I think that new members should be prevented from posting on the forums for 7 days

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

IMO it would prevent a lot of the nastyness that exists, and a lot of trolling.

I personally think that someone who signs up purely to cause trouble, is generally just borde. If they weren?t allowed to post straight away they would forget about posting here and would go somewhere else. As for people who need urgent advice, if they?re genuine, signing up here would give them a chance to look through posts and probably find the answer to their question without having to post it for the hundredth time. And if the advice they need is that urgent,then it?s probably professional help they need anyway and not mn help iyswim.

I was under the impression that, if they have reason to look, they know about namechanging right away.

Maybe they could be required to have been registered for 30 days before they acquire name changing rights?

That would stop them sitting agreeing with themselves on controversial threads!

I think I had to wait to post? although that could just be for email confirmation?

Yes, I'm sure you're right, it just takes a while for a reason to become apparent and by then the damage is done, sometimes.

Oh yes, that's a superb idea dogsbollox.

Oh but it's all part of the fun and frolics isn't it? We all like an outrageous post or a bit of a scandal.
And if it was that obvious a namechange then there was no harm done, the silly twunt.

I think the best thing to do would be for newbies to have to come before a select committee of regular posters and put their case for wanting to join. We can then vote them in or discard them -

Bloody hell, apologies for not joining MN BEFORE I had children so that I could be an established member now ... In the manner of a lovely old granny "You were all newbies once as well you know..."

I'm new and joined up specifically to ask a question and have since carried on as I have found mnet to be full of genuinely decent and amusing people. Now I'm worried that I'm being taken in and that people are going to be nasty and perhaps give bad/dangerous advise. If only you could list them so I'd know who to avoid.(I realise you can't)
P.S. What is trolling?

I just don't get why some people are so bleaty about the possiblity of reading posts they don't like. There are loads of areas of parenthood where people vigorously disagree and screech and howl at each other, and there are plenty of news topics where the same thing happens. It's the same anywhere and everywhere on the internet: if you make a fuckwitted, lame or stupid post, you're going to get called on it. And if you make a post that's beuaituflly argued, elegnatly expressed and even witty, but your point is one that others don't agree with (and why should they agree with you anyway) you're still going to get called on it.
If you can't deal with being disagreed with, then internet forums are probably not for you.

BUT you can be perfectly happy to be disagreed with and not like to be sworn at!

I am happy to debate and argue my perspective (or have my views changed) bt you cant do that if someone just comes on and posts X is a fucker.

Case in point:

I answered your post, I amde points which you may or may not agree with but are valid. You can now disagree or agree as you choose, but had I come one and put
'Madamez ins a fuckwit' (which I don't think btw, although we do often seem to come head to head and ahve very polarised viewpoints),
what does that bring to the situation?

Honestly? Zilch.

I've survived 6 years of Mn without needing to resort to abuse (well without backup arguments lol).

I think there should just be a box to tick

Are you
A. A troll
B. planning to troll
C. A normal person
D. A parent who wants to give their children froot shoots
E. Someone who uses baby pasta
F. Particularly adverse to fish, particularly Cod

Of course these should generally seek out some potential Mn nightmares...pmsl

maybe everyone should be banned from posting for 7 days every two months or so.

Obviously not everybody at the same time though... Bet that would be fun to organise

I disagree with the OP. THe reason being is that when i found mumsnet I was in need of support and was going through a difficult time. Mumsnet allowed me to talk about these confidentialy. If I had to wait 7 days I probably wouldnt have posted on this site. Mumsnet is there as a support for mums and dads and that is what makes it special. All sites get trolls etc, part of internet i guess. We have a choice as to wether to ignore threads and not respond to posters. If you really think someone has signed up to cause trouble, avoid them.

Also the point of the advice being needed being urgent therefore requiring professional advice doesnt work when it is late at night and the person cant sleep and is really upset and troubled and just need to let it out.

Like Seamonster, I joined because of a specific concern (the fear I might have to strangle teenage DD ), and then stayed around - at the time I was pretty desperate for advice and really didn't know where to turn. I had no idea about MN etiquette and realised subsequently that I'd completely hijacked someone else's thread - they took it very well, thankfully. So no to the 7 day's rule - a lot of "this is my 1st post"-type posts are people wanting advice, rather than a chat, and they want advice NOW, not in a week.

I agree with those who say that it is a bad idea. You often stumble on here because you have a problem you need help with. And I am sorry but I just don't think people do really search the archives and you want your particular question answered.

And peachy, I completely agree with you. I think people's argument carries loads more weight if they don't resort to abuse. I am much more likely to change my mind on something if it put across in a reasoned manner rather than being screamed at in a banshee like manner. How on earth do they think that is constructive?

ah ok then I withdraw the idea as obviously I didn't think it through, but I think thedogsbollox idea is very good.

oo I do like the dogsbollox suggestion regarding name changing rights too.

thedogsbollox - that is a good idea.

Despite all this wailing about nasty sweary people who argue, what is not coming across is any suggestion that people who join and post because they are anxious, desparing or afraid are getting sworn at overmuch_ all the trolling, malice and mischeif doesn't exactly seem to be showing up in, for instance, the bereavement/MC topics.
SO, once again, some of you might not like insulting posts, but plenty of peole don't give a fuck one way or another, and no one is acutally going to die from the odd insult, so why make such a fuss?

Uurgh it sounds to me that you want to create an overcontrolled hierarchical chat site. In life, there are always going to be those who insult/swear/jeer no matter what the forum are there not? Surely we're all old enough and big enough just to ignore it.

I found MN amazingly helpful and soothing when asking for advice when my babe was littler but quit writing on it later on as found it full of santimonious, I'm wittier than you are type people - very dull. By putting in place all these rules and embargos you coudl be putting someone off who is in need of urgent help just so the "regulars" feel they, as the top dogs, get the best use of the site....

Madamez, if it makes you feel better, swear and insult away. It obviously serves a purpose in your life. Perhaps you should channel all that agression into something a bit more positive.

But equally as you claim a right to be as insulting as you like, I claim a right to tell you that I think it is aggressive, un-constructive and doesn't really serve any purpose other than to antognise. But, that is just my opinon and I am as equally entitled to it as you are.