Can't send PMs until I hit 100 posts?

I am struggling to come up with a more fitting title. 🤦

I have received a few rather ridiculous private messages lately, and unfortunately, this isn't an isolated incident. I have dealt with what I assume are clone accounts before, which reminded me of a specific rule I once encountered on an overseas forum.

Essentially, the rule was that members with fewer than 100 posts are restricted from sending direct messages. I am not entirely certain if our forum offers such a setting, but if it does, I truly believe it would be a wise feature to implement.

I simply see no purpose in allowing someone to impersonate Agent Smith indefinitely just to spam us with messages.

There are several other requirements that some users fail to meet—for instance, many seem incapable of reaching even the 100-post threshold here. Initially, I thought such thresholds were somewhat arbitrary, but I have since realized that these rules aren't necessarily designed for "normal" users; they don't seem to bother the bad actors at all.

So, does this forum have these kinds of moderation tools available, or should we simply expect to deal with strange private messages from time to time?

I think your suggestion would be a lot more effective if applied to how we handle starting new threads.

The way it works now, people end up getting harassed through private messages, while the rest of us—the whole community here—just gets stuck dealing with spam or mindless, low-quality topics being posted everywhere...

You feel me? ☕

James Chavez91 said:Your suggestion would be much more effective if applied to how we handle new threads.

The way things are now, people get harassed via private messages—while the rest of us, the entire forum community, gets harassed by a constant stream of spammy, brainless threads...

You feel me? ☕

Exactly, Mike!
You hit the nail right on the head...😉

Someone joins with zero posts or maybe just a couple, then immediately opens a thread like:

"What do you guys think about this?" followed by some random link to a news article...
Honestly, I am fed up with having to delete these telegraphic, low-effort "threads" that usually don't even have a remote connection to the actual PDF content!☕

James Chavez91 said:I believe your suggestion would be far more effective if applied to the process of initiating new discussion threads.

It is truly disheartening to see how this can happen—where an individual is harassed through private messages, while the entire community is simultaneously tormented by the constant influx of spam and utterly mindless threads. It really disrupts the spirit of the whole forum.

Listen, my friend, you know exactly what I mean. ☕

To be perfectly honest, what you’re saying is essentially covered by the rule regarding posting privileges; we have those restrictions where users with fewer than 100 posts—give or take eighty or a hundred and fifty—can't open new threads just yet. I simply wanted to avoid cluttering the board by starting three separate discussions. I suspect we could probably consolidate them into a single thread, much like how one might organize things under a single Nestlé brand umbrella.

Chris Peterson53 said:You hit the nail right on the head, Mike!
You're absolutely spot on...😉

The moment someone with zero posts—or maybe just a handful—starts a thread:

"What do you all think about this?" followed by a link to some news article...
To be perfectly honest, I am quite weary of seeing these blunt, poorly constructed "topics" pop up, most of which don't even have a remote connection to the actual subject matter of the PDF!☕

Chris Peterson53, these kinds of threads are actually started by long-time forum members too. If we look at the specific PDF where you serve as a moderator, it's clear that this has become a standard "method" for starting discussions there. However, it isn't just about people posting daily political news; it’s also about users who might lack experience in how to properly initiate a discussion. This applies whether they are commenting on current events or simply asking for advice on what kind of term paper to write (which varies depending on the PDF, as nearly every one has those types of newcomers drifting in).

Personally, I believe that implementing those 100 points would actually provide much-needed guidance for users, which would ultimately make things much easier for all of you as well.

Steven Clark2 said:Actually, I think what you're getting at is basically covered by the rule about users needing a certain post count—maybe 80 or 150, roughly—before they can start new threads. I just didn't want to clutter things up by starting three separate topics—though I suppose one could combine them, kind of like how people do over at Nestlé.

Not to sound like I don't know what I'm talking about—I'm really no expert on whether that's even technically possible—but I just wanted to weigh in.

These are pretty interesting questions, though, so hopefully we'll get some answers eventually.

👍

James Chavez91 said:I don't want to speak out of turn here since I'm certainly no expert on the technical side of things; I'm just weighing in with a quick thought.

However, these are quite compelling questions, and I truly hope we see some actual answers soon.

👍

The only way this would be impossible is if the forum software itself doesn't support such a feature, but I am sure someone more knowledgeable will chime in on that.

James Chavez91 said:I think your suggestion would actually be more useful if we applied it to how new threads are opened.

It would be really great if we could apply that to both scenarios. 🙏

If I get one more DM from some random account that only has two posts and just sends a message like— You always write such great posts... ...or some similar kind of thing. 🤦 I honestly don't care what kind of sanctions they throw at us; I'm done playing nice. I’ve reached my limit with this guy and his entire bloodline. 😳

I am in favor of this idea. We are seeing a significant amount of spam via direct messages and complaints regarding thread quality coming exclusively from newly registered users.
I hope the technical admin reviews this and determines if implementation is feasible.

This is just stupid and totally lacks common sense. What’s the point of capping how many messages someone can drop in thirty minutes on a chat? It isn't going to stop actual spammers. On top of that, think about the people who actually have a legitimate issue—someone needing urgent help or asking a quick question. Are they supposed to be forced to flood the boards with useless posts just to get permission to start a new thread in the job and career subforum?

Exactly. Most people join this forum because they’re facing a specific issue and they need help—usually right now. Are we really expected to spam a hundred random posts just to earn the right to ask a question? Look, sure, sometimes someone might start a new thread when there's already a perfectly good one covering the topic, but that's an easy fix. Honestly, if you don't have the patience for moderation, then don't volunteer for it.

Honestly, I’m not a fan of this idea at all. It feels like way too many people are signing up on Healthline just to drop a couple of quick questions and then immediately demand answers via DM or by starting their own thread.

Implementing that restriction seems pointless to me. There are plenty of people who join just to check out a specific ad or trade things like trading cards and textbooks.

melloworca6 said:Personally, I’m not a fan of this idea at all. It seems like way too many people join health forums just to drop a quick question and demand answers immediately, whether through private messages or by starting their own threads.

PDF. Just like most other US health forums, there are already plenty of old threads where you can easily find something similar to your issue and just ask your question there. The real headache, though, is that a lot of moderators penalize people for bumping old threads, so I guess they'd have to figure out how to handle that first. ☕

mistyhound94 said:The Health section, just like most other PDFs, is packed with old threads. It’s actually pretty easy to find an existing topic that touches on what someone is going through and just drop a question there. The headache is that a lot of moderators crack down on bumping old threads, so we'd need a way to handle that if this changes. ☕

You can't just cram every single issue into an old thread, especially not in a section like Health. 🙂

I'm not a fan of this idea. If they go through with it, I really hope the Health section gets an exemption. Plus, plenty of people create alt accounts specifically for health stuff because they don't want the rest of the forum crowd knowing their business (especially the guys 😁).

melloworca6 said:Personally, I am not a fan of this idea at all. So many people on the Health subforum register just to drop a couple of questions and get answers as quickly as possible—whether through a PM or by starting their own thread.

Precisely. And honestly, it’s not just limited to the Health section.

Regarding the spammers—if I were in their shoes and noticed a new rule stating "no PMs allowed without 100-150 posts," I imagine I would simply flood some random, irrelevant threads with useless comments just to hit the quota. It wouldn't actually stop them.

mistyhound94 said:The Health subforum, much like most other sections, already has old threads where someone could easily find a similar issue and ask about their own situation. The real headache is that quite a few moderators penalize users for bumping old threads, so that would need some kind of workaround. ☕

On the Health subforum, bumping old threads isn't really what gets sanctioned; it's the creation of five identical duplicate threads that causes issues.

As for Health specifically, it happens constantly—users reach out to moderators via PM regarding specific medical concerns (especially sensitive ones) without ever having posted a single thing on the forum. Even more frequent is when people register (sometimes even using burner accounts) just to ask a question, share an experience, or exchange advice on a particular topic. In those cases, a PM is practically unavoidable. That has always been the dynamic there, and it doesn't really have anything to do with what you mentioned about bumping threads.

And this isn't just happening in one subforum; it’s a pattern across various sections too. Not to mention the classifieds and everything related to trading items, which pop up all over the place.

Therefore, I think this would be a poor solution. On one hand, it wouldn't deter actual spammers since they can rack up post counts in no time, and on the other, it would block people who genuinely need to send a PM (for urgent help, buying/selling tickets, etc.). 😉

Sarah Doyle54 said:It’s just silly and totally lacks any real logic. Flooding a chat with a hundred messages in thirty minutes isn't going to stop actual spammers—it's just noise. On top of that, what about people who actually have a legitimate issue or an urgent request they need help with? Should they be forced to churn out a bunch of random posts before they're allowed to start a new thread in, say, the jobs and career subforum?

And what exactly is this forum supposed to be? An emergency room? 😲 What good are those kinds of users anyway—the ones who drop three "urgent" posts and then vanish forever?

Benjamin King2, look, not all PDFs are created equal, and you can't just apply one-size-fits-all logic to everything. What’s being suggested here wouldn't fly if we were talking about healthcare.

mistyhound94 said:Look, if you actually take the time to dig through the PDF—which, let’s be honest, is just like most other files out there—you'll find that the topics aren't exactly groundbreaking. They're old news. But that's actually the point, isn't it? It’s incredibly easy to stumble upon a thread that mirrors your own situation, giving you the perfect opening to jump in and ask about your specific issue. The real headache comes when you consider that a lot of the moderators here are quick to hand out sanctions just for bumping old threads—so we’re going to have to figure out a way to navigate around that.. ☕

Bumping an old thread isn't a crime—not if you’re actually bringing something to the table, like new evidence or a solid argument that adds value to the conversation. It’s about progress, right? Now, if someone digs up a dead thread from five years ago just to snap back at a comment made half a decade ago? Yeah, that’s where I draw the line. That’s just being petty. I completely agree with the sentiment here—it's common sense, really. Honestly, that's exactly how I see it too. 🙄
And every single PDF out there is filled with these self-proclaimed "professionals" who think they’re being profound just by dragging up the same exhausted topics over and over again!😉

Look, those kinds of restrictions actually make sense on small, niche forums—you know, places built for a specific group of enthusiasts. Even then, I honestly rarely see limits on starting new threads. Usually, those rules are just there to gatekeep private messages to keep out the spammers, scammers, and people trying to shill other sites... it keeps things clean.

But this forum? It’s way too massive and broad-reaching for that kind of stuff to even matter. Sure, maybe it would be handy for a few specific sub-boards, but for most of us, it'd just be useless—and on some parts of the site, it might actually do more harm than good. So, yeah... I'm against it.