Also--how are we going to keep any mention of what's being dicussed in B'cracy out of other threads? Once we make a mention of an issue in, say, Natter or Buffy or whatever it's easy for someone to figure out they can register and read.

(PS: Ed, I hope you don't feel piled on, what with the crossposting and whatnot.)

There's truth in what DX says. If we have a security matter -- stalking, police notification, or that kind of thing -- we currently have no secured place to talk about that matter community-wide, only backchannel of various types.

Then again, I'm also of the opinion that 98% of the time, Bureaucracy -- the best test case for locking, I think -- doesn't need to be locked at all. You know, when we're debating thread names and working on proposals and other things. I'd hate to think we were driven behind a locked door, for that 2% of weirdness.

Then again again, I know that operationally, people act as if we're in private, even when they know intellectually they're not. I like the intimacy of the site, and would be sorry to lose it.

Then again 3x, I don't see as how locking a thread would be very effective against a determined troll. If Zoe can re-register with a different email and post in Natter, she can re-register and read intimate details in any thread.

I guess I'm coming down on the side of no, so as not to throw the wheat out with the chaff. But it's something I wish we had a middle-ground solution on, because the concerns that sparked the proposal are certainly legitimate.

Jesse, nope. I knew it wouldn't be all that popular.

Jesse, nope.

Just checking.

What everyone else said. This proposal really doesn't give much security, since anyone can register.

What everyone else said. This proposal really doesn't give much security, since anyone can register.

Yeah, they can. But then, at least, if they start making threats or harassing, we have an e-mail address. I know it's not much, but it's better than nothing.

I suppose I don't really have much to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said. But given that the proposed thread reading requirement wouldn't be likely to guard against the determined efforts mentioned above, I see it as risking a negative impact on the community feel without much in the way of positive results to counterbalance.

Give 'em back!

No! They're mine and you can't have them. Nah nah nah nah nah.

Oh and I noticed that earlier, in Bureaucracy I think, someone referenced the reason why I'm mostly posting under a pseudonym these days. I honestly don't think that locking every single thread and making people register before reading would have made a bit of difference.

Let's say that we locked all threads. One day I come into Natter or Bitches or wherever and talk about what a bitch a former friend, who does not post here, is. The next day, that former friend approaches me and proceeds to quote my posts back to me. Well, what can the board do? She's a registered member but, unless I know her username, they can't block her from lurking.

I think it'd just be a big ole mess.

But then, at least, if they start making threats or harassing, we have an e-mail address.

But if someone was making threats or harassing(either on the board or through email), wouldn't we have an email address anyhow?