# God???



## Denethor (Jun 26, 2002)

Well , you obviously found Satán (Saurón suposedly).
But you didn´t answer the question . Where is God???????


----------



## YayGollum (Jun 26, 2002)

Who are you talking to? Anyways, I have no idea where he is, but in the books his name is Eru. Also, if you really have to come up with a Satan, it'd be Morgoth, but I guess Sauron works for just LOTR.


----------



## Beorn (Jun 26, 2002)

Does this belong in reply to "Finding God in the Lord of the Rings?" If so, lemme know, and I'll put it on...


----------



## ReadWryt (Jun 26, 2002)

Yah, this is part of the reason I want to create a new New Member status in which you cannot create threads until you have 20 posts...


----------



## Lantarion (Jun 27, 2002)

Hmm, good idea RW.


----------



## Aranaug (Jun 27, 2002)

I don't agree with that possible policy of restricting new members. Mainly because I am a new member.


----------



## Beorn (Jun 27, 2002)

Which is why I fought the idea...


----------



## Gil-Galad (Jun 28, 2002)

Mmm I agree ReadWryt but most of threads are posted by new members who wants to know more about something.That's a kind of paradox,how can anyone learn something more when he cannot ask questions?
As a whole I agree with you but this must be valid for peeple with 10 posts for example.


----------



## Lantarion (Jun 28, 2002)

Maybe the 'limit' could be restricted to something less, like 10 posts, so the new user can get to grips with the way the forum works. If he has a question, he can find a thread that is discussing his question and he can post there. Mishaps like this 'thread' we are now posting on might be prevented, at least for the most part, if the new user is given a proper chance to be able to use the forum properly.
20 posts might be a little too restricted, but it isn't my call. 
Welcome all new users who are reading this now!


----------



## Anarchist (Jun 29, 2002)

I think moderators should add some help tips for the new members or perhaps the new members should read the FAQ. I mean, why the heck is it there if noone bothers to read it and rushes to answer to a thread. I mean this Forum was my first and still I didn't make such mistakes (if this was a mistake). But ok, perhaps some people don't have any serious experience in computers and make mistake. We shouldn't hang them, should we ReadWryt? yet I agree with your idea about the new member status. 10 posts are ok I guess, but it's the moderators' authority to decide that.


----------



## Beorn (Jun 29, 2002)

The thing is, some people have had plenty of experiences on vBulletin, or other boards, so they may know exactly how everything works...It's just a matter of sorting those people out...I've thought up an idea to make all the users current and new aware of the rules and the basics of the board....


----------



## ReadWryt (Jun 29, 2002)

20 posts are not a whole lot of participation to expect of someone to be sure they understand how the Forum works. If they have a question about the Forum it can be made known to them that they can always PM a moderator and ask it instead of starting yet another thread asking why they can't get the Avatars to work. If I had a nickle for every time someone hit the "New Thread" button thinking they were responding to something posted in a thread I could afford to run my OWN phoney-balloney forum somewhere dedicated to the memory of John Logie Baird and Nicola Tesla...the REAL inventors of Television and Radio...but anyways, the object is to make new members learn how things work before they can start making threads...


----------



## Beorn (Jun 29, 2002)

But some of them don't need to learn!


----------



## ReadWryt (Jun 29, 2002)

Then they will have NO problem getting 20 posts under their belts in little or no time...


----------



## Gil-Galad (Jun 29, 2002)

ReadWryt,you're right,but wouldn't be better if the post are 10 for example?I still think 20 posts are too much.


----------



## Rangerdave (Jun 30, 2002)

*FAQ's*

I don't know diddly about scripting or how computers really work, so this may be an extremely ignorant question. Could it be possible to not only restrict new threads until a certain post count is reached, but also to restrict new threads until they have read and signed off on the FAQ's section? 

Just asking
RD


----------



## ReadWryt (Jun 30, 2002)

That does it...R.D. is my new best friend. I have wanted to do something like that for a while, but I myself know NOTHING about writing PHP scripts. I have thought for a while that, if not the F.A.Q. then the RULES should be signed off on before anyone can post...that way nobody can claim they didn't KNOW it was against the rules to start multiple accounts...etc.

I'm thinking of moving this thread since we shanghaied it...where do you think, Entmoot?


----------



## Anarchist (Jun 30, 2002)

Good idea Rangerdave, but perhaps this would disatisfy some people and then most probably they will choose not to register in this forum. I mean, who wants to spend an hour or two trying to register in a forum. Yes this is the best forum  ...but still I believe this idea would annoy some people. Perhaps punishment by hanging would be a better idea.


----------



## Beorn (Jun 30, 2002)

Well, I suggested a few ideas:

Send a default PM to new users.
Include the rules in the confirmation e-mail
Build a mailing list of all the members and mail out the rules....

The first or second should be done in conjunction with the third....

Anyway, I like RD's idea....Certainly possible
(add a new field to the user table, and make a query in the newthread.php & newreply.php files that check that field...)


----------



## ReadWryt (Jun 30, 2002)

Yeah, gee...that's nice for mambers to say as they don't have to deal with people on a regular basis who plead ignorance when they are told they are breaking rules. I would rather risk forcing a potential member to look at one more page of text and then have no excuse for saying they didn't know the rules then to simply have the rules available and hope that they look at them someday...maybe...when they get bored.


----------



## Rangerdave (Jul 1, 2002)

You know, now that I think about it, having new members sign off on the rules might not be such a grand idea. I have a sneaking suspicion that most people will open the window, quickly scroll to the bottom and push the OK button without ever really reading anything.

Of course; if the do break the rules, the moderators of infinite power have their e-signature stating that they agreed to follow the proper practices and protocols. This could be a real plus. Anybody foolish enough to sign anyt document before reading and understanding the terms stated there in deserve whatever they get.

Plus it would allow others to make faces at them for being foolish. (just not in public posts please)

RD

ps. I would move this discussion to either _Entmoot_ or _News and Announcements_ once a final verdict is reached.

d


----------



## ReadWryt (Jul 1, 2002)

We pounded out some solutions that involve the Email that the new member gets with their Verification and Temporary Logon password. They got the Email that has the rules, they presumably will read it for more then their Password...if not, that's their problem not ours...but they cannot get the Rules mailed to them without the password, and vice versa...ergo if they activate their account they did so after reading or ignoring the rules that they will be subject to in the future and we will KNOW that they at least got a copy in the first place.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jul 2, 2002)

Now RD, I have always said there is something to be said for having a few wise old campaigners about the forum 

Rules are good, as long as they are short and sweet! New members have as much to contribute as anyone on the forum, though I agree that while they 'feel their way' it is prudent to reduce access. 20 posts wouldnt take some members more than a few days to reach, in that time, they will hopefully have read a few short rules, learnt the run of the forum and thought of lots of lovely questions to ask when they are allowed to 'let rip', round the rest of the forum


----------



## Arrhia El. (Jul 4, 2002)

Where under the f.a.q. section are the rules??? Ok, fine I will go away and look harder but exeedingly few people will go out of their way to read rules. (Having only glanced at the f.a.q. section because of the assumption in this thread of my having read and thoroughly digested it!!!)


----------



## Beorn (Jul 4, 2002)

Rules
It's a right next to the pic that says FAQ


----------



## David Pence (Jul 4, 2002)

The rules should now be available in all the color schemes.


----------



## kaelath (Aug 2, 2002)

i've noticed how some people's "status" say's stuff like guildsman and etc., while newbie's say apprentice. how can that be channged since i really don't want to be "apprentice"


----------



## Beorn (Aug 3, 2002)

1 to 29 is Apprentice
30 to 99 is Guildsman
100+ is either Loremaster or your own custom one...To change it, check the FAQ, once you have 100 posts...No spam please...


----------



## Aslan (Aug 9, 2002)

Well, I have learned some info I did not know, by reading this thread Seems to be in a good place. As a new member, it does take a break in period (on my part, anyway) to get accustomed to using all this stuff. An e-mail with "how to operate in this site" info would be beneficial-for me anyway.


----------



## Confusticated (Aug 9, 2002)

I found out in the rules section about 10 seconds ago, that we are not allowed to post links to sites that are not our own. Looks like I have a post to go delete. A thread went up a few days ago dedicated to the purpose of having members post links. I'm surprised that it has not been removed....


----------



## Talierin (Aug 9, 2002)

That rule applies to the Member's Tolkien Sites section only. You're welcome to post links that aren't your own anywhere else!


----------

