currently new members must have at least 20 posts before they can open a thread. The idea I'm proposing is too increase this to at least 100 posts, I'm thinking this will reduce some of the redundancy in the forums.

No, it would just mean 80 more posts from trolls that end up getting banned anyway..

reply to post by cripmeister


Then it will just lead to 80 more useless posts by people just trying to get up their post count in order to start threads. Raising the required posts would have both negative and positive results.

edit: Haha backinblack you beat me to it, my thoughts exactly though.

Well, 100 posts requires more time and dedication than 20 posts. I'm sure that would deter at least some of the trolls. More time in the forums before starting your first thread is a good thing.

100 posts would put off a lot of genuine members.

20 posts is fine. Just remain vigilant.

Originally posted by cripmeister
Well, 100 posts requires more time and dedication than 20 posts. I'm sure that would deter at least some of the trolls. More time in the forums before starting your first thread is a good thing.

Nah, would take maybe an hour,
Heck just today a new member was posting in every thread just saying hi and that they were getting their post count..

I think it should stay 20, but only allow them to post 5 a day until you reach 20 post....Then they might think of their replies and also realize they need to put some effort into this site...before just posting 20 one liners to get there quota....

I recall wanting to start a thread when I had about 15 posts, and it felt like a pressing need at the time. I even contacted the mods to see if someone could post what seemed vital at the time. Since then I've seen new members often arrive on the board with valuable insights and information, so I think the twenty post count is reasonable.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by cripmeister
Well, 100 posts requires more time and dedication than 20 posts. I'm sure that would deter at least some of the trolls. More time in the forums before starting your first thread is a good thing.

Nah, would take maybe an hour,
Heck just today a new member was posting in every thread just saying hi and that they were getting their post count..

Posts like the ones you describe should be marked Off topic and not be added to the members post count.

Originally posted by zbeliever
I think it should stay 20, but only allow them to post 5 a day until you reach 20 post....Then they might think of their replies and also realize they need to put some effort into this site...before just posting 20 one liners to get there quota....

That's a great idea Much better than mine

reply to post by cripmeister


I don't like the five a day rule at all. If someone comes to the site to post a major current event they wont be able to share it in a timely fashion.

If a spook comes here to post a warning about something do you think they are going to waist their time posting 100 times first?

What for? Trolls will be trolls, trolling trolls for fun. This is the internet, until we have internet ID crap, that is how it will always be. And probably even after that, most people are retarded, and will get their ID stolen like they do their internet. Bottom line is, report those that need to reported, that's about all that can be done. Don't be shy with the report button. but don't push it like a retard either lol. Wasting mods time will not put you in a good position.

Having a 100 post rule seems useless. Yes, there are double-thred posts but most mods and even members are quick to let the OP know that the topic has already been established.

People who are genuinely interested in the site will stick around to try and contribute posts of substance. Trollers eventually get bored or move onto new victims for their condescension.

I'm fairly new to the site but I lurked for longer, so when I finally started posting it was because I had spent time contemplating the topics and threads that were popping up. I probably would've been discouraged to break lurker-status if there were higher limitations on posters.

Originally posted by backinblack
No, it would just mean 80 more posts from trolls that end up getting banned anyway..

Like BIB said. Plus:

So some Air Force pilots see a UFO over Carson Sink Nevada. They decide to log on and tell ATS-- but they have to make 100 posts first.

It won't stop spammers and it will hamper breaking news.

Have any of you control freak rule nazis heard of Outback Steakhouse, no rules just right.

It never ceases to amaze me how put upon the people who want rules for this and rules for that seem to be.

The majority of their posting history is complaining about this, complaining about that, like the whole world should be keyed in on what entertains or satisfies them while they contribute next to nothing in the way of real content or intellectual, phillosophical, scientific or spiritual insight.

Forget about all the rules, here is an idea, just try to contribute something of value to the site, I am sure people will appreciate that a lot more than more rules.

A message and tutorial on how to use search prior to posting would be of more use... A 100 post rule would only encourage drivel to get the count up so that the individuals could post.. Too much to wade through at times as it is...

If we are trying to avoid trolls and useless comments, a 100 post minimum would not be that effective, although it sounds good on its surface. As others have pointed out it would simply increase the useless posts that we have to weed through. I did ask once about the 20 post minimum and was told by a mod that it was more of a suggestion, and if a new member is authoring a thread on a worthwhile topic the minimum was overlooked.

Mod Post


Besides making a member wait longer before authoring a thread will not cut back on oneliners and uselessness. If anything perhaps there should be a waiting period before any posts can be made. 24 hours, 48 hours, but thats probably not a good idea either. On a quest for truth, you never know who will have the answer and when, we just have to recognize quality when we see it.

20 or 100 all you need is to copy and paste a message into every thread

Like this one I saw in many today

Originally posted by Hardknocklife
Greetings everyone.. Just paying my respect to earn the right to post threds on this site.

Peace.

Umm...no.
It took me from July 'till recently to just break my own minumum. I lurked for far more time than I was moved to actually post becuase I was familiarizing myself with all of the boundless information and links that members provide on this site. A 100 post count would have been totally demoralizing to reach. Maybe the 5 post per day is reasonable, because it will force some people to actually consider the quality of their posts.
I really appreciate this place, and I'd hate to see it over-regulated, because that would be counterproductive to the general open-mindedness that defines this forum.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Listen, if someone has something good an juicy to tell us, they are probably already a member....