Making forums more strictly membership based.

[Tuberload]

I was wondering about the possibility of making all or a portion of the forums membership based, in the manner that you guys determine who has access. I know you already have this for you immediate members, but I know a lot of people would enjoy the environment you guys provide without the "outside interference". I think these forums have just been getting flooded more and more with the exact types of people that don't belong here. I personally look at this site as something way beyond Battle.net, and would like to see it stay that way.

This is just my opinion on the matter and I would just like to hear what other people, vL members in specific, have to think about it.

[effect]

Very good in theory , but so was communism

[Tuberload]

Very good in theory , but so was communism

Last time I checked this forum was not a democracy. Thank you for your input, but I would rather here some reasoning behind why or why not you think this should happen.

[Adron]

Reason it should not happen: It's work.

[MyndFyre]

Very good in theory , but so was communism

Last time I checked this forum was not a democracy. Thank you for your input, but I would rather here some reasoning behind why or why not you think this should happen.

Last time I checked, you weren't a member contributing to the oligarchy.

If you're going to submit an idea like this, and someone else responds to it, don't just shoot them down.  Aside from being incredibly rude, you look like a hypocritical moron.

[l)ragon]

Very good in theory , but so was communism

Last time I checked this forum was not a democracy. Thank you for your input, but I would rather here some reasoning behind why or why not you think this should happen.

Last time I checked, you weren't a member contributing to the oligarchy.

If you're going to submit an idea like this, and someone else responds to it, don't just shoot them down.  Aside from being incredibly rude, you look like a hypocritical moron.

History Lesson for you not to be rude if it sounds that way lol.
Actualy he and a few select others from bots`r'us started the wave of binarybot's, the board had been shutdown twice if i can remember, I guess they figured people weren't takeing down little notes with all the documents a few people (me, Spht, ect..) had collected from that board the some of the first Visual Basic bbots were spawned. His TBBot helped many so don't be hateing lol.

[iago]

Reason it should not happen: It's work.

lmao, agreed.

[Tuberload]

Very good in theory , but so was communism

Last time I checked this forum was not a democracy. Thank you for your input, but I would rather here some reasoning behind why or why not you think this should happen.

Last time I checked, you weren't a member contributing to the oligarchy.

If you're going to submit an idea like this, and someone else responds to it, don't just shoot them down.  Aside from being incredibly rude, you look like a hypocritical moron.

How do I look like a hypocritical moron? I am not going to get into another argument like this with you again but let's think about this. I made a proposal and he made a comment comparing it to communism. I told him the truth, thanked him for his response, and asked that he not put it out there if he couldn't contribute to the question. No where in there did I shoot him down, unless me pointing out someone else's forum is not a democracy counts. You are the epitome of shooting people down for not contributing to the discussion hand. I think you need to take a look in the mirror a little more often.

Reason it should not happen: It's work.

My question is this: Don't you already have to work a lot to keep these forums moderated? My idea was to turn /whoami forum into a board were people tell you about themselves, and when you get to it you decide whether or not to allow them access to the forums. You already do a good job of this in the BNLS BOTNET WEBBOT request forum, so I figured the same could be done with the rest of the forum.

History Lesson for you not to be rude if it sounds that way lol.
Actualy he and a few select others from bots`r'us started the wave of binarybot's, the board had been shutdown twice if i can remember, I guess they figured people weren't takeing down little notes with all the documents a few people (me, Spht, ect..) had collected from that board the some of the first Visual Basic bbots were spawned. His TBBot helped many so don't be hateing lol.

I don't know how this helps the conversation either, but thanks. I am glad that old bot helped someone.

[iago]

* iago thinks this belongs in the stupid argument forum.

[Adron]

Reason it should not happen: It's work.

My question is this: Don't you already have to work a lot to keep these forums moderated? My idea was to turn /whoami forum into a board were people tell you about themselves, and when you get to it you decide whether or not to allow them access to the forums. You already do a good job of this in the BNLS BOTNET WEBBOT request forum, so I figured the same could be done with the rest of the forum.

No, I work very little keeping these forums moderated most of the time. The work I do do is deleting / banning people who don't belong. Those will still be posting if we keep some part public. There would be additional work setting up another boundary between regulars and nonregulars. There would also be the conflicts and decision-making - who gets in and who doesn't? Finally, if some moderator doesn't want people who just make noise, it's up to them to warn them, delete their posts, and take any other action necessary. I do that as I see fit for the forums I moderate, as well as banning globally for those who don't belong at all.

[iago]

We should make the forum like a big nightclub.  We can hire a bouncer and only allow X people in at once.  And cool people get first dibs.  

[dxoigmn]

Very good in theory , but so was communism

Last time I checked this forum was not a democracy. Thank you for your input, but I would rather here some reasoning behind why or why not you think this should happen.

Last time I checked, you weren't a member contributing to the oligarchy.

If you're going to submit an idea like this, and someone else responds to it, don't just shoot them down.  Aside from being incredibly rude, you look like a hypocritical moron.

History Lesson for you not to be rude if it sounds that way lol.
Actualy he and a few select others from bots`r'us started the wave of binarybot's, the board had been shutdown twice if i can remember, I guess they figured people weren't takeing down little notes with all the documents a few people (me, Spht, ect..) had collected from that board the some of the first Visual Basic bbots were spawned. His TBBot helped many so don't be hateing lol.

Ahh the old days on gamers.com.  I remember those

[Kp]

My question is this: Don't you already have to work a lot to keep these forums moderated?

To elaborate a bit on Adron's response - as it stands, the moderation work is distributed over all of us.  Each of us has a few forums which we tend, and serious disruptors either gain the leader's attention or the moderators can bring it up.  If we went to restricted registration system, there would need to be a central decision making authority -- having even a moderate number of members agree on something is a pain (if for no other reason than getting us all together to discuss it at once).  So, clan consensus is out.  The other alternative for a restricted entry forum would be if the leaders (or a few designated proxies for them) approved/denied everyone.  This would be a burden upon those so appointed, and would cause annoying delays even for the people who definitely belong.  For instance, I recently went offline for quite a while unannounced -- if I was the only gate keeper, everyone who wanted in during the interim would just have to wait until I came back, however long I decided to be.  The forums don't attract that many troublemakers, and as far as I know, none of the members are particularly eager to go to the extra effort that being gatekeeper would entail.

[Hazard]

Considering the amount of work that would go into makes it impractical. Who wants to be the one to sift through the hudreds of members to decides who makes the cut? Who decides the criteria? Who is actually going to enter all of that information? Do you think that it might be more of a hassle than its worth?

[iago]

Considering the amount of work that would go into makes it impractical. Who wants to be the one to sift through the hudreds of members to decides who makes the cut? Who decides the criteria? Who is actually going to enter all of that information? Do you think that it might be more of a hassle than its worth?

shh, we all know you wouldn't get in anyway

Perhaps we already MADE those privater boards and the people arguing here are the ones who didn't make the cut?