1. Joined
    18 Apr '04
    Moves
    130058
    19 Mar '05 01:30
    Russ, let the subscribers vote on whether or not non-subscribers can post.
  2. Internet
    Joined
    01 Apr '04
    Moves
    16106
    19 Mar '05 01:48
    How about some more options for the vote?

    * non-subscribers shouldn't be allowed to post.
    * non-subscribers shouldn't be able to create new topics.
    * non-subscribers should only be able to make one new topic and 10 posts each day.
    * non-subscribers shouldn't be restricted at all.

    I wouldn't want to exclude all non-subscribers from the forums, but some restrictions does seem necessary.
  3. Joined
    18 Apr '04
    Moves
    130058
    19 Mar '05 02:40
    Originally posted by Svin1
    How about some more options for the vote?

    * non-subscribers shouldn't be allowed to post.
    * non-subscribers shouldn't be able to create new topics.
    * non-subscribers should only be able to make one new topic and 10 posts each day.
    * non-subscribers shouldn't be restricted at all.

    I wouldn't want to exclude all non-subscribers from the forums, but some restrictions does seem necessary.
    All those options suit me for a vote as long as non-subscribers are barred from voting.
  4. Standard memberSirUlrich
    Love gave me wings
    Turfed Out
    Joined
    23 Jun '04
    Moves
    12608
    19 Mar '05 09:01
    Originally posted by Delmer
    Russ, let the subscribers vote on whether or not non-subscribers can post.
    Russ why not act: voting is passing the buck
    I would vote for a total ban on non subscribers, there is no point in imposing limits , of say 10 posts, as troublemakers will just get a new nic.

    my compromise:

    All posts by subscribers to be treated exactly as they are now:
    eg. . only looked at by mods after alerts are raised.

    All posts by non-subscribers to be looked at by mods BEFORE they appear in the forums. This gives those unwilling/unable to financially support the community the right to be heard, albeit on a slightly delayed basis.

    If this needs more mods I for one will volunteer.
  5. Joined
    26 May '02
    Moves
    72546
    19 Mar '05 10:39
    Originally posted by Svin1
    How about some more options for the vote?

    * non-subscribers shouldn't be allowed to post.
    * non-subscribers shouldn't be able to create new topics.
    * non-subscribers should only be able to make one new topic and 10 posts each day.
    * non-subscribers shouldn't be restricted at all.

    I wouldn't want to exclude all non-subscribers from the forums, but some restrictions does seem necessary.
    I agree. Non-subscribers are restricted in the number of games they can play, so I don't see why they shouldn't also be restricted in the number of posts they can make. A limit of 10 posts a day seems very sensible.

    I also think that subscribers should be limited. Nobody should be allowed to spam the forums with hundreds of posts. Ok, subscribers have more to lose, so are more likely to be deterred. But why take the risk?

    Why not restrict subscribers to something like 50 posts per day?
  6. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    19 Mar '05 12:101 edit
    Originally posted by David Tebb
    I agree. Non-subscribers are restricted in the number of games they can play, so I don't see why they shouldn't also be restricted in the number of posts they can make. A limit of 10 posts a day seems very sensible.

    I also think th ...[text shortened]...
    Why not restrict subscribers to something like 50 posts per day?
    I'd welcome the minimum number of moves before all forums are opened up. Initially, I'd see how it went with newbs just being able to post in Help and Meet Opponents. See how that goes.

    The minimum number of moves shouldn't be too high, because the normal newbies shouldn't be affected too much due to a few idiots.

    Neither, should it be too low. If it was say 10 moves, then a spammer could start 6 games, and have 10 moves in no time. Then after the spamming, that's 6 games which are going to be abandoned, which can adversely affect the site as well. Also, it seems some malicious people are willing to put some time into their spamming, like that idiot phantom accuser. So the number of moves shouldn't be attainable in 1 day of normal play.

    I think a total forum ban on 0 games/0 moves users should be introduced. That shouldn't adversely affect any user who comes to the site with good intentions, and it might deter some of the more mindless spammers, like ICDutch.

    D

    [EDIT] I know the existing mod system works well as spam/malicious posts don't stay long, but it depends on users following around the spammer alerting posts. Why should subscribers be inconvenienced before the spammers?
  7. Standard memberBowmann
    Non-Subscriber
    RHP IQ
    Joined
    17 Mar '05
    Moves
    1345
    22 Mar '05 08:01
    Don't you like us?
  8. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91690
    22 Mar '05 16:551 edit
    All this talk of restrictions is ridiculous. Hell, maybe more than 50 posts a day means the person is spamming, so try to stop that, but let's not get too restrictive, especially on the subscribers.

    Hell, I only started posting when I had about 600 odd moves. I saw how great the site and people here were and then decided to subscribe.

    This is the type of solution I would back:

    0-100 moves -> 10 posts a day in the MO and Help forums. This is about 4 games, should be fine.
    101-200 moves -> 10 posts a day in all forums.
    201+ moves -> unrestricted.

    This should count for all users. Not just non-subscribers.
    Too many restrictions on posting might chase away more new subscribers than it helps keep current people here.

    Scenario:
    If there are 4/5 threads I might be following, that means I might actually get to 50 posts in a day. In reality I don't usually post that much, but I did post more regularly in the past.
    Now I'm suddenly blocked from further discussion because I've reached my 50 (or whatever) post limit.
    Ludicrous!

    The forums are a place to talk and exchange ideas. Let's keep it that way.
Back to Top