# New Member Restrictions



## Trinity (9 Oct 2006)

Ok... just a thought.

It's not that we get many but there are the one hit wonders who come
in, say something outrageous in a new thread and then start other little
fires around the site.

Could we have a rule to the effect one must have X amount of posts before
they can CREATE a topic?

It doesn't solve them from being idiots in other threads but it at least mean
that they "hopefully" participate in a few threads and get their feet wet
before they start swimming (with the sharks of the site)

Yes - it won't solve the problems of new people coming to troll.
However, it may minimize the amount of times that people need to be modded
for those who genuinely need the time to get a feel for the ground.


----------



## Shamrock (9 Oct 2006)

And while we're at it, must have spent (x) amount of time reading the ROC?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2006)

Are you trying to put us out of a job?  What other excitement would we have if this site didn't have little problems to fix and things to tweak?  

And remember this:  What is said at Fondue, stays at Fondue!



(By the by, shouldn't this Topic be merged with the other Topic you started?)


----------



## Trinity (9 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you trying to put us out of a job?  What other excitement would we have if this site didn't have little problems to fix and things to tweak?
> 
> And remember this:  What is said at Fondue, stays at Fondue!



Extremely amusing...  incidentally.. that episode isn't out yet of Corner Gas, is it?

But seriously I think the idea has merit.

Having them spend x amount of time reading the rules however, Shamrock, as much as any of
us would like to see is similar to anyone installing software on their computer.  Click I agree after
reading this massive disclaimer... um..   whatever, I agree... click.


----------



## Cdn_Chimo (9 Oct 2006)

I don't think the time thing would work as someone can log onto the site then take off for the day and the time ticks by. I know I'm new to the forum but I would suggest 9X) reply posts before being able to post a new topic. My 2 cents.


----------



## Trinity (9 Oct 2006)

Cdn_Chimo said:
			
		

> I don't think the time thing would work as someone can log onto the site then take off for the day and the time ticks by. I know I'm new to the forum but I would suggest 9X) reply posts before being able to post a new topic. My 2 cents.



Bobbit has explained the time feature.  Only works if you refresh every few minutes.  They could not log
on for 24 hours and do nothing and receive credit for said time.


----------



## xo31@711ret (9 Oct 2006)

Hi Trinity, I like your idea; though I don't post a lot, I read a lot (log  in a few times a day - hey I just recently retired after 24+years of reg service - thus showing my age;LOL) . I would like to post more, but I'm a wee bit computer illiterate  :-\; my youngest (nine) amazes me sometimes with what she knows about computers. Reminds me of in the 70's when I had to show my parents how to program their VCR (and they still can't or won't). Maybe I'm getting long in the tooth or set in my ways (anyone remember 'pong'?  : ) Sometimes the terminology baffles me and I would like to respond, but hesitate because i don't want to look like a complete moron  ;D !

-gerry.


----------



## career_radio-checker (9 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you trying to put us out of a job?  What other excitement would we have if this site didn't have little problems to fix and things to tweak?



You're not the only who enjoys reading these newbies trip on the door-frame as they step into Army.ca, George. 
These guys just got to learn that you will get most of your enjoyment (and knowledge) by reading the posts not by blurting whatever comes to your fingres' content. Heck, I've been a member for 18 months and don't even have 200 posts yet.


----------



## Burrows (9 Oct 2006)

You know Padre, we could always just give you the boot and there would be less flame wars.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2006)

So a noob with a legitimate question would now go around the site posting one word comments, ie: agreed, +1, so true, etc, in order to get his question in. Now we've got another problem..........and more work for the Mods, going around purging threads of useless comments. Also, many people who have a question, (which is our reason for being here), may go elsewhere if we put up walls to stop them being inquisitive.

It's easier to lock a new thread. The system works, leave it alone. Thanks for the idea.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Oct 2006)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> You know Padre, we could always just give you the boot and there would be less flame wars.



 :rofl:

Amen to that Kyle!

dileas

tess


----------



## Trinity (9 Oct 2006)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> You know Padre, we could always just give you the boot and there would be less flame wars.



Kettle to pot:  Black over!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Kettle to pot:  Black over!



.........but there's probably more in agreement with the pot.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you trying to put us out of a job?  What other excitement would we have if this site didn't have little problems to fix and things to tweak?
> 
> And remember this:  What is said at Fondue, stays at Fondue!
> 
> ...



Except if it's a chocolate fondue.  Anyone going to a chocolate fondue has to understand that their pictures will be on the cover of the National Enquirer or World News the next morning!  

G2G


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So a noob with a legitimate question would now go around the site posting one word comments, ie: agreed, +1, so true, etc, in order to get his question in. Now we've got another problem..........and more work for the Mods, going around purging threads of useless comments. Also, many people who have a question, (which is our reason for being here), may go elsewhere if we put up walls to stop them being inquisitive.
> 
> It's easier to lock a new thread. The system works, leave it alone. Thanks for the idea.


agreed, +1, so true, etc   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2006)

Too many FNG's not reading the 'Introductions to the Site' and post hurriedly.  Twice in the last hour, I have had to get creative and reply with the 'Required Reading List'.  It is enough to drive one to drink...... :


*Army.ca Conduct Guidelines*: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

Infantry FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html

Canadian Forces Aptitude Test - http://army.ca/forums/threads/21101/post-103977.html#msg103977

Fitness requirements at enrolment, see page 12 of this brochure:
http://www.recruiting.forces.ca/media/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Army.ca wiki pages  - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

I know all of this is supposed to make things better but are we trying to encourage dialogue or intimidate people into not joining in the discussion(s)?
It's all well and good jumping down someones throat cause they mis-spell things or they aren't too savvy on where to look for things but surely we can be a bit more tolerant of new folks?

Also it's all well and good suggesting search mode to people who are asking questions but before you do maybe you should check to see if there is actually anything that turns up when you plug in that topic. Someone was rather rude to someone the other day who asked what an acronym meant and curtly referred them to search mode.....only problem is there was no info when you searched that acronym.

Maybe a little tolerance and courtesy would be in order toward Newbies.....after they've been around for a while is plenty of time to get rude! ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Oct 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I know all of this is supposed to make things better but are we trying to encourage dialogue or intimidate people into not joining in the discussion(s)?
> It's all well and good jumping down someones throat cause they mis-spell things or they aren't too savvy on where to look for things but surely we can be a bit more tolerant of new folks?
> 
> Also it's all well and good suggesting search mode to people who are asking questions but before you do maybe you should check to see if there is actually anything that turns up when you plug in that topic. Someone was rather rude to someone the other day who asked what an acronym meant and curtly referred them to search mode.....only problem is there was no info when you searched that acronym.
> ...



Well most questions that are being posted actually have been answered before, as for acronyms I thought we had a page here with most of them on it.

<added>

I typed acronym into the search and got this as a hit,

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23931.0.html


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2006)

See!

SEARCH works wonders, doesn't it?

All the hard work of some of the site members has paid off.


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2006)

http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Canadian_Military_Acronyms


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> See!
> 
> SEARCH works wonders, doesn't it?
> 
> All the hard work of some of the site members has paid off.



Nice, however, the acronymn the guy asked about is not there, He asked what SCTF stands for. If you plug SCTF or acronymn in you don't get the answer. This was only an example. My point was that perhaps we need to show a little more tolerance toward Newbies.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2006)

I guess you have a choice.  Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution.  The Wiki forums allow anyone with access to add to them.  There is also oportunities to add to the Acronyms Topic.  We have a work in progress here.


----------



## sigpig (10 Oct 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Maybe a little tolerance and courtesy would be in order toward Newbies.....after they've been around for a while is plenty of time to get rude! ;D



Agree totally. This board already has a heavy enough police presence. How many new people do you want to drive off.

Just refer them to this:
http://home.comcast.net/~benbrausen/Funny/Posting.swf

Oh, and Trinity, not that I have any use for them personally, but I thought padres were supposed to be nice?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (10 Oct 2006)

I think requiring some TI before posting new topics would prevent people from being able to easily find the answers they need, and encourge some of them to pad their post count to get there. We've already seen that occur with the chat room, etc.

A possibility may be to create a new user classification that can only reply, never create new topics (regardless of post count) and add users to this group as needed. A variant of this could be to remove the ability to start new topics from anyone on the warning system.


----------



## patrick666 (10 Oct 2006)

What about a time limit? 

Say, a new user cannot create a topic, or even post if you wanted to be really serious, for a variable of days (1-7) after registration.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (10 Oct 2006)

My rule of thumb is punish those who deserve it and give everyone the benefit of the doubt until the remove that doubt.

I'd hate to make life difficult for someone coming here to try to find info on their grandfather's service record, or who has a family member in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, I have no qualms imposing radio silence on someone who's causing us grief. Making every new user suffer for the actions of a few doesn't sit well with me, esp. when we get so many "good" users right off the bat.


----------



## pinkbug (10 Oct 2006)

I'm fairly new to the board and I am scared to post on here. I will give my opinion or help out the best I can when someone asks for it but from there to creating a new post....... meh ...

I agree with what most has pointed out. There's a place to type in the search.
But I also agree to take it a bit easy on the 'noobs'.

The spelling ... I'm fully bilingual and I still make spelling mistakes.
One thing to keep in mind, there's a 'cadet thread' on the forums.
These people are not adults. There's teens on there.
Not everyone thinks spelling will save the world


----------



## McG (10 Oct 2006)

Patrick H. said:
			
		

> What about a time limit?
> 
> Say, a new user cannot create a topic, or even post if you wanted to be really serious, for a variable of days (1-7) after registration.


That would only deter membership and we would see even more new users that never make a post.  What about all of the very intelligent persons that register for an account because they have something valuable to contribute to a thread today?


----------



## patrick666 (10 Oct 2006)

Too true. There is a far greater amount of new users that contribute consistantly that should not punished for the poor actions of others.


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2006)

We're talking mosquitoes here guys.....if they get too close and land...they're fair game if they bite, otherwise they're part of life.  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (10 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> *We're talking mosquitoes here guys.....if they get too close and land...they're fair game if they bite, otherwise they're part of life.*  ;D


I agree wholeheartedly! One of the best things about this site is the work the Mods do to keep stupid questions/posts/MSN-speak at bay (as well as several people who seem to get as much joy putting themselves at the trolls' level as the trolls do seeing their mindlessness in print).

Yes, there are Cadet threads. I never go there. 

Yes, there is a spellcheck. Why are you upset at having it pointed out to you? Is it _that_ troublesome?

And, at the end of the day, if all of these commonly accepted conventions are just too painful, or you feel members are too harsh....there are _lots_ of other sites where you can post/spell/display your intellect to your heart's content. 


Change nothing.



"No, ask a less-stupid question." The Professor, _Futurama_


----------



## George Wallace (10 Oct 2006)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Oh, and Trinity, not that I have any use for them personally, but I thought padres were supposed to be nice?



You haven't noticed?  We've been playing Good Padre/Bad Padre.   ;D


----------



## Trinity (10 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You haven't noticed?  We've been playing Good Padre/Bad Padre.   ;D



 :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You haven't noticed?  We've been playing Good Padre/Bad Padre.   ;D



Yeah I was gonna say I was with him there for the part he supported me on and then he dissed my trade. 
Where is my "Fatwa" code book? I'll show him nice!  ;D


----------



## medaid (17 Oct 2006)

I honestly believe that having a MOD point out your mistakes really prevents you from shoving your foot further down your food orfice   and like some say...we're a small army   it really isnt hard to figure out who's who!  ;D Besides, if most of the ppl who are shooting off at the mouth have an interest (how ever remote that may be) in joining the Forces, at least they're getting their mistakes corrected now, on Cyberspace, rather then on course face to face. Agreed?


----------



## 3rd Herd (17 Oct 2006)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> Hi Trinity, I like your idea; though I don't post a lot, I read a lot (log  in a few times a day - hey I just recently retired after 24+years of reg service - thus showing my age;LOL) . I would like to post more, but I'm a wee bit computer illiterate  :-\; my youngest (nine) amazes me sometimes with what she knows about computers. Reminds me of in the 70's when I had to show my parents how to program their VCR (and they still can't or won't). Maybe I'm getting long in the tooth or set in my ways (anyone remember 'pong'?  : ) Sometimes the terminology baffles me and I would like to respond, but hesitate because i don't want to look like a complete moron  ;D !
> 
> -gerry.



Nothing wrong with looking like a complete moron from time to time, it proves you are human (hint to others). Next drop into the chat some night you will get all the help you need and more, I certainly did. As for the new topic post restrictions I have seen some quite well done first new topic posts, more than likely from posters who took the time to read the guidelines, so that restriction is debatable.


----------

