|
30/30 Rule
|
 RE: 30/30 Rule
February 21, 2015 at 7:39 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2015 at 7:46 pm by Violet.)
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
 RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 2:57 am
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 3:20 am by Napoléon.)
 (February 21, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Nope Wrote: I often wonder why the posters dont ask someonr else to post the link for them in a different post I don't think this is something we'd really like to encourage. If it's relevant to an ongoing discussion, it's OK to post in the first place, and if it's not relevant to an ongoing discussion - well, personally I'm going to read that as attempting to skirt the rule, and I think I can speak for all of that staff when I say that sort of thing pisses us off. 
I think think the rule is clear but the way I've seen it enforced recently is just about any link from a new member is removed regardless of if it's relevant to discussion. That's the problem people were having, not that it's unclear or wrong.
 (February 22, 2015 at 3:21 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(February 21, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Nope Wrote: I often wonder why the posters dont ask someonr else to post the link for them in a different post That makes sense. I was thinking along the lines of a link to something pertinent to the discussion but I could see why that would be skirting the rule. Your answer seems obvious to me now. I don't know why it didn't before I asked. 
I had originally read the rules as not initiating a thread with links, but joining a thread and posting a relevant link while participating in the discussion was OK. I saw it as a means to weed out 'hit and run' trolls. If it is completely relevant to the post, why not?
I say, "blah blah blah". You say, "Proof, source?". I say, "30 days from now". Not conducive to an ongoing discussion. It can be difficult sometimes for a newbie to participate. I also understand the viewpoint of the moderators that have to weed through those links. If there were a 'Dummy' user that the regulars could PM the link to the specific post, that would make it less cumbersome for the moderators to look for the 'bad' links as they would be in one spot.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion. -- Superintendent Chalmers Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things. -- Ned Flanders Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral. -- The Rev Lovejoy 
LastPoet
 Leader of the gang of jerkoffs(tm)  Religious Views: L'Uomo verrà portato dalla sua creazione
The OP brings some valid points and the staff here is always welcoming to suggestions. Looking at the Admin CP, I wonder if it is possible to tweak the system so that new members can be on a group called "Newbies" that is devoid of link habilities and such. I will have to go down the rabbit s hole yet again, but I can see how it would relieve the staff of the tedious business of manually remove links.
 (February 22, 2015 at 10:38 am)Nine Wrote: I think think the rule is clear but the way I've seen it enforced recently is just about any link from a new member is removed regardless of if it's relevant to discussion. That's the problem people were having, not that it's unclear or wrong. I think this is the only issue I see as happening lately with regards to the rule. I agree with Napo though. It's not a lot to ask to wait. It shows investment, and that's what we want here. Someone who's invested in the community enough to want to post regularly. RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 1:33 pm by Nine.)
(February 22, 2015 at 1:11 pm)LastPoet Wrote: The OP brings some valid points and the staff here is always welcoming to suggestions. Looking at the Admin CP, I wonder if it is possible to tweak the system so that new members can be on a group called "Newbies" that is devoid of link habilities and such. I will have to go down the rabbit s hole yet again, but I can see how it would relieve the staff of the tedious business of manually remove links. I think not allowing people to post any links at all until the time limit up is a bad idea. Especially seems a lot of the more lighthearted threads involve a lot of images and youtube videos. Taking that away from people for the first 30 days is just going to put people off getting to know people here. Its not even how the rule is meant to be. People should be able to use links, videos and images so long as its productive to the discussion and isn't advertising. Honestly I think 30 days is overkill. A lot of the more active members that join have several hundred posts in their first month. I remember averaging something like 40 posts a day for the first few months I was here. A person who has posted 100-200 posts that are productive should surely be allowed to start using links. Making them wait until a month is past doesn't really help anyone. (February 22, 2015 at 1:16 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I agree with Napo though. It's not a lot to ask to wait. It shows investment, and that's what we want here. Someone who's invested in the community enough to want to post regularly. 30 days seems excessive. I probably had 500+ posts in my first month. It would be nice to have a upper post count that exempts them from the rule. Perhaps a 'over 10 days and 200 posts' or something. I feel like somebody who has hit over 200 posts even if in only 10 days has a fairly good feel for whats acceptable. 
It may be overkill but there is definitely a need for a rule to discourage people from posting just to draw traffic to their site with no intention to take part in the community. I'm content to leave it to the experts, the people who have taken on the annoyance of keeping the site viable, to decide what the rule should be. I just hope if this Emily really does want to take part in this community that she will get the opportunity. Again, I'm content to leave it to our experts to determine if that is the case.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
