ReReg Threads

Buona Fortuna

Now and again I post on a thread that disappears overnight. Generally, as I understand, this is because it was started by a rereg.

I'd like to ask the Admins if this policy could be reviewed. It is very disconcerting to the ordinary JoeSoap poster. Unless its in anyway contentious could the thread just be left open or even just closed.

I've heard the argument that this just feeds the trolls and they get excitement from seeing there thread in lights. I don't buy it. There are people that get excited at the sight of feet. I don't understand it but tt doesn't stop people going swimming or walking along the sand. It certainly doesn't stop me.

So how about it? How about leaving the rereg/troll threads open in the first instance, closed where there's a need and only in the very necessary cases deleted.

BuffyBot

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Now and again I post on a thread that disappears overnight. Generally, as I understand, this is because it was started by a rereg.

I'd like to ask the Admins if this policy could be reviewed. It is very disconcerting to the ordinary JoeSoap poster. Unless its in anyway contentious could the thread just be left open or even just closed.

I've heard the argument that this just feeds the trolls and they get excitement from seeing there thread in lights. I don't buy it. There are people that get excited at the sight of feet. I don't understand it but tt doesn't stop people going swimming or walking along the sand. It certainly doesn't stop me.

So how about it? How about leaving the rereg/troll threads open in the first instance, closed where there's a need and only in the very necessary cases deleted.

I'm afraid I do buy it.

Why? Experience. Trolls thrive on the oxygen of attention. We take away as much of that oxygen as possible.

Banned users lose access to this site for a reason. If you lose access, you've lost the right to participate in the community. We don't permit them to participate anymore..otherwise why ban them?

What little we lose is by far outweighed by the removal of their disruptive impact, which can spoil the enjoyment of those who genuinely contribute and build the community making boards.ie an enjoyable, useful and friendly place to be.

Buona Fortuna

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I'd like to ask the Admins if this policy could be reviewed.

BuffyBot wrote: »

I'm afraid I do buy it.

Why? Experience. Trolls thrive on the oxygen of attention. We take away as much of that oxygen as possible.

Banned users lose access to this site for a reason. If you lose access, you've lost the right top participate in the community. We don't permit them to participate anymore..otherwise why ban them?

What little we lose is by far outweighed by the removal of their disruptive impact, which can spoil the enjoyment of those who genuinely contribute and build the community making boards.ie an enjoyable, useful and friendly place to be.

That's a no then?

Taltos

Don't forget that sometimes OP's contact the mods as well and ask for their threads to be deleted or just do it themselves if they time it right. What might seem like a sensible question at 2am after some (much) vino can appear very different at 9am when you suddenly realise folk know who you are and you might have named your partner or place of work...

Buona Fortuna

Taltos wrote: »

Don't forget that sometimes OP's contact the mods as well and ask for their threads to be deleted or just do it themselves if they time it right. What might seem like a sensible question at 2am after some (much) vino can appear very different at 9am when you suddenly realise folk know who you are and you might have named your partner or place of work...

OK taltos, but in that instance the OP is still able to delete the text of his original post, so one would wonder why bother going through a Mod to delete the whole shabang?

Taltos

No - the OP also can delete their post not just the text, when they do that the whole cart disappears down the mineshaft.

Buona Fortuna

Taltos wrote: »

No - the OP also can delete their post not just the text, when they do that the whole cart disappears down the mineshaft.

OK but in this instance then we're not especially talking about reregs are we?

I've contributed to 3 (maybe 4) threads over the last couple of months which have been quite long running and then disappeared over night. When I've queried it with a Mod the same answer - Started by a rereg, zapped by Admin.

In one case "Americans winning WW2" or similar on AH (3 or 400 posts) the thread was later reinstated.

Taltos

Ah gotcha - then back to BuffyBot's point. We don't want to give airtime to these guys. As annoying as it is the fact the thread has disappeared without even a comment is the best tool available to put these guys off. A reference even in passing just feeds their sick little hamsters. I know it's a pain in the ass, but I think BuffyBot nailed it above.

I was just give some other examples of where threads can go with no apparent explanation.

Pat Mustard

It had been suggested previously that posters could be prevented from opening new threads until they had 50 posts. This idea was rejected, for various reasons.

However, if posters had to have 50 posts before they could open AH threads, shouldn't that reduce the instance of rereg posters opening AH threads? Therefore, shouldn't that reduce the instance of the type of problem mentioned by Buona Fortuna?

Could a rule be (re)considered to restrict the opening of new AH threads to posters with more than 50 posts?

Steve

Taltos wrote: »

No - the OP also can delete their post not just the text, when they do that the whole cart disappears down the mineshaft.

Unless something major has changed, a non-mod user cannot delete a thread-starter post once it has been replied to. They can remove the content of the first post but not the thread.

endacl

If it's an interesting, non-contentious subject that posters are engaging with, why not just start a new thread on the same topic, OP?

BuffyBot

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

That's a no then?

More a "we've yet to be given any reason to do otherwise that benefits the overall running of the site".

Buona Fortuna

endacl wrote: »

If it's an interesting, non-contentious subject that posters are engaging with, why not just start a new thread on the same topic, OP?

And all of those contibutions that had been made before?

If the thing has been running for a couple of days (maybe more, I'm not sure the Americans in WW2 thread perhaps) , then its all a bit stale and yesterday's news to start over.

BuffyBot wrote: »

More a "we've yet to be given any reason to do otherwise that benefits the overall running of the site".

I spose the reason is it just pi$$es me off, but I think Mustard's suggestion of limiting AH threads to 50+, 14 day posters has some spice to it.

I think it has the potential of satisfying you, in keeping Boards honest and pure, and me in not having as many threads vanish.

The Mustard wrote: »

It had been suggested previously that posters could be prevented from opening new threads until they had 50 posts. This idea was rejected, for various reasons.

However, if posters had to have 50 posts before they could open AH threads, shouldn't that reduce the instance of rereg posters opening AH threads? Therefore, shouldn't that reduce the instance of the type of problem mentioned by Buona Fortuna?

Could a rule be (re)considered to restrict the opening of new AH threads to posters with more than 50 posts?

Black Swan

The Mustard wrote: »

Could a rule be (re)considered to restrict the opening of new AH threads to posters with more than 50 posts?

That might discourage rereg OPs in AH. But I wonder to what extent this may discourage new members from staying with boards? On the flip side, an AH 50 post OP minimum might increase the likelihood that other forums would benefit from new member OPs? Who knows? It's guesswork until trial-and-error experimenting has occurred. Oh, I love to experiment, but sometimes your tail feathers get caught in the fan, others see your failure related distress, and may be reluctant to try something new themselves.

Buona Fortuna

Black Swan wrote: »

That might discourage rereg OPs in AH. But I wonder to what extent this may discourage new members from staying with boards? On the flip side, an AH 50 post OP minimum might increase the likelihood that other forums would benefit from new member OPs? Who knows? It's guesswork until trial-and-error experimenting has occurred. Oh, I love to experiment, but sometimes your tail feathers get caught in the fan, others see your failure related distress, and may be reluctant to try something new themselves.

Although I've started a few threads around and about Boards, I don't think (open to correction :eek:) I've started anything on AH.

If I've ever felt strongly enough about an issue by the time I've actually got around to it there's been a thread already there.

I don't believe I'm unique. I'd be interested in some analysis as to who opens the threads in AH.

I'm also doubtful that there are genuine new users (i.e. have not been here before) who join with the strong intention of starting a thread on AH. No doubt there are people who legitimately close their a/c, then rejoin, who may be put out.

Maybe it will do something to counter the tide (or is it a slight ebb) of users who close their a/cs and re register.

I think its worth a go

Black Swan

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I'd be interested in some analysis as to who opens the threads in AH.

Wish I could crunch such data for you, but only Admin and HQ have that capability. AH mods may have some idea, but they are kept very busy modding the biggest forum on boards. I guess someone could go through AH manually, but who has time for that?

Pat Mustard

Black Swan wrote: »

That might discourage rereg OPs in AH. But I wonder to what extent this may discourage new members from staying with boards?

I agree with Buona Fortuna's comment; that new posters who start AH threads are likely to be reregs.

AH is a great forum for several reasons, but it is one of the most unforgiving forums for an OP. If the other posters don't like the sentiment in the OP, they'll give an unmitigated, collective thumbs-down. Also, it's likely that some naysayer will come along in the second or third post, completely contradict the OP, and receive 150 thanks. Let's just say that a new poster in AH wouldn't want to be sensitive or anything! This is no small part of what makes me think that many of these 'new' posters are reregs.

A new user has to get used to boards.ie, the various forums, and may even have to become familiar with the protocols associated with posting online. These are reasons that a new poster might be reasonably expected to be more hesitant, instead of opening an AH thread with the first post, wondering if there are any other priests out there who'd like a chat (Fr. Seamus McIntosh thread).

As to whether new members might be discouraged from staying with boards, if it is correct that the new posters who tend to open AH threads are likely to be reregs anyway, then surely the risk is small that 'good' new posters will be driven away.

It would be interesting to see some figures on the subject, like you say.

Is it possible for a member of the powers-that-be to give a percentage of AH threads which were opened by new users (less than two months since registration), where it turned out that the OP was a rereg troll?

Black Swan wrote: »

On the flip side, an AH 50 post OP minimum might increase the likelihood that other forums would benefit from new member OPs? Who knows? It's guesswork until trial-and-error experimenting has occurred. Oh, I love to experiment, but sometimes your tail feathers get caught in the fan, others see your failure related distress, and may be reluctant to try something new themselves.

It occurs to me that if a rule was brought in to this effect, it need not be written in stone. If it doesn't work, it could be scrapped. I think that it would be interesting to see if this could work.

pablomakaveli

I like the 50 post idea. It would discourage people joining up to start spam threads or trolls starting nonsense ones.

I don't think it would cause major issues for new posters. They can still contribute to existing threads until they reach 50 posts.

Gordon

The Mustard wrote: »

I agree with Buona Fortuna's comment; that new posters who start AH threads are likely to be reregs.

From the first page of AH, two threads have been started by new accounts that are not banned, and they are the 4th/5th posts by the poster.

Buona Fortuna

Gordon wrote: »

From the first page of AH, two threads have been started by new accounts that are not banned, and they are the 4th/5th posts by the poster.

That poster is likely a legit rereg then?

So if this were to become a rule is it just, one person would be put out? Or am I reading this wrongly?

Gordon

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

That poster is likely a legit rereg then?

So if this were to become a rule is it just, one person would be put out? Or am I reading this wrongly?

There are two new posters that have created two new threads on the first page of Afterhours. Neither poster has been banned, and hence are probably not rereges. 2 threads is almost 8% of all threads on that page.

Buona Fortuna

Gordon wrote: »

There are two new posters that have created two new threads on the first page of Afterhours. Neither poster has been banned, and hence are probably not rereges. 2 threads is almost 8% of all threads on that page.

Really? In my experience posters quite frequently close there a/c and re reg with a new name.

You believe that these two posters are new to Boards?

Gordon

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Really? In my experience posters quite frequently close there a/c and re reg with a new name.

That's probably because you notice it more than when people don't, because it sticks in the memory unlike the vast majority of cases, which are opposite cases.

You believe that these two posters are new to Boards?

They are new to boards. I think one may have been a July account, one was August or September account. They have posted elsewhere and have a number of posts in total.

Correction; both are august accounts. One has over 100 posts now, the other under 50 posts.

Buona Fortuna

Gordon wrote: »

That's probably because you notice it more than when people don't, because it sticks in the memory unlike the vast majority of cases, which are opposite cases.
.

Yes OK, but I can probably think of 5 or 6 names that closed their a/c and are probably back in another guise.

Also probably double or so that are "New posters" 2014 a/c's but from the way they post, the meme they know, the old posters of bygone years - you know they didn't just discover Boards.

They are new to boards. I think one may have been a July account, one was August or September account. They have posted elsewhere and have a number of posts in total.

Correction; both are august accounts. One has over 100 posts now, the other under 50 posts

OK - if you don't want to answer this no fault no foul - am I a rereg?

Gordon

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Yes OK, but I can probably think of 5 or 6 names that closed their a/c and are probably back in another guise.

Also probably double or so that are "New posters" 2014 a/c's but from the way they post, the meme they know, the old posters of bygone years - you know they didn't just discover Boards.

Well, we get re-reges, we're not arguing there..

OK - if you don't want to answer this no fault no foul - am I a rereg?

Not sure why you're asking me this when you know the answer yourself. Is there a reason you're asking? It's obvious without looking at your IP address, just by seeing your August join date and the topic you're discussing.

Buona Fortuna

Gordon wrote: »

Well, we get re-reges, we're not arguing there..


Not sure why you're asking me this when you know the answer yourself. Is there a reason you're asking? It's obvious without looking at your IP address, just by seeing your August join date and the topic you're discussing.

I suppose it wasn't much of a question .

I was really trying to see how obvious reregs are, without compromising any state secrets.

I think Mustard sums it up very well (about 8 posts up) AH can be quite intimidating and I don't believe posters join and right from the getgo think lets start this in AH. I think genuinely new people watch or if they do start a thread its pretty obvious how new they are.

Gordon

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I suppose it wasn't much of a question .

I was really trying to see how obvious reregs are, without compromising any state secrets.

I think Mustard sums it up very well (about 8 posts up) AH can be quite intimidating and I don't believe posters join and right from the getgo think lets start this in AH. I think genuinely new people watch or if they do start a thread its pretty obvious how new they are.

That's you speaking from an internet savvy perspective though, we have to cater to non internet-savvy users also. As I said, two new users that registered in August, like yourself, had under 50 posts and created threads in AH just on the first page of the forum. Looks can be deceiving.

Buona Fortuna

Gordon wrote: »

That's you speaking from an internet savvy perspective though, we have to cater to non internet-savvy users also. As I said, two new users that registered in August, like yourself, had under 50 posts and created threads in AH just on the first page of the forum. Looks can be deceiving.

OK, I'm just going outside now - I could be some time