Are You a New Member? Introduce yourself Here!

This is to Turtle: I'm giving you exactly 48 hours to make at least one post. If you don't meet that deadline, you're banned.

Cor, tough love.

I'd say turtles are notoriously slow but it is late and my natural world book got smudged.

Loving the avatar, Gravity. :)

Yep, great choice.

Looks better than she sounds. *shudders*

FieldsMan wrote:

Loving the avatar, Gravity. :)

Thanks. It's interesting that she poses with a gun in publicity photos but doesn't actually fire a weapon in the movie (unless you count a shotgun loaded with rock salt). As far as civilian Bond Girls goes, she was pretty lame, and it's hard to imagine a pretty woman like her with absolutely no boyfriend.

Pretty lady, iffy Bond movie.

So long, turtle.

Sharky wrote:

So long, turtle.

I'm not sure this is the right thing to do...when one looks at the statistics, there are over 50 other members with zero posts and only half of the membership have a post count of at least 10. So if turtle has to pay the price, he is deserving of some company.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Sharky wrote:

So long, turtle.

I'm not sure this is the right thing to do...when one looks at the statistics, there are over 50 other members with zero posts and only half of the membership have a post count of at least 10. So if turtle has to pay the price, he is deserving of some company.

I'm aware of that, Doggy. I'm getting round to banning them. All in due time. :bom:

M can clear up the mess.

"Flatten BaB..."

Sharky wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Sharky wrote:

So long, turtle.

I'm not sure this is the right thing to do...when one looks at the statistics, there are over 50 other members with zero posts and only half of the membership have a post count of at least 10. So if turtle has to pay the price, he is deserving of some company.

I'm aware of that, Doggy. I'm getting round to banning them. All in due time. :bom:

What reason is there to ban these people? They can't have made accounts in order to "spy" on the board (if that's still a concern :roll:), because the board is public. Message boards usually do amass a group of unused accounts, anyway. All that deleting accounts does is lower our member count & potentially annoy folks who intend to post but haven't done so yet.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

What reason is there to ban these people? They can't have made accounts in order to "spy" on the board (if that's still a concern :roll:), because the board is public. Message boards usually do amass a group of unused accounts, anyway. All that deleting accounts does is lower our member count & potentially annoy folks who intend to post but haven't done so yet.

I think those are fair points you've made.

There can be a lag time between setting up an account and becoming a regular poster. I set up an account in April of 2011, but didn't really start becoming regular until 4 months later.

On the other hand, I would like to believe that size doesn't matter. I like our exclusive little clique and am not overly concerned with trying to boost recruitment numbers unless M or Sharkey want us to.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

What reason is there to ban these people?

To send a clear message. Those who consume (browse the forums while logged in) without ever contributing, aren't welcome here. I PMed turtle friendlily asking for him to introduce himself and join in with discussion, multiple times, to no avail. I later gave him a deadline, and that didn't change a thing. I regret having to ban him, but if he seriously wants to just browse, he can do so as a guest. As for the others, most of them have been inactive for months. If they seriously wanted to post, but just didn't at the time, they can register again with another email address.

As a member, BAB is a two way street. It's not just an excuse to watch from the sidelines.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

All that deleting accounts does is lower our member count & potentially annoy folks who intend to post but haven't done so yet.

Somehow I don't think we missed much with VenomousMike, Major_Exposition (an Ambler puppet account), John Shaft (likely another), or Nikita Blackcock (ditto).

I'm not too fussed about the member count, to be honest. I'd rather have 40 or so regular members than 150 inactive ones. Quality over quantity.

Gravity Silhouette wrote:

There can be a lag time between setting up an account and becoming a regular poster. I set up an account in April of 2011, but didn't really start becoming regular until 4 months later.

IIRC, you did post within days of registering. With about 10 you returned to Cb.n.

Sharky wrote:

Gravity Silhouette wrote:

There can be a lag time between setting up an account and becoming a regular poster. I set up an account in April of 2011, but didn't really start becoming regular until 4 months later.

IIRC, you did post within days of registering. With about 10 you returned to Cb.n.

Your powers of observation do you credit, Mr. Sharky.

Yes, I posted a few before returning to my abusive masters over at CBN. However, I will say this, I hadn't had enough time to really dig in and root around and get the vibe of this place before going back to CBn. If I had gotten the truest sense of how great this forum was when I first came here, I probably never would have looked at CBn again.

In all honesty, I didn't exactly "return" to CBn. I did split my time between the two, but once Jim banished me from heaven and cast me down to earth, I had a lot more time on my hands to post with.

I would also take this time to point out to different members that are, at times, concerned about the tone or the vibe of this place that it may repel a lot of people, but it also attracts some hard-core, quality Bond fans that know their stuff and don't wish to be politically correct in the Beyond Forums, or tow the EON-mandated line about what we should like and dislike in the Bond forums. I'd rather let 100 potential posters go free and spend their time somewhere else than lose a half-dozen, excellent independent thinkers that mostly agree with everything I say.

I seem to recall I didn't post for three days after joining old MI6. Just as well I hit the ground running here. :)

I say running...more headfirst into pavement and gradual slide

Sharky wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

What reason is there to ban these people?

To send a clear message. Those who consume (browse the forums while logged in) without ever contributing, aren't welcome here.

I don't understand. Why aren't they welcome? I don't like seeing fifteen people online that aren't posting, no. But that seems to be the norm here, for whatever reason. If we want people who generate content rather than just consume, we might have to endure some inactive accounts in the meantime. They're not harmful.

Sharky wrote:

I PMed turtle friendlily asking for him to introduce himself and join in with discussion, multiple times, to no avail. I later gave him a deadline, and that didn't change a thing. I regret having to ban him, but if he seriously wants to just browse, he can do so as a guest.

That's good of you. Why ban him in particular though? Not a fan of turtles? ;) What might be good is to watch out for names that sound like spammers (I mean literally advertisers, automated or not).

Sharky wrote:

As a member, BAB is a two way street. It's not just an excuse to watch from the sidelines.

Anyone who wants to just watch from the sidelines doesn't even need an account... Making an account at least shows some intent to participate. Having a bunch of folks who exclusively consume might be a real problem if B&B were using bought bandwidth, but it's not.

Sharky wrote:

I'm not too fussed about the member count, to be honest.

I think you might find a conflict of interest there.

I'm not crazy about this policy either to be honest.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I don't understand. Why aren't they welcome? I don't like seeing fifteen people online that aren't posting, no. But that seems to be the norm here, for whatever reason. If we want people who generate content rather than just consume, we might have to endure some inactive accounts in the meantime. They're not harmful.

They're harmful in that they show users can consume without contributing. Allowing that further encourages it. We've had to endure these inactive accounts for long enough. They've had their time.

Once prospective users realise there are consequences for not posting after a while, hopefully things will start to change. Once again, a T&C would come in handy here.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

That's good of you. Why ban him in particular though? Not a fan of turtles? ;) What might be good is to watch out for names that sound like spammers (I mean literally advertisers, automated or not)

I just singled him out because out of the recent bans, he was one who've I've given the most leeway (blame it on the cute name). Not just me - look at the open arms in this thread.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Anyone who wants to just watch from the sidelines doesn't even need an account...

No, but having the "search for latest posts" function makes browsing a whole lot easier.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I'm not too fussed about the member count, to be honest.

I think you might find a conflict of interest there.

That's fine. Hate to sound resentful, but a good deal of our contributing members got thanks to my invites through Cb.n. If someone else wants to send out more tentacles, then good for for them, but I've done my share.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I'm not crazy about this policy either to be honest.

The problem is that we have no official policy. That's why nutcases like me are having to run the show.

Sharky wrote:

They're harmful in that they show users can consume without contributing. Allowing that further encourages it. We've had to endure these inactive accounts for long enough. They've had their time.

I don't think people are lurking because the general group is setting a bad example. There are numerous other reasons we might have so many lurkers, although those reasons are harder to swallow (i.e. layout could use some work, too much negativity about new Bond films, etc).

Personally, I'm not dissatisfied with the board's current activity. But we do lack for growth.

Sharky wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I'm not too fussed about the member count, to be honest.

I think you might find a conflict of interest there.

That's fine. Hate to sound resentful, but a good deal of our contributing members got thanks to my invites through Cb.n. If someone else wants to send out more tentacles, then good for for them, but I've done my share.

I meant a conflict of interest with the admin. I don't care about the member count either. Your recruiting was nothing but helpful, btw.

What I was trying to say: I don't think M wants to see the member count lowered, but he's not around to speak for himself. I don't want to see accounts deleted, either. Not because of statistics, but because it lowers the chances of new voices entering the fray and is unnecessarily hostile to newbies.

Sharky wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I'm not crazy about this policy either to be honest.

The problem is that we have no official policy. That's why nutcases like me are having to run the show.

We all get to call the shots here, don't you like democracy? Giving half the board the power to edit or delete any post or ban any member will inevitably backfire, too.

I could go on about the dynamics that have shaped and will continue to shape B&B, but I'm not sure anyone is interested in divining the root of the board's current and/or potential problems.

Incidentally, the site again broke its record for most users online at once with 117 on the site on May 7.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I don't think people are lurking because the general group is setting a bad example. There are numerous other reasons we might have so many lurkers, although those reasons are harder to swallow (i.e. layout could use some work, too much negativity about new Bond films, etc).

If that's the case, I think it calls for a new thread.

On the subject of the layout, how's your brother doing? He might offer some good tips, and his Bond-related posts were all of a high quality.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Personally, I'm not dissatisfied with the board's current activity. But we do lack for growth.

We'll have to start looking at new ways of advertising BAB. Facebook's a good start, though the membership might be of different sort.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

What I was trying to say: I don't think M wants to see the member count lowered, but he's not around to speak for himself. I don't want to see accounts deleted, either. Not because of statistics, but because it lowers the chances of new voices entering the fray and is unnecessarily hostile to newbies.

Well, there's nothing I do to get the current crop to return. We either keep them on (despite never being able to post) for the sake of numbers, or we shave them off and start afresh.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I'm not crazy about this policy either to be honest.

The problem is that we have no official policy. That's why nutcases like me are having to run the show.

We all get to call the shots here, don't you like democracy?

Of course, but without a policy, it's a matter of first come first serve. We have no real formal structure for say, the staff to vote for a course of action (democracy), apart from PMs, which aren't too efficient. Unfortunately this means more proactive mods like me ending up calling most of the shots, by default. There's nothing in place to stop me from banning these inactive accounts, and any disagreement (like this) will be after the event.

I don't like it either, but am glad we're having the discussion. :)

How about posting BAB's link on the IMDB Skyfall message boards, or pm some of the more intellectual posters there?

Messaging the smarter ones might be a start, if anyone here's got an account there. Whatever you do though, don't advertise publicly on that message board, or it'd be a like an invasion by the hillbillies from DELIVERANCE.