B3ta has a nice wee system going imo.

No matter when you sign up, you have to wait until the following Tuesday before being able to actually post.
The intention is that you use that time to familiarise yourself with how the board operates, see how people inter-relate and have time to read the t+c's .
You properly have no excuses after that ehh?

Best of all though is the handle Noobie Tuesday.

I think that approach is worthy of some consideration.

I think I can safely say, without being too contentious, that we've got 2 new policies (details to follow ).
Non-posters:
Before we decide on a time limit for non-posters to post I intend to send a mass email to all non-posters to inform them of the new policy and give them the opportunity to act upon it.

New Members:
No open door policy, knock and wait for a facilitator to let them in. This can be done easily from the back end by setting the post verification (or whatever it's called) to 1 post means their first post will require facilitator approval then they are as free to post as anyone.

The drawback I see with this for facilitators is there's the possibility they can PM while awaiting (need to clarify this as I really can't tell one way or the other from the backend) which is one of the benefits cited.

Hopefully these 2 measures will go some way to dealing with the Sock issue too as there will be no 'sleeping' accounts and a need to 'identify' yourself/post on arrival.

andyh wrote:
Well no but it's going to stop people that turn up to be disruptive, from accessing the main forum, I guess some would get through, but it's a measure to weed quite a lot out, tbh it's not working how it is if their turning up so often.

I assume a month in the arrivals sub forum if one existed, would provide existing members with an option to delete them, without keeping to have polls debates etc etc etc

Blue_Tackler wrote:
I asked valid questions on how you saw that in operation.

Sorry I don't drop my gaze as you pass BT.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Ummm no it wouldn't weed any out at all lol...
I'm not surprised feather has been critical tbh

oioioi wrote:
This is what I wanted to see, thanks oi.

Those two policies seem pretty much what i thought so meh at you andy
the sock vote was dead and yes the first two do go a long way toward helping. If that pm thing is indeed as we hope.

But as oi said, the middle ground if the sock vote is kinda what i am getting at innit. Common sense.
Be alert to trollsockery but not some gollumesque warriors of the sz precious.

feather wrote:
''Orange suits and gruel, existing members excluded from said subforum...''

none of which were in my post to which you referred.

So I'd rather you didn't bother twisting it's quite trollish.
Like you don't know

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Its called allegory :p

andyh wrote:
I think it would, because that bored individual who wants to troll and criticise posts would have limited access until they've been approved, it means that they'd have to spend a lot of time behaving before they'd be able to misbehave thus, they would have wasted their time behaving, they would have spent perhaps a month behaving to then simply get banned, where presently they could turn up be chatty nice for a day or two and then start misbehaving.

But as I say it's only an idea, I think it would work, but obviously its not a popular idea.
or I'm not popular enough to have a popular idea...
didums

andyh wrote:
I call it twatish.

We seem to spend more time discussing each other than any other topic!

Is this really what SZ was set up for? The DIF mods must be literally ROTFL reading all this stuff.................

Blue_Tackler wrote: Do you get the concept of people asking questions BT?
The orange overalls and gruel image was in reference to your idea that regular members on warning could be sent there.
Y'know, like to prison?

I asked if existing members would be excluded from this quarantine area you propose because otherwise wtf is it's function if not to isolate the potentially rabid from the general populous?

Oops, Sorry for the use of analogy again.
Calm yourself. You'll be fine.

feather wrote:
I don't want you to patronize me with your sarcastic analogies .

Verlander wrote:


To be honest, I don't give two flying fucks what any DIF mod cunt thinks.

Blue_Tackler wrote: Easy fixed.

Think through your ideas before posting them.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Mike is a very bored individual. He's also a very persistent individual who can't accept rejection. Ever since, he's played a long game.
It wouldn't deter him, or anybody with some determination..... as sad as it is that anybody could be that fucking arsed. Although it is quite endearing that certain people are so hurt by the forum but desperate to return like a spurned lover.

Verlander wrote:
Certain forum policies have come to light as a result of the latest wave of arrivals, hopefully they've been pretty much dealt with now so the dust can settle and we can get back to talking about whatever.

I'm not sure what the DIF mods would be laughing at tbh apart from the amount of responsibility the facilitators foist onto their members rather than removing it?

feather wrote

it means if someone from the general population was targeted in the new members sub forum for by a troll etc....

The existing member could leave that sub forum, only to report the abuse or whatever, and the person can be pinged out without trial or utter proof of anything as they would not really be a full member, the existing member can then continue

It means that any even slightly trollish posts could mean them being pinged, and unlike now we would not get the ''Why is barnfish banned'. as we'll need to agree that being banned from that sub forum would not be debated. They are yet to be full members.

Perhaps after a month or so of reasonable postings they could be given full access to SZ, to them it would be a complete waste of time to keep creating sock accounts and then being nice for a month at a time, to then join the main forum and get banned, and then have to start all over again being nicer again for another month etc etc etc...

I'd assume most of them can be sussed out before their probation would have ceased.

You mean like a sort of "Inner Sanctum"?