Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

DOSBODS and public access / the future of DOSBODS


Private / public etc  

111 members have voted

  1. 1. I would like...

    • Go fully private (ALL forums)
    • Make "Off-topic" private
    • Thread titles public, content private
    • No change (all public)
    • Other / DGAF


Recommended Posts

A few posters have suggested that DOSBODS should change to private / invite only. This is entirely possible within the settings.

By "private" this means that it will be invisible to Google, and everybody else. The only way to view it would be to create an account or login.

Personally I am not a huge fan of shutting off the entire forum, but would welcome a discussion on it. Some other possible options:

1. Moving the entire "off-topic" subforum to private.

2. Making everything except the "Basement" subforums to private (property prices etc)

3. Making thread titles viewable to everyone, but not the content (i.e. login required to view the actual posts in a thread).

 

 

Any thoughts? I will put the most popular ones to a poll.

 

Edited by spunko
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is no reason to keep the Forum public when David Icke's and Alex Jones's predictions look less outlandish by the day. And if you have a vote on it @spunkoplease don't accept any Mail in bal

I'm a lurker from TOS and haven't plucked up the courage to post until now. I understand with the way things are going why some would want a private forum. On the otherhand, this site is probably one

I'm one of those strange people who doesn't speak unless they have something to say.   I also have to admit that "some" of the levels of expertise, knowledge and intellect in the discussions

Posted Images

I can understand the idea behind it, but at the same time, are we then not allowing "them" to win?

Whilst some of the language used on here isnt exactly PC, i think the truly nasty stuff gets frowned on soon enough.

I suppose its a case of what if the laws change and what we discuss becomes classed as hate speech.

Are there any logs that by law you have to keep @spunko?

If the "Feds" come for you, can you suddenly sing like a Mocking Bird and give them Geo co-oridinates of @spygirlketbord, @stokiescumblack book of bints, or my toilet roll stash?

Edited by Sucralose Ray Leonard
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reck B said:

What is the benefit of keeping it public?

How many new posters have signed up, who weren't from ToS?

Does the forum need new members? From what I've seen, there have been some bat-shit crazy new members anyway.

 

Personally, I think there may be little upside and a lot of potential downside to keeping it public.

I agree. This place won't last public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M S E Refugee said:

There is no reason to keep the Forum public when David Icke's and Alex Jones's predictions look less outlandish by the day.

Icke had his twitter taken down a couple of days ago; yet we are told he is nuts. So we've now got the reintroduction of digital asylums and the repeal of care in the community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of titles only showing to unregistered users; some of @stokiescum's titles would certainly leave outsiders scratching their heads.

I've noticed that there are sites that seem to simply scrape forum content wholesale for whatever reason which means that you lose control of content as soon as it is publicly posted; that would stop them in their tracks.

 

Whilst it got very little to no support last time I will again suggest a membership cap.  There are 913 members registered but nothing like that number post.    Take it down to 600 by zapping anyone who hasn't posted in the last six months and then have a queueing system for potential new members with a monthly cull again of inactive ones.

If you're not contributing to the forum then you don't get to read it is my view; and by contributing that means posting and not just putting a few inappropriate "LOL" reactions every week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

I like the idea of titles only showing to unregistered users; some of @stokiescum's titles would certainly leave outsiders scratching their heads.

I've noticed that there are sites that seem to simply scrape forum content wholesale for whatever reason which means that you lose control of content as soon as it is publicly posted; that would stop them in their tracks.

 

Whilst it got very little to no support last time I will again suggest a membership cap.  There are 913 members registered but nothing like that number post.    Take it down to 600 by zapping anyone who hasn't posted in the last six months and then have a queueing system for potential new members with a monthly cull again of inactive ones.

If you're not contributing to the forum then you don't get to read it is my view; and by contributing that means posting and not just putting a few inappropriate "LOL" reactions every week.

LOL

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Red Debt Redemption said:

"Echo chamber" is a term widely used in today’s lexicon, that describes a situation where certain ideas, beliefs or data points are reinforced through repetition of a closed system that does not allow for the free movement of alternative or competing ideas or concepts.

 

A good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say keep it public for now, fresh blood and ideas are always welcome and the idea has a touch of paranoia about it. . Presently you can say anything without causing offence, making it quite unique forum online. This will less likely continue in a closed system. By the way Trumps a complete twat. Long may that last.

*

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Red Debt Redemption said:

"Echo chamber" is a term widely used in today’s lexicon, that describes a situation where certain ideas, beliefs or data points are reinforced through repetition of a closed system that does not allow for the free movement of alternative or competing ideas or concepts.

 

But if we accept that we are largly an echo chamber, we are aware of our biggest fault. Much like an alcoholic accepting he has a problem.

I may be talking shite.

Edited by Sucralose Ray Leonard
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reck B said:

What is the benefit of keeping it public?

How many new posters have signed up, who weren't from ToS?

Does the forum need new members? From what I've seen, there have been some bat-shit crazy new members anyway.

 

Personally, I think there may be little upside and a lot of potential downside to keeping it public.

Was thinking this the other day.  Wonder if a poll had been done before.

It's a tough question as shutting it completely down kind of feels like it would be a long slow demise and no possibility of fresh blood could turn things inward, echoey.  Maybe better and much safer than possibility of sudden death.

But some of the options above good.

Other idea that comes to mind is having a back up (?) Or even just a template and the keys to move over if taken down.  People would need to know where to go or a means to find that info out.  One thing stands out is if it goes South in the extreme, then surely it's just as likely @spunko gets put in difficult position of risking whatever by opening up again (even if completely private) ie legally etc.

All sounds a bit dystopic.  Maybe it's not going to be that bad but guess no harm planning. 

Would say good to have some kind of stratagem, even if it involved someone else owning the backup space to keep everything legal but spunko running still.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sucralose Ray Leonard said:

But if we accept that we are largly an echo chamber, we are aware of our biggest fault. Much lile an alcoholic accepting he has a problem.

I may be talking shite.

If I agree that you're talking shite, does that make me part of the echo chamber? Of course, I may be talking shite too. Damn. There's an echo in here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...