Thinning the herd.

[onlydarksets]

I'm speachless...

[RedskinRat]

If there was ever a post to confirm why newbies shouldn't be permitted to post crap this is the one, sarnold.

I'm sure you'll use the 'humor' defense. Save it. Just take yourself over to the other Redskins site and leave the site here all the better for your departure.

Shooo!

[skinnyfan]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

If there was ever a post to confirm why newbies shouldn't be permitted to post crap this is the one, sarnold.

I'm sure you'll use the 'humor' defense. Save it. Just take yourself over to the other Redskins site and leave the site here all the better for your departure.

Shooo!

Relax man.....I like the cut of this guys jib'

[MTK]

She raises a great point, I wish more people would step away or calm down a bit before posting especially right after a loss. People come here looking for blood after a loss and things get a bit "rediculous" at times.

[MTK]

ironic that in a thread of this nature we have a dope like sarnold posting this nonsense

[firstdown]

How about blocking a new member from starting new threads until they have a 100 or so post under their belt. When I first joined I read most things and did not even post for a week or two. Then I satrted to post and had a good feel for the site and what it was about. It was several months before I started a tread which I thought would add to the contents of this site. We have new members coming with just a few post starting several threads a day and the only post count they have is on defending why they started the thread. Making them wait for their post count to get to a certain number will drive away the ones that just come here and start stupid threads.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by firstdown

How about blocking a new member from starting new threads until they have a 100 or so post under their belt. When I first joined I read most things and did not even post for a week or two. Then I satrted to post and had a good feel for the site and what it was about. It was several months before I started a tread which I thought would add to the contents of this site. We have new members coming with just a few post starting several threads a day and the only post count they have is on defending why they started the thread. Making them wait for their post count to get to a certain number will drive away the ones that just come here and start stupid threads.

I think 100 is maybe too much but 10 is not enough.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I think 100 is maybe too much but 10 is not enough.

Agreed. I'd lean closer to about 25 myself; maybe up to 50.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I think 100 is maybe too much but 10 is not enough.

No I think 100 will get someone in to the flow of the site and will give them knowledge to what others want to talk about and not just starting a tread to do so. If they are true fans (I'm not saying a new poster is not) and really like this site 100 post would only take a week or two.

[JoeRedskin]

Matty,

I like the reply posting requirement. Thank you. I do expect, however, we will get a few thread spammers who will just run up a quick post count with meaningless replies (one word replies, etc.) so I think you will end up needing to set the initial post count pretty high (50-100).

Another thought, and in conjunction with the "new thread" requirements, how about placing a post-per day limit on new members? This would both cut down on spamming to reach the "new thread" requirements and provide newbies with a chance to make limited posts while seeing how things operate around here.

As many of the vets (and mods) know, losing Daseal as an active participant decreases that which was the essence this board. Seeing the decline in several other posters whose contributions I have always appreciated has, in my opinion, hurt the board and, I believe, Daseal and Cpayne have clearly stated the reason why this has occurred.

I do appreciate the mods concern with being an inviting and open forum that encourages discussion by not placing limits on membership. As with Cpayne and Daseal, however, I have missed the "knowledgeable fan" discussion that previously marked this board.

Let me just ask this - what is the Warpath's goal? To have increased membership or to have knowledgable and informative discussions? If the former, change nothing. If the latter, then it may time to place limits on posters. Doing so will weed out the kidwell's, etc. (who simply have to go somewhere else to vent their Extreme opinions) while, hopefully, encouraging those who are looking for some more meaningful discussions to stick around.

If I sound like a veteran snob, so be it. I understand that, in limiting newbies and low-posting regulars/lurkers, the biggest concern is that you limit and cut off discussion. Currently, however, the multiple thread garbage and excessive dross seems to me to be doing the same thing with Daseal's announcement being the most obvious evidence of it.

This post ended up being MUCH longer than I anticipated. I hope it will be taken in the spirit it was meant (See below).

Two final points:
I hope Daseal changes his mind b/c, as many have said, I greatly appreciate his contrarian nature when it comes to the Skins.

In one of your posts you indicated that the mods had already been discussing this issue. I would simply like to thank you for the efforts you, the mods, HAVE made in keeping threads clean, merging where appropriate and locking when appropriate. Given the "in season" issues, I recognize the vigilance used, the careful balancing that you have performed, and the incredible amount of work already being put into the board. And, for all the above critique, this is still the only forum site I visit for discussion. Thank you for your excellent work and commitment.

[MTK]

I appreciate the feedback but 50 or 100 is way too much. I've been a member on other boards that required a certain amount of posts and 10 seems to be pretty standard. If someone had to hang around for 50 or 100 posts alot of people would quickly look for another forum. We'll see how this goes and we can always make changes.

Spammers aren't going to hang around, they look for a quick in and out. Most aren't interested in hanging around for even 10 posts, and there is already a requirement in place as to how long a reply must be, so quick one word answers won't always cut it.

As far as limiting posts per day there isn't a way we can do that currently, unless I can find a modification for that.

Obviously we're never going to find a perfect solution, but I think these new member restrictions are going to help.

[MTK]

As for the knowledgeable tag line, I appreciate that you guys liked that. I can bring that back, I just felt like changing it up a little. It wasn't meant to reflect that the site is moving in a different direction or anything, but perhaps it was important to help set the tone.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

As for the knowledgeable tag line, I appreciate that you guys liked that. I can bring that back, I just felt like changing it up a little. It wasn't meant to reflect that the site is moving in a different direction or anything, but perhaps it was important to help set the tone.

It's back! I like it!

[onlydarksets]

I'm already in favor of what JoeRedskin posted (I forget who posted it first). Some kind of a limit on the number of posts per day would be great.

An alternative for creating the new thread could be that you have to have 10 posts and be a member for a week, or something like that. It would prevent people from dumping a bunch of posts in the Parking Lot just to be able to create a new thread.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

I don't like the idea of limiting the amount of posts a person, even a newbie, can have per day at all. I know it will help with the Kidwells of the world, but sometimes people get into heated discussions on here (like the one I was involved in on monday and tuesday) and before you know it you've posted 50 times.