Idea: New Member Post Limit to Create a Thread

[cstrunk]

Not saying I agree with the post minimum, but from a purely Mod perspective, having a minimum post requirement to create threads would really help with trolls who create accounts and then immediately create stupid new threads.

For example, here's just a sample of some accounts that were banned for doing just that:

• BigClone1
• ChrisMWillamss
• CloneJB
• CycloneBarrymen
• CycloneFB
• Cyclones21
• CycloneSports
• DSMISU
• DSMJared
• ISU1
• ISUjared
• ISUJB
• Jared4Cy
• StateCyclone
• Viking1991

Now, what if I told you that they were all accounts created by the same user, in the span of a couple hours?

What a d-bag, right?

I'm glad to see some productive comments in this thread. Do I think CF is out of control and unusable because of this issue? Absolutely not. (Ads with sound on the other hand... :unsure I am not saying this is something we need to do, I just wanted to see what other people thought. 50-100 post minimums might be a little extreme for this board. But having a 2-3 day waiting period and/or a 10-25 post minimum for full posting privileges seems to be advantageous for getting rid of *some* of the crap. Just my opinion.

 

[vintageclone]

dumb idea.

 

[jsmith86]

I think we should set it at 26,000. You noobs are killing me:twitcy:

And let pretty much just you and erik post threads? Lol.

 

[Cyberclone]

I'm glad to see some productive comments in this thread. Do I think CF is out of control and unusable because of this issue? Absolutely not. (Ads with sound on the other hand... :unsure I am not saying this is something we need to do, I just wanted to see what other people thought. 50-100 post minimums might be a little extreme for this board. But having a 2-3 day waiting period and/or a 10-25 post minimum for full posting privileges seems to be advantageous for getting rid of *some* of the crap. Just my opinion.

Now I totally agree with the Ads with sound thing. I jumped out of my chair
a couple of times now, the last few days, because my sound was turned up.:twitcy:

 

[TexasCy]

No. Thanks a lot cstruck.

 

[CycloneJL]

As a long time lurker and only occasional poster, I think this is a terrible idea. I belong to many different forums on other topics and NONE have any sort of requirement to start a new thread. No offense intended, but as much as it might annoy them, it is the moderator's job to police the site. If they don't like that, then they need to step aside and let someone else do it.

Frankly, I would rather see more threads started than fewer. For those of us who can't spend all waking hours of the day on this site, it is difficult to go into a 13000+ post thread and try to figure out what has happened since the last time you were on. I have learned more from the separate posts regarding conference realignment scenarios than I have in the mega-thread.

 

[isugcs]

+1 for dumb

 

[kilgore_trout]

If you care about the quality of the site, you would advocate to ban the top five posters on the mega-thread.

"Damn it, I was going for post number 70 in this thread..."

"nothing. just seeing if we hit 70 yet. "

"We can make it to 100!"

"we'll get coupons!!!"



QUOTE=cstrunk;2413821]I'm glad to see some productive comments in this thread. Do I think CF is out of control and unusable because of this issue? Absolutely not. (Ads with sound on the other hand... :unsure I am not saying this is something we need to do, I just wanted to see what other people thought. 50-100 post minimums might be a little extreme for this board. But having a 2-3 day waiting period and/or a 10-25 post minimum for full posting privileges seems to be advantageous for getting rid of *some* of the crap. Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]

 

[cyclones18]

I don't agree with this at all.

As some have noted, many people spend a long time visiting/reading the site before they actually join and then will even wait a little longer to post. I know I did. Aren't the mods on site responsible for patrolling the boards for anything that is out of line or has already been said? We shouldn't be discouraging people to post right away if they want to, because some people (myself included) don't post often and only provide input when they feel like it. New posters and new opinions are what make this board interesting, there are other ways to control trolls or crude threads outside of a making a limit. Just my thoughts.

+1...or maybe i am not elite enough to post this?

 

[CycloneJL]

If you care about the quality of the site, you would advocate to ban the top five posters on the mega-thread.

Damn it, I was going for post number 70 in this thread...


We can make it to 100!



QUOTE=cstrunk;2413821]I'm glad to see some productive comments in this thread. Do I think CF is out of control and unusable because of this issue? Absolutely not. (Ads with sound on the other hand... :unsure I am not saying this is something we need to do, I just wanted to see what other people thought. 50-100 post minimums might be a little extreme for this board. But having a 2-3 day waiting period and/or a 10-25 post minimum for full posting privileges seems to be advantageous for getting rid of *some* of the crap. Just my opinion.

[/QUOTE]

+1 :yes:

 

[iforecy]

Being new to the board...... I think its a bad idea.

 

[cstrunk]

If you care about the quality of the site, you would advocate to ban the top five posters on the mega-thread.

"Damn it, I was going for post number 70 in this thread..."

"nothing. just seeing if we hit 70 yet. "

"We can make it to 100!"

"we'll get coupons!!!"

Haha, I don't like most of that either. I know CW loves it though (at least deep down inside, he might not admit it) because it's generating hit after hit after hit on his website. $$$

 

[BigBake]

Bad idea. Mods are in place to merge/delete threads if needed.

Granted it's crazy right now...but not the norm.

 

[Clone83]

It would be a bit like a tiered structure in say, the Big 10, where a new member gets or starts with a smaller share.

Keep in mind that in real life, some people aren't real talkative, but when they do have something to say it is more meaningful.

And I happened to click on the thread, the stadium poll, that apparently initiated this concern (in part). I don't really see the big deal there. No one was required to participate. I'd prefer not, but if people want more exclusive conversations perhaps a pay board would be the way to go.

 

[cloneswereall]

Having been on this board for a while post count is not equal to post quality.

No, it isn't. That's why neg-rep should be brought back.

Considering it took me a couple years to get up to the 100 post mark, I think it's a little unfair to go solely on post volume. I like the time-from-registration requirement. Also, some BBS software allows new users to only post new threads in particular sub-forums (i.e. the Introductions one), I'm not sure if this particular implementation is capable of that?

The issue should be a rep mark instead of count mark, IMO.

This is stupid. Who do you guys think you are? Half of the people on cf are idiots.

Yes, and taking away half of the stupid threads is a good thing.

 

[Cyclonepride]

And let pretty much just you and erik post threads? Lol.

Crap.....I forgot about Erik. That's one gigantic loop hole in my plan.

 

[cstrunk]

No, it isn't. That's why neg-rep should be brought back.

The issue should be a rep mark instead of count mark, IMO.

That would be a worthwhile use of reputation. Give a person say 10 rep points for signing up, and every negative rep is worth -1. If a person is ever below zero, they are not allowed to create threads. If they are ever below -50 they are banned. :yes:

 

[Clone83]

The problem with negative rep is that the 'stupid' people can give it out too.

And some of these so called "newbies" would seemingly be done on their first post, some or many of which I don't really see the big issue with.

 

[isubucky72]

As a long time lurker and only occasional poster, I think this is a terrible idea. I belong to many different forums on other topics and NONE have any sort of requirement to start a new thread. No offense intended, but as much as it might annoy them, it is the moderator's job to police the site. If they don't like that, then they need to step aside and let someone else do it.

Frankly, I would rather see more threads started than fewer. For those of us who can't spend all waking hours of the day on this site, it is difficult to go into a 13000+ post thread and try to figure out what has happened since the last time you were on. I have learned more from the separate posts regarding conference realignment scenarios than I have in the mega-thread.

I am in the same situation.

 

[MLawrence]

This is bad idea. It's not uncommon to see threads where people are asking a question as their first post.