Disheartened Newbie; read-only status?

[naamagatus]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" <judy at j...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Now, I have a question for you, and for everyone else here. Several
> people have suggested that new members be placed on "read only" 
status
> for a certain amount of time.  Think back to when you first joined
> HPfGU.  Would you have been upset if we had had this policy?  Would
> you have left, or would you have stayed and waited to be able to
> post? 

My main reason I had for looking for an HP forum, was to ask a most 
burning and "original" question - why didn't Moody portkey Harry via 
Harry's toothbrush (or some other mundane object)? HPFGU didn't have 
any rules, big files or anything then, so I just went ahead and 
posted my question. Didn't lurk, didn't read previous posts. A 
typical bumbling newbie. At that point, I certainly wouldn't have 
stayed if I was on read only status. 

I'm not sure it would encourage new members to read the list. Maybe 
it would simply encourage them to go elsewhere (which is a type of 
solution, actually <g>). A question, when someone on moderated status 
wants to posts a question that is fully answered in the FAQs, do the 
moderators tell him/her that and send the post back? If not, maybe 
they should - or would it be too time consuming or something? 

Finally, this thread has focused on how to deal with rule breaking 
members. I have to say that in my opinion, that's not the list's main 
problem. The main problem is volume, volume, volume. Even if each of 
the hundred or so posts a day were both rule abiding and brilliant, 
it would still be almost impossible (for most of us) to read them 
all, or even filter them effectively. My main filter now is, and I'm 
a bit ashamed to admit it, who is the author. I'd like to get to know 
the new members, but I'm overwhelmed by the sheer volume. And I'm on 
web view. I don't know how people deal with getting hundreds of e-
mails a day. I really don't. 


Naama