Making new members earn trust

[Ghost]

.

[Blue Murder]

I don't like where this is headed. HA has been troll-free for a while now according to a quick search of recent posts (not sure where this influx of trolls is at). This would only stonewall new members who would potentially add some good things to the microcasm of pro-activity here. This idea is a bit too MGTOW to me, since they work in a similar way.

"But they don't have trolls!"

Okay. And? A uniform choir preaching back and forth to each other won't do any good, especially when the majority of posts/posters aren't about the HA lifestyle. No learning, no growing. This new measure will eventually become a "This guy doesn't regurgitate the rhetoric. Away with him, heretic!" If a new member says anything a hair out of place, he'll get stonewalled and eventually banned. That's going to cut the numbers and site traffic.

HOWEVER, to be fair, perhaps a full site overhaul is in order, at least with just the members. Why not vet all the currently active members? Everyone gets a clean slate and if they F-up, it's their arse. The only way I see this idea actually striking out at whatever perceived issue there is. Food for thought.

[Cornfed]

An new members forum where new members were initially confined to would make sense. It would of course be debatable when to let them into the main forum.

[Yohan]

I don't like where this is headed. HA has been troll-free for a while now according to a quick search of recent posts...

I agree with BlueMurder. There are not so many spammers/trolls etc. - and this is in almost every forum the same.

This idea is a bit too MGTOW to me, since they work in a similar way.

Many forums - it's not only about MGTOW - use an option which requires newcomers to sign up, to verify an email account and to make a few postings for preview. If ok, after 5 released comments or so, the follow-up postings from this newcomer will appear immediately and not kept invisible until checked by a moderator.

[Cornfed]

I don't like where this is headed. HA has been troll-free for a while now according to a quick search of recent posts...

I agree with BlueMurder. There are not so many spammers/trolls etc. - and this is in almost every forum the same.

But the forum has suffered at least one major troll attack in the past and it looks like it is being set up for another one.

[Blue Murder]

I don't like where this is headed. HA has been troll-free for a while now according to a quick search of recent posts...

I agree with BlueMurder. There are not so many spammers/trolls etc. - and this is in almost every forum the same.

But the forum has suffered at least one major troll attack in the past and it looks like it is being set up for another one.

Am I missing something? Major troll attack?

[droid]

I don't like where this is headed. HA has been troll-free for a while now according to a quick search of recent posts...

I agree with BlueMurder. There are not so many spammers/trolls etc. - and this is in almost every forum the same.

But the forum has suffered at least one major troll attack in the past and it looks like it is being set up for another one.

These rules should be clear to keep some forum quality IMO, again, site and thread irrelevant/unrelated posts, as well as personal attacks should be grounds for banning. I think those allow for free expression of opinions while keeping polluters out.

[Blue Murder]

I don't like where this is headed. HA has been troll-free for a while now according to a quick search of recent posts...

I agree with BlueMurder. There are not so many spammers/trolls etc. - and this is in almost every forum the same.

But the forum has suffered at least one major troll attack in the past and it looks like it is being set up for another one.

These rules should be clear to keep some forum quality IMO, again, site and thread irrelevant/unrelated posts, as well as personal attacks should be grounds for banning. I think those allow for free expression of opinions while keeping polluters out.

See. That's another angle. Thanks for reminding me. A quick browse of the forum will yield all types of posts that aren't so popular. I'm 100% for freedom of choice, but I realise that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Freedom is a spectrum. The more you slide to the left, the less you have of the right, and vice versa. My point? HA prides itself on being a free speech forum. Nothing wrong with that at all. Buuuuut, free speech means just that. Free speech. Meaning, the definition of a "troll" becomes very difficult to explain. There are members in this thread who fit my personal definition of a troll, despite not thinking of themselves as such.

A troll is defined as one who makes a communication with the intent to incite negative responses and/or discomfort and/or start drama. Well, such posts exist. Even recently. Unpopular opinions are one thing, but they've left the territory of opinions and are now firmly rooted in trolldom. So a decision has to be made with Winston and his most-trusted staff: ease up on the free speech, emphasise quality of posts over quantity of posts and diversity of opinions, or, let it ride as is and sacrifice site appeal and a thriving community/memberdom (new word) but emphasise freedom of expression through words.

Again, you can't have it all. Sometimes, things are on a spectrum, and you have to slide to adjust according to what you want. Hope this makes sense.

Disclaimer: No, this isn't a front for getting the people I disagree with sent elsewhere. If that's what you took from all of that, your mindset isn't in a healthy place.

[droid]

No such thing as free speech, that's an inaccurate abstraction/wishful thinking. You can't have someone post horse porn or something on everyones's threads. So that idealism should be left aside.

One has to ask what is the purpose of the medium, in this case the forum. To convey and discuss relevant ideas about a subset of topics. That's why, to reach that goal, i propose the rules above. It's not about "unpopular" subjects or opinions, but to minimize the disturbance to the discussions at hand: At the global scope, the premise of the site, and on each thread its own subject.
Attention whoring, personal attacks, and posts aimed at deviating a logical discussion are useless.

[Blue Murder]

No such thing as free speech, that's an inaccurate abstraction/wishful thinking. You can't have someone post horse p**n or something on everyones's threads. So that idealism should be left aside.

One has to ask what is the purpose of the medium, in this case the forum. To convey and discuss relevant ideas about a subset of topics. That's why, to reach that goal, i propose the rules above. It's not about "unpopular" subjects or opinions, but to minimize the disturbance to the discussions at hand: At the global scope, the premise of the site, and on each thread its own subject.
Attention whoring, personal attacks, and posts aimed at deviating a logical discussion are useless.

Your post completely missed the mark. I'm not even sure it was relevant to what I wrote at all. But here. Instead of getting upset, I'll ask for clarification. As for the free speech remark, I'm sure Winston would disagree.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make (one of them at least) is that trolling is subjective. I've explained how I've seen veterans of the forum as trolls in the past and present. Everyone has their own definition. Attention whoring, ad hominem/personal attacks and topic deviation have happened and are happening as we speak. So with the forum having the types of people it does, how are you or anyone else going to set a standard for trolling? Can you define what an HA troll is or does?

[droid]

No such thing as free speech, that's an inaccurate abstraction/wishful thinking. You can't have someone post horse p**n or something on everyones's threads. So that idealism should be left aside.

One has to ask what is the purpose of the medium, in this case the forum. To convey and discuss relevant ideas about a subset of topics. That's why, to reach that goal, i propose the rules above. It's not about "unpopular" subjects or opinions, but to minimize the disturbance to the discussions at hand: At the global scope, the premise of the site, and on each thread its own subject.
Attention whoring, personal attacks, and posts aimed at deviating a logical discussion are useless.

Your post completely missed the mark. I'm not even sure it was relevant to what I wrote at all. But here. Instead of getting upset, I'll ask for clarification. As for the free speech remark, I'm sure Winston would disagree.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make (one of them at least) is that trolling is subjective. I've explained how I've seen veterans of the forum as trolls in the past and present. Everyone has their own definition. So with the forum having the types of people it does, how are you or anyone else going to set a standard for trolling? Can you define what an HA troll is or does?

I'm not trying to disagree with you, i was just adding some thoughts.
But I already defined trolldom in my post. It is very clear, i don't find it that subjective.

As an aside, how about having a thumbs up/thumbs down system for posts? say after a number of thumbs down the post disappears? lol so to make a point, even if very unpopular, the poster has to make it as logical/civilized as possible? this seems cumbersome though, as there is downthread quoting and quote nesting and so on.
Just pondering some ideas.

[HouseMD]

If you're hiding all the best stuff from new posters, why the hell would they stick around?

[Blue Murder]

If you're hiding all the best stuff from new posters, why the hell would they stick around?

Applause. That's another point that escaped me.

[Cornfed]

If you're hiding all the best stuff from new posters, why the hell would they stick around?

The idea should not be to hide stuff from them, but to keep them on diminished posting rights for long enough to make trolling the forum an unproductive exercise.

[Ghost]

.