I'm against this proposal. I think that it's far too late in the development of this community to make a major change like requiring all lurkers to register.

Also I don't believe it will accomplish what people are hoping it will. There's no screening process to our registration. Anyone with a valid email address can become a member. So if a banned poster or a lurker or someone who's out to cause trouble wants to read the posts, they can. It just takes a minute or two for them to have access to it.

The two threads that have been proposed so far are B'cracy and Bitches. I take it the reason for this is to stop unregistered people from reading the posts and possibly causing problems for members--which has happened.

I don't agree with the proposal, I don't see what good it will really do. Yes, we can lock the threads for member only reading but that doesn't stop anyone from registering and then lurking and still causing problems for members.

If people really wanted to they could register, find out what information they wanted to and use it.

Then there would be an indication that the harasser was a registered user but there would be no way to tell how long the harasser had been a registered member and with a lurker I'm not sure how anyone could trace who this person is.

So I don't really see how members locking threads would help.

Bitterchick took the words right out of my mouth. Give 'em back!

And it may even encourage trolls to re-register just to see what's in the "locked" threads. I see no positives and only negatives.

I think this proposal creates a false sense of security.

ANYTHING you say on the Internet can wind up in Google. If you're not happy about a stranger seeing it, encrypt it; otherwise, you're taking a risk.

I've certainly censored things I'd like to say to the Buffistas, and furthermore said things I should have censored; not because the Buffistas are listening, but because of the strangers who can see it ten years from now.

But the thing is, creating a protected area makes people think they don't run that risk, and they are.

I'm also against it. I can almost sorta see the argument for Bureau, but then when you start getting into threads like Bitches...I've bared my soul in Natter, too. I talk about all sorts of crazy things in the fic threads, some of which could probably get me fired. It's my decision to post those things; it's my responsibility to find my comfort level and deal with any repercussions.

This isn't to say that it doesn't suck if someone I know finds the board and reads things I didn't want them to know, but I don't think registration would be a big impediment to anyone truly determined.

I said it in Bureaublahblah, and I'll say it again here for the record. I'm against the proposal. It won't protect us, may provide the false sense of security Betsy mentions, and certainly will set a bad precedent for the community.

Yup. Locking Bitches? Why? 900 complete strangers can read it. It's the internet, and we're not private. If you're sensitive, don't post it. We can't protect you.

Also, protecting B'cy doesn't stop any of the issues described -- are people really holding back or feeling threatened?

Like they said. If we had more restrictions on membership, I might think it was a good idea, but as it is, anyone can register as many times as they want, so it wouldn't actually keep anyone from reading, except the most casual of lurkers, and we don't care if they read it anyway.

Been only able to visit the right column here the last few days due to craziness that is called life.

My initial instinct when I read the proposal is that the several of the newspaper websites I visit require registration to view their articles and I didn’t have a problem with registering although my participation is only as a reader. I will read the discussion over the next few days. I have a pretty solid notion of the arguments on both sides. Still not sure which way I will go.

I really think the reason this has been proposed is to disprove the theory that we will always vote Yes on anything proposed.