Open letter to Skinner: Maybe it's time to up the minimum post count needed to start threads

[Pale Blue Dot]

Until after the election.

I understand that everyday many, many legitimate progressives and Democrats sign up to DU and have important and interesting things to say. I believe the majority are NOT trolls. But very often, especially during this time in the election cycle, disruptors and trolls sign up and, within just a few posts they are starting flamebait threads that get 100 responses before they are locked. I know, as a former moderator, that the mods have enough to do right now and can't possibly catch every troll right away. If newbies were required, from now until the GE, to have 50-100 posts before they can start their own thread it would give you and the moderators more time to catch trolls before they do serious damage.

I understand why you might be reluctant to do this, and I agree with your objections. I just really think that it may make things easier on the moderators, who have enough on their plates dealing with snarky posts from old-timers like me. :D

[GoneOffShore]

1. As a fan of snark but a hater of trolls

I'm going to agree with you.

100 posts before starting threads is not an onerous requirement and not just at GE time.

[LostinVA]

72. It should be 100+ NON LOUNGE posts

It's very easy to go in there and rack up a 100 posts in a few hours at most.

[uppityperson]

75. Easy anywhere on DU. Watch.

[uppityperson]

76. See?

[uppityperson]

77. Go (pick a candidate)!

easy to rack up posts in GD too.

[Olney Blue]

2. Great idea.

[orleans]

3. ok--first i have to check my post count, so i'm posting this

on edit: i think the minimum post count should be 12,100 (12,135 to be exact)

}( :P :evilgrin: :silly: :popcorn: :rofl:

[peace13]

17. Exactly! Too funny. n/t

[SeattleGirl]

4. Having read a lot of the threads you are referring to, I agree.

[11 Bravo]

5. What's the number now? I've never known.

I just hung around and waited until the software allowed me to post a thread.

[orleans]

7. same here. it took me FOREVER (actually, i don't remember) n/t

[Richard Steele]

9. I think that's technically an "official secret" here...

But it's around 15 or 20.

[Olney Blue]

11. The official stance is "fewer than you think."

But it is greater than or equal to 27, in view of one of the most hateful posts I have ever seen today from a newbie.

[BB1]

57. I could start a thread after some 10-12 posts.

It was about a mine-accident in South Africa.
As a rule, I don't start anything on politics, reason being I'm not allowed to vote anyway.
I'll comment, though, because no matter what the outcome of the elections will be - it will have an effect on us too.

[Catchawave]

6. Good idea n/t

[Junkdrawer]

8. They'll just hang out in the lounge longer. n/t

[RuleOfNah]

39. "They'll just hang out in the lounge longer."

Exactly.

Raising watermarks is unlikely to fix a fundamental design problem.

[Truth2Tell]

45. So don't count Lounge posts. nt

[LostinVA]

73. Ha -- I posted that up thread

Or, you can't access the Lounge until you reach that post number.

[chknltl]

47. Perfect! Many in the lounge have learned from their pets...

...that it is fun to play with teh food first!











































Weeee've gotttt POPCORN!!!!! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:





































No really, stop teasing us...send the freepers over to the lounge! :bounce:

[Richard Steele]

10. K&R

[zabet]

12. Good idea!

100 should be the minimum.

Skinner needs to add this smiley..

[texastoast]

13. Lo ve the smiley! n/t

[erebusman]

14. dont prefer that myself

Hello,

I've been a lurker on DU for .. gosh I don't even know how long? Since before the last election at least. I rarely if ever post. However occasionally I do think of making a new post; and you could argue if I don't post a lot then this doesn't effect me a lot ; and you would be right.

However; just as the argument of "we should make (insert thing you don't like here) illegal for everyone because children might see it" argument doesn't hold up too well neither does the idea that we should clamp down on new member speech in the interest old members might not like what *some* of them might say. Because in fact you might like what some of them have to say and deprive the opportunity to foment intelligent and constructive speech.

And there is very little to make you feel like you are not important to a community like saying that you are not welcome to speak here right?

I do agree, obvious flame-bait doesn't appeal to me; but I feel progressive and intelligent people we are could perhaps think of better ways to implement a system?

What about a rating system? You have + / - marks for rating someones comments (yes I know very long been suggested as needed here) and you have to have a minimum positive rating to make new comments? Nothing dramatic but just a show that you arent flame bait?

peace and good luck with figuring it out

[Pale Blue Dot]

19. And this, I'm sure, will be Skinner's objection as well.

And they're all good points.

[chimpymustgo]

15. Anybody remember 03-04 primary? We had to write AT LEAST 3 GRAPHS to POST.

Or something like that. The idea was that you had to have put some THOUGHT into a post for GD. May have required a link for more posts. But the idea was - SOME CONTROLS. Needless to say, that lasted less than a week, I think.

But clearly, we need to raise the bar in some way.

[Chimichurri]

16. Agreed.

I haven't been here in a while and I too noticed a big difference in the content.

[catnhatnh]

18. I respectfully disagree...

on the death penalty argument that it is better to free one innocent thought than to kill 100 untruths...
Editted to add:We get a lot of honest seekers here that need full exposure.I would like to welcome them even if they have not been completely exposed to Democratic discourse.

[mopinko]

20. 1000 even

although i will point out that a long time member was behind one of the worst of the bullshit.

[wtmusic]

21. Agree. nt

[BooScout]

22. 100 hell....

Make it 500. I am seeing posts started here where they are taking things directly off rightwing blogs including hotlinking the pics from them.

[Hekate]

28. How about tombstoning for that kind of poison?

:grr: I've had it with that shit.

Hekate

[BooScout]

34. It happens all the time....

I just put people on my ignore list and it keeps growing.

[nashville_brook]

23. Lounge posts shouldn't count toward total -- they use the lounge to up their count

[Pale Blue Dot]

26. As an old-time lounger, I really don't see that.

I know that's a common assumption, but I don't think it can be backed up with evidence.

[SarahB]

35. Not to mention,

the many lounge posters who end up barely posting in other forums (they may often read) because their logical, well-thought out posts get continually replied to with Strawman bullshit arguments and by those that put their own "issues" (not issues of policy an politics, but "issues" in terms of emotional problems they need to work through) onto their replies as opposed to being able to open their minds and think. Perhaps that's just me though. :)

[Pale Blue Dot]

36. Do you always paint everyone with such a broad brush? That's freeper behavior.

I'm hitting "alert".

(:loveya:)

[bobbolink]

24. the requirement varies. I had to have 50 before it would let me post a thread.

Doesn't seem fair....

[burythehatchet]

25. Nonsense; Zozo's mom might never have brightened my day

[babylonsister]

29. Ah, Zozo, we hardly knew ya.

:+

[blondeatlast]

59. And one of the all time great trollbacks might have been missed:

for those who missed it:

zozosmom (24 posts) Mon Jan-14-08 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. It was his choice
to play the race and gender in one fell swop. He's an idiot at best, and a sexist pig at worst. Most likely both. If this is how his campaign is run, imagine what he'd do to the country?

Midlo's response--

Midlodemocrat (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-14-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #8

62. I hope you don't kiss zozo with that mouth.
Troll.

I was there when it happened... :rofl:

[burythehatchet]

65. DUzy fer shur

[blondeatlast]

78. I let JeffR know! That was terrific. nt

[Hekate]

27. Amen. That & maybe banning RW memes and Freeperisms for Dem candidates.

This toxicity cannot continue without destroying DU.

Hekate

[whatdoyouthink]

30. I say make it 200

AND I'M close - Yea

But 1/2 the time - don't know what i,m talking about - but then again the other 1/2 I do! so us newbies - got to watch for a while - to learn the lango/etc..why I have NOT Started many threads!!!

Maybe Should take a Litmus test also!

Just kidding - but Trolls - SHOULD declair who they work for!!! at least.

Thank Whomever - Ron Paul / Nuts - don't get on here - then better make it really HIGH 1 million? Man there killing me - on other sites!

[Hatchling]

58. I agree, 200 sounds good.

I've just found the Lounge myself and participating in those threads opens people up to getting known by other members. I've seen a few newbie disrupter's confronted there with humor.

I also think a new member should be obligated to participate in a pet thread before being allowed to post. ;)


Signed,
a lurker since 2004.

[MelissaB]

31. I had to wait to get in until after the last presidential election because new people weren't being

allowed to register. :hi:

A while after...I begged. :)

[JBoy]

32. As a (relative) newbie, I agree

A couple hundred is reasonable before being allowed to start threads.

I think I've started maybe two threads since I joined (one of which was in the lounge, which immediately got copycatted twice, and mine sank like a stone... ).:P

[Skittles]

50. getting copycatted is an honor, JBoy

yes INDEED

[Buck Stopin Harry]

33. I think 50 sounds about right

It will take a long time for someone like me . I haven't got a lot of time to be in one place for long.

[RedEarth]

37. at least 500 until 12/08

[Buck Stopin Harry]

38. Hell's Bell's Redearth I never will get to post. Gezzzzzzzzz

[NashVegas]

40. Hiya Finnfan

I don't believe post count is the sole tip off. There seems to be a formula, and I've been reporting it when I see it.

[OzarkDem]

53. I've noticed it too

but a temporary post count restriction would help.

[TZ]

41. Hi Finnfan

Let me try to make a thoughtful and logical reply to your post here...:)
Actually you make some really good points, although I can understand that there are many lurkers here that might not agree.
I've only been here a year myself so I have been astonished by some of the troll threads we see here right now.
Its hard to know where to draw the line, but free speech issues (which is what we are dealing with here basically) are rarely easy or clear cut.

[Pale Blue Dot]

42. Oh, bite me!

:D

(Thanks for your logical response. :-))

[Binka]

56. Over 6000+ Posts In A Year?

Good God.

[Harper_is_Bush]

43. Naw. Let the freeps expose themselves sooner.

[alittlelark]

46. Interesting that you would say that.

[leeroysphitz]

44. Mandatory lurking?

I'm not sure I agree with that BUT I do know from years on usenet that most sensible people will lurk for a good while before posting to a new discussion group. So when somebody is chomping at the bit and just has to post right out of the gate the odds are pretty good that said post will not be sensible...

[chknltl]

48. I too respectfully disagree.

I just joined the Thom Hartmann forum. I did this because I wanted to say something there. It was VERY nice to be able to start a thread with my very first post. I joined the Randi Rhodes forum about 5 months ago...I have only posted there on rare occasions because I do not find so many threads I want to jump into on her forum. I STILL can not start my own thread over there...so I gave up on them. I hope newbies never have to "give up" on the DU as I did on the Randi Rhodes forum. I say keep things as they are!

If anything, enlist the aid of ALL DUers in spotting trolls and freepers by asking for our help out on the front page. I for one am guilty of being hesitant to hit the alert button as often as I could...that changes today, if that's of any help.

chknltl: as of now: "The Ever Vigilant chknltl" :patriot:

[1awake]

49. I'm one of the newbies

And besides the fact I have yet to attempt to start my own thread (didn't even know there was a specific count needed)I would have no issue with something reasonable.. even 100. I kinda felt being the new guy.. I should probably let the seasoned folks lead the topics and stick to afew comments here and there until I'm use to DU more, and people are more use to me.

[Marrah_G]

80. I did the same thing

I think I was well over 500 posts before I made an OP. Even now I don't make alot of OPs .... often there are a handful of other people who say exactly what I was thinking and are far better at putting into words ( and far fast too).

[Dark]

51. Or, how about this as a solution:

I went over to the Stormfront web site not too long ago to see if the Ron Paul rumors were true (they are).

Anywho, they ban disruptors from posting in all but one forum. In that one, both sides can argue their brains out.

Seems like a good idea. Give us (and them) a place to fight it out, but keep the rest of the forum civil.

[DireStrike]

67. Remember after the '04 election

GDP became the "fighting and acrimony" forum? That was great... for a while. xD

[OzarkDem]

52. First rate idea

it doesn't have to be permanent, but just through the election. Its pretty obvious what's going on around here these days and it might make the mods work a little easier.

[needledriver]

54. Color me new

I don't post much. I have been able to start threads already - it surprised me too!

It may be a combination of post count and time on DU.

I don't think post count by itself is necessarily a good yardstick.

Someone could spend a couple of days doing empty K&R posts and get to a few hundred posts in a short time, but in doing so provide very little worthwhile content.

The thing is, DU is a discussion board. If you don't let people start discussions, you don't get to discuss anything with them. Even NOOBs can have a valid viewpoint.

DU is pretty good at self policing. Sure, there's a lot of hand waving and people running around in circles right now. So what?

Dull or annoying threads sink quickly. Flame bait threads generate a lot of heat, but no light, and are easy to ignore.

[Hatchling]

61. Not actually true.

You said:"If you don't let people start discussions, you don't get to discuss anything with them."

You can discuss plenty in a post someone else has started.

[raccoon]

55. I second that emotion. nt

[Hatchling]

60. Put the join date in the post headers, too.

That will allow people to know who the committed lurker is, and give longtime members some idea as to whether they should respond to 'flame bait'.

Most other forums I've participated in do that.

[Hutzpa]

62. 100 posts should do it,

and if they don't like it tough.

[SIMPLYB1980]

63. K&R!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Problem Is, A Lot Of The WORST Threads Are Coming From People With Far More Posts Than That.

For the record, I totally hear what you're saying about the hit and run troll type posts. But to me they are so transparent that it almost is just there for entertainment value, and most of us know better than to take it seriously.

The threads that irk me though are the ones from those who are legitimate members here, but aren't using their community discretion to post things of greater value. Instead, they post a bunch of flamebait while not offering almost anything legitimate to support their positions, while casting unfounded criticism after unfounded criticism at other candidates. I find these worse not only for their detrimental intent, but because they are discussed far more seriously since they come from real members as opposed to those who so clearly are only here to post the flamebait and run.

On edit though: I can't say increasing the minimum post count in order to start threads is necessarily a bad idea though. :)

[blondeatlast]

79. Yes, and some fly JUUUST under the radar enough they never get caught.

I've had to learn that the scroll wheel can be my only friend sometimes... :rofl:

[taught_me_patience]

66. I say 1000+ posts

that way old timers can talk amongst themselves and get caught up in their own groupthink.

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

68. JUST MOVE THE THREADS TO WHERE THEY BELONG

Advocacy threads should get sent to GD-Politics..

[HughMoran]

69. I'd say up it to 2500 posts minimum

:D, no special reason - just sounds good to me :P

[SoCalDem]

71. 20K to post..15K to reply...

Should cut down on the "clutter" :evilgrin:

[HughMoran]

74. uh-huh

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

70. Totally agree

I said this to Haruka a few nights ago. When I joined, you had to have several hundred posts (I think) to start a thread). Not 5, or 15, or 25.

I've noticed what you've noticed.

[Marrah_G]

81. There is one in GD-P right now !

Joined yesterday and is already suggesting "since Hillary is going to win" that we all vote McCain, Indy or just stay home......

[NoPasaran]

82. And a bunch of fresh trolls have joined in there as well

It's like one of those 3 for 1 pizza delivery specials

[XemaSab]

83. AMEN! 11,000's a good minimum number

;)