Should we force a minimum post count before a user can make new threads?

[stephen]

I've noticed a decent number of one post posters starting threads that are obvious spam recently. Should we force a minimum of ten posts before allowing for the ability to start a new thread?

 

[Shri]

maybe not in the cricketing help sub forum but yeah sounds like a good idea

 

[GIMH]

Would deter new members. Its a no from me.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Many members would also never have been aware of their current modern kitchens if that rule was in place.

 

[Daemon]

I've personally found the love of my life recently through vashi baba love guru +91 29913840 30394

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Judging by the “new” member today there’s a case for banning registration altogether.

 

[Burgey]

Would deter new members. Its a yes from me.

Quite

We've had this discussion before in the Platinum Lounge, and I thik we all agreed the forum would be much better if only users with more than, say, 5,000-7,500 posts were allowed to start threads. I thought there was basically universal acceptance this would be a vast improvement.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Minimum number of posts should be 500 but every post in a draft thread reduces your post count by 50

 

[Line and Length]

We've had this discussion before in the Platinum Lounge, and I thik we all agreed the forum would be much better if only users with more than, say, 5,000-7,500 posts were allowed to start threads. I thought there was basically universal acceptance this would be a vast improvement.

Elitism! Where would the forum be if, in its formative years, such a rule applied.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Make love
Not war

 

[trundler]

Would deter all those blokes that sign up asking for specific info. Just filter out spam better

 

[TheJediBrah]

Elitism! Where would the forum be if, in its formative years, such a rule applied.

Well obviously it wouldn't have ever existed

 

[Spark]

I was open to this before, but the new forum software makes removing these spammers really, really easy (so long as you report them) so I don't think it's necessary now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Spammers are consistently more amusing than most of the long time members.

 

[Himannv]

I, for one, think baba was a very valuable addition to the forum.

 

[Daemon]

Spammers are consistently more amusing than most of the long time members.

That’s a low bar. Even your face is consistently more amusing than most of the long time members.

 

[GIMH]

I think we should have a maximum post count for starting new threads. 70k but we'll review that in a few months.

 

[Line and Length]

I think we should have a maximum post count for starting new threads. 70k but we'll review that in a few months.

How many members have made 70k posts? Shouldn't it be 65k so you qualify GIMH?

 

[GIMH]

How many members have made 70k posts? Shouldn't it be 65k so you qualify GIMH?

This forum would be denied classic threads such as 'Remember when Flem was a mod' if I couldn't start them. I think we need to be very careful here before disaster strikes

 

[stephen]

I was open to this before, but the new forum software makes removing these spammers really, really easy (so long as you report them) so I don't think it's necessary now.

When was the last time a great thread was started by a first time poster?

Give a minimum of 10 posts and then we get no spam at all.