What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a thread?

Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a thread?

  • Total voters
    102
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

Since there is not the 60 second rule anymore on posts and there is no requirement for "quality of post", the post minimum should be much higher. Like 5,000.
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

Now that I'm over 100, I say 100!;)
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

I don't think there should be a minimum. If you are a newbie are dumb enough to fire one up without reading through the forums, to the furnace with you - that's actually kind of fun torching them. If you are a newbie and fire one up after researching (and therefore it makes sense), good for you. Newbies have to understand this site's been around a long time and need to approach it from that perspective.
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

University of Nebraska-Omaha fans will ALWAYS be "newbies" no matter how many posts they make, or whichever conference they are in and currently complaining about.....
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

Timothy A said:
I don't think there should be a minimum. If you are a newbie are dumb enough to fire one up without reading through the forums, to the furnace with you - that's actually kind of fun torching them. If you are a newbie and fire one up after researching (and therefore it makes sense), good for you. Newbies have to understand this site's been around a long time and need to approach it from that perspective.
Click to expand...
Timothy, that's not very Evangelical of you ..... :D
And yes, we want more! :)
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

There's no "other," so I voted for more than 100. I say, more than 10,000 or less than 100. That way, you are either around long enough to know better and be committed, or you get thrown to the fire. :D
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

I think a post minimum to start threads would give posters a better chance to see how the board works. I know it's entertaining to watch noob-a-palooza every time something happens, and the trial-by-fire usually results in hilarity and a few new memes, but it is also obnoxious. Many posters wind up avoiding D1 side when that happens, and that's just wrong.

100 posts, then they can start threads.
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

New trolls will then just frantically pad until they get the opportunity to start the thread that gets them banned. Why have them ruin good threads in the meantime?
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

The question seems to be a variation of, "what is the best way to [ahem] 'encourage' people to have good manners?"

Some people watch and learn; others jump in and discover the hard way what is acceptable social behavior for the group and what is not.

Different people, different learning styles; sort of a 'free market of ideas' (kudos to nmupiccdiva for citing 'memes').

While I have not (yet_ started a thread (may not ever; we'll see....) I have enjoyed tweaking those who started idiotic threads, by using a form of ridicule which ignores their obnoxiousness and 'hijacks' the thread from its intended purpose into a 'theater of the absurd.' It was gratifying to have many others play along the same way.

I guess I am a bit reluctant to endorse blanket heavy-handedness. None of this 'let a thousand flowers bloom....as long as they are all red roses exactly 3" in diameter' stuff for me, thanks anyway.

[I am so tempted to make a(nother) political joke here.....except that this is probably not the place nor the time....sigh....]
 
Last edited:
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

how many posts does osorojo have?
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

billmich88888 said:
University of Nebraska-Omaha fans will ALWAYS be "newbies" no matter how many posts they make, or whichever conference they are in and currently complaining about.....
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

Question? Isn't "Minimum 100 posts" and "More than 100 posts" basically the same thing? Seriously, will that 1 post make a difference?

PS- I'll let you know when I get there...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

And yes I've surpassed 100 posts, I feel absolutely no different now.:cool:
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

There are numerous threads by a single person on the D-I forum now proving that there should be a minimum, although I suspect that he would have just posted nonsense elsewhere until he reached the minimum if there was one.
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

Ralph Baer said:
There are numerous threads by a single person on the D-I forum now proving that there should be a minimum, although I suspect that he would have just posted nonsense elsewhere until he reached the minimum if there was one.
Click to expand...
Would a time limit after joining possibly work better?
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

UMICH said:
And yes I've surpassed 100 posts, I feel absolutely no different now.:cool:
Click to expand...

You still look and post like a moran. No, that's not a spelling mistake. It is what diva refers to as a "meme." Look it up.
 
Re: Should a poster have a minimum number of posts before being able to start a threa

Timothy A said:
I don't think there should be a minimum. If you are a newbie are dumb enough to fire one up without reading through the forums, to the furnace with you - that's actually kind of fun torching them. If you are a newbie and fire one up after researching (and therefore it makes sense), good for you. Newbies have to understand this site's been around a long time and need to approach it from that perspective.
Click to expand...

Complete agreement. After all, how else would Bear Red develop his troll reputation? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top