Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Should open groups require you to join to participate?
  • Subject: Should open groups require you to join to participate?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Should open groups require you to join to participate?

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: komark

Posted by: spartain ken 15

Posted by: komark
Posted by: spartain ken 15
I have seen groups where non-members can see the forums but the hidden forum is an incentive to join the group.

"become a member to see and participate in the forums".
Ummm, what?


If people can see all the posts and are "lurkers", there is no need for them to be a member of your group. So, you would be losing members to your group.
What groups are you talking about that you can see their forums without posting?


IDK, I have seen one before but they are very rare. Most admins want to get you to join and not just read the forums without being a member because they would lose members.

But I remember the Admin can set non-member privileges to allow them to view the forum.

[Edited on 01.24.2012 3:32 AM PST]

  • 01.24.2012 3:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

13.72 billion years in the making.

On December 1st, 2012, I met Neil deGrasse Tyson. I shook the man's hand, and even made him laugh. Not much else to do with my life now.

Depends.

Can the group leaders remove someone's posting privileges in that group if necessary?

  • 01.24.2012 3:44 AM PDT

Yes, there're too many numbers in my name.

I agree that you should at least be able to read some of the posts, as you would on the ordinary forums without being a member. However, posting in them is another issue.
Let's use an ordinary real-life conversation as an analogy. Picture a group of boys talking about the latest Aleph One update. Another boy walks over and joins in the conversation, regardless of the groups unwillingness to let him in. That to me seems a bit intrusive, considering the members neither asked nor implied that he joined them.

I also feel that if the groups were open 100% of the time, that would leave potential to spamming and trolling the members with threads that are irrelevant to the sole discussion. If a B.net member signs up and spams, they'd receive a warning, and assuming they'd continue to spam, they'd be banned. If a user were not a member and could still post, you wouldn't be able to prosecute him considering he's not exclusively your responsibility, thus leaving the forums open to anyone with any potential to harass.

[Edited on 01.24.2012 6:01 AM PST]

  • 01.24.2012 4:32 AM PDT

We're concerned

Cafe|MLP: FiM|Bnet Regulars|FCAW
Got a question, comment, or concern? PM me.

What if the group is large, but then they change it to closed? Because they didn't have to fully join it would leave the group memberless. I say keep it, it isn't that hard to take five seconds out of the day to click two buttons.

  • 01.24.2012 4:36 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The End

‘The conscious is cancerous if allowed to linger’

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."

Why not make them read only and include a message at the top of the page? "Notice: Only group members may post in this forum"

  • 01.24.2012 4:48 AM PDT

The Risk Is Worth The Reward.
Cry Havoc And Let Slip The Dogs Of War.

Maybe they could see the forums without having to join...as for posting if they are not a member...not a huge fan of that. I'd much rather them have to join the group to be able to participate.

  • 01.24.2012 4:51 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Cweggz
  • user homepage:

MROS (Mindless Rabble of Scientists) - A group to discuss any aspect of science

Posted by: R3ACTlON
Hard is good.

Posted by: snipe champpppp
What if the group is large, but then they change it to closed? Because they didn't have to fully join it would leave the group memberless. I say keep it, it isn't that hard to take five seconds out of the day to click two buttons.

Solved by
Posted by: Tom T
Why not make them read only and include a message at the top of the page? "Notice: Only group members may post in this forum"

  • 01.24.2012 4:51 AM PDT

Posted by: Tycho_005917
Let's use an ordinary real-life conversation as an analogy. Picture a group of boys talking about the latest Aleph One update. Another boy walks over and joins in the conversation, regardless of the groups unwillingness to let him in. That to me seems a bit intrusive, considering the members neither asked nor implied that he joined them.
That analogy doesn't hold up since you would have the option to set a group to private where the "other boy" can't intrude.

Posted by: Tycho_005917
I also feel that if the groups were open 100% of the time, that would leave potential to spamming and trolling the members with threads that are irrelevant to the sole discussion. If a B.net member signs up and spams, they'd receive a warning, and assuming they'd continue to spam, they'd be banned. If a user were not a member and could still post, you wouldn't be able to prosecute him considering he's not exclusively your responsibility, thus leaving the forums open to anyone with any potential to harass.

Perhaps this is acceptable in open groups, but I simply don't think that anyone would allow any user to post, without at least the ability to ban or warn them.
Assign every member on bungie.net the default security role for the group so that everyone is technically a member by default.


Posted by: snipe champpppp
What if the group is large, but then they change it to closed? Because they didn't have to fully join it would leave the group memberless. I say keep it, it isn't that hard to take five seconds out of the day to click two buttons.
Haven't solved that problem yet. What Tom posted is a good compromise, but how about keeping membership and allowing options for the Non-Member role to post/view the forum (among other options)?

  • 01.24.2012 4:56 AM PDT

“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything

I disagree. I think that joining a group is just cleaner. I don't walk into the park and interrupt a public performance of Shakespeare by talking about my cats, so why should anyone else?

  • 01.24.2012 5:19 AM PDT

We miss you Logan.
Ask any question. I'll help with anything on site or off.

Yes, because you have a option to close the group. If a user makes his/her group open then it needs to be open. I read a users post that said member count is a good measure of activity. If a member want's a member count then he/she can close the group.

  • 01.24.2012 5:24 AM PDT

Current members of the Gnome Empire:
Fridge Gnome
Freezer Gnome
Blender Gnome
Oven Gnome
Da Chrome Gnome
Zomb1e Gnome

I think it could work, but wouldn't be worth the trouble.

I don't really think anyone in 25 groups is actually active in all of them.

  • 01.24.2012 5:27 AM PDT

I think the administrator should be able to choose which parts are availible to the public and which are not.

I also think this option should be availible to all groups, open or closed.

  • 01.24.2012 5:41 AM PDT

Yes, there're too many numbers in my name.


Posted by: dazarobbo
Posted by: Tycho_005917
Let's use an ordinary real-life conversation as an analogy. Picture a group of boys talking about the latest Aleph One update. Another boy walks over and joins in the conversation, regardless of the groups unwillingness to let him in. That to me seems a bit intrusive, considering the members neither asked nor implied that he joined them.
That analogy doesn't hold up since you would have the option to set a group to private where the "other boy" can't intrude.
Oh, I thought you'd be allowing all groups to be open. I see your point now.

  • 01.24.2012 6:01 AM PDT

cockburnicus@live.com
New Flood

Being part of a group often means being exclusionary unless you want to obliterate everything it means to be a part of it. If anyone can post in a group and see into it you might as well not have the group.

  • 01.24.2012 6:11 AM PDT

@spawn031

"So much of what we do is ephemeral and quickly forgotten, even by ourselves, so it's gratifying to have something you have done linger in people's memories." John Williams

The admin should allow a privilege for non-members such as viewing and/or posting. Have members able to view the forum without being a said "member" of the group. If they like what they see, then they will be tempted to join up.

Open Private Chapters, as someone mentioned before, would almost be treated as another public forum - because it is. Admins would be able to control how visitors walk by their business. Either by just window shopping to see if they like anything, or if they're willing to make a purchase and sign up as a member.

All in all, yes it would be a good idea, but allow "non-members" to view and/or post without being a member. That's left up to the full control user to assign those roles.

  • 01.24.2012 6:11 AM PDT

Known by some, but not by all.
Soffish: Do not eat!
TWP Assistant Director.

What if I'm just a member there who is a silent supporter and posts once in a blue moon?

~Delta

  • 01.24.2012 6:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: chotato
smart, interesting, seems out of place.


Official fan of Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, (Problem with that?) Halo, and Bungie, also a total gaming junkie.

No. That would be a bad idea, what do you do if some idiot starts spamming the group? There's no way to ban him from the group, as he'll just keep coming back. The groups are fine they way they are. Scratch that, add more stuff and group themes.

  • 01.24.2012 7:01 AM PDT

i c u thar c' ing my signiture

Yours in _Kai_

If the group is "open" the group's forums can be open to public view but you would have to join the group to make a post, submit news, etc. If the group is "private" the I think the current set up is fine.

  • 01.24.2012 7:46 AM PDT

I think you should be able to see the forums and post and such but only approved members should be able to submit news. Just my two cents.

  • 01.24.2012 7:51 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2