LPSG Members: become part of the solution.

Rikter8 · 08-01-2007

1. Delete all members non-active for 60-90 days.

2. Remove access to photos and thumbnails to non-premium members.

3. Clear and evident spammers should be deleted (or banned).

4. Remove the ability to right click and save photos.

5. Lurkers in the chatroom that don't post or input text to be bounced after 20 minutes of inactivity.

6. Make it Mandatory that users fill out a profile upon joining this site.
If no profile is filled out, Display IP address instead.
(Forces accountability for their actions on here)

I'll think of more when im in my hotel room
C

kalipygian · 08-01-2007

The workaround for stating the reason for banning in the case of underage members could be simply stating that they had 'falsified date of birth' in their registration. Or just 'falsification of registration information'. ( I have no idea how moderators can be certain, in many cases, of a person's age)

I have not seen a persuasive argument presented that there is need for secrecy in any other catagory of banning.

Posts and threads , barring something heinous or illegal, should not be deleted.

If a truth and reconciliation commission is appointed to repair the damage, I nominate the universally respected and very capeable Kotchanski.

Thanks.

Edit. As a gesture of optimism, and putting my money where my mouth is, I have just put through a payment for a year.

senor rubirosa · 08-01-2007

1. Delete all members non-active for 60-90 days.Why, Rikter?
2. Remove access to photos and thumbnails to non-premium members.
Well, my thought above was that the thumbnails may entice non-premium members to upgrade. Would it really? Don't know.
3. Clear and evident spammers should be deleted (or banned).
4. Remove the ability to right click and save photos.
Why? Maybe having that ability reduces the demands on the database, since people don't have to keep coming back to view their favorites.
5. Lurkers in the chatroom that don't post or input text to be bounced after 20 minutes of inactivity.
Why? So that one can tell more easily at a glance who's effectively there? I suppose ...
6. Make it Mandatory that users fill out a profile upon joining this site.
If no profile is filled out, Display IP address instead.
(Forces accountability for their actions on here)
Isn't the IP address known? (And aren't IP addresses less significant these days, anyway?)

dong20 · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikter8

1. Delete all members non-active for 60-90 days.

A reminder/inactivity warning email could be sent say 14 days prior?

2. Remove access to photos and thumbnails to non-premium members.

3. Clear and evident spammers should be deleted (or banned).

4. Remove the ability to right click and save photos.

5. Lurkers in the chatroom that don't post or input text to be bounced after 20 minutes of inactivity.

I don't use chat but sound like a good idea.

6. Make it Mandatory that users fill out a profile upon joining this site.
If no profile is filled out, Display IP address instead.
(Forces accountability for their actions on here)

I suspect you may run into privacy concerns there. Do you mean the IP address it was posted from, or the current one. It could be a privacy issue again, especially if the IP is static.

If you make the profile mandatory, won't people lie? As some do now, I suppose.

I'll think of more when im in my hotel room
C

I'll try to dream some up...

rawbone8 · 08-01-2007

Create two levels of curtailment of access/posting for offenders.

Suspended for first time, second time etc. offenders. Limited to one week at a time.

Banned for the irredeemable outcasts, but use it extremely sparingly.

Allow for a grievance procedure, for exceptional advocation.

Explain bannings in a coherent, open way with the banned, and publish a short reason probably with a reference to the TOS, so that long time members won't be as upset by the loss of friends. Fairness should apparent. No need to do this with the suspension.

Give the mods direction on a more hands-off sensitivity to intervention, except for under age members.

Tolerate differences of opinion and communication style. Curmudgeons, flamers, argumentative SOBs, and snarky humour should be allowed in appropriate threads. Mere disruption, heated criticism and pissing in someone's cornflakes should not be bannable offences in Etcetera, for example. Or create a new category to move a thread to and call it Gloves Off or The Bear Pit and then let it fly. Overt racism, homophobic hatred and issuing physical threats or illegality may be still set up as limits that construe terms for banning. Refinements can be discussed for protection of the site owner's interests.

Change the mods and co-admins regularly.

dong20 · 08-01-2007

New members cannot start threads until they have say 100 posts logged?

I like the suspended status. Like a temporary ban, only without the cache.

No_Strings · 08-01-2007

Being a newer member, it's probably not my place to say, but...

Stickies - there are several long, informative threads in the lower pages of the forum(as linked to in the recent "threads worth revisiting" topic), making some of them stickies in each forum could cut down on some of the inane shit that gets started.

Punishment for members who post completely off-topic or try and bait others into a reaction - I'm not sure if it's possible in php, but some form of karma system? Each memebr has a +/- under their username, a fellow member clicks "+" if they see a good, well thought out post, a "-" if it's the opposite. It can be open to abuse, but it usually evens itself out after it's given some time.

Somehow limit members to creating a new topic(apart from the introductions forum) - a post limit, 10-50? (A karma limit?)

More visible moderation - Instead of seemingly hoping a thread dies out, why not have the moderators link to the aforementioned stickies in a repeat thread, and then lock it. To me a forum moderators job is like the fishing net of a trawler - it lets the plankton filter through and sink to the bottom, while catching the bigger fish.

A review of the entire moderating team - more/less, old/new, hiring/firing. From the beginning.

Reasons for permanent bans being made public - Notice permanent, temporary bans won't be given a reason. The lack of reason signifies to memebrs A) It isn't permanent. B) The severity wasn't necessary for it to be permanent.

Purge memberships - After 90 days/3 months of inactivity, simply delete the account.

*shrug* Just the thoughts from the top of my head.

Big Dreamer · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dong20

New members cannot start threads until they have say 100 posts logged?

I'm not certain if that will help much, dong. At least if they start a thread they might have a mild interest in the subject matter.

dong20 · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dreamer

I'm not certain if that will help much, dong. At least if they start a thread they might have a mild interest in the subject matter.

Perhaps, it was aimed at reducing some of the snarkiness about Noobs creating the same tired old threads ad naseum...you know the ones of which I speak!!!

jeff black · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dong20

New members cannot start threads until they have say 100 posts logged?

I really like this idea, but I wouldn't make it a set number of posts. Instead, Ithink that a 2-week ban on creating threads would suffice. This would allow the newcomers the opportunity to read threads, answer some of their questions before hand and allow them to become more knowledgable as members. (It would also allow mods to not have to deal with spamming Threads as it seems most spammers flood the site within a day or two).

Another thought, is to decrease the amount of threads one can start per day. Saves space, keeps people from having to go through more than a few threads about the exact same topic.

senor rubirosa · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff black

I really like this idea, but I wouldn't make it a set number of posts. Instead, Ithink that a 2-week ban on creating threads would suffice. This would allow the newcomers the opportunity to read threads, answer some of their questions before hand and allow them to become more knowledgable as members. (It would also allow mods to not have to deal with spamming Threads as it seems most spammers flood the site within a day or two).

Except that 'two weeks' doesn't tell you how much engagement they've had with the site.
'One hundred posts' (or whatever) tells far more.

fantasize4men · 08-01-2007

I was trying to come up with the proper description of my suggestions and Rawbone stole them (He needs banned!

) Seriously, i wil emphatically second all of his suggestions. Bannings are flying way too frequently lately.

I disagree with the suggestions of completely removing any access to the galleries for non-paying members. I am one, and would like to think that I have still contributed enough to this site. Being a non-paying member already limits my access to just the thumbnails, but it's the ability to at least see them that got me interested in staying here in the first place.

jeff black · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by senor rubirosa

Except that 'two weeks' doesn't tell you how much engagement they've had with the site.
'One hundred posts' (or whatever) tells far more.

True, Rubi... but "trolls" can fly through 100 posts with ease.

I stick by my reasoning in this case... 2 weeks allows them the opportunity to read. IF they do, great. If they don't... at least they had the chance.

senor rubirosa · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff black

True, Rubi... but "trolls" can fly through 100 posts with ease.

As a friend of Jeff Black, I know this is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff black

I stick by my reasoning in this case... 2 weeks allows them the opportunity to read. IF they do, great. If they don't... at least they had the chance.

It's just a question of which criterion is more likely to bring with it some familiarity with the site.
I guess the fence has two sides.

Big Dreamer · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by senor rubirosa

Except that 'two weeks' doesn't tell you how much engagement they've had with the site.
'One hundred posts' (or whatever) tells far more.

One hundred smiley faces comes around really quickly for some. There are members operating at 25 posts/day that have contributed very little actual text, and they would get the governor removed after 4 days. Too bad there wasn't a word count function that could accumulate text strings.

It wouldn't be bulletproof , but it might help a little bit.

LPSG Members: become part of the solution.

1. Delete all members non-active for 60-90 days. 2. Remove access to photos and thumbnails to non-premium members. 3. Clear and evident spammers should be deleted (or banned). 4. Remove the ability