It seems that new people arnt really taking notice of the 100 post rule so we have to continuallly tell them to wait until they reach 100 posts. So what im asking is if there is any way that members under 100 posts cannot see the org recruit forum and they get access to it when they reach 101 posts.

Im not sure if its possible but I think it should seeing how it only has to be done with one member group [I highly doubt you'd make a member under 100 posts an Admin or Mod]

I don't think we could really do that without making a seperate member group, but I can look into it. I do agree that we need to make it more clear/think of some better way of enforcing it. S'pose it shows how few people actually read the rules when they start up.

Yeah, I was just discussing this with Pricey over MSN, and automatic promotions can be given. But as ADJ was saying, this can only happen if we have two actual 'Member' groups - which really wouldn't be that big of a deal.

A 'New Member' group, maybe? Or something more creative, like... 'Recruit'?

*ADJ goes off to do it.

I don't think they'd need a different name - just 'Member' is fine, I think. After all, the only thing which needs doing is stopping these bastards from applying when not eligible. Given that, it's probably best we don't draw attention to there being two different member groups.

That's just my opinion, though.

^ Yeah. Don't.

We've already had one member on a spam run since he figured out he needed 100 posts to join DC.

And who would that be ? :P

An enquiring Hedgehog

Mind your own business.

A secrective Null.

Isn't it possible to change it so that members below the 100 post count are unable to post in the Recruitment section? Just hit them up with a message saying 'You currently don't have enough posts to access this section' or something, and giving a link to the associated rules.

We'll see if we can get it working.

By which I mean, I'm gonna run off to Cobb 'cause I can't find a way to stop 'Members' being the default group. :ph43r:

I actually tried something like this before, but it was to prevent members with less than 1 post from making new topics (we were getting hammered by sex bots). The idea is easily to implement, but for moving all members with less than a certain number of posts to a different group. It has to be done manually, which would take forever, and isn't the best use of our time, in my opinion.

I agree. Although, we could just do it for all members from this point on; after all, it really isn't necessary for all those people who have joined years/months ago and have gone inactive. It's just pointless, really.

Nevertheless, what we could do instead is change the rules to something a little more manageable..
What I mean is allow all members to apply for organizations, and they will be discussed by that selected organization, like the good ol' days - however, even if they do make it in, they will not be able to join unless they have reached 100 posts.

Really, either way is fine by me.

From what I've seen so far, all this 100 post rule is actually doing is giving newbies a reason to spam. I've seen posts from 'some' members, turned away by 'some' orgs, for not having 100 posts, which consist of nothing more than a meaningless sentence, or a few words, just to boost their post count upto a hundered.

I'm not saying, that I've never spammed. Infact, I look back on my month or so on this forum, and I can remember a few times where I posted absolute rubbish, (Including that drunken Hideo April fool.) but let's not beat around the bush, the fact is I'm willing to bet alot of money that these guys think, so long as they have a hundered posts they can join any org, and so they'll spam their way upto a hundered posts to join that respective org.

Maybe we should change the rule to 100 good quality posts. If the spamming is as common as you say it is Hippysnake, then this shouldn't be too hard to pull off. That way everyone's a winner. Any spammers won't get into orgs, and the orgs will only get good quality posters.

*Rubber stamp of approval*

Surely we can take a random selection of 10 of their hundred posts before deciding on whether they are allowed into a specific org.

I see what you're saying, but I honestly doubt this has much to do with this rule change. I've been studying the new members on here for the past month or so and I've come to realise that there are just so many new members joining because MGS4's release is coming soon (we have more and more members joining each day, after all). They all come out and join now because their level of interest in the series isn't quite at the level of those that joined six months ago, and so on - given that, they aren't going to post as much as other people.

Even if that were the case, tying them down with even more restrictions wouldn't help. Fact is, if these people are the type to spam merely because they wanna join a measly forum organization, then they aren't going to contribute much more if these weren't the circumstances we face; they just wouldn't be posting as much crap - but there would still be crap from them, nonetheless.

How are we meant to monitor such a thing? It just isn't possible on the level of making it a rule; the only way that works is if orgs actually look into which members they let in. But yeah, there is no clear-cut way to identify whether or not a member has been posting good or not - it would take actual research into each member, and that takes a tremendous amount of time which the admins do not have.

In the end, this will be the thing which either helps or destroys the orgs - if organizations let in spammers, then the org is fucked; if they deny the spammers, then they'd be doing themselves great justice.

This would honestly provide for more trouble. Think about it - you just reach 100 posts - you have the right to join an organization, but you're then told that you can't because you're posting quality sucks. Now, whether this is true or not is beside the point, because the fact is that these members are going to be pissed, and it's due to that fact that they'd cause trouble for the administration - asking question after question why their posting style is so wrong. In the end, we'll just be in daft debates that exist because we're not giving people enough freedom. What is the point in that?

This would be micro-managing the members individually, and that is something which is hard due to lack of time and staff numbers, as well as the fact that it goes against human nature. People naturally want to live and learn their own way; doing things their own way - taking that way would merely pisses people off and disrupts the balance of obligation and choice. It would be daft as all fuck.

---

In the end, we don't have a rule against short, clear-cut posts. Sure, they may seem insignificant and annoying at times, but that's life - nothing can be perfect. If people really were 'spamming', we'd nab them - and we do get quite a few of them - but if they're just posting single sentences, then we can't do anything if it's on-topic. If they do it too often, they're only making themselves look stupid, which gives them a bad name - which is their end retribution on the forum, and is only fair.

But yeah, nothing we can do here.