Forum Rules! You must read.

[pramjockey]

/hopes he never sees those columns.


Oh, thanks for the updated directions on finding the checkbox. Got it now.

[steveox]

Originally Posted by Crystal

I have adjusted your account. If anyone else runs into this issue please let me know via PM. Going forward, new members must have 30 posts AND be registered for 30 days before they are allowed to post new threads.

Thanks Crystal

[gem]

Originally Posted by Crystal

I have adjusted your account. If anyone else runs into this issue please let me know via PM. Going forward, new members must have 30 posts AND be registered for 30 days before they are allowed to post new threads.

Why a thirty delay before you can post a new thread? That sounds a bit controlling and excessive to me. Did you have to wait thirty days before you were allowed to post a new thread?

Just curious.

Gem

[3.14]

With Gem here for the most part.

In addition, the 30 day waiting period may actually annoy new posters ...

After all, who wants to wait 30 days to post a new thread? I know I didn't when I joined.

JMO, though ...

Edit: By the way, was that rule set up to thwart spammers? I'm not so sure it'll work ... spammers may resort to spamming threads instead ...

[proUSA]

Originally Posted by Rahul

With Gem here for the most part.

In addition, the 30 day waiting period may actually annoy new posters ...

After all, who wants to wait 30 days to post a new thread? I know I didn't when I joined.

JMO, though ...

I can understand it....Seemed every week there are people signing up, posting once or twice and even advertise crap, and then they are gone.

[3.14]

Originally Posted by proUSA

I can understand it....Seemed every week there are people signing up, posting once or twice and even advertise crap, and then they are gone.

See Edit ... I thought of that a few minutes ago ...

Thing is, spammers can still post in threads, so how would it stop them? Sure, it'd stop them from creating new threads, but thats about it.

Plus, what about the possibility that genuine posters may get a bit annoyed?

Rahul

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by steveox

Thanks Crystal

You're very welcome.

Originally Posted by gem

Why a thirty delay before you can post a new thread? That sounds a bit controlling and excessive to me. Did you have to wait thirty days before you were allowed to post a new thread?

Just curious.

Gem

30 posts and 30 days for several reasons. Is it controlling and obsessive - depends on who you ask. I seriously doubt we're the only board around to have some kind of standard. I am thrilled about this change and from my position I view it as necessary. Did I have to wait 30 days - nope. I did, however, wait 36 days before starting a thread. I didn't join the board to sell XBoxes, Nokias, Viagra, or to advertise my blog or some other board, or push any political agenda. This is a very good thing. You do not see the number of ads we delete on a daily basis. Please notice in the discalimer above it states, "You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to ... advertise for your own personal profit". This is not a Marc rule, but a server provider rule. The disclaimer is there to make sure we stay online and this will help us stay compliant.

Originally Posted by Rahul

With Gem here for the most part.

In addition, the 30 day waiting period may actually annoy new posters ...

After all, who wants to wait 30 days to post a new thread? I know I didn't when I joined.

JMO, though ...

Edit: By the way, was that rule set up to thwart spammers? I'm not so sure it'll work ... spammers may resort to spamming threads instead ...

Originally Posted by Rahul

See Edit ... I thought of that a few minutes ago ...

Thing is, spammers can still post in threads, so how would it stop them? Sure, it'd stop them from creating new threads, but thats about it.

Plus, what about the possibility that genuine posters may get a bit annoyed?

Rahul

If a genuine poster would like to start a thread they are more then welcome to PM me or O'Sullivan and we'd be more then happy to consider their request and adjust their account manually. While commercial spammers could post within a thread, I can tell you this has not been the problem. In fact, I can't recall seeing a commercial spammer within a thread. My concern does not lie with who is annoyed, but rather are we compliant with the server providers. I also think it is a good thing if members become familar with our rules, the way the board works (forum locations, features), and what threads we already have prior to starting a new thread. I think it will help improve the quality.

[pramjockey]

I have to agree, Crystal. We're using an old version of vBulletin and the bots are truly annoying. This is a great idea. Wish it was something we could implement.

[gem]

Quoting Crystal:

30 posts and 30 days for several reasons. Is it controlling and obsessive - depends on who you ask. I seriously doubt we're the only board around to have some kind of standard. I am thrilled about this change and from my position I view it as necessary. Did I have to wait 30 days - nope. I did, however, wait 36 days before starting a thread. I didn't join the board to sell XBoxes, Nokias, Viagra, or to advertise my blog or some other board, or push any political agenda. This is a very good thing. You do not see the number of ads we delete on a daily basis. Please notice in the discalimer above it states, "You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to ... advertise for your own personal profit". This is not a Marc rule, but a server provider rule. The disclaimer is there to make sure we stay online and this will help us stay compliant.
Quote:

I totally agree that posters who would use this forum for personal profit and other spam be barred from posting, and I can understand having to follow the ISP rules in order to remain online. No problem there. The question that arises in my mind is that it would seem most of those who would join a forum don't join it for "fun and profit", so why should they be made to wait that long (30 days) before they can start a thread of their own? Instead of making someone wait 30 days to start a thread why not just simply remove new members who violate that rule? Wouldn't that be easier and make the forum more attractive for the newcomer?

Gem

[pramjockey]

Gem, there are these programs called "bots" that are written specifically to join forums and spam them with commercial messages. The volume of these messages can be overwhelming. This kind of policy prevents those programs from successful spamming.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by gem

Quoting Crystal:



I totally agree that posters who would use this forum for personal profit and other spam be barred from posting, and I can understand having to follow the ISP rules in order to remain online. No problem there. The question that arises in my mind is that it would seem most of those who would join a forum don't join it for "fun and profit", so why should they be made to wait that long (30 days) before they can start a thread of their own? Instead of making someone wait 30 days to start a thread why not just simply remove new members who violate that rule? Wouldn't that be easier and make the forum more attractive for the newcomer?

Gem

We probably remove 2 or 3 a day. Sometimes more.

Just trying to discourage the automated spam advertisers.

Matt

[WarOnIgnorance]

Crystal,
wouldn't 30 posts or 30 days be a better rule, whichever comes first (if it's easily implemented) ? Some newbies hit the board rather actively and might be put off with a 30-day wait.
Just a thought.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Gem, there are these programs called "bots" that are written specifically to join forums and spam them with commercial messages. The volume of these messages can be overwhelming. This kind of policy prevents those programs from successful spamming.

We are running the most current version of the forum software.

Bots have a hard time as we use the image verification...but users can do the same thing as bots, just less efficiently.

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Crystal,
wouldn't 30 posts or 30 days be a better rule, whichever comes first (if it's easily implemented) ? Some newbies hit the board rather actively and might be put off with a 30-day wait.
Just a thought.

ah, WOI, you know I love ya, but I'm not interested in supporting any change right now. I want to see how it works out like this first. I already stated that a newbie is more then welcome to request their account be adjusted. If we get several requests and it becomes an obvious issue then I'll look at recommending it be changed.

[3.14]

Originally Posted by Crystal

If a genuine poster would like to start a thread they are more then welcome to PM me or O'Sullivan and we'd be more then happy to consider their request and adjust their account manually. While commercial spammers could post within a thread, I can tell you this has not been the problem. In fact, I can't recall seeing a commercial spammer within a thread. My concern does not lie with who is annoyed, but rather are we compliant with the server providers. I also think it is a good thing if members become familar with our rules, the way the board works (forum locations, features), and what threads we already have prior to starting a new thread. I think it will help improve the quality.

OK ... Thanks for your explanation.