So the fun's officially over?

(08-12-2009 09:35 )Nigma Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 08:24 )colino Wrote:  Hate to be a killjoy, but that simply wouldn't work.

I used to belong to another forum that had a post threshold that needed to be reached before access to the "fap section" was granted, all it encouraged was a shitload of "hey, nice pic!" and "Oooh, she's nice!" and countless other 3 word posts (sometimes less) just so that the required amount could be attained.....This forum would be swamped with meaningless posts in no time flat.

Not really. We get that kind of me too short-posting anyway in some people's efforts to boost their post-count. It's something that should be (and is on most boards) addressed in basic posting rules and anti-spam policy, rather than allowing the potiential for it to dictate and limit forum policy and features.

And the risk of post spamming to meet access requirements is easily solved with additional criteria for membership time and/or membership approval.

It's a valid point, but i still doubt it.........Once we had a guy post SIXTY POSTS IN A SINGLE DAY, (All rubbish, two or three word stuff, even starting new threads with crap that no one else was interested in) in order to reach the 80 post target. This, on a board less than half the size of this one. One can only imagine the carnage created if a similar thing happened, multiplied by god-knows how-many times, on a board this size.

As soon as you set a posting target people that are falling short of it think that they're missing something, then there's no limit to how low they'll stoop.

I dread to think what this board would look like if all the lurkers climbed out of the woodwork in an effort to reach whatever target was set....Fact is, probably 80% or more members on ANY board with "nekkid laydeez" on it are lurkers looking to get a little "sumpin' for nothin'".......Which always surprises me, since it's a well known fact that at least 1/3 of internet browsers worldwide at any given time are looking at porn, there must be plenty to go around

There must be a way for this board to protect what it has, and i'm sorry that i'm no help as to what that is, but trust me, this ain't it.

(08-12-2009 10:12 )colino Wrote:  It's a valid point, but i still doubt it.........Once we had a guy post SIXTY POSTS IN A SINGLE DAY, (All rubbish, two or three word stuff, even starting new threads with crap that no one else was interested in) in order to reach the 80 post target. This, on a board less than half the size of this one. One can only imagine the carnage created if a similar thing happened, multiplied by god-knows how-many times, on a board this size.

That's nothing.. REALLY. Without naming names, this board has had members doing that just for the sake of increasing the number under their name. Again, it's not a phenomenom restricted to meeting usergroup membership requirements.

(08-12-2009 10:12 )colino Wrote:  As soon as you set a posting target people that are falling short of it think that they're missing something, then there's no limit to how low they'll stoop.

I dread to think what this board would look like if all the lurkers climbed out of the woodwork in an effort to reach whatever target was set....Fact is, probably 80% or more members on ANY board with "nekkid laydeez" on it are lurkers looking to get a little "sumpin' for nothin'".......Which always surprises me, since it's a well known fact that at least 1/3 of internet browsers worldwide at any given time are looking at porn, there must be plenty to go around

There must be a way for this board to protect what it has, and i'm sorry that i'm no help as to what that is, but trust me, this ain't it.

Oh, I agree - most casual board browsers are moochers looking for a quick fix. The thing is though, most are looking for a quick no-hassle fix. They want instant gratification. It's actually only a far smaller group who are willing to go to the effort to jump through a few hoops, even if taking shortcuts, in order to get what they think they want.

The problem is (and this may be because the initial point was floated only with regard to a post-count requirement) that you're looking at a post count requirement as being the only option and exclusive of any other criteria. If floated with another requirement such as forum membership time or group membership approval (which co-incidentally allows the enforcement of anti-spamming posting policy) then you get a more robust system which can encourage worthwhile forum interaction, gives an incentive to contribute and discourage short-post spamming.

(08-12-2009 10:32 )Nigma Wrote:  The problem is (and this may be because the initial point was floated only with regard to a post-count requirement) that you're looking at a post count requirement as being the only option and exclusive of any other criteria. If floated with another requirement such as forum membership time or group membership approval (which co-incidentally allows the enforcement of anti-spamming posting policy) then you get a more robust system which can encourage worthwhile forum interaction, gives an incentive to contribute and discourage short-post spamming.

That's a good point, and certainly worth a shot.

The "posting quota" game certainly wouldn't work on it's own.......

One way would be to use an existing feature of this forum, i.e. reputation.

This way, access to restricted parts of the forum would be, in a sense, self regulating. Simple posts such as "i agree" or "me too" would not receive any kudos and therefore would make no difference whereas regular posting, on-topic, where a member makes a valid contribution are rewarded.

And I've just realised that I am not a regular poster and that this post is, technically off topic. Oops!

(08-12-2009 17:23 )yadman Wrote:  ~~~~
~~~~
Simple posts such as "i agree" or "me too" would not receive any kudos and therefore would make no difference whereas regular posting, on-topic, where a member makes a valid contribution are rewarded.
~~~~
~~~~

Its been a long time since I've seen any of the infamous "me too" posts.
There used to be quite a lot of them earlier this year.
Please don't be clever anyone, and reply to this with a "me too"

Look, sky viewers can information any 900s show and see it says 18 (well really only 900 to 966). Doesn't 18 mean do whatever you want just don't go to far. Other channels show porn but you need to pay. Do we need to pay for channels so that we can see something decent. The way they (rulers of the shows) are going we might as well all watch porn for free on the internet, doesn't cost anything extra and there are no filters preventing what WE WANT TO SEE. We look forward to slips etc, we are not scared of them, we enjoy them. And we're not allowed to upload slip videos? Says who? This site is not owned by ofcom, since when can random companies say they don't want that on the internet, do they own the internet, do they control the content of the internet? NO!
So, ofcom, FUCK YOU!

(08-12-2009 17:23 )yadman Wrote:  One way would be to use an existing feature of this forum, i.e. reputation.

This way, access to restricted parts of the forum would be, in a sense, self regulating. Simple posts such as "i agree" or "me too" would not receive any kudos and therefore would make no difference whereas regular posting, on-topic, where a member makes a valid contribution are rewarded.

Using Reputation to gain access to restricted areas of a forum, has its merits, which I surgested to Skully, when I asked him what reputation was used for if anything.

But as with any system, there is a down side. If you need a certain Rep to gain access, then members are going to start spamming each other for Rep points.

You could have a system where you request access, and it's then up to the moderators too decide if your contributions merit access, but this system would mean more work for the moderators, who already have enough to do.

what are the chances of allowing spread fanny on TV being in any of the election manifestos next year?

hahahaha

Shit, I've known some threads go off-topic before, but the last page or so of posts takes the biscuit

There have been suggestions here that this forum is being used by people to report the shows,now that might be correct but i dont think it is the people we most suspect.My personal view is it is someone from the channels that have most to loose like the adult channel or climax channels.After all if the babe shows were to get more explicit less people would subscribe to their shows.I know some off you will disagree with this,it is just what i think.