*Please read*

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

I think 1,000 posts is a good minimum for creating threads.

[SmootSmack]

Bottom line is people weren't reading posts that were written just minutes before, and that's why this thread was started. If there's a thread called 2012 NFL Draft Prospect and at 11:48am someone posts Morris Claiborne's Wonderlic score and then at 11:54 you come on and post the exact same thing...that's a problem.

If no one posted anything, and you felt it was worthy enough to be a new thread by all means we'd rather you did that. At worst, we'll just lock it...then ban you...and impound your car...and close your accounts...and see it to you never post on another Redskins message board again!

[los panda]

edit* i think the option of being able to delete your own posts is an easy way to help solve that problem

[mooby]

I would advocate a 100 post minimum before starting a thread, to discourage all the newbies that come here to advertise their blogs, etc. I think new members that do that see the 10 post minimum as an easy hurdle to pass just by making 10 crap posts that don't add any value to the boards. Maybe making it 100 posts would make it tougher while still not eliminating new members' desire to post here. Either that or make a two week - 1 month waiting period before they can start a thread.

I would also advocate starting a "welcome, introduce yourself here" thread in the Locker Room, probably stickied at the top, as a thread that would allow new members to introduce themselves and also post the reason they are joining the boards, whether it be advertising their own site or whatever. I would include a link to that thread in the post that new members typically see, the one that tells them to read the forum guidelines, etc. This would allow them the opportunity to advertise their stuff without spamming the board, and hopefully that thread would work in conjunction with the 100 post minimum to allow them to get their point across, without making them feel not welcome.

Of course, none of what I just said would help in regards to the various members of this board who are more concerned with breaking news than actually reading the boards. That's a much harder problem to solve.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by mooby

I would advocate a 100 post minimum before starting a thread, to discourage all the newbies that come here to advertise their blogs, etc. I think new members that do that see the 10 post minimum as an easy hurdle to pass just by making 10 crap posts that don't add any value to the boards. Maybe making it 100 posts would make it tougher while still not eliminating new members' desire to post here. Either that or make a two week - 1 month waiting period before they can start a thread.

I would also advocate starting a "welcome, introduce yourself here" thread in the Locker Room, probably stickied at the top, as a thread that would allow new members to introduce themselves and also post the reason they are joining the boards, whether it be advertising their own site or whatever. I would include a link to that thread in the post that new members typically see, the one that tells them to read the forum guidelines, etc. This would allow them the opportunity to advertise their stuff without spamming the board, and hopefully that thread would work in conjunction with the 100 post minimum to allow them to get their point across, without making them feel not welcome.

Of course, none of what I just said would help in regards to the various members of this board who are more concerned with breaking news than actually reading the boards. That's a much harder problem to solve.

I think 100 posts is a good idea...I may have gone over the top with 1000 posts.

[mredskins]

it is funny how everyone is missing the point of this thread.

There are not to many threads being posted there are too many multiply post going on.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by mredskins

it is funny how everyone is missing the point of this thread.

There are not to many threads being posted there are too many multiply post going on.

I'm not missing the point, I get that clearly. I just don't have a solution for it other than telling the other forum members to read a little more instead of assuming nobody has broken news yet (seriously, I mean whenever new Redskins-related news breaks on the internet it's usually posted here within 5 minutes or less, so people should automatically assume when they log in that any news has already been posted about here), so I was discussing solutions to other problems the board has.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by mooby

I'm not missing the point, I get that clearly. I just don't have a solution for it other than telling the other forum members to read a little more, so I was discussing solutions to other problems the board has.

Geez, you wonder why your heart rate is elevated.

We IMO have not really had a problem with too many threads by newbies in recent history.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Geez, you wonder why your heart rate is elevated.

We IMO have not really had a problem with too many threads by newbies in recent history.

?

I was actually pretty calm when I wrote that. I was only making suggestions as to how we can improve the boards. IMO it sounds like you're the one getting a tad upset that we're not staying on point here.

[That Guy]

so, did you hear claiborne scored a 4 on his wonderlic?


btw, i think new threads should have a 15,000 post minimum. just saying.

[CapitalDefense]

Can a fella get a day 2 draft thread 40 minutes before it starts? Scared to start it myself because it would get locked. Anyone?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CapitalDefense

Can a fella get a day 2 draft thread 40 minutes before it starts? Scared to start it myself because it would get locked. Anyone?

What?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CapitalDefense

Can a fella get a day 2 draft thread 40 minutes before it starts? Scared to start it myself because it would get locked. Anyone?

http://www.thewarpath.net/nfl-draft-...t-day-2-a.html

[los panda]

can a brother get hbo under water