Moratorium on first posts for new members?

[ckeaton]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:33pm

Tough to manage in reality, but I agree in theory.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:34pm

"Tough to manage in reality, but I agree in theory."

Agreed.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:35pm

Totally in agreement, but look how many posts their threads generated. Isn't that what they're after? I might read these, but I won't post.

Updated On: 3/22/05 at 04:35 PM

[ckeaton]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:37pm

Well for the most part, Rentboys posts are mocked, and they survive because the people who they intend to marginalize refuse to be held back.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:39pm

Bev - I agree. But, some of these threads have become quite funny although a bit tawdry now and then.
Updated On: 3/22/05 at 04:39 PM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:39pm

i'd say don't let a few bad apples (or apples not to your taste) ruin the pie for the many entirely welcome new additions.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:41pm

"Well for the most part, Rentboys posts are mocked, and they survive because the people who they intend to marginalize refuse to be held back."

Rentboy is an obnoxious little **** that nobody takes seriously.

[LittleFish8386]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:43pm

You are a gentleman and scholar Beav.

[kangaroo]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:49pm

Though I'm not a legend, I agree with this... I hate it when people who are swings write something negative, especially when they just joined that day!

"In theory..."

But I hope this doesn't discourage the newcomers that actually want to be a part of this board because they love Broadway... just make sure to search before you ask a question or start a discussion...

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:51pm

This sounds like a good idea when you compare to people who have joined just to be rude, but it's not really fair for the majority of new posters.

I think the month-long moratorium should be on starting new topics. That way, they could participate in discussions within pre-existing threads and kind of be forced to get along with people, instead of being able to start insulting rants on random topics they chose.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 4:52pm

Beav--There's no need to ban them (even if that were possible) because these are clearly posts by seasoned posters (or amdinistrators?) who are trying to cause some controversy. The internet has a long history of "trolls," and the best defense, always, is DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

(Although yesterday we all had a great deal of fun with Oscar de la Rentboy, who is clearly no match for the Adults, and kidstuff compared to the young'uns.)

[etoile]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 5:09pm

This certainly isn't anything new. Posters, or those with new identities, have logged on with an agenda for some time now.

I find what slows it down on many message boards is prior to becoming a member newbies are contacted at their email address and issued a password from the moderator. This at least established that they have an actual email address, and the moderator can delay their membership while checking to see if it's a duplicate identity. The delay can also be a cooling down period for those prone to knee-jerk reaction type comments.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 5:10pm

It would be a full time job just doing that. If anyone wants to start a collection, I'll do it for 100k a year.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 5:26pm

This is going to sound decidedly juvenile of me, but honestly, sometimes I'm happy to see someone come charging in as a complete and utter assh*le. It gives me a place to channel my hostilities with a clear conscience, and probably keeps me from causing trouble in my real life. I find them to be oddly therapeutic on the odd occasion.

Actually, given the day I am having, even the reappearance of Horsey would be a plus right now.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:29pm

Hmmm,

I do not believe in censoryship of any kind. And to penalize all new people because of the actions of a few just isn't right.

BUT.....then I read this, that orangeskittles wrote:

"I think the month-long moratorium should be on starting new topics. That way, they could participate in discussions within pre-existing threads and kind of be forced to get along with people, instead of being able to start insulting rants on random topics they chose."

And I could live with that.

[Plum]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:34pm

*puts on Con Law hat*

Actually, I wouldn't call this proposal censorship. There is no "censor" involved, and no judgement call as to whether a post is appropriate or not. This rule, were it adopted, would be viewpoint-neutral. That is, it's not based on what you want to post, but on how long you've been a member.

And I actually think it might be a nice idea- it wouldn't just help with insulting idiots, but with people who start topics that were already talked about 2 days ago. Then again, a giant red pop-up urging the use of the search function might help there, too. :)

[CJR]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:36pm

Here's the thing though.... If they've joined soley with the intention of pissing everyone off, they're failing miserably.

I found everything they posted laughable and weak. I mean, hello, you say lush and b!tch like it's a bad thing.....

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:39pm

there's an inherent assumption here that the "trial period" would result in some kind of evolution. Much more likely would be the setting up of an account and an e-mail appointment reminder for the new poster for a month later, at which time they would THEN post something that might attack. i guess there is the sugestion that a "cooling off period" might allow the vile-prone to lose some of their intent, but i'm not sure that would be universal.

And losing the ability to start threads probably wouldn't help. Notice how "threadjacking" has become almost an art form, to the point of parody.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:44pm

i propose a moratorium on people not reading beav's initial post before commenting on the thread. people that don't do it ought to be tore up more.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:45pm

scuse me Beaver...I read it........(nice insult, by the way......) your moratorium is what I call censorhip.....

here's how Websters defines censor:

One entry found for censor.


Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

not allowing them to post is "suppressing" them from doing so.

What rankles me more, however, is that because YOU call it a moratorium......I am "wrong" and put down for calling it censorship.

sorry, I have a right to my opinion without being insulted.

[Plum]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:53pm

No, once again, not censorship. It's not blocking posts due to "objectionable" content. It's blocking them based on how long you've been a member. It's viewpoint-neutral. It doesn't care if you want to post insulting crap or talk about Glass Menagerie- if you're a new member, you can't start a new thread. It has nothing to do with content, and there's no judgement involved- no "examining," to use a word from your definition. Therefore, it's not censorship.
Updated On: 3/22/05 at 07:53 PM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:53pm

*raised eyebrow* *doleful look about the room*

"Where do all these PEOPLE come from?"

*bemused sip of drink* *at indulgent laughter from others, ennui-filled glance askance* *sigh*

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:59pm

Plum, I disagree.......but that's what makes the world go around. In the long run, it doesn't matter to me.......like a bad TV show, if I don't like what's on....I turn the channel.......and that what I do with the negative people.

I just don't think all new posters should suffer.

Beaver......I've had a tough day, sorry if I got a bit soft-skinned

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 7:59pm

i propose that tx be censored for having too much fun.

[Plum]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 8:01pm

Not all restriction of speech is censorship. I'd go into my giant rant on exactly what constitutes censorship, but since you're so determined to say that this falls under that (despite the fact that it even goes against your dictionary definition), I'll stop right there.