Who else is for a rule that won't allow new users to start an OP until they have 300 posts?

[scheming daemons]

They can comment all they want... but no OPs.


We're going to see an increase in the number of freeper invasions we get over the next several months.... especially since McCain has their nomination wrapped up and they're bored.


...and bored Freepers with ADD can be a little disruptive.


Just an idea. I know... I'm wasting an OP on this.


But if there is one thing that can unite Clinton and Obama supporters... it is the idea of slowing down the freepers...

[Dr.Phool]

1. When I joined, it was 100. Seemed reasonable.

But, they're posting fast. Last night there was guy(?) who'd been here for a week, had 300 posts, and was calling for people to be banned.

[Why Syzygy]

2. You have the same problem

as every time you try to limit someone's freedoms. You limit the innocent too.

There's a big enough fly trap for the freepers. I read an excellent OP today by someone with 4 posts.
Lurkers are coming out and people are joining us. Legit. The trolls will get theirs.

[Tunkamerica]

Not me, it would have taken 2 years

or a bunch of inane non-posts. You'll have people posting replies that don't need to be posted just to get to 300.

[Tunkamerica]

3. self delete

[sandnsea]

4. I hardly ever start a new post

And I blather all the time. I can't figure why people think what they have to say is so all blasted important that they have to start a thread that repeats 30 other threads. I think Admin could stand to increase the post count. That way people won't be as inclined to make sock puppets because of the 3 post limit.

[juajen]

5. I am, but it won't do any good. They'll just post the 300.

I believe registration should be shut down one year before a national election. After all, nothing stops them from reading DU they just can't join until after the election. Sorta like closed DU, as I would love caucuses and primaries to be closed. I know this sounds harsh, but we have lost some good and loyal people to these rabid newbies, and I find myself reading in the lounge and other places more and more often. I don't like it that they have torpedoed DU. I don't mind honest discourse with people who disagree with me, in fact, this is what makes DU great; but, I detest the bullying tactics they use. Shutting the convention down is a threat heard repeatedly if they don't get their way. Sounds just like Florida2000.

[Nailzberg]

6. Let's not pick on the newbies. Some people post slow.

Let them post. Of course, if their posts reveal them to be total dumbfucks, then flame away.

[Lucinda]

7. I've seen people rack up 1000 in a week since I came back last summer

I'm not sure 300 would slow anyone down

[golddigger]

8. Yep, there was one poster not to long ago who racked up 3,740 posts

in three weeks. He's no longer with us.

[slampoet]

15. BINGO, you're right. (....sigh)

[alteredstate]

9. How about no posts for 30 days

for new members?

[nomaco-10]

10. That is an idea that goes against everything we are.....

supposed to stand for in the dem party. I thought we were the party of the big tent.
I think some here would just like this forum to be some elitist, no holds barred slugfest between hillary supporters vs. Obama supporters.
I thought the '04 primaries were bad....

[Perky]

11. I would be ok with that if you could buy your way out of it.

Become a member. and you ought to be able to post polls, send PMs, anything you want.

[crispini]

17. I believe that's how it works today, actually. nt

[Perky]

21. Sort of You can OP whether you are a member or not.

The OP suggested that you should not be able to OP until you have replied to 300 threads.

I think that rule is fine, but think there should be an opt out if you donate to DU or you can simply respond 300 times before you get the right to OP. But you still would not be able to Post Polls without contrubuting just like today,

[crispini]

24. Well, today....

there is a limit, when you're new, about you have to reply X posts before you can post an OP, but I think it's low, like 10, or 50, maybe.

But you can still skip that step if you donate. That's what I meant. :hi:

[MyNameGoesHere]

12. yes and maybe loyalty oaths too?

Hell let's make it a thousand posts and then only if approved by the DU politburo. What say ye comrades?

[NanBo]

13. I'd be in trouble

I've been here for more than 4 years and I'm STILL not at 300 :(

Seriously, I've seen people have 5 one day and 500 in two days. You're not going to stop the freeps with this rule.

[Hepburn]

14. Maybe make a donation a requirement for being allowed to start threads?

I have noticed that a lot of the "disrupters" do not have a star by their nicks. I really don't like using money as a reason to be allowed to post, but maybe just during times like this and on certain forums?

That sure would cut down on the ones who flame real badly, get tombstoned and join again immediately as well as those who have multiple nicks. That might be a lot of the trouble makers we see who literally have no profile even if it is not hidden.

Just a thought...

[reflection]

16. Meh. Not me.

And I joined yesterday after lurking for 4 years.

Stupid posts will be relegated to their proper place and the diamonds in the rough will still shine. I would hate to miss out on a new perspective just because someone hadn't reached a particular post count.

Just my 0.02, although I am biased. :7

[Occam Bandage]

18. I'd say 500, but yes, I am.

[QC]

19. The freeper invasion has already happened.

Just look around you. No sense in closing the barn door when the mule's already out.

[spinbaby]

20. I think I'd prefer a waiting period

I've noticed a few posters who've joined since the beginning of the year who have post counts in the thousands.

[dionysus]

22. come on man, it's free entertainment...

[WonderGrunion]

23. Against

I've been here for years and donate. I just don't post often.

[frogcycle]

25. better yet

some sort of categorization process - don't ask me what the rules would be and how they'd be enforced, but the general idea would that "substantive" op's are left as entered, but the one-liner hit-and-run ones would just be moved to the "chatterbox" or some such. This would not be censorship, not constrain a newbie with something to actually add to the discourse from speaking up, but the mods would play "whack-a-mole" just getting the silliness into another discussion thread. If the technology is there to do so, I'd have stuff in that thread not be included in the "latest" summary. Oh, and not allow recs.

If someone doesn't like their post being moved to the babble-bin, they can try again. Kind of like an aspiring writer submitting revision after revision. When a publishing company finally thinks you have something, they respond. Otherwise you get the "thanks but no thanks" letter.