Rules Request

[Fargo1]

I'm clearly in the minority here. Just going to add one more point to my side of the debate. When I signed up here, I was very nearly at the end. I had actually signed up to the PTSD site, made my introduction and it was Anthony that pointed me here. But being somewhat computer literate, I knew the standard conventions of web forums and made my introduction first then started vomiting posts...

Since that time there have been many people come and go. Most members make their introduction. Some join to sell their snake oil (some of those make introductions selling it, some don't introduce themselves and just start selling). That pisses us all off and they are quickly banned. Some people join and lurk for a while, silently reading the posts and getting the courage to open themselves up. These people are not the topic of this discussion.

It's the person who joins this forum, who needs help, and who's usually in a pretty bad state when they do it. It's been a bit since I signed up and I have to admit that I don't clearly remember all of the stages of the sign up. But if you think back to the day you joined and the state you were in, would you have joined if you were "forced" to make an introduction? I can honestly say that I'm not sure. I'm not at that point in my life and my memories of those days are kinda blurred by days of no sleep at all.

If you go to an AA meeting, you can quietly sit at the back listening and thinking, without standing up and introducing yourself. This policy has saved many, many people. But the people like this are not our problem. It's the people who join, start making posts and don't get the message or who are full of spit and vinegar and piss people off. AA won't let you go ranting with or without an introduction...you just get asked to leave.

We are all here desperately trying to get help with a very difficult issue(s). Most of us are also trying to help our brothers and sisters deal with the devastation of PTSD.

We currently have a system that is not perfect. It requires us, the members, to police ourselves. It does let a few asshats through the wire. It does allow them to rattle our cages. But in each and every case that I have witnessed, I or someone else very quickly points these people to fill out an introduction. And I think its a very simple and clear thing: polite point of courtesy, warning, banned. Three strikes and you're out. It does put a larger burden on Anthony, Jimmy, Sarg, JarHead and a couple others whom I don't remember, as they actually have to push the button.

But if a forced introduction turns away one person who really needs help... I'd really hate to be that guy.

 

[JarHed]

Hey Fargo

You're points are well made and well taken. My only point would be that the number of people in need of help that will never get it is always going to be much larger than those that take the necessary first steps to get some help. It will always be as everyone has mentioned; some spammers, some snake oil salesman, some in great need of help and all that I haven't mentioned. Whether we keep the same system in place that has worked would be OK with me. Or if we make a small change to ask or if you'd say require someone to post an intro will be fine with me.

This place and the people here saved me. I'm still here and around because of ya'll. It's still the best social media site of it's kind on the internet. I don't think any other place can truly make and stand behind that claim. We help each other and those willing to take that step forward or stay in the background find they are not alone. It's an honorable thing to be a part of. I hope it will always be here even when I'm not.

Jar

P.S. Just a note that in the seven plus months that we've had the help of being able to threadban someone it's been used once. That also says something about us all here.

 

[Jimmy1]

Very good points from all of you.

The only reason why I wanted to draw a line in the sand is that at present we can't force someone to write an introduction, it's only courtesy and us pushing someone.

We also know that a lot of veteran sit in the background for months before they actually post, why, because they don't trust people. We all know how paranoid someone can be.

We have also had quite a few slip through and cause havoc before they are eventually banned.

The whole idea of having to post an intro prior to entering is so they we have some leverage and can say 'Hey pal, follow the rules'. Ask John Winkler (sorry for naming you mate), he got upset because we were pressuring him. It would have been a lot simpler to say, hey John, it's in the rules mate.

On a personal note, there is no way I would join any forum without an introduction. After reading all these threads though, I think I will opt for one in all in.

Lets just right it in the rules that it's compulsory to write a introduction.

 

[Fargo1]

Jar,

I agree with everything you've and everyone else has said. Nobody wants their day sent spiraling by some asshole poking them with a stick (my cage was poked this very week ;-). Just to be clear, I'm not trying to rattle cages. I'm not taking the minority side just to be a pain in the ass. I think that this issue is pretty important and as Anthony said "because once you open this door you have created a precedence for further rules."

Or if we make a small change to ask or if you'd say require someone to post an intro will be fine with me.

This is exactly the point in discussion. Right now we "ask" people to make an introduction. The change would be to "require" that you introduce yourself upon joining the forum.

P.S. Just a note that in the seven plus months that we've had the help of being able to threadban someone it's been used once. That also says something about us all here.

I think this speaks volumes about the system as it. It does bring other questions about the statistics:

1. During those seven months how many new members have we had?
2. Of those new members how many haven't ever made an introduction?
3. How many new members have made posts prior to making an introduction?
4. How many of those non-introduced people have been cage rattlers?

 

[Jimmy1]

How about it the Terms and Rules section we just put the heading 'Common Courtesy' and write something like:

If you are a veteran you will understand that it's hard to trust people. The same goes for the members of the forum. So to weed out the trolls, students, doctors with miracle cures, and wannabe's, we ask that you write a short introduction Link Removed in the relevant section and tell us a bit about yourself, such as where your from, what service you were in, and where you served, this will just make the members of the forum a little less skeptical'.

 

[Fargo1]

We also know that a lot of veteran sit in the background for months before they actually post, why, because they don't trust people. We all know how paranoid someone can be.

We have also had quite a few slip through and cause havoc before they are eventually banned.

The whole idea of having to post an intro prior to entering is so they we have some leverage and can say 'Hey pal, follow the rules'. Ask John Winkler (sorry for naming you mate), he got upset because we were pressuring him. It would have been a lot simpler to say, hey John, it's in the rules mate.

On a personal note, there is no way I would join any forum without an introduction. After reading all these threads though, I think I will opt for one in all in.

Lets just right it in the rules that it's compulsory to write a introduction.

I hear you Jimmy,

Not knowing the capabilities of this forum software or the complexity of implementing it by Anthony, here is an observation/suggestion:

Several other forums that I am on you can join but may not post without doing "X" (that might be an introduction, it might be filling out your profile, or the like). You sign up and can read some if not all of the forums. But if you try to post and haven't done X, a window pops up reminding you what X is. You then have a choice to do X or keep being a lurker.

This would, I think achieve both ends.

• A vet can come here and lurk, while gaining trust.
• Cage rattlers can't just open the door and throw a hand grenade. (and if they follow the rules and still throw a hand grenade, they are clearly in breech)

**Edit** of FFS, sorry Jar, I am clearly having a moment... Just re-read your first post on this topic... SEE, when spinning it isn't always easy to read — and understand.

 

[Sarg]

I don't know of any website I've joined where they DON'T ask for certain info pertinent to the forum. Car forum...year, model, engine, picture if possible, ect. Music forum, type of instrument, years of playing, experience level, ect. We're not asking any more than basic info that any other forum would ask.

As to this specific forum subject, PTSD, been to the VA lately? Name, last first, mi., last four of soc., reason for appt., ect., ect., ect.

If someone is hurting, they're reading this now and telling us to point them in the direction where they can fill in the blanks and get started. I have met few stupid ex-servicemen. I have met fewer that couldn't answer a few questions about their service. In fact, the Veterans I've had the pleasure of meeting in my lifetime will have you briefed on Name, branch, rank, Battalion, company and platoon, theater of action, dates and twelve more things you really could have done without hearing.

They're proud of it as should they be. A few more questions on their profile when they join is all we're asking.

Sarg

 

[Chin Strapped]

I messed up temporarily with my intro. I never used a forum before. Now I understand the value of what's here, I think some sort of intro gives the site and it's members credibility; this is a point of mental health contact/support.

A more in depth profile page eliminates the need to write a full intro, if you wish to remain a lurker.

It's the matter of a few lines of info. A first step towards contemplation and acceptance maybe.

 

[JarHed]

This is a very thought provoking thread, excellent.

I started on the other site, originally. Someone pointed me here. After a few posts, some asked me to kindly post an intro, and I do remember it was kindly asked. It was difficult to do, I'd never had to or wanted to do that before. But I did.

So................... Now I've started to rethink whether as Fargo says:

Right now we "ask" people to make an introduction. The change would be to "require" that you introduce yourself upon joining the forum.

I know this 'rule' if there is one implemented, probably won't happen for a little bit. You've all given me food for thought and I'd like to mull it over some more.

I've always liked simple. As Occam's razor states;

is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Although not always the case but usually the most simple solution to a problem is the best one. The above is from Wiki.

Perhaps more basically stated; 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

I'll be back for more on this.

Jar

 

[reddevil1111]

Maybe we should have a bigger profile page like Dan mentioned. Make it a requirement to have it filled out. It would have the basics in it so we can rest assured and it would serve the needs of the community. We can still ask nice like for an intro but we can look at a profile to see country, branch of service and all that. It might be enough to work without being overbearing.

 

[Jimmy1]

Maybe we should have a bigger profile page like Dan mentioned. Make it a requirement to have it filled out. It would have the basics in it so we can rest assured and it would serve the needs of the community. We can still ask nice like for an intro but we can look at a profile to see country, branch of service and all that. It might be enough to work without being overbearing.

That is an awesome idea Red, if we have a bigger profile page and have a requirement to have it filled out the problem would be solved. The only downfall with that may be people filling in crap like 'John Citizen' from 1234 Inf Bat, like some people do.

Another option could be for a couple of lines in Bold at the bottom of the intro page telling them to kindly proceed to the intro page, and by doing so will make it easier for the other veterans to help them. Or something like that.

 

[Fargo1]

I think that part of the problem with the intro posts is the perception that you have to spill it all out at once (my own intro did this) and remembering back, it was a combination of where I was at the time and my perception that I needed to do it to be vetted and accepted.

Having to fill out your profile page does have a certain allure to it. It has the benefit of, as Sarg said, many (if not all) of us are proud of our service and don't mind telling those things. It is also one more step to warn off the snake oil sellers and the like. Having to put in a country, service, conflict(s) would make it very clear (although I believe that some will still try).

A BOLD suggestion to post an introduction leaves it open to someone to post or not as they are able. Meaning if they just want to lurk, for a while to gain trust, they can.

But will these changes make this forum any different than it is now? If we use Rodluf555's recent behavior as an example (as I believe that this is what spurred the current discussion).

• If he had made an Intro before posting have changed how it went down? My answer: I don't think so. It would have made a couple of other people not post asking him to introduce himself.
• If he had posted an introduction, would it have made his actions any more palatable? My answer: No. It would have made me know a little bit more about him. But I still would have found his spamming the same crap on multiple threads to be offensive and a deliberate poke into our collective cages, and therefore behavior that needed to be stopped.

I do see that it will make the "Can Thread Ban" people's lives easier. As it will clearly be something to point at when having to make the decision to ban someone. Which I think is a good thing and will relieve some of the stressful burden on them. Which is a good thing and I'm in favor of it.