100 post count minimum for General Apologetics

[Erwin]

The General Apologetics forum now has a 100 post count minimum limit for posters.

This forum is one of the most difficult to moderate and moderators of that forum have unanimously requested this restriction.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Thank you- I think the change was necessary. Are you thinking of doing the same with some of the other more dicey debate forums?

 

[snoochface]

I'd love to see this in Eschatology as well.

 

[Dracil]

We'd love to see a similar requirements for the Creation and Evolution forum.

Something like 50 posts to make replies in the forum, and another 10 replies in the C&E forum specifically before they're allowed to start threads there.

There's so many hit-and-run posters (people who make a thread and then never come back) there it distrubs the peace and harmony of the forum there.

 

[A New Dawn]

Thank you- I think the change was necessary. Are you thinking of doing the same with some of the other more dicey debate forums?

The problem I see with this happening in too many forums, especially in the open forums, is that those who are unorthodox or non-Christian only have 6 debate forums, well, now down to 5, to post in, and if those are all blocked till one has 100 posts, then new unorthodox/non-Christian posters have no place to post except in games and hobbies, etc.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The problem I see with this happening in too many forums, especially in the open forums, is that those who are unorthodox or non-Christian only have 6 debate forums, well, now down to 5, to post in, and if those are all blocked till one has 100 posts, then new unorthodox/non-Christian posters have no place to post except in games and hobbies, etc.

I see your point, but perhaps the dilemma could be alleviated somewhat by lowering the number of required posts? To maybe 10 or 20?

What I see as a major problem is those posters who put something inflammatory on one of the debate forums as their first post, then leave and never come back.

Or perhaps just a restriction on starting new threads, allowing participation in ongoing debates? It would still save some headaches for moderators, I should think, without restricting new members too greatly.

 

[A New Dawn]

I see your point, but perhaps the dilemma could be alleviated somewhat by lowering the number of required posts? To maybe 10 or 20?

What I see as a major problem is those posters who put something inflammatory on one of the debate forums as their first post, then leave and never come back.

Or perhaps just a restriction on starting new threads, allowing participation in ongoing debates? It would still save some headaches for moderators, I should think, without restricting new members too greatly.

I think that restrictions on starting new threads is a great idea. I would even like to see that in UTD.

 

[Erwin]

Thank you- I think the change was necessary. Are you thinking of doing the same with some of the other more dicey debate forums?

That's being looked at and discussed.

 

[MORE85]

WHAT NEXT U NEED 1,000 POST B4 PPL BELEIVE UR A CHRISTIAN?WHY all the requirements?

 

[Farouche Exegete]

I think this is a poor decision and does little to reduce the difficulty of moderating the GA forum, if the threads I'm reading currently are any indication. It's the forum I read the most, other than M&P, and I've never once been cited for intemperate behavior, despite my obviously small number of postings. It's not the case that it's newbies making a mess of the forums, and that surely should be clear to anyone that reads it for any length of time.

So I wish to make known my disappointment at no longer being able to post to that forum. The post minimum decision will not lessen the difficulty of moderation in that forum.

 

[Lisa0315]

I think this is a poor decision and does little to reduce the difficulty of moderating the GA forum, if the threads I'm reading currently are any indication. It's the forum I read the most, other than M&P, and I've never once been cited for intemperate behavior, despite my obviously small number of postings. It's not the case that it's newbies making a mess of the forums, and that surely should be clear to anyone that reads it for any length of time.

So I wish to make known my disappointment at no longer being able to post to that forum. The post minimum decision will not lessen the difficulty of moderation in that forum.

If you are on-line right now, reply back to this thread. We can get you up to 100 posts in a matter of minutes. You are almost there. You won't be disqualified for long. This really is a good rule, and when you have been here a while, you will see why.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Good rule.

 

[Dracil]

Erwin, please make the post restriction forum-wide for ALL debate forums.

We at C&E are getting people who just post their GA stuff there instead of at GA since there's no restrictions here.

 

[A New Dawn]

Erwin, please make the post restriction forum-wide for ALL debate forums.

We at C&E are getting people who just post their GA stuff there instead of at GA since there's no restrictions here.

Bad idea. Just have the threads deleted or moved if they don't conform to forum topics.

 

[Dracil]

No, it's a good idea, many of us in C&E have been pushing for these restrictions to be added anyway.

The mods are always complaining about how busy they are with so many reports. This would help reduce their workload.

It would also generally ease tensions in the forums, so we don't get so many newbies who decide to start several controversial threads that have been beaten to death, never respond to them, and then disappear forever.

 

[A New Dawn]

No, it's a good idea, many of us in C&E have been pushing for these restrictions to be added anyway.

The mods are always complaining about how busy they are with so many reports. This would help reduce their workload.

It would also generally ease tensions in the forums, so we don't get so many newbies who decide to start several controversial threads that have been beaten to death, never respond to them, and then disappear forever.

No, it's a bad idea because then there would be no place for the new non-Christians or unorthodox Christians to post. The new "Christians" can always post in the CO section but the others can't.

 

[Dracil]

They can post in all the non-debate forums! There's a ton of those.

There's also a reason I also have two levels. The first level only lets you reply to threads, the second level lets you start them.

 

[A New Dawn]

They can post in all the non-debate forums! There's a ton of those.

Why would anyone want to come here if the only things they are limited to are playing games and asking what everyone's favorite hobbies are?

 

[Dracil]

Why would anyone start inflammatory threads and never respond to them except to troll and cause trouble?

Why should people who can't be bothered to make themselves part of the community BE part of the community?

And for that matter, there's a heckuva lot of non-hobby and game stuff for them to post in. Heck, the entire Society section of forums.

 

[ACougar]

I disagree, I think 100 is way to high.. especially if someone visits CF just to discuss religion and isn't interested in other topics.

I would like to see it changed to 100 posts before a thread can be started and perhaps 20 before you may post in some of the harder to moderate threads.

If you are on-line right now, reply back to this thread. We can get you up to 100 posts in a matter of minutes. You are almost there. You won't be disqualified for long. This really is a good rule, and when you have been here a while, you will see why.