So I had one of those crazy ideas again today. How about:
- When a guest (logged out user) browses the forum, they can see all the forums.
- When a new member signs up, they can only see the Welcome board until they have posted once (in the welcome board).
I thought this would cut down on some of the 1400 members who have signed up but not posted, ensure people at least walk past the Forum Rules post, and maybe centralise fresh spam.
Please post below to tell me how much of a bad idea this is.
I dunno... from one angle it's almost a punishment for signing up (and we all know that listening to Jim Campbell is punishment enough...)
-pj
Wouldn't people just log out then ? I can't honestly see what it would achive.
Hmmmmm, maybe an alternative would be that whenever someone who's NOT yet posted signs in or whatever, one of those little announcement things pops up inviting them to start a welcome thread and introduce themselves so they can feel more a part of the community? Just click a link and bang, you're in and typing.
It would, at least, save on all those folks who post their welcome thread in "Help" or "Website" subforums.....
Quote from: VinceBot on 30 November, 2009, 02:54:21 PM
- When a new member signs up, they can only see the Welcome board until they have posted once (in the welcome board).
Is it possible to set it so that they can still see the whole board but cannot post until they have posted at least once in the welcome board?
Did somebody say something?
Cheers!
Jim
On topic: I think Mike Gloady's perfected the idea, a gentle nudge in the right direction as it were.
Off topic: I'm often amazed how people seem to have a problem with Jim, when Godpleton is seemingly allowed to type whatever offensive shite he likes! ???
I'm fighting with Jim Campbell block, so there!
Quote from: .Woolly on 01 December, 2009, 03:13:29 PMOff topic: I'm often amazed how people seem to have a problem with Jim, when Godpleton is seemingly allowed to type whatever offensive shite he likes!
Its probably because Jim is one of the sub culture types and wears hats.
Thanks Wooly, I've printed that.
EVIDENCE THAT I AM OCCASIONALLY RIGHT. Or at least in the neighbourhood.
Quote from: .Woolly on 01 December, 2009, 03:13:29 PM
Off topic: I'm often amazed how people seem to have a problem with Jim, when Godpleton is seemingly allowed to type whatever offensive shite he likes! ???
Mmm. I'm glad I'm not the only person who's noticed that ... thanks, .Woolly!
Cheers
Jim
Jim, Wooly & I will now form our own elite faction and do.... well, probably not that much. But we'll be right.
I have never had any problem with what Jim and Roger type so therefore i am neutral.
Quote from: W. R. Logan on 01 December, 2009, 03:21:53 PM
Its probably because Jim is one of the sub culture types and wears hats.
That's hattist, that is!
Cheers
Jim
Quote from: .Woolly on 01 December, 2009, 03:13:29 PM
Off topic: I'm often amazed how people seem to have a problem with Jim, when Godpleton is seemingly allowed to type whatever offensive shite he likes! ???
I'm fighting with Jim Campbell block, so there!
No one takes Godpleton seriously ..ever.
Quote from: James S on 01 December, 2009, 04:00:59 PM
Quote from: .Woolly on 01 December, 2009, 03:13:29 PM
Off topic: I'm often amazed how people seem to have a problem with Jim, when Godpleton is seemingly allowed to type whatever offensive shite he likes! ???
I'm fighting with Jim Campbell block, so there!
No one takes Godpleton seriously ..ever.
Now you see I was about to reply 'Except your mum' but I realised that's the kinda thing Roger would get away with that I wouldn't!
Quote from: James S on 01 December, 2009, 04:00:59 PM
No one takes Godpleton seriously ..ever.
Whereas people seem to automatically assume that I am being serious and go pissing and moaning to the mods. It gets a bit fucking tiresome, quite frankly.
Bah.
Jim
Ahh Godpleton's the court Jester, and Jim's the, uh, Royal Calligrapher- totally different expectations for their utterances. They're both bloody funny bastards, AFAIC. C•nts, obviously, but funny.
I dont find it funny or approriate to call others C*nts on a forum.
It just creates bad feeling and if it happens again i will notify the mods.
If anyone calls me a C*nt then we will f***ing sort it out outside.
;)
Quote from: TordelBack on 01 December, 2009, 04:35:52 PM
totally different expectations for their utterances.
I can kind of see that, but I would have hoped that the deployment of non-standard invective such as "snivelling cockweasel" might have been sufficient to indicate a certain of forethought prior to typing and thus less likely to be a shot fired in anger ...?
Cheers
Jim
What's a cockweasel?
a type of fish
Quote from: James S on 01 December, 2009, 05:02:59 PM
a type of fish
Beautiful plumage ...
Oh, sorry, wrong sketch.
Cheers!
Jim
Anyway ladyboys anonymous, its a good idea wake,that last one. Maybe mixed with Mike's suggestion to avoid confusion...
Can we all agree that I'm right please?
Then you'll need a bigger web-cam... For your head. So no.
Quote from: King Trout on 01 December, 2009, 04:55:28 PM
What's a cockweasel?
A cousin of the knobferret
(I know a bit late and my timing sucks but hey)
Quote from: King Trout on 01 December, 2009, 04:55:28 PM
What's a cockweasel?
Is it a kids TV programme. Nope that's Catweazle ;)
Reading this thread from start to fin I forgot what the main purpose was. Something about Cunt* wasn't it.
V
I can appreciate the idea of putting restrictions to try and limit the spambots I've never understood the obsession with making people fill in a "welcome" form. It's like that ridiculous prospective flatmate vetting scene from Shallow Grave. People look at the board. Either they have a specific question they want to ask or eventually they see something they want to make a point about so they sign up. If they also want to introduce themselves formally, great. If not, great.
As for real users with no posts, there are plenty of messageboards which have members only areas or which restrict search facilities and so forth for guests, so it's normal for people to sign up not realising that there isn't anything like that here. Well, apart from Cunt's Corner or whatever it's called.
I take it manual activation of new accounts would be too time-consuming?
Now my erudite observations on the case of Godpleton vs Campbell.
Roger's posts (the ones in question; I like the ones where he talks about books or philosophy) are an unending stream of sixth-form drivel applied in such a scattergun fashion that even the ones that could be construed as offensive just make you go "Aw! Bless! He's trying to broach societal taboos in an attempt to challenge our notions of what can be considered acceptable as humour. Again." Complaining about it is much like tutting at kids on the bus who have their iPods up too loud, although the fact that noone has ever taken real umbrage at him may indicate what a depressingly culturally homogenous group we are.
Whatever the intention, and I've never found it offensive, Jim's often read as a sustained and deliberate attack on an individual poster.
Quote from: The Cosh on 02 December, 2009, 01:54:14 PM
Whatever the intention, and I've never found it offensive, Jim's often read as a sustained and deliberate attack on an individual poster.
Well, you see, Godpleton's posts get right on my tits and I
do find a lot of them offensive. However, I appreciate that many posters whose opinions I respect feel differently, so clearly
I'm missing something. As such, a simple deployment of the ignore list alleviates my blood pressure and means that others' enjoyment of Godpleton's schtick isn't spoiled by me snapping at him (or, indeed, reporting him to the Mods every time he says something to which I take exception).
This is a tactic other board members seem reluctant to apply to me and the lack of reciprocity is tiresome. In another example, I have been taken to task for having swearing in my sig when other posters have had, and continue to have in one case, profanity in their sig line, so I feel that there is also a double standard here.
Also, I have to take issue with the way you characterize me here, Cosh: the only posters I will make a "deliberate attack" upon are ones who are blatantly trolling. Posters who say something stupid can certainly expect a "deliberate attack" on the stupid thing that they've said, but that's hardly the same thing, is it?
Jim
Manual activation would be way too much work for the staff, and a little too stringent for the 6 or so spambots we see each month. We don't even run with email verification in order to encourage users to sign up.
My only thought was to get some of the people who're already signed up but havn't posted to actually make a post. I guess a number of them could be spambots who've broken their programming due to our unfriendly forum layout, but there are 645 members who have never ever posted.
I guess there's also the 1772 who've posted less than 10 times, but we'll ignore those lot.
I know, restricting users in order to make them post is a weird concept, which is pretty much why I havn't persued this crazy scheme.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 02 December, 2009, 02:38:58 PM
In another example, I have been taken to task for having swearing in my sig when other posters have had, and continue to have in one case, profanity in their sig line, so I feel that there is also a double standard here.
I don't know about the other mods, but my administration methods are comparable to a head master walking through a school during lesson time. I'll somehow keep the place running and I might fix a few things here and there if I spot them while I walk down the corridor or poke my head into classrooms, but unless people bring things to my attention (the report button) I won't know about 99% of the things going on around here.
Thusly, some people might think they've been singled out, but in reality another boarder has actually pushed the report button and made it obvious we should intervene somehow. We don't advertise our responses to reports, so there is no telling what action was taken unless someone starts waving their arms about it.
You might notice we're pretty lax about swearing, too. I like to think we're adults and a few swears here and there help to articulate our language a little, rather than having censored words all over the shop, but there are a few words which are hot potatoes for a lot of people - such as the C word. I've yet to decide what to do about this, but I am becoming concerned with how unfriendly this forum can appear to a casual outside viewer.
We need to remember this is a forum to discuss 2000ad, a comic arguably for all ages (PG+?), not a forum for insults, or a forum for drama.
Quotebut in reality another boarder has actually pushed the report button and made it obvious we should intervene somehow
Ah! Now there's athing I should mention on one of the 'issues with the board' threads, but as it's come up here: I have on more than one occassion, clicked on the report button by accident because it's right beside the reply one.
If you don't type in a report and hit send then we don't see it, so no worries about that.
Quote from: VinceBot on 02 December, 2009, 03:04:22 PM
If you don't type in a report and hit send then we don't see it, so no worries about that.
Good! Panic over, as you where...
Jim- do you need a hug?
Quote from: His Lordship rac on 02 December, 2009, 03:03:02 PM
I have on more than one occassion, clicked on the report button by accident because it's right beside the reply one.
Yeah, I've done that with tedious regularity. I certainly wouldn't object to that being fixed.
Quote from: Vincebot
but in reality another boarder has actually pushed the report button and made it obvious we should intervene somehow.
I disagree. A poster who, for example, takes umbrage at an insult directed at a completely different poster should, IMO, be told to mind their own business. We're all grown-ups here and capable of deciding whether or not we've been insulted, and whether we take sufficient offense at that to want to make an official complaint.
Jim
Just to axe this idea right now, the forum rules (http://2000adonline.com/forum/index.php/topic,26167.0.html) have several clauses related to insulting others, which can be summarised as "don't do it".
If anyone is unclear on the forum rules I would strongly suggest they take the time to re-read them.Here are some specific extracts for the casual observer:
Quote
From time to time you will disagree with eachother on certain subjects - please try to respect other peoples views and if you wish to enter into debate, provide reasonable arguments for your differing viewpoint and do not resort to personal attacks.
Sometimes you may not be able to win an argument through the sheer stubborn nature of your opponent. Rather than get worked up about it or insult them, it may be better to just walk away.
Quote
If someone is continuously harassing you on the forum then please attempt to resolve your differences over PM or email before contacting the staff.
Please do not enter into personal character attacks or threaten others users, post peoples personal details (addresses, phone numbers, emails, etc.), and please keep in mind there is a distinction between the internet and real life.
Quote
That guy has a stupid opinion.
Call him on his opinion, but don't call him out. Flaming is against the rules, so explain why his opinion is stupid.
This guy won't stop flaming me!
Use the report button. Flaming back will only get you in trouble as well.
If you don't report it, we won't see it, and nobody gets held accountable.
The second quote states "PM or email", meaning don't shit up the thread with your personal frustrations about another poster. Offense or not, we don't need personal arguments between two posters derailing more threads, creating rifts in the community and generating forum drama.
As for a third party stumbling across your to-and-fro shit slinging match, as far as I'm concerned it adds nothing to the forum or the thread, and is still against the rules.
Perhaps the rules themselves are not quite as explicit as they could be, so I will endeavour to clarify them.