Posting ban for new accounts?

Taken from here but I wanted to call it out:

I wonder if the admins could institute a policy that once you create an account, all comments are moderated (or just not allowed) for the first 72 hours after account creation. That would take care of the same day influx of trolls from reddit and twitter when anything even vaguely progressive is posted on the site.


It should be more than 72 hours. It should be as long as it takes for a typical BB comment thread to close: 5 Days.


What about when artists and other folks who have their work featured here sign up and participate?
This would stop them, too.


What’s wrong with the influx?


They’re almost 100% trolls and not people that participate in good faith or participate after the triggering thread and post are gone.


Such as?

1 Like

flag them


Well, every time a BBS thread is -not- created, it’s usually because the contributor does not have a BBS account. Should they have to wait 5 days, if they’ve been on the front page? Shoud the staff have to manuallty create the accounts and manually give them special status to get around it?

Some of the best discussions are when an author stops by to discuss a book, or some other expert pops in with relvant nuance.

I think I can handle the fact that some people are rude and misinformed on the internet without needing to be protected from it reflexively.


That’s just the most recent I’ve noted.

Like Acer said, just flag 'em if they’re jerks.

1 Like

I dunno I could see where it might work to tamp down the hit and run trolls, but I don’t necessarily think it would work otherwise. BB has done a shockingly good job of fostering a nice discussion up in here so far.

I occasionally comment in a few other places that use policies like this. Hiding comments from new posters till certain goal posts are met, holding them back till they’re moderated, up vote/down vote etc. And it doesn’t ever seem to have the intended effect. Those comment sections are still rats nests, full of people trolling or being generally awful. I get the feeling that the hoops you have to jump through just scare off or frustrate the sensible people. Their comments don’t even pop up until the conversations moved on. Meanwhile any troll/awful person who manages to get them selves established sort of gets the stamp of approval to make a mess of things.

Here we’re all pretty good at shouting down the mal-actors, the mods are active and fearsome. But if I get grouchy and make an ass of myself I don’t get eaten by the bbs system, I have a chance to apologize and continue in good faith.

That said I have been generally avoiding discussions on certain hot button issues due to the greater than usual occurrence of vitriolic asshattery. It seems kind of sequestered to those areas, but maybe caution of some sort is advised to keep that from becoming the norm.


I think this is the same proposal as this

The automatic trigger based on percent of new users participating seems like a better choice to me.


Fast-track them? Give them an option to fill a dialogue with why they should be fast-tracked. I doubt there will be too many requests to handle. At least on a persistent basis.

Wastes several of our time nuking them.

We had a similar thing on Stack Overflow where after the third mod deleted a noise post it would lock the question so only not-new users could answer. Basically the idea is, if a mod is intervening too much in a topic (X deleted new users in that topic perhaps), prevent any more new users from posting in it until (hours pass | mod turns off restriction).

Would be a slightly different way of initiating, based on mod actions in the topic vs. the presence of overwhelming number of new users and first posts in the topic.

Remember we already auto close a topic if there are too many live flags from multiple people in that topic.

1 Like

That would work too.

I just want to avoid the “Xeni posts something on Gamer Gate or Red Pill, hordes of new account trolls descend to flail loudly and aggressively, never seen again after that thread is locked.”

1 Like

Don’t you mean agreeing with you?

No, they don’t have to agree with me. They have to decide to join the community here to participate in good faith, not just a reddit/twitter/whatever pile on because “wimmin are in mah gamez” or something.

Hell, at least two people in this thread have vocally disagreed with me before and one got into a mutual verbal slapfight with me until @falcor told us to stop, probably at least twice.

1 Like

You flag 'em, we’ll bag 'em.


community greets dragon eats


I saw two new spam/troll accounts eaten just last night, they didn’t last long.