Waiting period on new registrants

[dbphoenix]

Originally posted by macal425


Would it be possible then to not allow people with free email accounts to register. This is done with some paying sites in order to stop people from continuosly taking advantage of the free one week trial. I would assume that most traders pay for decent internet access and that the majority of constructive posters use a paying service. For the people who are currently constructive members and use a free ISP then perhaps there can be some kind of amnesty at the beginning.
Just a thought.

Why would you assume that "constructive posters" pay for their email accounts? Paying for internet access does not necessarily mean that one wants to use the email service supplied by the provider. Plenty of people would rather use an online email account such as Yahoo so that they don't have to change their address everytime they change their provider.

--Db

 

[Baron]

Originally posted by dbphoenix


Why would you assume that "constructive posters" pay for their email accounts?
--Db

Because based on past experience, about 98% of the truly annoying and disruptive users in the past avoid accountability and cause havoc by registering multiple aliases, each under a unique, free, email account.

 

[sdtrader]

Originally posted by dbphoenix


Why would you assume that "constructive posters" pay for their email accounts? Paying for internet access does not necessarily mean that one wants to use the email service supplied by the provider. Plenty of people would rather use an online email account such as Yahoo so that they don't have to change their address everytime they change their provider.

--Db

I agree. Not that I am the most constructive poster, but I have only had a yahoo email for the last 5 years. Changing email addresses is too much of a pain.

 

[dbphoenix]

Originally posted by Baron


Because based on past experience, about 98% of the truly annoying and disruptive users in the past avoid accountability and cause havoc by registering multiple aliases, each under a unique, free, email account.

Which takes us back to the question, instead of not allowing people with free email accounts to register, why not just delete those people who have demonstrated their desire to disrupt the process? Silicon Investor charges for access to its boards, but that hasn't solved the problem of spoilers.

The point of all this is to remove spoilers. That can only be done on the basis of what their behavior is, not on what somebody's behavior might be.

--Db

 

[Avalanche]

The hotmail, yahoo, aol, etc. accounts are used in conjunction with instant messengers by many of us which allow us to know when someone has posted a reply to a thread we are subscribed to and allow us know when other new email has arrived.

Limiting people who choose to use those accounts which are a great convience to them would be a mistake IMO.

 

[calibertrader]

Originally posted by dbphoenix


Which takes us back to the question, instead of not allowing people with free email accounts to register, why not just delete those people who have demonstrated their desire to disrupt the process? Silicon Investor charges for access to its boards, but that hasn't solved the problem of spoilers.

The point of all this is to remove spoilers. That can only be done on the basis of what their behavior is, not on what somebody's behavior might be.

--Db

Agree. Which brings me back to my suggestions. Allow senior members, to submit names to the moderator of people they suspect are on the board to disrupt the process. Then the moderator can investigate and initially warn the poster of their misbehavior. If the poster continues, then they are removed. If necessary, I'm sure you can find volunteers, to be moderators for this purpose. So instead of 1 or 2 moderators per forum, you'll have a third to investigate posters submitteb by senior members. Let me know what you think.

 

[calibertrader]

Originally posted by calibertrader


Agree. Which brings me back to my suggestions. Allow senior members, to submit names to the moderator of people they suspect are on the board to disrupt the process. Then the moderator can investigate and initially warn the poster of their misbehavior. If the poster continues, then they are removed. If necessary, I'm sure you can find volunteers, to be moderators for this purpose. So instead of 1 or 2 moderators per forum, you'll have a third to investigate posters submitteb by senior members. Let me know what you think.

To add to this, the moderator will then send the poster he/she decides needs to be removed either to the Administrator, or to the other moderators with an explanation and a final vote. If the majority agree that the moderator is correct to remove the poster, then he will be removed. This way the moderator is also kept in check from removing people for personal reasons.

 

[dbphoenix]

Originally posted by calibertrader


Agree. Which brings me back to my suggestions. Allow senior members, to submit names to the moderator of people they suspect are on the board to disrupt the process. Then the moderator can investigate and initially warn the poster of their misbehavior. If the poster continues, then they are removed. If necessary, I'm sure you can find volunteers, to be moderators for this purpose. So instead of 1 or 2 moderators per forum, you'll have a third to investigate posters submitteb by senior members. Let me know what you think.

Keep in mind that the disruptions caused by these people are way out of proportion to their numbers. In fact, there may be no more than two or three at any given time. That should not require a major restructuring of how the boards are monitored/operated.

--Db

 

[Baron]

Originally posted by dbphoenix


Which takes us back to the question, instead of not allowing people with free email accounts to register, why not just delete those people who have demonstrated their desire to disrupt the process?
--Db

That's what we've been doing for the last 5 years non-stop.

 

[Baron]

Originally posted by calibertrader


To add to this, the moderator will then send the poster he/she decides needs to be removed either to the Administrator, or to the other moderators with an explanation and a final vote. If the majority agree that the moderator is correct to remove the poster, then he will be removed. This way the moderator is also kept in check from removing people for personal reasons.

We've been doing this for the last five years as well. I have users being recommended for deletion by various moderators all the time. Practically all of them get removed. The problem is not identifying and removing abusive/annoying users, it's making sure that a user who gets the boot can't come back on the site under a different username and start the whole process again.