topic limit for new accounts

[Icepick]

well with the recent form of moron raiding our forum, or "blog thingy" as he likes to call it, plus the spam bots added, why not impliment a system that will require a certain post count before topics can be created, thus wiping both issues clear from these boards

granted they could still spam up in individual posts, but it would still be a step in the right direction, say 125 posts until you can create your own topics

opinions?

 

[maca2kx]

To be honest I think you're on the right track but if it's possible it might be better to allow new users to make a topic a day or something. Having said that this may be a bit of a knee jerk reaction, a bit like ridiculously stepped up security straight after a terrorist incident.

Sam

 

[Icepick]

I always felt it could be added, this isn't the first time this issues come up, plus it lets them get used to the water before diving in with the sharks so to speak

 

[AcidTrip]

The whole problem is that it will stifle discussion and turn away new posters. Which, I think, would be a bad thing.

 

[Icepick]

not really, they could talk in any number of topics, just not post their own, which would in turn let them search through the forum for relevant topics to their queries and musings

 

[AcidTrip]

Yeah, but then you'd get people decrying the GR forum for being biased against "newbs" because some people are idiots. And really, how would you define "new"? Would they have to be here a week? A month? Six? A year?

It's honestly begging for headaches, in my opinion.

I can definitely understand where you're coming from Icepick. However, I don't think gagging new users and effectively killing their desire to make topics (for whatever reason) is a good way to go about it. It feels like a punishment more so than anything else.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

100 posts maybe?

 

[AcidTrip]

And they spam many threads just to be able to post their own?

No matter what solution is brought to the table here, many holes can be poked in them. There's no iron-clad solution to this proposition. This "fix" is just going to spawn more problems than they solve.

 

[maca2kx]

Yeah, it occurred to me earlier that the more determined spammers will just crap in other topics until they can make their own smelly piles.

Sam

 

[LinksOcarina]

Would that be too constricting though and turn off new posters?

 

[Longo_2_guns]

If they start spamming topics, we ban them.

 

[used44]

I vote for keeping it the way it is. More work for the mods, but as long as we have a strong team of mods, it will be no big problem.

 

[TheNesMan]

Intuitively I was for this idea. However, upon further inspection, this idea has far too many ramifications that I think would ultimately hinder GR.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

I vote for keeping it the way it is. More work for the mods, but as long as we have a strong team of mods, it will be no big problem.

But the problem is, as it always ends up, we have one admin and like two mods.

 

[used44]

So ask for more mods! Where are more mods needed? Most of the forums are pretty well covered right now. Even ghostlymatty's spree has been contained pretty nicely and in a timely manner, other than a few topics that are still up for their humourous content.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

I'm not saying that we need them now. But in the future, if more people start showing up, we might.

 

[GRColin]

While it might be a good idea for the regulars, I think this is a horrible idea. I mean, look at my post count. I've been here longer than all of you, but I don't post that often. I'm not even close to 100 posts yet.

All a rule like this would do would kill the board. It would become a tiny exclusive place instead of an open forum. People would stop joining because they couldn't really participate.

Having to deal with the occasional jerkwad is really not that big a deal.

- C!

 

[Hawk_one]

In another forum I frequent, the spambots have been more or less defeated because of two things implemented:

The posts will not be able to contain links (either embedded or straight-out URLs) until after 15 posts. This can be a bit annoying for a new person who does have a legitimate link to share, but so far, no new member on that has actually been turned away from posting because of this. For this forum, I'd say 10 or even 5 posts might be enough, though.

The other issue is that someone human will actually look through the forum application before granting access. This usually takes less than 24 hours, and again, is a rather small annoyance on the part of the hopeful poster. Whether or not the admins of this board are willing to do that extra effort is another question, of course. I will understand it if they feel reluctant about this.

 

[maca2kx]

Hawk, the URL idea is a good one and I wouldn't mind suggesting it to Joe but I don't like your second point, GR has always been an open forum and closing it off would be a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.

Sam

 

[Hawk_one]

Well, the other forum I'm on does pretty well, and has never been bigger than now. Because in practice, screening the member applications hardly makes any difference that I can tell. It certainly doesn't feel more "locked", because pretty much anyone who's not an -obvious- bot (or a previously banned member) will get through the "screening".

On the other hand, I do admit that that forum is quite different, and I would think it has a bigger need for such a process, so I wouldn't exactly press the issue here.

In any case, if the limitation of links were to be implemented, I'd naturally suggest a testing period, to see if it would indeed help with the problem. Again, what works one place may not always work another place, and all that.