Should the Lounge have a Waiting Period?

[Bolty]

gekko, I don't understand how requiring an admin to approve a registration will help things. We have no idea when a new user joins (and there are anywhere between 5 to 10 new users PER DAY) if they're a quality poster just from their email address!

This is an age old question, and I've always sat firmly on one side of this fence: if you inhibit the joining of new users to an online community, yes you will detract the jerks (but still never reach 100% protection), but you will MOST DEFINITELY doom your community to stagnation. New people and new ideas are a necessity to the extreme!

What percentage of active Lounge posters were active Lounge posters in the first six months of this site's forum (or, more generally, active posters in Blizzard's Diablo Strategy Forum, which this site was originally based upon)? Three to five percent, tops. I couldn't keep interest the entire way through myself - if you missed it, this site closed for a while. Turnaround is normal, expected, and important. If you stem the flow of that turnaround, your community dies.

-Bolty

[Mavfin]

I never really had problems coming into the lounge...I've only been here about 2 years, I think. But, I can spell, and write decently. So, I never had any problem with people flaming me here. It's really that simple.

[Guest]

Even if its only a 2 day period it would be good.


A 2 day period stops(or inhibits).

scammers
spammers
silly questions
upset people who have been banned

[gekko]

We have no idea when a new user joins (and there are anywhere between 5 to 10 new users PER DAY) if they're a quality poster just from their email address!

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been in my last few posts. Let me clarify:

First off, I meant simply that the password should be sent to a new user after a waiting period -- no judgments from the admins, simply don't send them a password right away. Send it after 3 days. This will do two things: 1) "encourage" new users to spend a few days lurking, at the very least; and, 2) banning or freezing an account will gain strength since a truly aggravating user cannot simply reregister immediately.

kandrathe: I was not by any means implying the poor schmucks didn't deserve exactly what they got -- I am simply saying that I'd rather not have our forums filled with nothing but these ridiculous grammar nitpicks. I'm suggesting that a waiting period would deter many of the bums we find objectionable, and therefore we wouldn't have to chase them off.

Also, I realize when I said "snooty" I really used a poor description. Try this: relative to the average bnet chatroom, we are snooty. As you say, we require decent english and a reasonable clarity in postings here. I am suggesting the waiting period would vastly improve the quality of posts by weeding out many objectionable new users BEFORE they post and we have to chase them out with our trouts unsheathed.

And finally, back to bolty: "New people and new ideas are a necessity to the extreme!"

I agree completely. We need a constant influx of new posters. However, you can't be suggesting we stop flaming the posters who refuse to follow the rules and etiquette here just because we want fresh ideas! I think, perhaps, you believed the admins should screen all new users. That idea, I believe, IS too restricting. My actual intent would simply be to delay sending the password to new members for a few days.

I would hate to see the Lounge dwindle down because we lacked fresh blood. However, I can't believe we should simply continue to flame the ignorant new members who are becoming more and more numerous.

I welcome all new members to the Lounge. I'm sure everyone feels the same. However, if they can't be bothered to take a few minutes even to understand the rules of our forum, I don't want them here. A waiting period, I believe, would weed out many of the latter group with minimal effort (far less than is required to "instruct" four or five posters every week in the basics of grammar and etiquette we follow here).

gekko

[Ice]

The arguments seem to be pretty one-sided so far... I'll take the opposite stand and would actually like the system to stay as it is.

Yes, the three-day waiting will definitely be effective in weeding out some undesirables like trolls and spammers because they would lack the patience to wait it out. It would also be effective against those vengeful souls who return to spam after being banned (I don't think there's a lot of those anyway).

However, I don't think it would have much effect on people who post silly questions which has long being discussed. The people who doesn't read around before posting silly questions are unlikely to lurk around to read just because there's a three-day waiting period. They can always move on other forums first and come back three days later still as unaware as ever.

I feel the bigger loss may come in the form of a new quality poster who stumbled upon the lurker lounge and read around. When he's about to post something (useful), he finds he's unable to post due to the three day restriction and move on, forgetting about lurker lounge until maybe many moons later.

I don't think the non-100% stop of spammers is worth the potential loss of some good posters.

Maybe a short paragraph or page (if possible) before or during the registration process detailing the standards expected here? If there first post is undesirable, there's no need to flame... explain to the poor guy why the forums here are different. If his subsequent posts are still the same, a ban may well be in place. Also, I think banning by IP or email address (if possible) might also help with the problem of returning trolls.

My 0.02 sojs.

I'm pretty thankful the three-day waiting period was not in place when I first came here (or DSF for that matter) else I probably would have missed out on not just this wonderful place but the nude beach, realms beyond and the basin as well.

[gekko]

Maybe a short paragraph or page (if possible) before or during the registration process detailing the standards expected here?

We have this. Several of them. They're little links all over the place. We constantly point them out to people. They don't read them. What's one more? This, by the way, is why I was against making the etiquette "offical." Not because I don't think it should be read; I wish we could force feed it to a few recent posters here. I simply don't believe adding more paragraphs, pages, links, suggestions, or FAQ's is going to help when the problem posters don't read them anyways.

It'll be a shame if we miss out on a new member because they are too impatient to wait a few days before posting (something most everyone should do, whether forced to or not). However, the vast majority of new members who can't take a short waiting period problably wouldn't last here anyways.

gekko

[Occhidiangela]

Enforced waiting period? No, not a good idea.

How about we let folks show their quality up front? Some folks who enter fit right in immediately, and some do not. Let's not artificially constrain folks' ability to show their true colors early in the game.

Those who weather the initiation, good on them! Those who don't, are sent packing sooner.

In other words, I am with Ice on this one.

EDIT: Grrrr, Preview, then post, Preview, then post!

[gekko]

I don't think the waiting period has anything to do with proving new members' worth. It's not a screening process; anyone can join. If a new member can't wait three days to post, odds are they're not going to fit in.

I'm sick of seeing every other thread turn into an argument or flame war about grammar, rules, etiquette, or other issues that anyone who lurked for even a few days before posting should grasp immediately.

Compared to putting up an "official" link to the etiquette (I believe, btw, that the link was a good idea; just that I doubt it'll do any good for those who didn't read it to begin with), I think a waiting period would provide real, instant benefits to the lounge. Maybe if we had some process to weed out those who don't fit before they posted, we could spend more time welcoming and those who do.

gekko

[Occhidiangela]

Maybe if we had some process to weed out those who don't fit before they posted, we could spend more time welcoming and those who do.

It takes the membership's active participation to make it work. I prefer the man in the loop, not a finitely defined 'rule set' that will be no better than the members stepping up to the plate when necessary.

And, by the way, part of internet/usenet interaction is the argument about grammar and usage, for that is the coin of the realm: language. As well argue that you don't like pennies and nickels as currency.

[Ice]

If a new member can't wait three days to post, odds are they're not going to fit in.

Not really. It's sometimes not a matter of lacking the patience to wait but rather not remembering that the place even existed. If he had posted something at all, chances are that he would return to check on the replies and continue staying on. If such a person is but a passing troll (who wouldn't fit in anyway), then good... but if it is a genuinely good poster, then it's simply a backfire of the implementation.

The quality of a forum is only as good as the quality of the posters. If you start missing out on one or two posters at a time, gradually the pool of quality posters would diminish as older posters start to lose interest etc and not enough new ones are taking their place.

Yes, keeping trolls out is nice but the inhibition (sp?) of new posters could well lead to the stagnation of the forum community.

I'm sick of seeing every other thread turn into an argument or flame war about grammar, rules, etiquette, or other issues that anyone who lurked for even a few days before posting should grasp immediately.

In the first place, is there a need to flame? A single post or two by admin or forum regular would more than suffice as a warning. Subsequent persistent disregard for forum etiquette is easily the quickest way out.

In any case, having a three-day waiting period does not ensure a new member would lurk around and read. He who does silly things without reading around is likely to still do likewise whether you give him one day, three days or ten.

[kandrathe]

In the first place, is there a need to flame?

75% or more of the time, it does not get to that level. The poster is level headed (e.g. kier), and responds with an affirmation to read the Etiquette, FAQ, etc. They make the mature attempt to join the community. The other 25% of the time the poster (e.g. Orifice Primo [sic]) lacks the sensitivity to understand what is wrong with responding to a gentle nudge with;

Thanks for the warning MR. Forum Nazi Gastappo officer. Just to clear things up, I am a 20 year old college student at Flordia State University, Male 5'11'' , likes long walks odd short bridges...

That seems like an invitation to a barbeque to me.

[Occhidiangela]

That seems like an invitation to a barbeque to me.

I think that the general population at the lounge would agree that there is some entertainment value in a well constructed, and well deserved, flame. :D

Let's not short ourselves of "a source of innocent merriment, of innocent merriment!" (Nod to Gilber and Sullivan's Mikado)

[gekko]

Well, I'm going to concede defeat in this one; no point in stringing this thread along any more. I suppose I feel the flaming is getting too constant -- while I love a good bbq, I'd rather it was at someone who REALLY deserves it, not just someone who hasn't read the rules yet.

However, since the general feeling seems to be either that a waiting period would cause more harm than good, or it simply is more trouble than its worth...

Glad we discussed it.

gekko

[Bolty]

However, since the general feeling seems to be either that a waiting period would cause more harm than good, or it simply is more trouble than its worth...

Glad we discussed it.

As am I, gekko. These discussions are important, as is the participation in them. I didn't agree with you, but it did get me thinking.

In any online community, a vast majority of people "lurk," in that they'll never post but just read what's there. Also, a large majority of people don't bother reading forum rules and such before posting. It may not be complete rudeness; it's more of a general assumption that what flies in one forum will fly in another. Most of the time it's true. There are some posters who, thus, waltz in and post something that goes against the grain of the forum community here. One of two things happens:

1) the poster is corrected, realizes that things are different here, and settles in
2) the poster, unable to accept that they need to change their posting style or behavior (too proud or arrogant), goes on a rampage and is banned after much ribbing and/or flames

I ask of all: would a 2 to 3 day delay in posting times deter either of these two groups? Answer: yes. Is lowering the number of the second group (which really isn't very high, but since they stand out you remember them and it seems like there's more than really are) so important that it also lowers the number of the first group?

Everyone wants to be free of the second group. It won't happen. This is why every online forum ever created that tries to maintain a decent signal to noise ratio requires moderators. I like to think we do a good job here. We don't ban people as quickly as some would like, and to some others we are too quick on the draw.

The "Report Post" feature is VERY useful; believe me, we read them ALL and pay a lot of attention to them. Every moderator gets an email when you use it, and it's the primary tool we use to watch over things. Sometimes, the best thing to do when seeing a stupid post is to report it and leave it alone, because responding to it just turns a whole thread into a flame war before a moderator gets to it. That just makes it worse.

Those who know me know I'm a fan of the subtle flame - the insult so well shrouded in gentle words or irony that the poster is often unaware they've been blasted. Nothing brings a smile to my face faster. On the flip side, seeing "you're a f***ing cheater so get lost, a-hole" doesn't, even if the jerk deserved it. The reason is because while nobody wants to see the cheater post, nobody also likes seeing a whole thread turn into junk.

My 2 cents!

-Bolty

[gekko]

I would like to say once again what a great job I think both the admins and the community itself does in keeping this forum as clean as possible. Kudos to all the admins -- I think I speak for all lurkers when I say we appreciate the job you do.

As for the subtle flames: I'm with you on this one; nothing gets and keeps a smile on my face like knowing someone's been pasted and they don't even know it. However, most of those who get flamed here make such a game too easy -- oftentimes they don't even get it when Nico hits them with his third or fourth in a row!

gekko

[Thecla]

Well, just my opinion --- a waiting period is a bad idea. People who have useful or interesting things to say in 3 days time will say them immediately; and idiots are unlikely to be non-idiots 3 days later (or, in my case, 6 years later ;) ). Ease and freedom of access are what make the internet go round, and the odd moron is a small price to pay for that (nobody is holding a gun to your head to read or reply to their posts). Of course if these were the current D2 Bliz forums, I might have a different opinion -- a 3 year waiting period could be a good idea in that case.