View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
OshadowO Star Player


Joined: 22 Feb 2003 Posts: 7356
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is genius. Consider this post a count padder.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
usdane Starting Rotation


Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 298 Location: San Diego
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why not limit thread starters to moderators only. That way they have complete control That is what they want right!
On a serious note: If someone starts a bad thread it drops to the second page in no time with the level of traffic here; so what is the big deal? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
FredG Star Player


Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 5345 Location: Junkyard
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
usdane wrote: | Why not limit thread starters to moderators only. That way they have complete control That is what they want right!
On a serious note: If someone starts a bad thread it drops to the second page in no time with the level of traffic here; so what is the big deal? |
Not necessarily. Usually gets locked before that happens. Extra work for the mods. _________________ Just Say No To "Thread Crapping" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Colby Briant Star Player


Joined: 14 Aug 2002 Posts: 2940 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it wasnt for the new policy, tonight there would have been 100 new trolly threads started during the 2nd half and 3OT periods. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
usdane Starting Rotation


Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 298 Location: San Diego
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Colby Briant wrote: | If it wasnt for the new policy, tonight there would have been 100 new trolly threads started during the 2nd half and 3OT periods. |
Right the Suns fans are just all over this place they would surely have started 100 new treads. How did we ever survive before these new rules. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ironicles Starting Rotation

Joined: 11 Oct 2010 Posts: 203
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I totally understand why you would make that 100 posts. However I'm not one of those people who spam and I don't post a lot. There has been on 3 occasions I wanted to make a topic but couldn't because 'm not at 100, and ended up going on other Lakers boards to post it. Eventually I'll get to 100 :'( |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lakerbrainiac Sixth Man

Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posts: 38
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Longtime lurker here also, I think it is a good idea to have it at 100, I'm not there yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
la4win Star Player

Joined: 27 Mar 2010 Posts: 2251
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Watson wrote: | Can we make all the people with less than 100 posts sit at the back of the bus too? And use separate water fountains? Also, they are not invited to any LakersGround events. |
Same thing I was thinking. Posting discrimination. I have a dream, one day...
Serious note, I like the rule. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
9volt Sixth Man

Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Posts: 93
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Texas_Pete wrote: | This is good news. Devil's Advocate: anyone (especially a Laker hating troll) can participate in a game thread and have at least 20 posts. It would take about 5 games or so to reach the magical number of 100 - thus giving a troll free reign to post threads that causes division within LG. I hope that in addition to the minimum post count the intent of these posts are also considered (i.e. are the posts trying to incite a rise out of true Laker fans on this board). I'm just saying...good news regardless.  |
It's just another deterrent. Having at least something is better than nothing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
FredG Star Player


Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 5345 Location: Junkyard
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ironicles wrote: | I totally understand why you would make that 100 posts. However I'm not one of those people who spam and I don't post a lot. There has been on 3 occasions I wanted to make a topic but couldn't because 'm not at 100, and ended up going on other Lakers boards to post it. Eventually I'll get to 100 :'( |
Keep on Truckin! _________________ Just Say No To "Thread Crapping" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jellojigglin Star Player


Joined: 18 May 2001 Posts: 1548 Location: Venice, California
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think 100 posts is too much, you will not grow the forum this way. I mean if there is a stupid post have a moderator or voting system ban the post. _________________ "Bobbin' and weavin' and let the good get even" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jellojigglin Star Player


Joined: 18 May 2001 Posts: 1548 Location: Venice, California
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
usdane wrote: | Why not limit thread starters to moderators only. That way they have complete control That is what they want right!
On a serious note: If someone starts a bad thread it drops to the second page in no time with the level of traffic here; so what is the big deal? | I agree this is a dumb new rule. _________________ "Bobbin' and weavin' and let the good get even" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cha*n Star Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2009 Posts: 7233
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:36 pm Post subject: Re: New policy -- minimum post count before starting a thread |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | All,
We are currently experimenting with a new feature that requires users to have at least 100 posts before they can start a new thread. After we gauge the effects of this feature we will decide whether to keep it, remove it, or change the minimum post count.
Users who pad their post count in order to get to 100 will be dealt with in the harshest manner allowable. Consider this your one and only warning not to pad your post count. |
I padded my post count according to some when posting the news hear so will refrain from starting a thread.
Seems like a reasonable enough policy really.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LarryCoon Site Staff

Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 11484
|
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jellojigglin wrote: | I think 100 posts is too much, you will not grow the forum this way. |
Your premise therefore is that allowing posters who haven't contributed otherwise (either because they're new or because they're primarily lurkers) to create new threads will grow the community above and beyond their existing ability to participate in current threads. I disagree -- I doubt there's anyone out there who only would have participated via a new thread, and even if there are, they are vastly outnumbered by people following the pattern we're trying to curtail.
You're suggesting that the long-time lurker would finally get off the couch and post if he did it in a new thread, but not by contributing to an existing thread. You're suggesting that a new member would be more likely to add to the community in a new thread than an existing thread, and that this outweighs the primary negative -- new users haven't spent enough time here to understand the protocol, and in their naiveté create new threads they should not have created.
I'm not sure whether the net effect will be to encourage or discourage participation -- you can argue it both ways, and it can only be resolved through careful observation -- but I am sure that it will prevent the kind of participation we want to avoid. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mirak Star Player


Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 5238
|
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lakerbrainiac wrote: | Longtime lurker here also, I think it is a good idea to have it at 100, I'm not there yet. |
Wow, dude, 25 posts in 7 years. That's gotta be some sort of record.
Perhaps one of your children's children can inherit your account and begin starting threads when you reach the 100 post requirement. By the time that happens, the technology may allow them to simply download their thoughts directly onto the LG collective consciousness. Resistance is futile, you know. One day they will all be Laker fans.
Oh, assuming, of course, the ozone layer hasn't vanished or the talking apes and/or machines haven't inherited the earth. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
datiger24 Starting Rotation

Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 169
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
almost there. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Prophet8 Starting Rotation


Joined: 02 Jan 2008 Posts: 599
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wanted to post something...... blast! I'm a laker fan NOT a troll  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pkflyers Franchise Player


Joined: 18 Jul 2008 Posts: 12555 Location: 714/562
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bballguru5000 Star Player


Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 8125 Location: Born and Raised in Los Angeles, now living in Manhattan, NY.
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TRAPSTAR wrote: |
I am going to miss the Kobe shots to much threads |
However, reaching 100 posts does not necessarily correlate to increased intelligence, so we can still be surprised with said posts. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
erisian Starting Rotation

Joined: 03 Jun 2010 Posts: 797
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
can we please bump this to 1000?
especially post-loss, the form is full of caterwauling and BS threads |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
C M B Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 20231 Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
|
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
divncom wrote: | C M B wrote: | This is a good start.
A reasonable next step would be to give all posters over 100 posts the ability to perform a "Citizen's Ban" on any poster deemed to be detrimental to the site--a judgement that will be completely objective, one made exclusively by the troublesome poster's peers in the specific thread, and the fate of posters who are so marked should be presented at a tribunal of ten sub-mods (any posters) who are online at any given time.
A "Citizen's Ban" shall be be enforced by the banned poster's voluntary cooperation in not posting until their fate is determined by the tribunal and the Citizen's Ban shall be reinforced by an actual ban, or, at maximum, death by firing squad.
This policy will make LG the greatest site in the world. Thanks for making it happen. |
Why not take it a step further?
Let's have a 24/7 on and off patrol sub-sub mod guard to go around checking each thread for disturbances. Give them temporary ban powers and then call them in front of a sub-tribunal tribunal to see if their actions warrant the attention of a mod tribunal.
Then Lakersground will be the most overly censored and bureaucratic site in the world!
We also need some form of bullets even though this is a virtual world. Maybe we can create some kind of button to "stun" or "taze" the user remotely.
The taze function can be performed by individuals with either a join date before March 2007 or 2000 posts. These arbitrary numbers satisfy me. |
I don't like your ideas. Thusly, I'm committing a citizen's ban on you. You may return in 30 years. I hope that you find a place of refuge in the internet's wilderness. _________________ http://chickhearn.ytmnd.com/
Sister Golden Hair wrote: | LAMAR ODOM is an anagram for ... DOOM ALARM
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
helenzhang5 Rookie

Joined: 13 Jun 2011 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:32 pm Post subject: i love kobe, too |
|
|
[spam removed] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
renzo1200 Starting Rotation


Joined: 27 Dec 2006 Posts: 462
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have over 100 posts and I still can't post a new topic. What's the deallio? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Omar Little Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90739 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
C M B wrote: | divncom wrote: | C M B wrote: | This is a good start.
A reasonable next step would be to give all posters over 100 posts the ability to perform a "Citizen's Ban" on any poster deemed to be detrimental to the site--a judgement that will be completely objective, one made exclusively by the troublesome poster's peers in the specific thread, and the fate of posters who are so marked should be presented at a tribunal of ten sub-mods (any posters) who are online at any given time.
A "Citizen's Ban" shall be be enforced by the banned poster's voluntary cooperation in not posting until their fate is determined by the tribunal and the Citizen's Ban shall be reinforced by an actual ban, or, at maximum, death by firing squad.
This policy will make LG the greatest site in the world. Thanks for making it happen. |
Why not take it a step further?
Let's have a 24/7 on and off patrol sub-sub mod guard to go around checking each thread for disturbances. Give them temporary ban powers and then call them in front of a sub-tribunal tribunal to see if their actions warrant the attention of a mod tribunal.
Then Lakersground will be the most overly censored and bureaucratic site in the world!
We also need some form of bullets even though this is a virtual world. Maybe we can create some kind of button to "stun" or "taze" the user remotely.
The taze function can be performed by individuals with either a join date before March 2007 or 2000 posts. These arbitrary numbers satisfy me. |
I don't like your ideas. Thusly, I'm committing a citizen's ban on you. You may return in 30 years. I hope that you find a place of refuge in the internet's wilderness. |
I don't get it. You mean everyone doesn't get to ban people? _________________ Hoy por ellos, mañana por nosotros |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
C M B Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 20231 Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
24 wrote: | C M B wrote: | divncom wrote: | C M B wrote: | This is a good start.
A reasonable next step would be to give all posters over 100 posts the ability to perform a "Citizen's Ban" on any poster deemed to be detrimental to the site--a judgement that will be completely objective, one made exclusively by the troublesome poster's peers in the specific thread, and the fate of posters who are so marked should be presented at a tribunal of ten sub-mods (any posters) who are online at any given time.
A "Citizen's Ban" shall be be enforced by the banned poster's voluntary cooperation in not posting until their fate is determined by the tribunal and the Citizen's Ban shall be reinforced by an actual ban, or, at maximum, death by firing squad.
This policy will make LG the greatest site in the world. Thanks for making it happen. |
Why not take it a step further?
Let's have a 24/7 on and off patrol sub-sub mod guard to go around checking each thread for disturbances. Give them temporary ban powers and then call them in front of a sub-tribunal tribunal to see if their actions warrant the attention of a mod tribunal.
Then Lakersground will be the most overly censored and bureaucratic site in the world!
We also need some form of bullets even though this is a virtual world. Maybe we can create some kind of button to "stun" or "taze" the user remotely.
The taze function can be performed by individuals with either a join date before March 2007 or 2000 posts. These arbitrary numbers satisfy me. |
I don't like your ideas. Thusly, I'm committing a citizen's ban on you. You may return in 30 years. I hope that you find a place of refuge in the internet's wilderness. |
I don't get it. You mean everyone doesn't get to ban people? |
I'd ban you for this, if I could. _________________ http://chickhearn.ytmnd.com/
Sister Golden Hair wrote: | LAMAR ODOM is an anagram for ... DOOM ALARM
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|