BBS lurking neccessity?

[Evark]

Some people are retarded in these forums. Nobody reads anything before responding. This most frequently happens with the newer members. I was wondering why nobody seems to take the suggestions put forth in the new users topic that says users should lurk a bit in the forums before posting to learn what is acceptable.

To fix this problem I think there should be a mandatory lurking period. Either something stupid and easily unhelpful like a mandatory lurking period of one week after signup, or something more along the lines of a cookie based lurking period in which you would need to look at 10 full topics or something.

Thoughts?

[scruffyhawk]

sounds like a pain in the ass to me. i lurked for about a year before posting.

Making lurking a requirement?

Okay.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

people dont pay attention to the advice cause most the time they dont know wthat there is any advice till they get told to read the FAQ. But a mandatory lurking period would be decent I think......it might stop some of the stupid "Hello my name is..... " posts and it would stop people creating alt accounts to just spam the forum

[PONGpaddle]

I lurked for a few days before posting for the first time. Still sounded like a n00b though :)

[thedemonservant]

i beleve liljim had a similer idea and i think it might be a good idea

[z-4-l]

That would be lame.

[Bengal]

sounds like a good idea. there would be alot less people saying "stfu n00b!!"

[guthrie]

At 9/22/04 04:59 PM, scruffyhawk wrote: sounds like a pain in the ass to me. i lurked for about a year before posting.

Good for you! :D

[StonedLeperchaun]

YEAH COOL

[subpar]

The requirement shouldn't be huge, though.

Just enough so that the "newbie" can get to understand how the BBS works, have time to read the rules, and understand how people are expected to behave.

Maybe their first post won't be a "how do I vote?" or "visit my new website!" thread.

[Evark]

At 9/22/04 05:00 PM, ABoxInABox wrote: I lurked for a few days before posting for the first time. Still sounded like a n00b though :)

I'm pretty sure its inevitable. My motivation for posting more now is to cover up all my newbish first posts with tons of other more intelligent posts.

I think I lurked for about three months before posting in the general forum, and then lurked a bit in politics before becoming upset and just having to jump in.

But I continue to lurk even today. I'd say for every time I post I read about 50 other posts, and that is probably being generous.

[DrManhattan]

Mandatory lurking period? Why do that? People just want to post and have a good time... and what the hell do you care if the posts are halfway comprehensible. Most of you are teenagers!

That was a joke, by the way...

[Evark]

At 9/22/04 05:01 PM, z_4_l wrote: That would be lame.

What's your reasoning behind this? Back up your point, it may just be valid. Until then, it isn't relevant.

[Rextex]

At 9/22/04 05:02 PM, -Bengal- wrote: sounds like a good idea. there would be alot less people saying "stfu n00b!!"

I disagree. I think the "STFU n00b" line will stay for all of eternity. It's practically a neccessity to the BBS.

[Tremour]

At 9/22/04 04:58 PM, Evark wrote: cookie based lurking period in which you would need to look at 10 full topics or something.

I think we've learned from past experiences, that it doesn't matter how much an idiot reads the topic, they're still going to post crap. And 10 topics doesn't exactly give anyone an idea on how to behave on the forums, but extending it past that would drive people away. The only thing we could ever really do is grin and bear it.

[subpar]

At 9/22/04 05:09 PM, Rextex wrote:

At 9/22/04 05:02 PM, -Bengal- wrote: sounds like a good idea. there would be alot less people saying "stfu n00b!!"

I disagree. I think the "STFU n00b" line will stay for all of eternity. It's practically a neccessity to the BBS.

I concur.

It's not a BBS without the "STFU n00b"

[subpar]

At 9/22/04 04:58 PM, Evark wrote: cookie based

That would get screwed up when people delete internet files and cookies.

(I've gotten into the habit of deleting mine, because half the time I find stuff with Ad-Aware and Spybot: S&D, it's tracking cookies and stuff in my temp folder.)

Instead of cookie based, it should just be something on the user database. They could just stick "posts read" next to "posts posted".

[UberBarista]

At 9/22/04 05:04 PM, Evark wrote: I'm pretty sure its inevitable. My motivation for posting more now is to cover up all my newbish first posts with tons of other more intelligent posts.

I think I lurked for about three months before posting in the general forum, and then lurked a bit in politics before becoming upset and just having to jump in.

But I continue to lurk even today. I'd say for every time I post I read about 50 other posts, and that is probably being generous.

I think it should be the first 50 times someone tries to post.

I'll explain a little further: The first 50 times they hit "Post It!" they are denied access.

Making it so it is one week after signup would not work for most cases. Why? Because a lot of people don't even look at the BBS here for a long time. I was almost signed up for a year before I actually started posting, I did make a few posts early on, but nothing really up until recently. Also, it does not help to keep people from making n00bish posts with one week, that is actually up to them to be intelligent about it.

A cookie based one would never work because of people blocking them, and not having the brains to unblock them. Also with users like me, who don't trust cookies worth a damn, and block all of them no matter what.

[Evark]

At 9/22/04 05:13 PM, subpar wrote::

That would get screwed up when people delete internet files and cookies.

I only suggested this to avoid the pain of having to do mandatory post waiting on an alternate account. Those people know the rules, so why punish them (usually).

(I've gotten into the habit of deleting mine, because half the time I find stuff with Ad-Aware and Spybot: S&D, it's tracking cookies and stuff in my temp folder.)

I feel your pain, but now I have so many programs preventing that stuff from happening to me that its not really a problem anymore.

Instead of cookie based, it should just be something on the user database. They could just stick "posts read" next to "posts posted".

yea, I didn't suggest IP based because of AOL users, userbased could be the way to go.

[AapoJoki]

At 9/22/04 04:58 PM, Evark wrote: To fix this problem I think there should be a mandatory lurking period. Either something stupid and easily unhelpful like a mandatory lurking period of one week after signup

I didn't even visit the forums until a few months after my signup, so basically, even if there was a lurking period, it would have expired a long time ago and I could have posted without "lurking".

[jake1337]

i think it would be nessassary but still a pain

[DrManhattan]

At 9/22/04 05:11 PM, subpar wrote:

I concur.

It's not a BBS without the "STFU n00b"

So a lack of creativity is endorsed here. Other forums I post at get along fine without ever saying STFU or N00b. You're speaking volumes for the general NG populace, unfortunately...

[hoass169]

They probably do lurk before but are so scared by other dragon ball z forums that they still continue to post stupid shit

[Evark]

At 9/22/04 05:17 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote: I didn't even visit the forums until a few months after my signup, so basically, even if there was a lurking period, it would have expired a long time ago and I could have posted without "lurking".

Perfect example right here of the 'need to read' so to speak. I said right in it that is was easily circumvented with the lines "easily unhelpful." I then followed it with a more likely course of action, such as basing it on topics read.

[BazzMann]

Nah, I hate the idea.

At the end of the day, some poeple know how to use a forum, and they won't want to lurk around for a predefined amount before joining - of course it's essential to get to know the community, but SMART posters will do this in their own way in their own time - forcing them to do it will detract them.

It just seems like effort - I'd much rather have the mods on higher alert for the very low scum who show their face once only to say "LOL FAG!". These should be banned, possibly indefinately.

[Evark]

At 9/22/04 05:50 PM, BazzMann wrote:
At the end of the day, some poeple know how to use a forum, and they won't want to lurk around for a predefined amount before joining - of course it's essential to get to know the community, but SMART posters will do this in their own way in their own time - forcing them to do it will detract them.

Your sentence started in one direction and ended in another, but I was able to get the jist of it. The allure of a mandatory lurking period would be that users would be able to read some of the stuff that interests them and it would allow for a chance to actually understand how the thread has developed and respond to it intelligently when they finally were able to.

It just seems like effort - I'd much rather have the mods on higher alert for the very low scum who show their face once only to say "LOL FAG!". These should be banned, possibly indefinately.

Well, yea, but this system wouldn't be to discourage those people, they will always find ways around anything or disregard any rule. This system would be to the benefit of those who have no idea how to act in the BBS but want to learn and actually do care about the rules once they figure them out.

[BazzMann]

I read, and re-read my sentances- and there is nothing to get the "jist" of. The message is plain and simple, it was quite carefully phrased - your misinterpretations are not an effect of my grammar or sentance structure.

What I am trying to say is, there will be 2 main groups of new members:
1) Members who will pick up what to do fairly quickly
2) Members who will not.

For the latter, this could be for a few reasons - learning difficulties perhaps, ignorance by choice, or perhaps the fact that they merely want to rush in to insult people. These last 2 people you cannot help, and as for the first, it is not NG's job as a website to build itself around the needs of the few unfortunately. However - perhaps the people in question just don't know how to lurk and get accustomed, and have no common sense to tell them this. So what? You're going to make a universal rule, due to people not wanting to read the FAQ that was VERY carefully written and published for that reason?

And yes it WILL detract from other users who want to join - what if people have already been here on other accounts, lost passwords and needed to resign up? They have to wait a week to post? Or are you thinking of complicating things even further, by having a rule for one, and a different rule for another? And that is just one example of where I'm going.

I hope that illustrates a fair portion of my point clearer...

[super-sandwich]

At 9/22/04 04:58 PM, Evark wrote:

Thoughts?

Definitely, it will give people the time they desperately need to read the rules. But they usually learn after a few posts and stop spamming. Still, it's a good idea.

[Evark]

At 9/22/04 06:01 PM, BazzMann wrote: I read, and re-read my sentances- and there is nothing to get the "jist" of.

So you have no point?

The message is plain and simple, it was quite carefully phrased - your misinterpretations are not an effect of my grammar or sentance structure.

The message is plain and simple, you started a sentence one way, put in a parenthetical phrase, put in another parenthetical phrase, and then lost the point you were going to make at the beginning of the sentence. I misinterpreted nothing, I understood your point quite clearly given the material I had to work with.

What I am trying to say is, there will be 2 main groups of new members:
1) Members who will pick up what to do fairly quickly
2) Members who will not.

Fair enough, I also broke it down into two groups, those who want to learn, and those who don't. I think that is the more important way to categorize, as it isn't a question of brightness of ability to pick things up fast, its a question of not having all the pointless stuff that could be prevented.

For the latter, this could be for a few reasons - learning difficulties perhaps, ignorance by choice, or perhaps the fact that they merely want to rush in to insult people. These last 2 people you cannot help, and as for the first, it is not NG's job as a website to build itself around the needs of the few unfortunately.

You've missed the point, it isn't to provide this experience to those who wouldn't figure it out otherwise, its to prevent the stupid things that everybody asks and the stupid answers everybody provides that come from a lack of reading. People do not read other's posts fully before they take offense and/or need to counter what was said. They also do not read topics fully and many topics just repeat themselves over and over again.

However - perhaps the people in question just don't know how to lurk and get accustomed, and have no common sense to tell them this. So what? You're going to make a universal rule, due to people not wanting to read the FAQ that was VERY carefully written and published for that reason?

It is suggested in the FAQ that you lurk in the forums (either that or the first posters G-Bot thread). The rule would only apply to new users, and yes, if people don't want to read the FAQ to answer their questions then this would be a way for them to have no choice in having their stupid questions answered before they are asked.

And yes it WILL detract from other users who want to join - what if people have already been here on other accounts, lost passwords and needed to resign up? They have to wait a week to post? Or are you thinking of complicating things even further, by having a rule for one, and a different rule for another? And that is just one example of where I'm going.

I don't see how this leads to anything else, and you are again pointing out the 'need to read'. I said in this topic earlier that the weeklong wait was just one example of how to do it, but the most feasible way would be cookie based so that a user who has done the lurking period once wouldn't need to do it again no matter what account he was using.

I hope that illustrates a fair portion of my point clearer...

Not really, it just elaborates on it in such a way that I have come to no different understanding of what you are thinking.