|
Post by Admin on May 23, 2016 8:53:07 GMT -5
Much talk recently about PMs on this site. (Such as: iliasm.org/thread/494/private-messages)ProBoards does have a setting that I can invoke, disallowing members with "less than N posts" from PMing. Would this be useful to set up? If so, at what level should PMs be enabled? I think we have "Junior Member" set at 20 posts. I guess that would be my proposal (if we do enable that). I think (but am not sure) that if a member WITH PM privs PMs a new member first, they CAN reply and thus have a conversation. But: we'd have to test or check that. Note that there is NO specific value of "how many posts before you get PM privs" that will keep out died-in-the-wool pervs... as someone could add out any number of posts in an evening. So, please give me input: would the VALUE of having such a setting offset the DETRIMENT of having such a setting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 9:01:05 GMT -5
What are the typical post-counts associated with the nuisance PM's?
I haven't received any nuisance PM's, so I can't advise.
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on May 23, 2016 9:03:59 GMT -5
That's a very useful feature for sites where drive-by spam is rampant. It would certainly curb any potential "drop-in" pervs.
EP had a feature where you could disable PM from non-friends, but if someone PM'd you first then you could reply. In that case, people would just publicly ask someone to PM them to get the dialog started, and it could continue in private if they wanted. It seemed very workable, and even 20 PMs would seem easily achieved.
Only gotcha might be a timid lurker who feels comfortable contacting someone on PM to discuss their issue, but not publicly. They might never hit the minimum post count.
|
|
|
Post by itsjustus on May 23, 2016 10:05:38 GMT -5
Thanks for really looking into this!! It is a real issue at times, and I applaud your concern for it.
I can see where having a minimum amount of post's allows someone to kind of "size up" a new member before getting or opening a PM from them. Having the ability to PM them first short cuts that for anyone just joined that you feel you would really like to PM them sooner. That would hopefully have a deterrent affect on drive-by perv's.
But I definitely share DryCreek concerns about a timid person that doesn't post much, but finds something posted that touches them and they'd like to PM that person. I would receive PM request's on EP, and before accepting, go and read their story's and comment's on other's story's to see if I wanted to accept the PM. That stopped all of the "looking for a Daddy" request's and PM's, which aren't going to happen here anyway. But for my female friends here, I feel that some type of control is very necessary, given what they had to deal with in the past, and that method seemed to work well for me. I'd rather see a feature like that if ProBoards offers it. But as a stop gap, the minimum value may be helpful if set low enough, say 5 or so.
Just my 2 cents.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 10:30:44 GMT -5
Yes. EVERY other forum I participate in has a "minimum number" of posts before a new member is able to contact others privately.
It gives the new member an opportunity to "dip a toe in the water," at their own pace. Some will participate more than others, and that's ok, because it puts the responsibility solely on each member for their level of involvement.
The usual minimum amount of posts is around 40-50, but I've seen it as low as 30-40. There are word association, and other short answer, threads to "help" folks reach the minimum number of posts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 23, 2016 11:29:35 GMT -5
What are the typical post-counts associated with the nuisance PM's? I haven't received any nuisance PM's, so I can't advise. I don't have statistics on this: "typical number of posts until users start to PM much". Or, for that matter, even as Admin I have no idea what is perceived as a nuisance post until the friction reaches my inbox. Members can do an informal look at who would be excluded from initiating PMs by doing this: 1) click "Members" tab, above, 2) click the "Posts" column to sort by post count, 3) scroll to see who has fewer than some limit: 50 or 20 posts. If you see lots of suspected creeps below some cut-off, great. If you see lots of suspected creeps above some cut-off, then the "minimum post-count" mechanism won't do much. If you see lots of "good but shy people" below some cut-off, the a minimum post-count might disadvantage them.
|
|
|
Post by obobfla on May 23, 2016 11:49:35 GMT -5
Here is what I would hate to see happen - a new member wants to pose a question but does not feel comfortable yet posting in an open forum. Should that member have to post 20 times before they can ask a question privately?
I know it is more work, but I would rather see the PMs allowed first, say 5 or so. Maybe have something like EP where you have to friend someone before you can send them PMs.
But by all means if someone posts something thoughtless or disrespectful, kick his or her ass out of here! But we have to be clear what is thoughtless or disrespectful. I would include soliciting or including pictures of private body parts; messaging that insults somebody's race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, or illness; messaging someone three times to another member after that member says he or she doesn't want contact; messaging personal threats; sending any message that would violate the confidentiality of this group.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 23, 2016 11:52:55 GMT -5
That's a very useful feature for sites where drive-by spam is rampant. It would certainly curb any potential "drop-in" pervs. EP had a feature where you could disable PM from non-friends, but if someone PM'd you first then you could reply. In that case, people would just publicly ask someone to PM them to get the dialog started, and it could continue in private if they wanted. It seemed very workable, and even 20 PMs would seem easily achieved. Only gotcha might be a timid lurker who feels comfortable contacting someone on PM to discuss their issue, but not publicly. They might never hit the minimum post count. Addressing each point: 1) FWIW: I don't think we have a big "drive by" perv problem at this time. Our recent hassles have been from folks who also had a post count in the 30's to 60's. 2) Alas: ProBoards just doesn't seem to have the "friends" features like EP had: "only friends can see my album", and "only friends can PM me." If someone else finds out a way I CAN configure these (or add them via ProBoards "plug-ins", please PM me. 3) I'm pretty sure that even with a "minimum post-count" restriction on PMs, new members CAN PM the staff (meaning "mods + Admin"). We could let newcomers know that if they have a real need to reach out to someone, PM a mod. That mod can either help, or fwd the PM to someone who might be willing to reply and help. (FYI: one of our mods is female, two are male.) 3b) Conversely, we could have an informal (or formal) way to reach out to new members via PM. If some of the female members would like to reach out to new "potentially shy, lurking new females", there are ways I might be able to help with certain ProBoards features.
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on May 23, 2016 11:53:20 GMT -5
As not really a forum type of person generally speaking (this is the first one I've really participated in) I think 50 posts UNLESS they are "friended" and PM'd first - I'm not even sure that is possible. However I do have to say this: 1- thank you for taking this as seriously as you are. 2- The valued input into this forum from the women who was targeted makes THEM far more valuable to this forum. Their opinions and wishes should receive priority.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 23, 2016 11:58:49 GMT -5
But by all means if someone posts something thoughtless or disrespectful, kick his or her ass out of here! But we have to be clear what is thoughtless or disrespectful. I would include soliciting or including pictures of private body parts; messaging that insults somebody's race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, or illness; messaging someone three times to another member after that member says he or she doesn't want contact; messaging personal threats; sending any message that would violate the confidentiality of this group. "Thoughtless and disrespectful" is in the eye of the beholder. There were a few voices on EP ILIASM who grated on me, and I felt their well-intentioned "tough love/straight talk" actually crossed the boundary into "positively unhelpful" and even "disrepsectful". However, others who I admired on EP ILIASM admired those (to my ears) disrespectful voices.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 23, 2016 12:03:26 GMT -5
But by all means if someone posts something thoughtless or disrespectful, kick his or her ass out of here! But we have to be clear what is thoughtless or disrespectful. I would include soliciting or including pictures of private body parts; messaging that insults somebody's race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, or illness; messaging someone three times to another member after that member says he or she doesn't want contact; messaging personal threats; sending any message that would violate the confidentiality of this group. As for the express list, I think those are pretty much covered in our Guidelines: iliasm.org/thread/3/guidelinesIf you feel our Guidelines needs an update, please post a PM there with proposed additions, deletions, or changes. As for "kicking anyone out", yes, we can do that. But it is the last step. Steps that precede that are 1) verbal warning from the mods, publicly, 2) sterner warnings privately, 3) use of a "warning system" (where a warned user sees the degree to which they have been "warned", and risk harsher action.)
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on May 23, 2016 12:18:01 GMT -5
But by all means if someone posts something thoughtless or disrespectful, kick his or her ass out of here! But we have to be clear what is thoughtless or disrespectful. I would include soliciting or including pictures of private body parts; messaging that insults somebody's race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, or illness; messaging someone three times to another member after that member says he or she doesn't want contact; messaging personal threats; sending any message that would violate the confidentiality of this group. "Thoughtless and disrespectful" is in the eye of the beholder. There were a few voices on EP ILIASM who grated on me, and I felt their well-intentioned "tough love/straight talk" actually crossed the boundary into "positively unhelpful" and even "disrepsectful". However, others who I admired on EP ILIASM admired those (to my ears) disrespectful voices. But was it in a pm?
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 23, 2016 12:25:37 GMT -5
"Thoughtless and disrespectful" is in the eye of the beholder. There were a few voices on EP ILIASM who grated on me, and I felt their well-intentioned "tough love/straight talk" actually crossed the boundary into "positively unhelpful" and even "disrepsectful". However, others who I admired on EP ILIASM admired those (to my ears) disrespectful voices. But was it in a pm? OK, no. I admit my reply is a bit of broadening the topic. I think someone who is a troll/creep publicly or in PMs should "get the boot"... after a series of warnings and attempts at "attitude adjustment". In that sense I don't think we need "separate rules" for PMs, per se.
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on May 23, 2016 12:32:09 GMT -5
Like I said - I'm pretty new to this whole forum thing - so i differ to those more experienced, (and smarter) like you @dan The only point I am trying to make is that the women here are special and I do not want to see them leave because someone can't find craigslist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 13:02:10 GMT -5
I am surprised so many dislike the private messages and I at least would see the minimum posts requirement as a drawback (I wouldn't have any difficulties dumping 20 messages in a post like word association for instance so it isn't because it would make me unable to send them.). It is more that such a limitation feels unfriendly and the forum would feel like a closed group.
I also have to admit I have seen fights on here and other forums that would have been better suited for private messages and at first glance making them public was only suited to publicly humiliate opponents.
I know I am not an authority on the subject though I just feel uncomfortable with this whole situation.
|
|