New Member Restrictions

[Trinity]

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]

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

 

[George Wallace]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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]

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]

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]

Kettle to pot:  Black over!

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

 

[Good2Golf]

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?)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

See!

SEARCH works wonders, doesn't it?

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

 

[McG]

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