Any chance to have a limited access area only for regulars to talk freely?

[Who Dares Win]

Basically we have threads closed in every corner of the forum cause they may get some heat, this is due to the witchung that the "free" world is currently experiencing.

How about we make a limited access area where only users with more than 400 posts and 6 months presence can reach?

That would allow us to have some freedom of speech while it would be easieri to kick people out of that area in case of misbehaviours without removing them from the main board.

 

[Lookatu]

Roosh I believe had something similar to this when it came to certain threads. Personally, I don't think it would be a bad idea.

 

[jimwho]

Limited access means us bottom feeders only get the low hanging fruit. Personally I'd be all Butthurt..

 

[Lookatu]

Limited access means us bottom feeders only get the low hanging fruit. Personally I'd be all Butthurt..

Start posting a lot and wait out the 6 months and then you can resurrect old threads once you get in. LOL

 

[jimwho]

Start posting a lot and wait out the 6 months and then you can resurrect old threads once you get in. LOL

Nahhh, it's cool. Some of the charm is in the ridiculous, crass, moronic posts. Sometimes mine, that's the entertainment.
I wouldn't want to give that up. Plus I'm old, I could hit the floor at any moment.

 

[Black Widow Void]

I would like to second Who Dares Win 's suggestion.
This seems like an excellent happy-medium.
1. The regular forum members will not feel censored or 'neutered' from a free exchange of ideas and thoughts,.
2. Granting access to only established members would prevent new members from joining up and hijacking the main intent of the forum.

Aside from new members joining for the wrong reasons, it's been said that another main reason for locking threads is because some members can get ugly with each other. If we were all 5th graders behaving badly at recess, I could understand the purpose of heavy governing.
However, such heavy-handedness being practiced toward grown men leads me to wonder.... if the above is a 'cloaked explanation' (and underneath is a veiled attempt at censoring views that higher ups do not agree with)?

I acknowledge that this isn't my forum and the powers that be have every right to do as they wish.
With the above being expressed, some true and honest transparency behind the locking of threads would be appreciated.

 

[zekko]

Plus I'm old, I could hit the floor at any moment.

If you're old, you know that six months go by in the blink of an eye.

I like the suggestion, I know other forums that have less restrictive areas for veteran members. Anyway, I like the spicy stuff.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I don't see how 400 posts makes a difference. Have seen some very tenured members sling mud. What makes you guys think this won't happen in a closed-off subforum?

Though I do like the idea in practice, like a college alumni or diplomats club. Or veterans but I don't want to insult veterans, lol.

400 posts is a good way to dissuade trolls and multi nick accounts, since if they mess up inside and get kicked out needs to register again and put the work from point zero.

Also a guy spamming can be easily recognized in the open forum.

 

[Black Widow Void]

I don't see how 400 posts makes a difference. Have seen some very tenured members sling mud. What makes you guys think this won't happen in a closed-off subforum?

I think that this occurrence is a given. And this begs the question:
Would we rather be stripped of certain free expression for the sake of a 'better behaved appearance?'

We're big boys here and I'm sure that we've seen and experienced far worse things (than words typed in a forum) . In fact, I think that most (if not all) forum members would rather weed through the good, bad and the ugly.. if within we can read varying and interesting opinions as well.

Don't like someones posting behavior? No problem. The "ignore" option still works.

So far, it doesn't appear as if this posting has been read by the moderators. I can fix that. All I need to do is type in the magic word and presto! It'll show up as an alert to all that moderate.

here goes...

Trump.

 

[metalwater]

many boards do this.

It will detract some from the open one as some of the regular will not visit the main as often.
Some additional mudslinging will occur. so has to have different rules, with a very senior moderator that wants to do that..

 

[zekko]

All I need to do is type in the magic word and presto! It'll show up as an alert to all that moderate.

here goes...

Trump.

Way to go, now they probably know about this thread in China.

 

[DelayedGratification]

Way to go, now they probably know about this thread in China.

Not to mention Foggy Bottom!

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Seriously?

You fist fvckers want to create a "safe space"?

 

[Stoic]

Basically we have threads closed in every corner of the forum cause they may get some heat, this is due to the witchung that the "free" world is currently experiencing.

How about we make a limited access area where only users with more than 400 posts and 6 months presence can reach?

That would allow us to have some freedom of speech while it would be easieri to kick people out of that area in case of misbehaviours without removing them from the main board.

The only problem is you'd be restricting access to quite possibly the best content on the site from most likely the people that need it the most- the newer guys.

Maybe I'd be for it if the people with fewer posts can still view and follow the thread but are not permitted to post. That way they could still get the information and not derail the thread or get it locked.

 

[Who Dares Win]

The only problem is you'd be restricting access to quite possibly the best content on the site from most likely the people that need it the most- the newer guys.

Maybe I'd be for it if the people with fewer posts can still view and follow the thread but are not permitted to post. That way they could still get the information and not derail the thread or get it locked.

The point is not restricting posting to people, the point would be to touch adult content without sjws seeing it and reporting around.

The concern of the mods is not us not being nice to each other, the concern is the witch hunt that any online content face.

Basically even saying that women are favoured in divorce courts can be labeled "hate speech" by many current standards.

 

[AureliusMaximus]

Someone is upset because Trump lost.

Actually technically no-one has won yet. Mainstream media doesn't select the winner of an election. Legal processes and law control that and eventually pick/decide the winner.

 

[AureliusMaximus]

As far as the idea goes +1.
Sounds like a nice idea.

 

[Stoic]

The point is not restricting posting to people, the point would be to touch adult content without sjws seeing it and reporting around.

The concern of the mods is not us not being nice to each other, the concern is the witch hunt that any online content face.

Basically even saying that women are favoured in divorce courts can be labeled "hate speech" by many current standards.

Ah fair enough. I may not have read your initial post carefully enough or misunderstood.

Honestly, I didnt even know what you described was a problem. I see what you'd be trying to achieve with the setup you outlined. Makes sense.

 

[Stoic]

Actually technically no-one has won yet. Mainstream media doesn't select the winner of an election. Legal processes and law control that and eventually pick/decide the winner.

Yeah, but you're not allowed to question main stream media. They report the truth and their motives are pure. Just supposed to accept the results and move on.

The 100+ people signing affidavits saying they witnessed fraud? They dont count.

(Sarcasm)

 

[AureliusMaximus]

The 100+ people signing affidavits saying they witnessed fraud? They dont count.

Yep I heard about that. It is crazy too.

And that the "fact checkers" ain't so much fact checkers after all but a hoax themselves cought in lying lol

Fact Check: Video From Georgia Does NOT Show Suitcases Filled With Ballots Suspiciously Pulled From Under A Table; Poll Watchers Were NOT Told To Leave | Lead Stories

By Alan Duke and Hallie Golden Does security camera video show a Fulton County, Georgia, election supervisor suspiciously pulling suitcases...

leadstories.com

"Fact checker" lies is debunked here:

The Georgia Vote-Counting Video Was Not 'Debunked.' Not Even Close

A 'fact' 'checking' outfit claimed to debunk explosive evidence for Republicans' claims of significant election problems in Georgia. It didn't.

thefederalist.com

Honestly its not so much about who wins, but the right to have fair, honest and trustworthy elections in the western world that is the important part.
If your vote suddenly doesn't count, then our rights and liberty are at stake. That's what matters.