Suggestion Raise Requirements for Established Member Status

[Stroganoff]

I proposed this in a different thread and received positive feedback from other members. I believe the current requirement is 15 posts, which I think is too low a minimum threshold for certain informal subforums to become visible. Said subforum has decades of personal posts for many members. Is raising the requirement to, say, 100 posts and 1 month minimum something that can be considered? Or even 100 posts and 2-3 months.

Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SDN]

I proposed this in a different thread and received positive feedback from other members. I believe the current requirement is 15 posts, which I think is too low a minimum threshold for certain informal subforums to become visible. Said subforum has decades of personal posts for many members. Is raising the requirement to, say, 100 posts and 1 month minimum something that can be considered? Or even 100 posts and 2-3 months.

Thanks.

The primary purpose of the established member status is to reduce the impact of potential spammers.

If someone is abusing their membership, let me know, and we can address that as a separate issue.

 

[Stroganoff]

The primary purpose of the established member status is to reduce the impact of potential spammers.

If someone is abusing their membership, let me know, and we can address that as a separate issue.

What I had in mind was vengeful ex-spouses or ex-partners or anyone who could potentially create an SDN account and quickly gain access to certain subforums here to dig up tremendous amounts of "dirt" on someone they have a vendetta against. The target of their stalking would have no idea about this activity until action is taken in one's real personal or professional life.

While I agree that 15 posts thwarts most active spammers, there's other scenarios where someone new (or old?) to SDN might have an agenda other than spamming, and the sheer amount of personal or private discussion in certain hidden subforums here can be twisted or used to try to harm a member.

 

[Mad Jack]

I guess the concern for some of us is that it becomes easy for someone to sneak into the forums of they happen to find out we're a member and creep on the lounge to find out some rather private business. A higher post cout would make it what it's intended to be- an off-topic place for established members. Even if it is 100 posts, that exponentially increases the amount of effort someone needs to go through to see some of the more private conversations we have. But I get if you don't want to change it- it may have never meant to be private

 

[Ms Procrastinator]

The primary purpose of the established member status is to reduce the impact of potential spammers.

If someone is abusing their membership, let me know, and we can address that as a separate issue.

We're not so much worried about spammers as we are about people trying to access these forums with the intent of using them maliciously. These forums tend to have a lot more personal, off-topic interactions than other forums and we feel that increasing the requirements would ensure that these specific forums are not misused to target or harass other members, especially since people could easily create multiple profiles over and over again and gain easy access. While their access may be revoked through a ban, the person could have already done a lot of damage with the access they gained.

 

[SDN]

What I had in mind was vengeful ex-spouses or ex-partners or anyone who could potentially create an SDN account and quickly gain access to certain subforums here to dig up tremendous amounts of "dirt" on someone they have a vendetta against. The target of their stalking would have no idea about this activity until action is taken in one's real personal or professional life.

While I agree that 15 posts thwarts most active spammers, there's other scenarios where someone new (or old?) to SDN might have an agenda other than spamming, and the sheer amount of personal or private discussion in certain hidden subforums here can be twisted or used to try to harm a member.

What is stimulating your interest in this suggestion? Not to diminish the idea, but in 22+ years I’ve not seen vengeful ex’s troll the Lounge for secrets. Anyone misbehaving on SDN should be reported and their account will be handled accordingly.

 

[Lawpy]

What is stimulating your interest in this suggestion? Not to diminish the idea, but in 22+ years I’ve not seen vengeful ex’s troll the Lounge for secrets. Anyone misbehaving on SDN should be reported and their account will be handled accordingly.

I think the fear lies with vengeful exes lurking and gathering as much damning info as possible to hurt SDNers. It's hard to tell who's lurking with malicious intent

 

[ThoracicGuy]

I guess the concern for some of us is that it becomes easy for someone to sneak into the forums of they happen to find out we're a member and creep on the lounge to find out some rather private business. A higher post cout would make it what it's intended to be- an off-topic place for established members. Even if it is 100 posts, that exponentially increases the amount of effort someone needs to go through to see some of the more private conversations we have. But I get if you don't want to change it- it may have never meant to be private

This seems very reasonable to me. Plus, it does kind of force the user to gain some insight into the SDN culture prior to just jumping into the other areas.

 

[SDN]

This seems very reasonable to me. Plus, it does kind of force the user to gain some insight into the SDN culture prior to just jumping into the other areas.

We'll discuss increasing the post count, but I do not wish to create an additional barrier to participating at SDN; this is a forum for sharing ideas, not building walls.

In 22+ years, we've never encountered this theoretical issue and we have multiple mechanisms in place to deal with inappropriate behavior. Use them.

For double-top-secret private discussions, I recommend using PMs, not public forums.

 

[Stroganoff]

We'll discuss increasing the post count, but I do not wish to create an additional barrier to participating at SDN; this is a forum for sharing ideas, not building walls.

Then perhaps create a separate status for access to the off-topic subforum that is separate from the "Established Member" status. This way a member can still quickly gain the "Established Member" status at a low barrier, but there is a higher barrier for the other casual subforum to appear. And I'd hardly consider that casual subforum really participating in 99% of SDN's main mission.

 

[Roxas]

We'll discuss increasing the post count, but I do not wish to create an additional barrier to participating at SDN; this is a forum for sharing ideas, not building walls.

In 22+ years, we've never encountered this theoretical issue and we have multiple mechanisms in place to deal with inappropriate behavior. Use them.

For double-top-secret private discussions, I recommend using PMs, not public forums.

I'll share my experience then.

In the fall of 2017 I had an incident that's relevant to the request, albeit minor. There were a series of events that led to a loose acquaintance and classmate of mine who figured out my sdn identity, in part due to some sleuthing on his end. Having only a handful of posts, he was not by any means an active sdn participant and certainly not savvy in the culture of someplace like the lounge, but was able to view the lounge regardless. Out of curiosity, this person began to look and see what threads I had posted in, without much effort into the context in which my posts were said. This person ended up texting me in real life, telling me I needed to repent, that he felt I was being unfaithful to my spouse for posting in a thread titled "The Single and Horny but not Creepy Thread." and several other very bizarre accusations. His wife and my wife were also acquaintances, and he threatened to expose me via our spouses. While laughable now, it was incredibly uncomfortable at the time. I told my wife about it, and even gave her free reign to see my account to see that there was actually nothing nefarious going on (in fact she found many lounge threads to be hilarious). Needless to say we cut these people out of our lives, and this person has since deleted their account.

While I acknowledge it is important to protect one's own identity and in part I brought that on myself with being slightly more open, I also view many other posters in the lounge as some of my closer friends. I like the sense of community that sdn brings, and enjoy being reminded that there are real people behind the avatars and usernames. As I said, this was not a life-altering incident (thankfully), but could have been prevented by restricting access to the lounge with a higher post count to keep ultra-casuals from stumbling into an atmosphere they don't understand. For the medical school and professional forums, I agree, there should be no barriers for those seeking or giving advice. I appreciate that aspect, but also highly value the ability to be (slightly) more open with what has ultimately been my most consistent group of friends in the last 7 years and 5 moves across the country.

 

[Stroganoff]

Not to diminish the idea, but in 22+ years I’ve not seen vengeful ex’s troll the Lounge for secrets.

In 22+ years, we've never encountered this theoretical issue and we have multiple mechanisms in place to deal with inappropriate behavior. Use them.

Yes you have, and you had to take legal action against this person in 2012. He had numerous alt accounts and one of his sleeper accounts kept asking "How many posts until I get Lounge access?" and he posed as a pre-vet student in order to sneak in with the other pre-vet students. He then used that account to harass me over PM, and he potentially harassed his ex with that account as well or at least kept tabs on her.

The point is, this does happen. And there's nothing stopping someone from doing it passively and never alerting the target of their stalking that they have joined SDN.

In case it's not clear, we're talking about the Lounge. I hardly doubt making it more difficult for a new member of SDN to participate in that subforum is akin to "building walls" from them sharing ideas in the professional forums. That's the main concern here.

So maybe separate the two goals:

1. "Established Member" status with a low barrier to entry. Currently at 15 posts that seems fine and low and would thwart most spammers.

2. "Lounge" status that has a more stringent requirement such as 100 posts + 1 month age before that subforum is even visible or searchable.