# I've been reading...



## Flatlander (Jun 11, 2004)

I'm really not sure where to put this, but this seems like as good of a place as any....

First off, let me thank all MT staff for the site.  I've been here for a couple of weeks now.  I have been through tons of historical threads, trying to catch a glimpse of the various personalities and ideas that have been, and are still here.  My only regret to this point is that I didn't find this place sooner, but that's fine.  I'm here now.

It takes quite a while to get used to this place, the rules, where things should go, what is polite and impolite, appropriate behaviours, who does what, etc.  It takes a lot of research, actually.  Unfortunately, most of the people that have started posting since I began here do not take the time to do this.  If you're reading this now, go do it.  It's very worthwhile, and can save a lot of questions, and hurt feelings.

Recently, I have spent copious amounts of time in the "horrors" forum.  I ended up linking through to it from another thread which was moved there.  Some of those threads are pretty interesting.  I particularly enjoyed Matt Stone vs. Rich Parsons.  This is the thread that really taught me the rules of engagement here.  I particularly liked the ending.  Good job Seig.

My analysis, for what it's worth has brought me to this conclusion, previously stated by many.  Most of the people here have a major issue with frauds.  As well, many have very differing opinions of who is and who is not a fraud.  My question is, how can we go about addressing this issue?



> Maybe some of the rules do require a revamp or reexamination to better allow for the exposure of frauds. But name calling, threats, and insults aren't the way.





> When I'm back, I will be more than happy to open a public dialog examining the possibility of revamping the rules based on member suggestion. I make no promise of implimentation, but I do promise to listen to all complaints, concerns and suggestions on how to continue to improve this site


Mr. Rustaz, I'm wondering where you're at with this.  I think if this board was able to evolve into the kind of place wherein the people who come here can be reasonably sure that everyone was credible, there would be more positive, less negative discussion.  More capability for growth. 

What about a "front porch " or "foyer" to which the newbies are restricted?  Something members could go out into to see what's up.  A place where you would need to "prove yourself" before gaining admittance to the "rest of the house"?  Perhaps with some mandatory reading. (I reccommend Matt Stone vs. Rich Parsons!)  Just an idea.  

Thank you for your attention.

Dan


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 19, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I'm really not sure where to put this, but this seems like as good of a place as any....
> 
> First off, let me thank all MT staff for the site.  I've been here for a couple of weeks now.  I have been through tons of historical threads, trying to catch a glimpse of the various personalities and ideas that have been, and are still here.  My only regret to this point is that I didn't find this place sooner, but that's fine.  I'm here now.
> 
> ...



Kind of on the same line. What is the story with fake accounts here. When I first started posting I got some implications from people that I was some kind of phony or something? Was it my questions or just bad luck to jump into something with people who have a "history"? Maybe this idea would have helped me. I got some bad reputation until somebody took pity and gave me a boost.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 19, 2004)

FL:
Right now, we're in the process of syncing up with our new staff members.  I honestly haven't looked into rules revamping yet as this is the first request to do so since I posted the message you referenced.  My -personal- preference is for those folks who printed their own certs, joined all the 'sokeships', padded the resumes or flat out lied to stay away.  We really don't have a mechanism in place to verify credentials.  Too much time/money for a free board.  Manditory reading is a good idea, but my own experience is that most folks won't read it.  Case in point - We require that new members register with a real name and verifiable location.  We delete at least a dozen signups each week from folks who have missed that part...repeatedly.  On a few occations, they have then sent in rather rude emails. If they can't read that little bit, its really hard to expect them to read a 20 page example. Heck, we require that everyone read the rules....but a large number of folks haven't.  Definately open to ideas though.

SR:
Some folks have used multiple accounts for various purposes.  We try to close them when we find them.  In some cases, new members with similar interests to former members are jumped on as some try to 'out' them as being the departed.  It's very annoying when folks get into 'witchhunts', and the staff is working to discourage those involved.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 20, 2004)

Why are there still blank profile accounts?  I mean nothing in some cases.  I remember you saying that under the new system that there was or would be a 'public' profile that could be viewed and an administrative 'eyes only' profile so that you could track and reduce the confusion.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 20, 2004)

The admin-only fields are the only required ones.  The public fields are all currently optional.  Additionally, older members who signed up prior to the policy changes aren't required to 'present papers'...unless there is a reason to ask for such info.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 20, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The admin-only fields are the only required ones.  The public fields are all currently optional.  Additionally, older members who signed up prior to the policy changes aren't required to 'present papers'...unless there is a reason to ask for such info.



Just in case some people did not read the previous post.

It is quite simple. 

You sign up. Required fields are Real Name and Location.

Real Name must be first and last. Names such as John Doe and/or Bruce Lee, etc, ..., very suspect.

The location must trace to the IP address you signed up under. So, the location states city and state, or if out side of the USA, city and country.

The rest of the profile is not private. If the member wishes to have theri real name in the required field, and no name in the public. This is fine. If they do not wish to have a public location, this is also fine.

There are four people who can see the private ID's on this site as of now. They are the Admin staff, who also approves the new accounts. If privacy is requested and you follow the rules by providing who you are in the sign up and then follow the forum rules and never get into trouble, then no one needs to know you live 1313 Mocking Bird Lane.


 :asian:


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 20, 2004)

Thank you for acknowledging the idea.


Rich, now that you've let the cat out of the bag, I'm going to have to move, which I'm unhappy about, as Mockingbird Lane is such a lovely street.


----------

