LPSG Members: become part of the solution.

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
New members cannot start threads until they have say 100 posts logged?

I like the suspended status. Like a temporary ban, only without the cache.
 

No_Strings

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Posts
3,967
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
283
Location
Dubai (United Arab Emirates)
Being a newer member, it's probably not my place to say, but...


Stickies - there are several long, informative threads in the lower pages of the forum(as linked to in the recent "threads worth revisiting" topic), making some of them stickies in each forum could cut down on some of the inane shit that gets started. :rolleyes:

Punishment for members who post completely off-topic or try and bait others into a reaction - I'm not sure if it's possible in php, but some form of karma system? Each memebr has a +/- under their username, a fellow member clicks "+" if they see a good, well thought out post, a "-" if it's the opposite. It can be open to abuse, but it usually evens itself out after it's given some time.

Somehow limit members to creating a new topic(apart from the introductions forum) - a post limit, 10-50? (A karma limit?)

More visible moderation - Instead of seemingly hoping a thread dies out, why not have the moderators link to the aforementioned stickies in a repeat thread, and then lock it. To me a forum moderators job is like the fishing net of a trawler - it lets the plankton filter through and sink to the bottom, while catching the bigger fish.

A review of the entire moderating team - more/less, old/new, hiring/firing. From the beginning.

Reasons for permanent bans being made public - Notice permanent, temporary bans won't be given a reason. The lack of reason signifies to memebrs A) It isn't permanent. B) The severity wasn't necessary for it to be permanent.

Purge memberships - After 90 days/3 months of inactivity, simply delete the account.

*shrug* Just the thoughts from the top of my head.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I'm not certain if that will help much, dong. At least if they start a thread they might have a mild interest in the subject matter.

Perhaps, it was aimed at reducing some of the snarkiness about Noobs creating the same tired old threads ad naseum...you know the ones of which I speak!!!
 

jeff black

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Posts
10,432
Media
3
Likes
175
Points
193
Location
CANADA
New members cannot start threads until they have say 100 posts logged?

I really like this idea, but I wouldn't make it a set number of posts. Instead, Ithink that a 2-week ban on creating threads would suffice. This would allow the newcomers the opportunity to read threads, answer some of their questions before hand and allow them to become more knowledgable as members. (It would also allow mods to not have to deal with spamming Threads as it seems most spammers flood the site within a day or two).

Another thought, is to decrease the amount of threads one can start per day. Saves space, keeps people from having to go through more than a few threads about the exact same topic.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I really like this idea, but I wouldn't make it a set number of posts. Instead, Ithink that a 2-week ban on creating threads would suffice. This would allow the newcomers the opportunity to read threads, answer some of their questions before hand and allow them to become more knowledgable as members. (It would also allow mods to not have to deal with spamming Threads as it seems most spammers flood the site within a day or two).


Except that 'two weeks' doesn't tell you how much engagement they've had with the site.
'One hundred posts' (or whatever) tells far more.
 

Countryguy63

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Posts
9,461
Media
36
Likes
7,795
Points
458
Location
near Monterey, Calif.
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I was trying to come up with the proper description of my suggestions and Rawbone stole them (He needs banned!:biggrin1: ) Seriously, i wil emphatically second all of his suggestions. Bannings are flying way too frequently lately.

I disagree with the suggestions of completely removing any access to the galleries for non-paying members. I am one, and would like to think that I have still contributed enough to this site. Being a non-paying member already limits my access to just the thumbnails, but it's the ability to at least see them that got me interested in staying here in the first place.
 

jeff black

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Posts
10,432
Media
3
Likes
175
Points
193
Location
CANADA
Except that 'two weeks' doesn't tell you how much engagement they've had with the site.
'One hundred posts' (or whatever) tells far more.


True, Rubi... but "trolls" can fly through 100 posts with ease.:smile:
I stick by my reasoning in this case... 2 weeks allows them the opportunity to read. IF they do, great. If they don't... at least they had the chance.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
True, Rubi... but "trolls" can fly through 100 posts with ease.:smile:

As a friend of Jeff Black, I know this is true.:cool:

I stick by my reasoning in this case... 2 weeks allows them the opportunity to read. IF they do, great. If they don't... at least they had the chance.

It's just a question of which criterion is more likely to bring with it some familiarity with the site.
I guess the fence has two sides.
 

Big Dreamer

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Except that 'two weeks' doesn't tell you how much engagement they've had with the site.
'One hundred posts' (or whatever) tells far more.

One hundred smiley faces comes around really quickly for some. There are members operating at 25 posts/day that have contributed very little actual text, and they would get the governor removed after 4 days. Too bad there wasn't a word count function that could accumulate text strings.

It wouldn't be bulletproof , but it might help a little bit.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
One hundred smiley faces comes around really quickly for some. There are members operating at 25 posts/day that have contributed very little actual text, and they would get the governor removed after 4 days. Too bad there wasn't a word count function that could accumulate text strings.

It wouldn't be bulletproof , but it might help a little bit.

I'm not sure where you sit on this, Big Dreamer.
What you say is obvious, and is a disadvantage of a mere numerical criterion.
On the other hand, if you say 'two weeks,' a lot of people might register on, say, July 3rd, spend no more than, say, 26 minutes on the site in the next two weeks ... know nothing about the site, really ... and then be free to start threads.
Maybe the word count notion is good ... except some arsehat could be cutting and pasting stuff from Wikipedia and passing the set count in 13 minutes.
I don't know how to tackle this problem.
 

Big Dreamer

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
I'm not sure where you sit on this, Big Dreamer.
I don't know how to tackle this problem.

I don't know where I sit either rubi, as every rule appears to have a fairly simple workaround.

The key might just be heavy pressure from the posting public to keep threads on track, and ultimately some support from site admin in a timely fashion if things are slipping.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
The suggestion of letting other members vote on someone's post is suppression of freedom of speech. It's one of the main arguments that has been going on since Big Dirigible was banned. It would stiffle thought, and encourage that only like viewpoints be expressed.

As someone who has moderated on three different boards, I'd like to suggest a possible partial rotation policy among all the mods, and powers that be. It could be a standing policy that nobody serve over X amount of time without rotating off.

After a while, the sos becomes a bore, and irritant. With constant irritants, we tend to lose patience. It is part of our human frailty. Also, we tend to interject our personal feelings into situations. I have seen rank pulled over a political discussion on this site. I have seen implied warnings with semi-veiled hostility. As a member of the governing body, we are supposed to not let our personal feelings affect our judgement.

Maybe, a better warning system could be put into place.
 

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
294
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
One hundred smiley faces comes around really quickly for some. There are members operating at 25 posts/day that have contributed very little actual text, and they would get the governor removed after 4 days. Too bad there wasn't a word count function that could accumulate text strings.

It wouldn't be bulletproof , but it might help a little bit.

It would certainly be easy to cut and paste a few wiki pages or 3000 word articles to pierce that defence.

I think there could be better use of the thread rating function, and it could flag good as well as stinky threads from a well despised poster. If the threads were to receive enough nasty flags from a number of diverse sources that kick forth a notice to the mods who might put a temporary limit on the offender initiating new threads.

Is that feasible, code wise?
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'd like to add, selfishly:

Can we have a bit more PM storage? Even us freeloaders...certainly as Gold Members.:tongue:

Now you're talkin'.
I've cleaned out my bins four or five times ... and it hurts.:cool:

In case either of you have overlooked it (and for the benefit of anyone else who's interested), there's a download link at the bottom of the private messages folder that allows you to save the messages you currently have to your own hard drive before deleting them from here.

Deleting messages shouldn't have to "hurt".

On a more general note -- I'm enjoying these suggestions. I've seen other boards with a "require X posts before allowing Y" rule (Thundersplace is one, for example), and I believe it lowers overall post quality, thanks to members trying thoughtlessly to reach that X-post threshhold.
 

Attachments

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The only issues I have with the site at present are the lack of transparency surrounding the banning of members and alterations to the Terms of Service after the fact.

I my mind, the resolution is simple: provide a concise explanatory statement whenever a ban takes place. Something along these lines:

Member xxxx has been banned until some date (or permanently) for violating Section ### of the LPSG Terms of Service.

I understand the concern in outing underage users. As such, a minor change to the labeling of the ToS would alleviate this concern. The first four bullets in Section 2 are, in my opinion, account violations that could be collectively labeled Section 2(a). The remaining three offenses in section 2, along with the
seven enumerated offenses in section 3, are operational in nature and should be labeled 2(b) through 2(d) and 3(a) through 3(g), respectively. New line items should obviously follow suit.

This flows into my concerns about the alterations of the ToS document itself. There is presently no history available, so unless members make daily snapshots of it, nobody can really know for sure what changes or when. Iterating a version number with each new release, making a revision history public, and perhaps highlighting the most recent changes from the last version would go a long way.

Personally, I'd also like to see complete transparency when a member is banned, including the person who initiated or recommended the vote, as well as how each moderator voted (or abstained). I believe that if those with the power to censure feel strongly enough about a member's behavior to remove them from the community, then they should have no problem having their convictions on the record...and the same goes for regular members who call for others to be banned.

In addition to quelling fears of people being banned for personal or other unjust reasons, it spells out by example which behaviors will not be tolerated in the community.

Implementation is simple and flexible:
First, relabel the bullets in the ToS.
As to making the ban process information available, the simplest mechanism of all would be to provide the data only upon request. This could be problematic as some mods undoubtedly would be inundated with a disproportionate share of these requests, and many requests would come in for info on the same person's banning.

Another idea would be to create a new area for ban reports, with each being a locked topic containing the information items (similar to the TOS) I discussed earlier.

This could be augmented by replacing the banned member's signature line with the simple statement about their being banned. That statement could link to the topic in the Banned Users forum that contains the details of the initiation and votes for the ban.


This all seems complex as I type it out, but viewed in light of the fact that bans are (and should be) few and far between, it shouldn't actually amount to much effort. The rewards would include a much calmer user population and a much greater sense of trust in the moderation staff and their processes.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Personally, I'd also like to see complete transparency when a member is banned, including the person who initiated or recommended the vote, as well as how each moderator voted (or abstained). I believe that if those with the power to censure feel strongly enough about a member's behavior to remove them from the community, then they should have no problem having their convictions on the record...and the same goes for regular members who call for others to be banned.

I understand the claimed advantage, but I think this would be too inhibiting.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Free, third party adult verification services, I was not remembering in my first post in this thread.

With yahoo, I went through a verification before being allowed to view adult only groups or profiles.

A person could be required to go through one at registration.


That would lighten the moderator's workload, from what we have been told, by more than half.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
rawbone8's suggestions. To me they cut closest to the heart of the problems.

I too think Rawbone8's suggestions come closer to the heart of the problems and are close to a real common sense approach to it.

His suggestion suggest a form of due process and a certain degree of transparency whereby a person is allowed to plead his case and a decision is rendered based on the severity of the alleged violation and the number of occurrences.

Having bannings by "vote" of certain members (i.e. "gold" members as someone suggested) lends to abuse and bannings via popularity (or the lack thereof) rather than by worthiness of what the poster has to say.

Limited tenure of mods also a good suggestion. Publicizing ip addresses, not so good. (Haven’t there been enough breaches of privacy already?)

I disagree on the idea of setting posting requirements or time limits on new members. It assumes that every new member couldn't possibly have anything of value to contribute.

And why remove non-paying members' access to thumbnails? There are many here who have contributed pictures in spite of the fact that all they can see is thumbnails. If they couldn't see thumbnails there might be fewer inclined to want to post their own.