Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Announcements and site updates.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Should we screen new forum members?

Yes. There have been too many trolls here lately. We need to screen new members to raise the content and credibility here. Moderators should interview them and check their IP's.
6
26%
No. That's too restrictive. Just let new members post and we'll deal with it then.
7
30%
Let's just moderate new members by having their posts subject to approval before being posted.
4
17%
Let's put new members in a restricted board first where they have to prove themselves before being allowed into the main board.
6
26%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27561
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Post by Winston » October 21st, 2014, 2:27 pm

Hi all,
Rock and I have been discussing the problem with forum trolls here lately via text messaging. He suggested some ideas to us for screening new members. Here are the ideas he proposed. He said I could post them. What do you all think?

Rocks ideas and suggestions to me:

"Why don't we only let verified members freely post. Arent you tired of the phonies and trolls? We need to up content quality. Enough of this fantasyland stuff

We only have like a dozen regular posters and most are already verified. So it's not as hard as you think to verify people. Also you could streamline like Roosh and only allow newbies to sign up on first day of each month and pending some initial screening or verification process.

Maybe at beginning of month when you open board to new members 2-4 mods could arrange Skype convos to sus them out a bit and also their ips could be checked against where they claim to be located. Any lies initially and they're out. And eirazzary made good point about not making process too transparent.

Say 12 new posters at begin of month could be divided between 3 mods for due diligence process. Posting on happier abroad should be an earned privilege which carries value. Roosh is super strict yet he has no shortage of willing content providers. Right now any clown out in cyberspace can post on happier abroad

OR maybe you could segregate new posters to probation area of forum and only after proving themselves as legit over time thru quality posts and/or being verified could they post on mainstream abs expat boards."
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne




Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!



User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27561
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Ideas for screening new members. Should we?

Post by Winston » October 21st, 2014, 3:16 pm

Ok I set up a poll. Please cast your vote above!

Note: You can change your vote after you cast it. Just select a different option and hit submit.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Array9
Freshman Poster
Posts: 252
Joined: January 14th, 2013, 4:49 pm

Re: Ideas for screening new members. Should we?

Post by Array9 » October 21st, 2014, 3:32 pm

Winston,

With the World Series starting tonight, we could borrow an idea from Baseball. My idea would be to create a "Minor Leagues" section of the forum. New posters would be restricted to this section until you deem them worthy enough to be called up to the major leagues (The main forum). If the person is a troll, leave them in that section and let them rot. Communications between the majors and minors should be blocked.

I can't remember the name but I saw on one forum where members had green credibility bars next to their usernames. The more helpful and informative their posts were, the more green bars they received. Two green bars or 100 quality posts would possibly get them promoted to the main site.
Men chase, women choose

As long as you have gold in your hand, you will ALWAYS have bread on your table.

Rock
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4225
Joined: April 21st, 2010, 5:16 pm

Re: Ideas for screening new members. Should we?

Post by Rock » October 21st, 2014, 3:46 pm

I posted about these ideas in another thread yesterday. Part of what I suggested also included a possible serrated section for newbies who haven't yet proven themselves as sincere, valuable, and real.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=19968&p=204200#p204200

I threw a few ideas at Winston and he told me to post them here. I don't know about you guys but I get tired of random newbies and anonymous not-so-newbies w/out an ounce of credibility posting all kinds of crazy claims or downright silly stuff here. It's easy to pose, talk tough, make claims, disrupt, etc. when you are invisible.

Reality is, we only have a small handful of active posters at any one time. Majority of these have been verified to some degree by others so are not invisible and have some real skin in the game so to speak. If they go off the deep end, they may just end up being accountable.

A high percentage of newbies turn out to be trolls, frauds, loonies, and other non-desirables.

It probably would not hurt but very likely might help things to make more radical changes to sign-up procedure and granting posting rights. Here is some initial food for thought.

1. Apply Roosh's idea of only allowing new sign-ups at the beginning of each month to streamline things and make filtering a beginning of month task only.

2. Add to No. 1, some sort of approval/interview stage where forum mods and assistants would chat with prospective new posters to decide whether or not each one of them is an asset to this forum or not. Add to that some other non-transparent checks and due diligence to see if person is credible and honest or not. Posting on HA should be a privilege, not a right granted to anyone.

3. Perhaps those who get approved start with posting rights only on a segregated probation section of the forum and only after a certain amount of time and/or number of productive posts (as judged by mods and admin) do they get full posting rights on main board and expat board.

As for main board mods, both E_Irrazary and Jester get my nod to try for awhile and see how they work out, zboy1 remains a solid nay.

If these ideas sound unpractical to apply in reality, please speak up. But maybe also throw up some alternative ideas. We need to get rid of posers, braggarts, fakes, trolls, haters, and generally toxic posters. Let's make this a more authentic and positive place :)

Rock
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4225
Joined: April 21st, 2010, 5:16 pm

Re: Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Post by Rock » October 21st, 2014, 4:03 pm

How bout both option 1 and followed by option 4 (for those who pass option 1). That would make it even stricter. Also, what about only having certain days available for new signups?

All that combined is pretty strict. Wonder if anyone would still try. Might actually attract quality people while discouraging the worthless or destructive ones. It signals that posting here is an earned privilege by screening and invitation instead of a right granted to any anonymous party in cyber space.

User avatar
publicduende
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3391
Joined: November 30th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: Ideas for screening new members. Should we?

Post by publicduende » October 21st, 2014, 4:08 pm

Rock wrote:I posted about these ideas in another thread yesterday. Part of what I suggested also included a possible serrated section for newbies who haven't yet proven themselves as sincere, valuable, and real.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=19968&p=204200#p204200

I threw a few ideas at Winston and he told me to post them here. I don't know about you guys but I get tired of random newbies and anonymous not-so-newbies w/out an ounce of credibility posting all kinds of crazy claims or downright silly stuff here. It's easy to pose, talk tough, make claims, disrupt, etc. when you are invisible.

Reality is, we only have a small handful of active posters at any one time. Majority of these have been verified to some degree by others so are not invisible and have some real skin in the game so to speak. If they go off the deep end, they may just end up being accountable.

A high percentage of newbies turn out to be trolls, frauds, loonies, and other non-desirables.

It probably would not hurt but very likely might help things to make more radical changes to sign-up procedure and granting posting rights. Here is some initial food for thought.

1. Apply Roosh's idea of only allowing new sign-ups at the beginning of each month to streamline things and make filtering a beginning of month task only.

2. Add to No. 1, some sort of approval/interview stage where forum mods and assistants would chat with prospective new posters to decide whether or not each one of them is an asset to this forum or not. Add to that some other non-transparent checks and due diligence to see if person is credible and honest or not. Posting on HA should be a privilege, not a right granted to anyone.

3. Perhaps those who get approved start with posting rights only on a segregated probation section of the forum and only after a certain amount of time and/or number of productive posts (as judged by mods and admin) do they get full posting rights on main board and expat board.

As for main board mods, both E_Irrazary and Jester get my nod to try for awhile and see how they work out, zboy1 remains a solid nay.

If these ideas sound unpractical to apply in reality, please speak up. But maybe also throw up some alternative ideas. We need to get rid of posers, braggarts, fakes, trolls, haters, and generally toxic posters. Let's make this a more authentic and positive place :)
I think point 1) isn't very useful and point 2) is highly impractical, as there is not much incentive for a new member to be screened. During a hypothetical audio? cam?) interview, the prospective member could always say something and then do something completely different once they're in, hence turning the exercise into a waste of valuable time.

Point 3, as echoed by Array9, is a good idea. A sandboxed section of the forum dedicated to newbies, to test their contributions, or even their willingness to contribute with quality ideas and contents. The only problem is see with this is that a segregated area won't allow new members to interact with posts in the standard section, even when they do have something valuable to say. There is always the possibility that the best comments could be posted in the sandbox and then moved into the standard sections as and when their authors are upgraded, but that would have to be a manual process (or moving and linking) which would be quite tedious and a burden on mods.

Perhaps one alternative idea is to leave things as they are, but introduce a "verified member" label which would be optional and open to all, including existing members. The label would be represented by a tag added to the member's profile (and repeated next to his name in every post) and would be given after some sort of verification process, which might involve given away the member's identity to the moderators, perhaps a veritable Facebook account, or a picture of himself holding a sheet of paper with an assigned, handwritten piece of text. The member's identity would obviously not be disclosed, but would allow Winston and the mods to make a sound judgement call on the member's veracity and good intentions.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27561
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Post by Winston » October 21st, 2014, 4:11 pm

Rock wrote:How bout both option 1 and followed by option 4 (for those who pass option 1). That would make it even stricter. Also, what about only having certain days available for new signups?

All that combined is pretty strict. Wonder if anyone would still try. Might actually attract quality people while discouraging the worthless or destructive ones. It signals that posting here is an earned privilege by screening and invitation instead of a right granted to any anonymous party in cyber space.
Ok since more than one method in the poll can be used to screen new members, I've enabled the poll to allow everyone to be able to vote for TWO of the options above. So feel free to vote for one or two options above.

So how does Roosh screen his forum members, besides having the once a month sign up thing? Does he verify new forum members in some way? If so, how?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

fschmidt
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2518
Joined: May 18th, 2008, 9:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX
Contact:

Re: Ideas for screening new members. Should we?

Post by fschmidt » October 21st, 2014, 4:36 pm

Now that this forum software has been updated and this site is finally usable, this forum is growing nicely and attracting new users. I don't see trolls as a big problem. How often do we get troll posts? Looking at the moderator log, it doesn't seem very often.

It seems common that when something is finally working well, those in charge find a way to ruin it, and that is what I see happening here.
Rock wrote:A high percentage of newbies turn out to be trolls, frauds, loonies, and other non-desirables.
This doesn't seem true. Here is the list of newbies:

memberlist.php?mode=&sk=c&sd=d#memberlist

Rock
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4225
Joined: April 21st, 2010, 5:16 pm

Re: Ideas for screening new members. Should we?

Post by Rock » October 21st, 2014, 5:29 pm

fschmidt wrote:Now that this forum software has been updated and this site is finally usable, this forum is growing nicely and attracting new users. I don't see trolls as a big problem. How often do we get troll posts? Looking at the moderator log, it doesn't seem very often.

It seems common that when something is finally working well, those in charge find a way to ruin it, and that is what I see happening here.
Rock wrote:A high percentage of newbies turn out to be trolls, frauds, loonies, and other non-desirables.
This doesn't seem true. Here is the list of newbies:

memberlist.php?mode=&sk=c&sd=d#memberlist
I'm only talking about those who actually post. Take the ratio of number of very suspect newbies who posted in last month to total number of newbies who posted in last month and you will probably get a very high ratio.

Rock
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4225
Joined: April 21st, 2010, 5:16 pm

Re: Ideas for screening new members. Should we?

Post by Rock » October 21st, 2014, 5:40 pm

publicduende wrote:
Rock wrote:I posted about these ideas in another thread yesterday. Part of what I suggested also included a possible serrated section for newbies who haven't yet proven themselves as sincere, valuable, and real.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=19968&p=204200#p204200

I threw a few ideas at Winston and he told me to post them here. I don't know about you guys but I get tired of random newbies and anonymous not-so-newbies w/out an ounce of credibility posting all kinds of crazy claims or downright silly stuff here. It's easy to pose, talk tough, make claims, disrupt, etc. when you are invisible.

Reality is, we only have a small handful of active posters at any one time. Majority of these have been verified to some degree by others so are not invisible and have some real skin in the game so to speak. If they go off the deep end, they may just end up being accountable.

A high percentage of newbies turn out to be trolls, frauds, loonies, and other non-desirables.

It probably would not hurt but very likely might help things to make more radical changes to sign-up procedure and granting posting rights. Here is some initial food for thought.

1. Apply Roosh's idea of only allowing new sign-ups at the beginning of each month to streamline things and make filtering a beginning of month task only.

2. Add to No. 1, some sort of approval/interview stage where forum mods and assistants would chat with prospective new posters to decide whether or not each one of them is an asset to this forum or not. Add to that some other non-transparent checks and due diligence to see if person is credible and honest or not. Posting on HA should be a privilege, not a right granted to anyone.

3. Perhaps those who get approved start with posting rights only on a segregated probation section of the forum and only after a certain amount of time and/or number of productive posts (as judged by mods and admin) do they get full posting rights on main board and expat board.

As for main board mods, both E_Irrazary and Jester get my nod to try for awhile and see how they work out, zboy1 remains a solid nay.

If these ideas sound unpractical to apply in reality, please speak up. But maybe also throw up some alternative ideas. We need to get rid of posers, braggarts, fakes, trolls, haters, and generally toxic posters. Let's make this a more authentic and positive place :)
I think point 1) isn't very useful and point 2) is highly impractical, as there is not much incentive for a new member to be screened. During a hypothetical audio? cam?) interview, the prospective member could always say something and then do something completely different once they're in, hence turning the exercise into a waste of valuable time.

Point 3, as echoed by Array9, is a good idea. A sandboxed section of the forum dedicated to newbies, to test their contributions, or even their willingness to contribute with quality ideas and contents. The only problem is see with this is that a segregated area won't allow new members to interact with posts in the standard section, even when they do have something valuable to say. There is always the possibility that the best comments could be posted in the sandbox and then moved into the standard sections as and when their authors are upgraded, but that would have to be a manual process (or moving and linking) which would be quite tedious and a burden on mods.

Perhaps one alternative idea is to leave things as they are, but introduce a "verified member" label which would be optional and open to all, including existing members. The label would be represented by a tag added to the member's profile (and repeated next to his name in every post) and would be given after some sort of verification process, which might involve given away the member's identity to the moderators, perhaps a veritable Facebook account, or a picture of himself holding a sheet of paper with an assigned, handwritten piece of text. The member's identity would obviously not be disclosed, but would allow Winston and the mods to make a sound judgement call on the member's veracity and good intentions.
But Pt. 1 could save a lot of moderator time cus it would push all the work into a short defined period.

Regarding Pt. 2, we need quality, not quantity. I don't think an interview process would deter someone who was very determined to join our community as an active and productive poster. Interviews are not 100% but they help weed out. A lot of trolls and phonies are gonna be too lazy or worried to go through that. So I think it would improve the hit-to-miss ratio a lot. Just look at this forum over the last few months or years. Has there ever been a period where more than a dozen or so posters contributed virtually all the content. Being totally open has not generated that high number of solid contributors. Perhaps being stricter would attract more higher quality types and discourage the trash posters. I don't know for sure of course but it does seem our totally open method is not working that well.

Pt. 3, sandbox, would be open to all of us to read so it's not like contributions there would be lost.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27561
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Post by Winston » October 21st, 2014, 10:25 pm

I'm not sure how practical any of these solutions are though.

Firstly, we do not have any moderators that are willing to spend time on Skype to interview new members. And even if we did, it would be kind of pushing it to expect new members to be willing to show their face on webcam. Many people like to remain anonymous. This solution is too time consuming and we don't have moderators willing to do it.

Second, even if new members' posts are moderated, or they are restricted to certain newbie boards, they could just act normal and behave until they get approved into the main board, and then start their trolling. So I'm not sure that would really help.

MrBlueLight for instance, started his posts with good quality observations about the Philippines. Then after that, he started acting suspicious and boasting about his conquests. Anyone can start posting one way and then turn into a troll or fraud later.

There isn't any way of keeping them out for sure, other than banning them when necessary. But we do need some moderation of them, I think. If we restrict them to certain boards, maybe we can have them stay in the "Introduce Yourself" and "Why Go Abroad" first?

How does Roosh screen out new members? I don't think he does. When I signed up on his forum, I just had to fill out a long profile on the registration page. I don't see what the advantage is of restricting new registrations to only once a month. No other successful popular forum that I know of, does that except Rooshv's forum.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
publicduende
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3391
Joined: November 30th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Post by publicduende » October 21st, 2014, 11:00 pm

Rock wrote:
publicduende wrote:
Rock wrote:I posted about these ideas in another thread yesterday. Part of what I suggested also included a possible serrated section for newbies who haven't yet proven themselves as sincere, valuable, and real.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=19968&p=204200#p204200

I threw a few ideas at Winston and he told me to post them here. I don't know about you guys but I get tired of random newbies and anonymous not-so-newbies w/out an ounce of credibility posting all kinds of crazy claims or downright silly stuff here. It's easy to pose, talk tough, make claims, disrupt, etc. when you are invisible.

Reality is, we only have a small handful of active posters at any one time. Majority of these have been verified to some degree by others so are not invisible and have some real skin in the game so to speak. If they go off the deep end, they may just end up being accountable.

A high percentage of newbies turn out to be trolls, frauds, loonies, and other non-desirables.

It probably would not hurt but very likely might help things to make more radical changes to sign-up procedure and granting posting rights. Here is some initial food for thought.

1. Apply Roosh's idea of only allowing new sign-ups at the beginning of each month to streamline things and make filtering a beginning of month task only.

2. Add to No. 1, some sort of approval/interview stage where forum mods and assistants would chat with prospective new posters to decide whether or not each one of them is an asset to this forum or not. Add to that some other non-transparent checks and due diligence to see if person is credible and honest or not. Posting on HA should be a privilege, not a right granted to anyone.

3. Perhaps those who get approved start with posting rights only on a segregated probation section of the forum and only after a certain amount of time and/or number of productive posts (as judged by mods and admin) do they get full posting rights on main board and expat board.

As for main board mods, both E_Irrazary and Jester get my nod to try for awhile and see how they work out, zboy1 remains a solid nay.

If these ideas sound unpractical to apply in reality, please speak up. But maybe also throw up some alternative ideas. We need to get rid of posers, braggarts, fakes, trolls, haters, and generally toxic posters. Let's make this a more authentic and positive place :)
I think point 1) isn't very useful and point 2) is highly impractical, as there is not much incentive for a new member to be screened. During a hypothetical audio? cam?) interview, the prospective member could always say something and then do something completely different once they're in, hence turning the exercise into a waste of valuable time.

Point 3, as echoed by Array9, is a good idea. A sandboxed section of the forum dedicated to newbies, to test their contributions, or even their willingness to contribute with quality ideas and contents. The only problem is see with this is that a segregated area won't allow new members to interact with posts in the standard section, even when they do have something valuable to say. There is always the possibility that the best comments could be posted in the sandbox and then moved into the standard sections as and when their authors are upgraded, but that would have to be a manual process (or moving and linking) which would be quite tedious and a burden on mods.

Perhaps one alternative idea is to leave things as they are, but introduce a "verified member" label which would be optional and open to all, including existing members. The label would be represented by a tag added to the member's profile (and repeated next to his name in every post) and would be given after some sort of verification process, which might involve given away the member's identity to the moderators, perhaps a veritable Facebook account, or a picture of himself holding a sheet of paper with an assigned, handwritten piece of text. The member's identity would obviously not be disclosed, but would allow Winston and the mods to make a sound judgement call on the member's veracity and good intentions.
But Pt. 1 could save a lot of moderator time cus it would push all the work into a short defined period.

Regarding Pt. 2, we need quality, not quantity. I don't think an interview process would deter someone who was very determined to join our community as an active and productive poster. Interviews are not 100% but they help weed out. A lot of trolls and phonies are gonna be too lazy or worried to go through that. So I think it would improve the hit-to-miss ratio a lot. Just look at this forum over the last few months or years. Has there ever been a period where more than a dozen or so posters contributed virtually all the content. Being totally open has not generated that high number of solid contributors. Perhaps being stricter would attract more higher quality types and discourage the trash posters. I don't know for sure of course but it does seem our totally open method is not working that well.

Pt. 3, sandbox, would be open to all of us to read so it's not like contributions there would be lost.
Pt. 1 - yes, but it depends on how many new members we get and what the onboarding process is. If all new members must go through a verification/approval process involving Winston and one or more of the mods, then yes, bundling this work in a specific time windows makes sense.

If you guys like my proposal (optional verification to obtain the "verified member" tag), then registration could be allowed at any time (as it's managed by phpBB entirely) and the verification process might be scheduled on specific days of the month, perhaps in a slotted fashion (eg. 5 verifications per month per mod).

I can't know the statistics beforehand, but I don't believe more than 30% of all new members will want to get verified. If that's the case, the bulk of the work would probably concentrate in the first few weeks, when a backlog of existing members will want to show their mugs for the first time. Obviously, a white list could (and maybe should) be introduced for mods and long-time posters. I have personally met Falcon and Xiongmao on a lovely London day and have talked to Eurobrat to exhaustion, so those are the members I can vouch for blind. I also have Phoenix and Irizarry on Facebook and I occasionally talk to the former (and improving on my street Spanish so I can talk to the latter LOL), so they're the real deal too, as far as I'm concerned.

I assume people like yourself (Rock), Jester, ZBoy, S_Parc, Cornfed, Droid, gsjackson, Outwest, Pete and DaveWe, and a few more might rightfully make it straight to the white list. All in all, the verification process could be made to be so much fun that virtually all HA aficionados will want to join in.

Pt. 2, I actually agree on the idea of an interview (which is a somehow spooky word for "a fun chat with Winston and another couple of mods"). All I am proposing here is not to make this interview an obligatory step to be able to post on the forum. Remember that anonymity is a staple of the free Internet and, for how much more trustworthy a "verified member" can be to our eyes, we shouldn't interfere with a new member's choice to remain anonymous, especially when he can still write great posts. Indeed, if the newbie will want to remain anonymous, he will have to gain our trust the hard way, that is, setting the bar high and keeping it high.

This optional verification while keeping members to post freely obviously needs be reinforced by a stricter ban policy. It's pretty clear to me and everybody else that a genuine troll or a narcissist with nothing more to say will show their true colours pretty soon, and that's when the axe should come down, perhaps without all the drama and ship booting-off metaphors :) Occasionally, for members who sound overly suspicious or whose tales start sounding a wee too tall, Winston and the mods might give a choice to go through verification or be banned. This is OK, but should only be used in very specific cases.

Pt. 3 - the sandbox can still be implemented, perhaps bundling all non-verified members. What I don't like about this idea is that yes, contributions wouldn't get lost, but replies to threads contained in the standard sections of the forum cannot be linked automatically, unless the member starts with a header that says "In reply to: ...". It would still be OK for first and "stand-alone" posts. Assuming some new members may want to make an impression by posting something useful, insightful and well written, all the posts considered "gems" might be moved to the standard section.

User avatar
eurobrat
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2457
Joined: August 25th, 2011, 10:18 am

Re: Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Post by eurobrat » October 22nd, 2014, 12:56 am

Winston wrote:I'm not sure how practical any of these solutions are though.

Firstly, we do not have any moderators that are willing to spend time on Skype to interview new members. And even if we did, it would be kind of pushing it to expect new members to be willing to show their face on webcam. Many people like to remain anonymous. This solution is too time consuming and we don't have moderators willing to do it.

Second, even if new members' posts are moderated, or they are restricted to certain newbie boards, they could just act normal and behave until they get approved into the main board, and then start their trolling. So I'm not sure that would really help.

MrBlueLight for instance, started his posts with good quality observations about the Philippines. Then after that, he started acting suspicious and boasting about his conquests. Anyone can start posting one way and then turn into a troll or fraud later.

There isn't any way of keeping them out for sure, other than banning them when necessary. But we do need some moderation of them, I think. If we restrict them to certain boards, maybe we can have them stay in the "Introduce Yourself" and "Why Go Abroad" first?

How does Roosh screen out new members? I don't think he does. When I signed up on his forum, I just had to fill out a long profile on the registration page. I don't see what the advantage is of restricting new registrations to only once a month. No other successful popular forum that I know of, does that except Rooshv's forum.
Wrong, if you make the approval process so rigorous then those people won't come here in the first place. Trolls like easy trolling not working hard to troll.

Trolls cannot survive if you do not feed them, but continually members here keep feeding them and poking them giving them an environment to thrive and breed, which they have done.

You have enough members, you're not starving for new members. What you need is more quality posters.

User avatar
Yohan
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3068
Joined: April 3rd, 2014, 6:05 am
Location: Tokyo, JAPAN
Contact:

Re: Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Post by Yohan » October 22nd, 2014, 3:04 am

There are various ways how to deal with trolls.

I do not think any screening of new members is necessary.

Usually after a few comments, not more than 10 to 20 comments from the newcomer you will notice anyway who is a real person and who is a troublemaker or troll.

Maybe IP checking makes some sense to see if the same IP was used already by trolls in the past, but otherwise...

About idiot comments best is still the ignore-list and do not reply,but report them to moderators. Trolls are getting bored if ignored and are leaving after a few comments. Maybe quick deleting/make invisible typical troll postings is also a way to go.

The question is however what is considered a troll in this forum. Just to say, I am a woman and to post some controversial pro-feminist comments if written politely is not trolling.

I would prefer as little as moderation as possible. I had very bad experience with a forum I used a while ago, called Orientexpat. Moderation was totally single-sided, with biased moderators, basically some few special members could post whatever they like and were allowed to insult and belittle others, while the remaining ordinary members were banned and their comments edited often without any reason because a moderator did not like them personally. Today only a few people are using this forum, almost dead now because of bad excessive moderation. - HappierAbroad should be open to everybody.

User avatar
starchild5
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2172
Joined: December 20th, 2013, 11:32 am

Re: Should we screen new members? Some ideas and proposals.

Post by starchild5 » October 22nd, 2014, 3:34 am

Lets get right to the point. Most of the trolls are from America :D :D Just one country is responsible for 90% of trolls and rest from other Anglo countries.

We have discussed those issues already as why America has the highest mental disorder plus how other Anglo countries suck, We just need to connect that dot to trolls as well.

One just needs to screen newbies from America only, 'cos...Those who needed to be awakened would have already done so in America with so much information online. In my personal experience and now the facts being proven by even scientist that Conspiracy Theorist are the most sane of all.

Screen Newbie members..Who don't believe 911 was an Inside job, feminism was Elite Agenda, Moon landing was a hoax like Captcha phrase or 1+1=2 questions, one can put these quiz for screening.

If newbies believe that Americans actually landed on the moon, 911 was done by some dude in a cave, Feminism is grassroots movement - They certainly have issues and are more likely to be trolls which is a mental disorder ...they could be put in a quarantine aka their own thread before we know they are just naive and do not know about facts on 911 and fake moon landing etc...they could then be slowly eased into other threads and given knowledge about the truths.

Happier Abroad goes along with TRUTH...There would be no HA site, If it wasn't for Truth. Winston Found the Truth on America and abroad and created this site. Why then exclude truth from finding the trolls also?

Trolls hate Truth. A guy who is delusional with America would never seek to travel abroad. Only a sane American would even consider going abroad once he knows the truth about America. Hence, Those who do not would most likely are to become a troll in their life drinking the propaganda Kool Aid, Fluoride, chemtrails, GMOs, corn syrups, MSG in America.

---------------------

Even though I'm from a third world country. I never had issues with Trolls as its an American Phenomenon....while travelling abroad, I generally do not interact much with Non-Conspiracy Theorist :) which has helped me keep my sanity, not get cheated, back stabbed, lying, greed etc from people from first world countries. A guy from a first world country has to be a complete Idiot, fool and sub-human to not believe in Conspiracies with tons of info online. You can excuse people from third world countries as they don't have access to internet and social security so all their time, they have to make a living. A guy from a first world country has absolutely no excuse to believe in 911 was done by Osama, Moon Landing is real, Vaccination save people etc etc....Thats just insane aka Trolls.

As trolls have increased, we need to take this to next level. The minimum must be 911, fake moon landings, Corporate Media, CIA drugs connection...common, who in the right mind would think otherwise?

Trolls comes from Ignorance. Root out the Ignorance and Trolls will vanish.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Announcements”