Moratorium on first posts for new members?- Page 2

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 8:03pm

oh plum ya make me wanna sing cars tunes...

dontcha stop, dontcha stop

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:16pm

Now just hold on one dang minute.

Are you suggesting that we "censor" and "discriminate" against new posters by not allowing them to participate in the message boards from the moment they are allowed entry?

Am I missing any similarities to the idea of preventing against anyone under 18 (and without a credit card) from participate in an adult message board?

Do I smell double standrads, and mixed messages?




Updated On: 3/22/05 at 09:16 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:20pm

Jose', I think we already had plenty of talk about the implicit viewpoint discrimination in your proposal. Besides, no one's talking about a separate board here- just a cooling-off period. Which I'm not sure is a perfect idea in practice anyway, but that's another story.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:29pm

Beav, I don't see anything wrong with it. These "new" people start threads that they know will get a lot of attention (which they do) and after a few hours, they all turn into the exact same thread with the exact same posts anyways.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:31pm

Well Miss Plum, you might think "we already had plenty of talk" on discrimination, but maybe I haven't! Your statement dear lady is a lovely example censorship.


As for the orighinal post, preventing folks from participating by virtue of the length of membership is discrimination. This isn't a private club. Next thing you know it'll be lenth of hair, or length of member, or "only SPAMALOTS" are allowed to post from day one. For such a vocal group of liberals you sure like making up rules on who can or who can't post.

[Plum]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:32pm

See, I find the "new" part terribly interesting. A better idea than a moratorium on new members starting threads might be a simple sock check to make sure it isn't a banned member coming back to spread spite.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:34pm

I'm not nearly as bothered by some out-of-the-blue rant that has no context as I am by direct attacks between long-term posters - especially when opportunity for resolution is avoided or denied.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:34pm

But Plum, if they did a "sock check" than so many beloved users here would be deleted. And we can't have that, can we?

[Plum]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:37pm

Um...with a grandfather clause?

[Plum]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 3:49pm

Well Miss Plum, you might think "we already had plenty of talk" on discrimination, but maybe I haven't!

I must be remembering the old "adult forum" thread and your comments on it incorrectly, then.

Your statement dear lady is a lovely example censorship.

Bull****. Have I encouraged the deletion or prevention of posts on the basis of any kind of "inappropriate" content? No. Could I delete such posts, even if I wanted to? Absolutely not. The only censor here is you, Jose'. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing- censorship is what being an admin is all about.

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 4:05pm

Which is exactly what happened to the "My Vagina" thread this morning. Hope you saw it before was deleted, Plum. It was a good example of what you're talking about (and I referenced your suggestion).

[midtowngym]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 4:12pm

Oh Beav--i enjoy some 'new' blood, regardless who is actually behind the posts. Chatting with all you other Legends can get dull sometimes.