PDA

View Full Version : ATM thought - additional posting restriction



baric
2011-Feb-26, 01:03 AM
Yes, another ATM thread!!! omg.

Actually, I think this may be simple and relieve a lot of unnecessary burden on the mods. Or maybe it will backfire and be a bad idea.

To start a thread in the ATM forum, you need to have a minimum of 100 posts.

Why? Because it seems like a lot of the non-ATM threads come from new members who do not yet understand the specific posting requirements for that forum. Obviously, the "100" is an arbitrary number, but it is the point at which a poster gained the title "Established Member"

We seem to get a lot of "what if" and other non-ATM posts that end up locked or moved to a more appropriate forum.

It kind of makes sense. The ATM forum is more of a review forum where there is an expectation of preparedness. Considering the greater risk of infraction due to the more stringent requests, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to prevent our newest members from mistakenly starting a thread there.

PetersCreek
2011-Feb-26, 01:38 AM
The suggestion appeals to me on one level but I don't think the problem it addresses is that much of a problem, really. I think it's relatively easy to set most newcomers straight on the rules. Sure, a few react badly and receive infractions/suspensions/bans but to be honest, the most memorable ATM problems during my tenure as a moderator have so far involved Established Members.

Moose
2011-Feb-26, 09:30 AM
The immediate downside of such a rule is that it introduces an immediate pressure to post-post-post (with no attempt to enforce quality of posting) to reach that 100 posts. If we are lucky, they'll have found F&G to do this in. If we are less-than-lucky, we'd be inundated with the fluff posting that brought F&G to be. If _they_ are less-than-lucky, they'd be indistinguishable from spammers and summarily banned.

I'd rather new folk have a fighting chance to be positive influences on the board.

ATMers who come here to post are coming with an agenda (often a cherished agenda): to post about their ATM ideas. Being unable to do so in an appropriate way means there's an immediate temptation to post in a number of inappropriate ways. Someone who believes that he (typically he) is going to single-handedly revolutionize the world/physics Any Day Now[tm] - someone who routinely compares themselves to Galileo - is already in "shout it from the rooftops" mode.

Trakar
2011-Feb-26, 08:01 PM
The immediate downside of such a rule is that it introduces an immediate pressure to post-post-post (with no attempt to enforce quality of posting) to reach that 100 posts. If we are lucky, they'll have found F&G to do this in. If we are less-than-lucky, we'd be inundated with the fluff posting that brought F&G to be. If _they_ are less-than-lucky, they'd be indistinguishable from spammers and summarily banned.

I'd rather new folk have a fighting chance to be positive influences on the board.

ATMers who come here to post are coming with an agenda (often a cherished agenda): to post about their ATM ideas. Being unable to do so in an appropriate way means there's an immediate temptation to post in a number of inappropriate ways. Someone who believes that he (typically he) is going to single-handedly revolutionize the world/physics Any Day Now[tm] - someone who routinely compares themselves to Galileo - is already in "shout it from the rooftops" mode.

Well, and since ATM is virtually a throw-away forum anyway, if that's their main reason for being here, might as well indulge their predilection there, rather than have them intimating and insinuating their ATM conviction throughout the rest of the boards while they tally up the requisite post count. Its not like ATM is a beehive of activity.

Jim
2011-Feb-27, 07:50 PM
I'd like to see a requirement that they have read and understand the Rules and the Advice before they open a thread in ATM. I just don't see an easy way to enforce that requirement.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Feb-27, 08:02 PM
Have a test? Something multi-choice so it could be done automatically.

Of course they could cheat - by reading the rules!

captain swoop
2011-Feb-27, 11:04 PM
Charge them a deposit?

Ara Pacis
2011-Mar-01, 05:45 AM
I'd like to see a requirement that they have read and understand the Rules and the Advice before they open a thread in ATM. I just don't see an easy way to enforce that requirement.

Can't it be posted at the registration page in large, friendly letters? Perhaps you could add check boxes after each key clause.

caveman1917
2011-Mar-03, 04:03 PM
You could restrict the privilege of creating threads (just replying would not be restricted) in ATM to a specific user group. Then when someone wants to start a thread there, he/she would have to first contact the mod team in order to be included in that user group, so that gives you the chance to make sure they read the rules.

baric
2011-Mar-03, 04:51 PM
You could restrict the privilege of creating threads (just replying would not be restricted) in ATM to a specific user group.

huh. That almost seems workable... Basically asking for permission to submit a theory to the peer-reviewed forum.

The ATM forum might wither away, though.

caveman1917
2011-Mar-03, 04:56 PM
The ATM forum might wither away, though.

At first perhaps. On the other hand after a while it might attract a bit better userbase when it gets clear that only the more serious contenders get through.

Moose
2011-Mar-03, 06:32 PM
You might do a BAUT search on the term "gatekeeper". It's been proposed before. Many times.