Jay / all,

We have exactly this option on several **privately owned** forums that we host and administer. Our policy is that all new users (this includes any FREE accounts -- we have a similar structure to PUTM on most of these forums) may read anything, but may not post for 72 hours. Yes, it's not perfect, and it has been abused (rarely) in the past, but it does create a temporary buffer zone to help reduce "posting rage".

We also have an *extremely public* policy for dealing with "sensitive" messages that CLEARLY spells out what is unacceptable content and what actions will be taken when those guidelines are violated. We *NEVER* restrict user access without notification, and we ALWAYS have an appeal process. Over the last two years, we've temporarily restricted user access four times (each was for two weeks), restored one user two days later upon appeal, and kicked off one user permanently (I won't go into details, but this user has since been arrested for harassment).

One of the reasons we have done this pertains to an experience we have had with another "privately owned" forum (I'll call it the XYZ forum for reference purposes). The administrator of XYZ, when they see a post they either do not agree with or coming from a user they don't personally like, deletes that person's access rights without any notification or warning -- and then proceeds to personally attack them and their message on XYZ. Since they can't see the posts, they have no way to respond or even be aware that the attack is happening. Since XYZ is also a place where people go to search for professional references to the members, several potential clients have been (unduly) influenced by these attacks. The operators of XYZ are currently being sued by several of the members for these actions, and have seen a *significant* drop in their membership.

I'd hate to see the UT swing toward the actions of XYZ Forum in their response to issues such as this. The blocking of complete IP address ranges, in addition to being ineffective, also does not seem intelligent from a business standpoint for reasons already stated. IMHO, it would make ** SMART BUSINESS SENSE ** for the UT to have the capability to allow "read only" access as one of their management tools.

Just my USD$0.02 worth...and it may not even be worth that much (bg) ...

>Ahhh! You bring up a great point! Why not block his ability to POST like many forums do. He can read to his heart's content, but cannot say anything. I can't believe anyone would have a problem with that. Except maybe John.
>
>>Michel Fournier has banned JVP by blocking the IP address of his work.
>>
>>IMO, blocking IP addresses is ridiculous! I have several clients, one of them is the KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines). Suppose the UT wants to block me... are they going to block everyone who works at the KLM, a company with over 20,000 employees???? Although it may be the case that I'm the only person here who visits the Universal Thread, that would really be overkill.
>>
>>Another reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: The to be blocked person can go to his neighbor or an internet cafe and log in with another name. How is the UT gonna tackle that situation???
>>
>>Yet another reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: At home only those who have DSL probably have a permanent IP address. Those who have not, have a temporary IP address for the time of the session. Useless to block such an address, don't you think???
>>
>>Last, but not least, reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: While the UT has the right (and the obligation) to ban certain individuals when they 'misbehave', that does not necessarilly imply that this individual also looses the right to check what others are writing about him/her, after the banishment. In the case of JVP, I think it is his right to still visit the Universal Thread and read what others are (currently) writing about him. For that, he needs access via his IP addresses.