100 post count minimum for General Apologetics

[A New Dawn]

I concur with those who have said that 100 posts is too high merely to post. 100 to start a thread, and a lesser number to post in threads seems far more equitable. And while we're on the topic, I support having the same restriction in CrEvo: it's the only other forum that suffers the same frequency of hit-and-run posters as GA.

I don't know, UTD is right up there, too.

I concur with your suggestion, but only because we are now getting the hit-and-run posters in UTD who come there to get their 100 posts and then leave to go back to GA.

 

[herev]

just so you know, as a recently former mod in that forum (I was a mod in there when this change took place), the reports from that forum dropped 90% the moment it was initiated, so whether it's a good idea or not, it has definitively reduced the work load of staff who moderate in there

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.

 

[The Midge]

just so you know, as a recently former mod in that forum (I was a mod in there when this change took place), the reports from that forum dropped 90% the moment it was initiated, so whether it's a good idea or not, it has definitively reduced the work load of staff who moderate in there

I just hope and pray that the same statistic doesn't apply to new serious users who join and stay. Sounds like all the mods there need a holiday.

 

[nuclear]

I was reading through GA today and came across a thread which interested me enough to post. Now I'm a lurker here at CF, and have been such for more than two years. Imagine my surprise when trying to reply to a thread I was greeted with a message saying that I'm not allowed to post in D&D until my post count is over 100. Though I understand where this rule can come from, however, would someone please think of the lurkers!

This rule pretty much prohibits me and those like me to post regardless of how familiar we are with the forums. In my case, I really dislike post mining, so I'm pretty much stuck without posting in the area of CF where I post primarily. Wouldn't the amount of time spent on CF be a better estimation of debating ability?

 

[crossrunner]

I was reading through GA today and came across a thread which interested me enough to post. Now I'm a lurker here at CF, and have been such for more than two years. Imagine my surprise when trying to reply to a thread I was greeted with a message saying that I'm not allowed to post in D&D until my post count is over 100. Though I understand where this rule can come from, however, would someone please think of the lurkers!

This rule pretty much prohibits me and those like me to post regardless of how familiar we are with the forums. In my case, I really dislike post mining, so I'm pretty much stuck without posting in the area of CF where I post primarily. Wouldn't the amount of time spent on CF be a better estimation of debating ability?

You make a very good point.

 

[JesusZone]

I have a question. Do you screen a person before he/she can become a moderator? Its important because what he/she believes.

 

[Dracil]

I was reading through GA today and came across a thread which interested me enough to post. Now I'm a lurker here at CF, and have been such for more than two years. Imagine my surprise when trying to reply to a thread I was greeted with a message saying that I'm not allowed to post in D&D until my post count is over 100. Though I understand where this rule can come from, however, would someone please think of the lurkers!

This rule pretty much prohibits me and those like me to post regardless of how familiar we are with the forums. In my case, I really dislike post mining, so I'm pretty much stuck without posting in the area of CF where I post primarily. Wouldn't the amount of time spent on CF be a better estimation of debating ability?

How about every day you're logged in counts as one point. Every day you make a post counts as 5 points (so max 5/day). After 50 points, you can post in the debate forums.

This is a modified version of GFAQs karma system (1 point/day that you post, various levels of karma gives you access to new features/remove restrictions)

 

[Plan 9]

How about every day you're logged in counts as one point. Every day you make a post counts as 5 points (so max 5/day). After 50 points, you can post in the debate forums.

This is a modified version of GFAQs karma system (1 point/day that you post, various levels of karma gives you access to new features/remove restrictions)

What a great idea!

 

[D'Ann]

read.

 

[MQTA]

I like the idea of having to have a certain post count before you can start making your own threads. Too many one post wonders in the debate forums.

Yes, that makes sense. Maybe 100 post count before starting new threads, and if there needs to be a restriction on replying threads, maybe have a 10 day time limit following registration. 10 days or 100 posts elsewhere, which ever comes first.

I read GA for a week before I registered with CF. I registered so I could post in the other forums, took a long while before I posted in GA, having already met some people in the other forums.

But, yeah, I guess something had to be done. Drive by thread starters is the main problem, then people posting in existing threads, maybe.