IMPORTANT: voting on mandatory registration

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

There has been discussion about making it necessary to register and be logged in to post to ILE (and ILE is all that this is proposed for right now). Please continue that discussion as you wish on MODERATOR ANNOUNCEMENT: ILE to accept posts from registered users only, but I would like to get an overall picture of the pro/con feeling. I'll be very grateful if you would limit your responses here to 'yes', 'no' or 'don't mind' - if you want to say more, please do it on the other thread. I will only count answers from logged in people and others who are clearly regulars - fakes and unrecogniseable names will be ignored. This poll is not binding, it's just a way of gathering a better picture. The question is: would you favour making it mandatory to be logged in to post to ILE?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:57 (twenty years ago)

Nay.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:00 (twenty years ago)

No.

― Huk-L, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:00 (twenty years ago)

look, is that the boards? riding a motorbike? over a tank of sharks?

whoodathunkit?

― logged out again, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:01 (twenty years ago)

Don't mind bordering on yes.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:01 (twenty years ago)

No to post, yay to start a thread.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:02 (twenty years ago)

not sure i like the implications of the idea, but what jel said really.

― m. (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:02 (twenty years ago)

neigh

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:03 (twenty years ago)

A gentle nay from me.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:03 (twenty years ago)

Non.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:04 (twenty years ago)

< moonite> hell no < /moonite>

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:04 (twenty years ago)

Don't mind/yes. I assume login would require a verified e-mail, that sort of thing?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:08 (twenty years ago)

UNIMPORTANT

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:10 (twenty years ago)

Jel's "don't mind bordering on yes" seconded.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:12 (twenty years ago)

No to post, yay to start a thread.

Oooh, I like that one.

But of the choices offered, but me down for No.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:12 (twenty years ago)

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:13 (twenty years ago)

No.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:13 (twenty years ago)

No way, faggot!
Take off this gayass IP banning shit, too!

Queer!

― Super-Duper Storm Trooper, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:13 (twenty years ago)

OK, yes.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:15 (twenty years ago)

hee-hee

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:15 (twenty years ago)

No way, faggot!!
Take off this gayass IP banning shit, too!

Queer!

― Super-Duper Storm Trooper, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:16 (twenty years ago)

yes

― Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:17 (twenty years ago)

― W i l l (common_person), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:18 (twenty years ago)

no.

― derrick (derrick), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:18 (twenty years ago)

don't mind

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:20 (twenty years ago)

this member of the esteemed Portland delegation casts his vote as 'yea'

― kingfish (Kingfish), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:21 (twenty years ago)

don't bother

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:22 (twenty years ago)

yes.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:22 (twenty years ago)

No, sorry. I mostly use public computers; tend not to log in.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:23 (twenty years ago)

― Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:26 (twenty years ago)

No to post, yay to start a thread.

― adam (adam), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:31 (twenty years ago)

No. Possibly yes to start a thread.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:32 (twenty years ago)

No to post, yes to start a thread.

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:32 (twenty years ago)

Don't mind/no.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:34 (twenty years ago)

― don weiner, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:34 (twenty years ago)

yes

― Jeff-PTTL (Jeff), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:34 (twenty years ago)

Um, Yes.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:35 (twenty years ago)

No to post, yes to start a thread because if someone really needs to start a post anonymously they would probably be willing to create a new registration.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:35 (twenty years ago)

only with UN approval

― m. (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:37 (twenty years ago)

No bordering on indifferent.

― papa november (papa november), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:37 (twenty years ago)

is someone really fancies trolling etc.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:38 (twenty years ago)

NO to post, yes to thread.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:38 (twenty years ago)

No to post, yes to thread.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:38 (twenty years ago)

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/124/04/yes-band.jpg
(couldn't resist!)

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:44 (twenty years ago)

No, keep it open for interesting randomness, but perhaps with a few more moderators things would chill out a bit (I think the whole killfiles thing would be a dreadful idea due to paranoia from people about not being included in the general wave of opinion (folks, this is the internet and some people believe in the back of their minds that it gives shape and voice to people who might otherwise have very little opportunity to be communicative). Anyway, if you asked for a list of ten trollers from each of us, it would not only be a slambook from Hell, but also no two individuals would produce the same list, therefore divisive/futile. Also, the ideal of being free of censorship is pretty important right now.

If those moderators are in the same city they should go have a drink and sort it out together with our blessing, as the decision-making process seems to have gone circular trying to sort it out online. That's annoying. I think ignoring persistent irritants is something we all fall down on occasionally depending on context. People have a collective malaise/fatigue right now over so many issues off these boards hence a lot of steam to blow off, but it'll pass.

xposts ad infinitum - anonymous poster issue BORING, next please...

(Martin, you seem to have grasped the nettle here. Feeling a bit better?)

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:46 (twenty years ago)

Actually, now that I've thought about it...

NO to post, yes to thread.
-- nickalicious (nickaliciou...), November 9th, 2004 3:38 PM

NO to all.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:47 (twenty years ago)

I think a fair bit of moderating is unjustified/unjustifiable but I don't care.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:48 (twenty years ago)

Who feels better after grasping a nettle?

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:48 (twenty years ago)

hah, "We Can Work It Out" just came on, the Tesla version.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:48 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 83 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

No to post, yes to start a thread.

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:03 (twenty years ago)

I disagree with Alan, I'm afraid, unless he can convince Calum that a board all to himself would be just swell (and he's got enough alter egos to fill it, after all).

As for fracturing, you can argue that it's a natural progression for any community, but it would sound the death knell of ILE. I'm not trying to be overdramatic, but a lot of the beauty of this place is vastly diverse people talking together and producing wonderful, unexpected results; if you put all the personality types in different ghettoes that's gone in a flash.

The threads where I say are a sort of semi-fracture, but I'm glad they're part of regular ILE because non-regular posters (as stevem said in the other thread) do occasionally pop in, enjoy (usually) the different atmosphere, and pop out again.

Compare that to ILB - I'm interested in books, I like talking about them, but like people everywhere, that extra effort involved in accessing it means that I forget about its existence for months at a time.

Essentially, I think it's good that all the different aspects of ILE (i.e. the threads) are side by side so it's the simplest thing to move from one to the next.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:04 (twenty years ago)

Yes please.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:05 (twenty years ago)

I am all for banning IPs (or ranges) if possible, as this will eleviate the need for registering.

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:09 (twenty years ago)

― amateur!!st, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:10 (twenty years ago)

ILE needs to fracture, I think. Its got too big for its own good and that really isn't very good for minority interest topics which get forced out under the weight of all the mega-threads, but would otherwise flourish on a smaller, slower and quieter board. Fair enough, start one elsewhere you might say, but I like the ILX interface and the approach of a lot of people here.

Incidentally, does ANY of this have any purpose other than a transparent How Can We Stop That Dastardly Calum agenda?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:15 (twenty years ago)

Also, ILX isn't really a community any more - its a series of communities, not necessarily geographical, which occupy the same space but rarely talk to one another at all.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:16 (twenty years ago)

Matt, I bet you a pint these minority interests atrophy rather than flourish on a separate board (which I think will hapeen because there'll be half a dozen enthusiasts and NO-ONE ELSE contributing).

And to an extent you're right about the set of communities - my point is that when they do come together it's great, it's the best thing about ILE. Taking that away will just create increasingly dull, predictable ghettos, but that seems to be what you want.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:18 (twenty years ago)

No.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:19 (twenty years ago)

Matt's point about communities is u+k.

― RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:20 (twenty years ago)

yes

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:20 (twenty years ago)

(as in yes to mandatory registration)

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:20 (twenty years ago)

What Ronan said the other day about ILX lacking a centre is also important. The board nowadays does feel like a frothing mass of noise a lot of the time, as much from the sheer volume of posts as anything else. It's too big to get a handle on, both for an oldster like myself and someone coming to the board for the first time. This eats away at the sense of community, and so the perceived social pressure to behave reasonably diminishes, which in turn increases the noise froth.

― RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:26 (twenty years ago)

RickyT, YES it's urgent and key but NO NO NO that that means that the communities should be institionally separated. I can use the word ghetto again if you like.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:27 (twenty years ago)

(sorry, all this should have gone on the other thread)

― RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:27 (twenty years ago)

No.

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:27 (twenty years ago)

No to mandatory registration of any sort, yes to new mods.

I'd actually be willing to act as a mod, if someone will teach me how. The only problem is that I'm not necessarily online everyday, especially during weekends. Do the mods have to be those who spent the most time here?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:28 (twenty years ago)

Incidentally, does ANY of this have any purpose other than a transparent How Can We Stop That Dastardly Calum agenda?

I think this is about more than just Calum. There seems to have been a bit of poster impersonation going on, and a few other obnoxious nuisance posters, using various anonymous/non-loged-in usernames.

Now I'm talking myself back into a yes. I'm not hopelessly indecisive, I'm just ,er, conflicted!!

If there are to be more mods (obv, this is up to Andrew at the end of it all) I'll stick my hand up as well. Mainly, I must admit, b/c I'm frustrated about not being able to categorise threads.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:34 (twenty years ago)

I'm also happy to be a mod, for a trial period at least, although I doubt I'd be exactly triggerhappy with these things.

I've been thinking for a while that ILE really needs a couple of mods who are checking the board regularly during UK work hours - at present none of them are able to do so. I'd be happier sharing it with another person though.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:35 (twenty years ago)

Well, I'm here during UK work hours, but as a I said not regularly. It mostly depends on my school schedule, I usually check ILE between and after lectures.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:36 (twenty years ago)

I'd be a mod, and I think a good one (professional training y'all), but I'm not sure I'd get approval.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:42 (twenty years ago)

i can probably do it during UK work hours

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:44 (twenty years ago)

Yes.

― Earl Nash (earlnash), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:51 (twenty years ago)

Yes, probably.

― Masonic Laundry Boom (kate), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:52 (twenty years ago)

of course the converse could also work, that ILE goes registration mandatory, and we make a new forum called ILE unlimited. it's a matter of judgement on what comprises the "essence" of ILE which way round makes more sense.

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 12:02 (twenty years ago)

I am only online during working hours, but almost everyday. (not weekends) I could be a mod during that time although I have no idea what to do. I'm sure that would work perfectly for ILX!

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 12:10 (twenty years ago)

I think the evidence so far is that most of them do the opposite - ILB is long established and has lots of posters, but I think threads on books mostly flourish far less there than they have generally done here. ILComics is the one counter-example, as that is a real success. Maybe it's just things where there is a lot of interest but some embarrassment about talking too much about them in general company!

Even I have abandoned the Y/N/dunno limitation now...

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:01 (twenty years ago)

no (for mandatory registration).

― The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:25 (twenty years ago)

Yes for posting
No for starting threads

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 14:41 (twenty years ago)

ILB is a gd success tho'(and um, easy to access - wasn't there going to be a feauture where you could choose the boards to access in the top corner) it does get posters who don't post anywhere else. This is ILX coming apart (I only check it a couple of times a week so its easy to spend time around it, which is a plus to me) and its a very gd thing.

I don't see why 'lacking a centre' is a negative - I just go by what I might be interested in - its inevitable that much is gonna be missed.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 15:04 (twenty years ago)

Yes: posts only from the registered and logged in.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 19:01 (twenty years ago)

I was going to say 'no for posting, but yes for starting threads' but that means that you wont ever be able to start a thread anonymously if you want to protect your indentity

I could be a mod as I am around a lot on evenings (UK time) when the mister is watching geeky sci-fi all night, if that helps. But I'd be a rubbish one as I'm all for free speech.

― ailsa (ailsa), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 19:10 (twenty years ago)

Julio otm

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 19:12 (twenty years ago)

Makes no odds to me.

― Matt (Matt), Thursday, 11 November 2004 08:47 (twenty years ago)

It's already been mentioned that if someone really wants to start an anonymous thread, they just have to set up a second registration which won't be a problem as long as they have a working email address.
Well yes I realise that Ailsa, but the only other working email addresses I have got use my full name & in the past I have experienced mods being less than discreet about it.

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 11 November 2004 09:49 (twenty years ago)

I can give you a gmail addy if you want, Pink?

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 11 November 2004 10:49 (twenty years ago)

My head hurts and I keep reading this as "mandatory voting on registration"

In all honesty there are benefits from not making people register - the Junior Boys dropping in on ILM being one.

― 3underscore (___), Thursday, 11 November 2004 10:50 (twenty years ago)

___, this is about ILE - ILM is exempt.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 11 November 2004 10:55 (twenty years ago)

I can give you a gmail addy if you want, Pink?
Thanks Mark, I've got one already. My point was that I didn't want to have to go to the trouble of getting yet another email addy.

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 11 November 2004 12:28 (twenty years ago)

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:13 (twenty years ago)

The no's are way ahead, yeah?

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:16 (twenty years ago)

I change my vote to NO and NO.

Why? Because of this thread started by anonymous googler:
Dead-Head

Registration makes this kind of fun go away, and that's wrong and it's bad for America.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:51 (twenty years ago)

.. (even if it WAS a fake troll posted by Callum.)

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:52 (twenty years ago)

oh any one of registered us could've started that thread if we wanted

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 11 November 2004 14:06 (twenty years ago)

I think the vote is very clear - a big majority against the registration option. I think I have made it pretty clear on the discussion thread that I have no intention of bringing this in, and I am also about to stop being a moderator anyway.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 11 November 2004 14:08 (twenty years ago)

this is exactly how i felt last week lol

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 11 November 2004 14:09 (twenty years ago)

No.

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Thursday, 11 November 2004 14:11 (twenty years ago)

___, this is about ILE - ILM is exempt.

oops. Oh well, I dunno. I'm late to the party anyway! Cheers for the clarification, I was a bit slow to spot it.

― 3underscore (___), Thursday, 11 November 2004 14:25 (twenty years ago)

No.

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:10 (twenty years ago)

the only other working email addresses I have got use my full name & in the past I have experienced mods being less than discreet about it.

Really Pink? I hope you complained to the other moderators about it - that's shocking abuse of mod powers. If you choose not to use your own working email address as the displayed one on ILE, the one you elect as your private email address should be just that. Private.

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:23 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.