Suggestion for new political discussion threads

I really loved how Ryan Vaughn7 shut down that guy with the single post, telling him he shouldn't even be starting new threads until he hits at least 500 posts...

But seriously, is there any way to actually set that up technically, maybe over on the politics board? Like, making it so you need a baseline of 100, 200, or even 500 posts before you're allowed to open a new topic.

And what exactly is so wrong with someone just starting a new thread?
I don't see how that has anything to do with a person's post count, either.
A topic is either worth reading or it isn't, simple as that.

hollowtrucker77 said:And what exactly is so wrong with someone just starting a new thread?
I don't see how that has anything to do with a person's post count, either.
A topic is either worth reading or it isn't, simple as that.

My brother was hanging out on this forum for a few years before I showed up, and he mentioned they used to require 100 posts back in the day...

That's how things work over on Reddit nowadays, but I don't even want to bring up that trash compared to this place...

I don't know, personally I'd set a limit of at least a hundred posts—that's what I see most often on US forums—especially in the politics section. It'd help weed out all the trolls, whether they're far-right, far-left, radicals, or those militant vegetarians...

Just my two cents. I mean, I'm basically a professional troll myself with 16,000 posts, and somehow I haven't been permanently banned yet... 😉

I can’t exactly argue that there isn't some logic to it, since it would certainly clear out a decent amount of the garbage and those lightning-fast threads that pop up out of nowhere
then again, maybe we wouldn't see some of the better discussions popping up either
🙂
but hey, whatever the case may be, it’s probably worth sitting down and actually having a real conversation about the whole thing

With this many mods on staff, I don't think separating the good threads from the bad ones is even an issue. It would make sense if we were short-handed, but I haven't seen a single section like History or the FBI without a mod active all day.
It's better to just nuked a thread than to lose a decent one by accident, I guess.
: )

We went over this "a few times" in the mod corner, and the consensus was pretty much this: if we open it up, the place is gonna get flooded by trolls posting 100 or 500 useless comments just to force their way into starting a thread... and honestly, it’s way easier for us mods to just nuked one pointless thread than to deal with 100 spam posts plus the thread itself. So yeah, I'm against it. 🙂

The quality of a forum user has absolutely zero correlation with their total post count. In fact, more often than not, it’s actually the exact opposite.
I don't see why someone sitting at zero posts shouldn't be able to kick off a high-level, insightful discussion. 🤷
The only real hurdle is if they aren't quite familiar with how the site's interface works yet.
As long as we have moderators on the clock, any low-effort or garbage threads can be wiped away in three clicks.

fadedmarlin402 said:The quality of a forum user has absolutely zero correlation with their total post count. In fact, more often than not, it’s actually the exact opposite.
I don't see why someone sitting at zero posts shouldn't be able to kick off a high-level, insightful discussion. 🤷
The only real hurdle is if they aren't quite familiar with how the site's interface works yet.
As long as we have moderators on the clock, any low-effort or garbage threads can be wiped away in three clicks.

Of course they can. In this specific instance, it just happened to be a zero-post user starting an incredibly stupid thread. I kept my response brief so I wouldn't end up getting grilled too much by the FBI.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:We went over this "a few times" in the mod corner, and the consensus was pretty much this: if we open it up, the place is gonna get flooded by trolls posting 100 or 500 useless comments just to force their way into starting a thread... and honestly, it’s way easier for us mods to just nuked one pointless thread than to deal with 100 spam posts plus the thread itself. So yeah, I'm against it. 🙂

Look, sorry, but even after 30 posts, a spammer gets boring. Imagine trying to deal with 500...

If someone actually puts in the effort to spam 500 times, that's a mental health issue at that point. No sane person is that persistent...

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, sorry, but even after 30 posts, a spammer gets boring. Imagine trying to deal with 500...

If someone actually puts in the effort to spam 500 times, that's a mental health issue at that point. No sane person is that persistent...

Not really, though. If they just spread their crap across every single subforum or dump it all in some random off-topic chat thread, this "prevention" rule is basically useless against a determined troll. Meanwhile, all we're doing is stopping a brand-new user from starting an actual decent discussion...

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Of course they can. In this specific instance, it just happened to be a zero-post user starting an incredibly stupid thread. I kept my response brief so I wouldn't end up getting grilled too much by the FBI.

Man, I’m out here backing you up and you just bail on me... 😉😁
Just kidding... 🙂

Look, I’m not calling the shots here, but I’m totally on board with that idea of doing anywhere from 100 to 500 posts. Sounds good to me.

Man, I’m actually pretty bummed that the book complaint on politics isn't around anymore. There were some seriously wild people hanging out in there.

Technically speaking, it’s totally doable—and honestly, pretty necessary when you’re dealing with spam, trolls, or those massive waves of malicious messages from bot armies—but, in my experience, a script just isn't going to be able to handle an add-on like that, especially on a forum like this one that’s running on such a subpar server.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Not really, though. If they just spread their crap across every single subforum or dump it all in some random off-topic chat thread, this "prevention" rule is basically useless against a determined troll. Meanwhile, all we're doing is stopping a brand-new user from starting an actual decent discussion...

Are posts not being counted there anymore, or did I miss a rule change?

fadedsailor57 said:Are posts not being counted there anymore, or did I miss a rule change?

Dunno... I was just using that as an example. You could pick anything—"random stuff," jokes, or any chat thread on one of those subforums where the post count actually updates.

This proposal is completely pointless.
Especially since we already have moderators —and quite a few of them at that—over in the politics section. A thread is either high-quality or it isn't, regardless of who started it, even if it happens to be their very first post or their absolute last. Of course, "quality" is a bit of a sliding scale, isn't it? In my experience, plenty of great discussions get nuked or moved, while the garbage stays right where it is. But why on earth should someone's "seniority" or account age dictate whether a topic is worth discussing?

Since when did we start policing discussions via decree?