How to pick a big outsider?

Aye Dirham ,i was just wondering how you got the screenshot...

fyi we have far many lurkers than members,we have around 2000 active members,but get many more unique daily visits than the above number.So it makes no sense stopping non members reading the site...

Command / shift /3 on a mac...

Attached files [img]/wp-content/uploads/attachments/391183=1165-Screen shot 2013-04-28 at 8.48.37 AM.png[/img]

was meaning of the forum admin screen dafty ()

gregbucks Wrote:

---

> Command / shift /3 on a mac...


No wonder you battle.....you use an Apple....<

ps greg what do you fancy in the 5:10 at gowran? lol

hibernia Wrote:

---

> Aye Dirham ,i was just wondering how you got the
> screenshot...
>
> fyi we have far many lurkers than members,we have
> around 2000 active members,but get many more
> unique daily visits than the above number.So it
> makes no sense stopping non members reading the
> site...


Bob, the real issue here I think is the daily thread. Can that page not be made for members only along the lines of what Dirham suggests? (Good effort Dirham (tu) ) Maybe I shouldn't care but I can't help being me and it does irritate the fark out of me sometimes. The way I see it, in simplistic terms, is that only those who make the effort to help others should have access to that page and if, as members, they still don't contribute to that thread surely you have the "power" to deny them access to that page? It all has a bit of a childish angle to it but the truth is, I am sure a lot of clanners have stopped contributing because of it. I know I take sabbaticals partly because of it.

Englander Wrote:

---

> hibernia Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Aye Dirham ,i was just wondering how you got
> the
> > screenshot...
> >
> > fyi we have far many lurkers than members,we
> have
> > around 2000 active members,but get many more
> > unique daily visits than the above number.So it
> > makes no sense stopping non members reading the
> > site...
>
>
> Bob, the real issue here I think is the daily
> thread. Can that page not be made for members only
> along the lines of what Dirham suggests? (Good
> effort Dirham (tu) ) Maybe I shouldn't care but I
> can't help being me and it does irritate the fark
> out of me sometimes. The way I see it, in
> simplistic terms, is that only those who make the
> effort to help others should have access to that
> page and if, as members, they still don't
> contribute to that thread surely you have the
> "power" to deny them access to that page? It all
> has a bit of a childish angle to it but the truth
> is, I am sure a lot of clanners have stopped
> contributing because of it. I know I take
> sabbaticals partly because of it.


Freedom of speach,Freedom of the internet ,were no fucking china ()

lol Bob, thought you might say that < but where does it leaves ABC when those who elect to use their right to use freedom of speech stop doing so because of all the poor souls who feel too intimidated (bless) to do so? What if the regulator contributors (as I am sure many do already) just start PMing between a few of themselves instead of posting. And let's be honest, freedom of speech is one thing but there are plenty of sites that have restricted view pages... and they ain't Chinese either!!! <

Anyway, I'm not getting on one, I'd just like to make ABC a better product for all. I also appreciate the more viewers you have the better it is for the business so you would probably be shooting yourselves in the foot to do so. Tis the way of the world - BTW I have 2 dead cert place, good win chance, idiots today... anyone who wants them PM me and I'll decide if your worthy, freedom of choice and all that () Joking!

Englander Wrote:

---

> lol Bob, thought you might say that < but where
> does it leaves ABC when those who elect to use
> their right to use freedom of speech stop doing so
> because of all the poor souls who feel too
> intimidated (bless) to do so? What if the
> regulator contributors (as I am sure many do
> already) just start PMing between a few of
> themselves instead of posting. And let's be
> honest, freedom of speech is one thing but there
> are plenty of sites that have restricted view
> pages... and they ain't Chinese either!!! <
>
> Anyway, I'm not getting on one, I'd just like to
> make ABC a better product for all. I also
> appreciate the more viewers you have the better it
> is for the business so you would probably be
> shooting yourselves in the foot to do so. Tis the
> way of the world - BTW I have 2 dead cert place,
> good win chance, idiots today... anyone who wants
> them PM me and I'll decide if your worthy, freedom
> of choice and all that () Joking!


i would have to seriously think about turning private messages of ,ive done it before <

That would be extremely unfair on the contributors who get farked off with the non-contributors and you might drive them off completely... and what is the big difference between a viewer only and clanners who PM each other? Very little really imo, both are simply withholding info from the masses but in different ways. Anyway, probably an endless "argument" so I shall not comment further on it (now! ) (tu)

@Englander - think it would be very difficult to moderate who the posters are and who the non posters are - what are the criterias that need to say "poster vs non poster"

Then again I'm not a fundi at this stuff - so maybe I've missed some key elements...Think the mods have already got a lot on their hands...

I post more on the other threads and like once or twice on the daily thread... Does that make me a "non poster" to the daily thread...

Wouter Wrote:

---

I post more on the other threads and like once or
> twice on the daily thread... Does that make me a
> "non poster" to the daily thread...

The question to me Wouter really is mostly rhetorical... do you use the info/selections others put on the daily thread and feel you give sufficient back if so? And sufficient does not necessarily mean you are good at making selections obviously.