TexasCHLforum.com

Thank you, and yes, I will refrain. I do have a question...... Is it possible to make the open carry forum visible only to logged in users with more than a certain number of posts? That would make it unavailable to the Bloombots, and a minimum post requirement would make it unavailable to trolls.

Just a thought.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Thank you, and yes, I will refrain. I do have a question...... Is it possible to make the open carry forum visible only to logged in users with more than a certain number of posts? That would make it unavailable to the Bloombots, and a minimum post requirement would make it unavailable to trolls.

Just a thought.

Funny you should mention that. It's being discussed by the Moderators now.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Thank you, and yes, I will refrain. I do have a question...... Is it possible to make the open carry forum visible only to logged in users with more than a certain number of posts? That would make it unavailable to the Bloombots, and a minimum post requirement would make it unavailable to trolls.

Just a thought.

Funny you should mention that. It's being discussed by the Moderators now.

Chas.

If it means anything, I think this is a great idea. Other forums that I have participated in have private sections that require approval to join and participate.

Charles
Thank you for yet another well thought out and well communicated communication.
Though I have never been opposed to open carry, I have been one that was always concerned by the potential impacts as you have mentioned.
Regarding limiting access to only those with a larger number of posts, I would like to mention that there are probably many members like myself that are not big posters, but get big benefits from the comments of others. I have been a member since 2011 and have very few personal posts or replies, but do monitor the forum several times a week to glean the knowledge of others. While I do not open carry at this time, I would like to be able to keep up with what is going on in that area along with concealed carry.

brichard wrote:Charles
Thank you for yet another well thought out and well communicated communication.
Though I have never been opposed to open carry, I have been one that was always concerned by the potential impacts as you have mentioned.
Regarding limiting access to only those with a larger number of posts, I would like to mention that there are probably many members like myself that are not big posters, but get big benefits from the comments of others. I have been a member since 2011 and have very few personal posts or replies, but do monitor the forum several times a week to glean the knowledge of others. While I do not open carry at this time, I would like to be able to keep up with what is going on in that area along with concealed carry.

That's why implementing a private section is problematic. We have some viable methods, but they will be VERY labor-intensive.

Chas.

rtschl wrote:Thank you Charles!

Don't forget you'll need to stop search engines crawling on "private members area only".

Yep, all bots will be blocked.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Thank you, and yes, I will refrain. I do have a question...... Is it possible to make the open carry forum visible only to logged in users with more than a certain number of posts? That would make it unavailable to the Bloombots, and a minimum post requirement would make it unavailable to trolls.

Just a thought.

Funny you should mention that. It's being discussed by the Moderators now.

Chas.

If it means anything, I think this is a great idea. Other forums that I have participated in have private sections that require approval to join and participate.

I think it is a great idea as well......After all, in some ways we paid to be here they didn't, if I can say that ?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

brichard wrote:Charles
Thank you for yet another well thought out and well communicated communication.
Though I have never been opposed to open carry, I have been one that was always concerned by the potential impacts as you have mentioned.
Regarding limiting access to only those with a larger number of posts, I would like to mention that there are probably many members like myself that are not big posters, but get big benefits from the comments of others. I have been a member since 2011 and have very few personal posts or replies, but do monitor the forum several times a week to glean the knowledge of others. While I do not open carry at this time, I would like to be able to keep up with what is going on in that area along with concealed carry.

That's why implementing a private section is problematic. We have some viable methods, but they will be VERY labor-intensive.

Chas.

Charles, have you considered adding a couple of moderators? If you do, perhaps you could make them responsible for admitting newer members with lower post counts into the hidden forum, as well as aiding in policing it. Whatever it takes to keep trolls from accessing it. Even a determined troll trying to build up his post count would eventually give himself away with the quality/content of his posts, and would be easy enough to spot before being granted access.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

brichard wrote:Charles
Thank you for yet another well thought out and well communicated communication.
Though I have never been opposed to open carry, I have been one that was always concerned by the potential impacts as you have mentioned.
Regarding limiting access to only those with a larger number of posts, I would like to mention that there are probably many members like myself that are not big posters, but get big benefits from the comments of others. I have been a member since 2011 and have very few personal posts or replies, but do monitor the forum several times a week to glean the knowledge of others. While I do not open carry at this time, I would like to be able to keep up with what is going on in that area along with concealed carry.

That's why implementing a private section is problematic. We have some viable methods, but they will be VERY labor-intensive.

Chas.

Charles, have you considered adding a couple of moderators? If you do, perhaps you could make them responsible for admitting newer members with lower post counts into the hidden forum, as well as aiding in policing it. Whatever it takes to keep trolls from accessing it. Even a determined troll trying to build up his post count would eventually give himself away with the quality/content of his posts, and would be easy enough to spot before being granted access.

What kind of post count are we talking about here? I've been here a while and I'd like to keep up with the forum, but I don't post unless I really have something to say. Post count is pretty standard in most forums for some things, but I'd hate to have to make posts just to be able to see the OC section.

zeropistons wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

brichard wrote:Charles
Thank you for yet another well thought out and well communicated communication.
Though I have never been opposed to open carry, I have been one that was always concerned by the potential impacts as you have mentioned.
Regarding limiting access to only those with a larger number of posts, I would like to mention that there are probably many members like myself that are not big posters, but get big benefits from the comments of others. I have been a member since 2011 and have very few personal posts or replies, but do monitor the forum several times a week to glean the knowledge of others. While I do not open carry at this time, I would like to be able to keep up with what is going on in that area along with concealed carry.

That's why implementing a private section is problematic. We have some viable methods, but they will be VERY labor-intensive.

Chas.

Charles, have you considered adding a couple of moderators? If you do, perhaps you could make them responsible for admitting newer members with lower post counts into the hidden forum, as well as aiding in policing it. Whatever it takes to keep trolls from accessing it. Even a determined troll trying to build up his post count would eventually give himself away with the quality/content of his posts, and would be easy enough to spot before being granted access.

What kind of post count are we talking about here? I've been here a while and I'd like to keep up with the forum, but I don't post unless I really have something to say. Post count is pretty standard in most forums for some things, but I'd hate to have to make posts just to be able to see the OC section.

That's why I advise a minimum post count to automatically add in most active members, and then manually adding in members with low post counts, based in part on their length of membership. That would separate long term members with low post counts such as yourself (4 posts since March 11, 2009) from guys with 4 posts since noon who are trolling.

What kind of post count are we talking about here? I've been here a while and I'd like to keep up with the forum, but I don't post unless I really have something to say. Post count is pretty standard in most forums for some things, but I'd hate to have to make posts just to be able to see the OC section.

Yep, post count requirements are very rare in online forums. They turn off a lot of people and discourage userbase growth. I think the best approach is to have (1) a sticky that clearly delineates the guidelines for posting on the topic (don't turn every OC post into a CC vs. OC debate, etc.), and then (2) a moderator(s) to consistently enforce it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Lest someone we all know later claims I went back on my word, I want to clarify something. When I call for "unity" I am not talking about working with OCT/OCTC/CATI/Carry Texas/ Grisham/Holcomb/Watkins.

Chas.

Totally understand , perhaps a child board , sub forum with accepted admittance ? I have been an admin/mod on several forums and ...............YEA there have been many troll posts since OC started but didn't want to cause waves . There is a new game in town , listened to NPR yesterday ...........yea .......right . No more suggestions ya'll will get er it figured out .

Ruark wrote:

What kind of post count are we talking about here? I've been here a while and I'd like to keep up with the forum, but I don't post unless I really have something to say. Post count is pretty standard in most forums for some things, but I'd hate to have to make posts just to be able to see the OC section.

Yep, post count requirements are very rare in online forums. They turn off a lot of people and discourage userbase growth. I think the best approach is to have (1) a sticky that clearly delineates the guidelines for posting on the topic (don't turn every OC post into a CC vs. OC debate, etc.), and then (2) a moderator(s) to consistently enforce it.

Do you run a forum? I do and have for almost 15 years now. 1) People rarely read stickys. They almost never read the registration information. 2) Consistent enforcement is almost impossible. Moderators are unpaid volunteers who have jobs and lives outside of the forum.

BTW, we moderate all new users. They must have 4 approved posts before they can 1) PM, 2) Have a signature, 3)See member information and 4) Post without moderation That doesn't stop them from complaining that they can't PM, even though it's clearly stated in the registration agreement. It also doesn't stop some of them from submitting the same posts 2, 3 or even 4 times because they can't see the post and they think they've done something wrong (and that's clearly stated in the registration agreement as well.

I split the posts dealing with a potential private forum from the "Peace and Unity" thread.

After discussing this with Moderators, we are not going to set up a private forum. It's just not workable this far into the Forum's existence. If it had been started eleven years ago, it would have been fine.

There are two primary factors that make a useful private forum a logistical nightmare to create. First, post counts won't work because we have long-term Members who don't post very often. We also have Members who are hanging on by a thread (in terms of always pushing the envelope on acceptable posts) but who have high post counts. We have anti-gun moles who have been registered for a good while. Post count won't work.

I considered an alternative that I won't post on the open Forum, but was going to be a logistical impossibility in terms of man-hours.

As much as I wanted a private forum, there's no fair way to set it up without either leaving out good Members or letting in people I don't want in a private section. Please don't offer suggestions, our Moderators have considered this thoroughly and I don't want anyone to think we just ignored your input.

Chas.

Mr Cotton, please, if you need another moderator I'm happy to help. I'm typically around the forum 2 - 3 times a day.