17 votes

What if the DP allowed new users to join via private invitation?

Michael N. may have already thought of this, but if not, I figured I would throw it out there and see what he and the rest of you think.

Users would get a few invites a month that they can hand out. If a user ends up inviting trolls onto the site (whether by accident or not), then they lose the privilege of handing out invites.

I just met a young guy from Venezuela who moved to the US two months ago. He is very passionate about fighting for our countries freedom as he knows first hand the evils of the state. He would be a great addition to the community but sadly can't join.

Just my two cents as I hate the idea of shutting new people out. I definitely understand the need to keep the trolls at bay though.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Your friend could communicate his thoughts here

through you. Just make sure it's okay with him before taking his words and posting them here.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

Hey Seth!

Is the guy from Venezuela in Cali or here? Ask him to come to our meetings!

Even if the door is closed at the DP, we still continue to bring the message of Liberty outside of these walls. The same goes for RonPaulChannel, where paid subscribers listen to Ron's perspective and then we share that information out and about.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


YES: I hate to spout "industry lingo" or use buzzwords, but I would definitely participate in the invite system because there are social media "influencers" out there who would take part in something they are confident has the right ROI (their return being: networking, activism, feedback on ideas, etc...)

NO: Michael et al need people to donate $$ for a marketing-based idea like this to stay afloat, and also lately the physical momentum and activists-on-the-ground have died down--making it susceptible to rants, etc...

Good idea, though--it's nice to see people being creative again. Hope that helps! :)

bigmikedude's picture

We're like the DP fish tank now.

People can look in all they want, but they just can't swim here.

Michael Nystrom's picture

That is hilarous

Do you know how furious that makes a cat, sitting there, looking at the happy aquarium, unable to get at those fish!

He's the man.

Hey Michael... got brilliant idea for you

Was on bus today and thought of it... the hard part has been done already, you got the current active members that you happy with. Lets say people been on here for 3years and more. Meaning they in-effect past the screening process.

every time a new member comes up, their posts are only available to members that have been here for 3years and more, and to no one else (public) and you have a rating icon next to their name (this is separate to down votes, or article votes, ie its voting them as a contributor, or boot out option)

memebers here for 3 years have weighting on their votes of 1, and upto 5 for members that have been here for 5 years. On top of that you can assign certain members with a weighting of 10 (they don't even have to know what weighting their vote counts as because you can monitor it)

this way no need to give people moderator passwords/status etc as the icon will just pop up, click and bobs your uncle.

this way you build in a feedback system and it will route out trolls and the system will automatically kick them out, if you don't want the headache then let it be automated boot out instead of the guy pleading his case (=work)

those you trust to be fair (ie a new person puts a bad post up, but does it with a good heart) will have the ability to reverse the kickout option because their higher weighting vote will out vote a person that can't tolerate bad posts to be example.

Michael Nystrom's picture

On the one hand, it sounds complicated.

Ultimately, this will come down to politics. Politics is about pleasing other people to get what you want.

I'm sure there are still moles hiding in here. They're like disruptive cells. They like to explode from time to time. Like that last guy I banned, Sue4TheBillofRights. But that is a different story.

On the other hand, this is really a form of artificial intelligence. How do you decide who to let in?

If it was one guy, how would he decide? What rules could we give him? Could we give him enough rules that we could turn this decision over to a computer?

Would you want to do that?

Who wouldn't mind if we turned it over to an algorithm?

The front page already pretty much runs on an algorithm.

- - - -

I'll tell you the words I really don't like in that post: Screening Process. It reminds me of the airport. And the TSA. Bend over, let's take a look up there. I am so funking sick of "screening processes."

But the question is why? Why should new members be let in.

That is a valid question to ask, and it is interesting to know why people think registration should be open.

Because this idea is based on an assumption, but that assumption should be addressed first:

What is the benefit of new members.

For me it means tedious work. Basically it is weeding. Boring.

No, the Daily Paul is a conservative institution, and as such it doesn't change.

Changing form will change the outcome.

He's the man.

I do support Micheal's decision below

but I will give my 2 cents on the idea in case someone else wants to run a site like that in the future.

I am a member of an invitation only site and it works well for what it is. Only positively active members can give invites ...the more positively active, the more invites are allowed. What positive means would vary by site. Here, maybe it would be those that get more up-votes than down votes or some other algorithm....number of words, posts, originals or whatever.

BUT, invitation only tends to breed sameness. That is the downside.

to Micheal-- I am glad I made it to the inside of this fence. It will be interesting to see people grow. Have you considered making it or some sections of it not viewable to the public at large? just curious.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Not viewable to the public

Interesting. Yes, but it would leak out. Anything juicy would.

I think anything super private should be conducted offline. Even if it isn't viewable to "the public" we all know it is visible to the NSA, etc.

Anyway, serious matters should be discussed in person.

- --

BTW, I was a member of an invitation only board for large website administrators. I haven't been there in a while. I wonder if I'm still a member in good standing, or if not.

Hey, I just had an idea. I could go back and sell usernames. Or I could lease them. That seems to be the current scam d'age. The lease.

One of the nice things about the DP is the lack of sameness. Eclectic stuff shows up here. People here are in tune with what other people want to hear.

He's the man.

I wasn't expecting juicy stuff

more just stuff not indexed by search engines really and archived on the internet archives. Of course you are right about juicy stuff leaking out. yes, the NSA is archiving it all anyway for eternity. They are playing GOD.....everything we do being watched. But there are different levels of conversations when you are talking to a small group versus being on a public stage. That's all.

I was thinking we could get plenty more people here if all the people with multiple accounts would just give their extra ones away. :-)

I like the idea of making a section that is only viewable

by members. I can think of a few things that I would post there that I would otherwise not mention on the public boards.

yes, it might at some more depth

to some conversations.

I didn't even know

I didn't even know registration was closed.

My 2 cents...

I haven't been coming around nearly as much as I did during the campaign, I take a look about once a week now. I have noticed changes in the wind, a few posts that are just people babbling.

When Ron ran, everybody was focused, now everybody is all over the map. Perhaps it's time to establish an overlying theme, create sections like "Executive Order Talk" or "Hot HR's" and such, I don't know.

As far as the "invitation only" thing...sounds like somebody who wants to run the "homeowners association" or PTA.

Don't mean to offend, just saying.

No offense taken.

I didn't see it as a homeowners thing but perhaps the photo I posted lent itself to that image. The way I was thinking of it was like how gmail was by invitation only in the beginning.

I just read Michael's comment

I just read Michael's comment below, and I agree with whatever he decides for this site. I will say this however, there's a liberal forum I read everyday called democraticunderground.com. They have something called a jury system, where every member is put into a random pool. Whenever a member gets flagged for something, the system selects a jury for that member, and the members of the site hear the case and vote on whether to delete a post, suspend or ban a member.

I'm not sure exactly how it all works, because they only let liberals make accounts there, but apparently it works really well. Moderation of the sites posts and members is completely done by this jury system. It's a large site, so I think members expect to be "called to jury" once a year or something.


Another idea that would take a skilled coder with time to burn.

The "system" has selected you.

I demand that a "jury" be selected.

do you realize how stupid that sounds around here?

but it is really a great idea BILL3.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Hey man, thanks for the idea

I've been meaning to address this, to write about why "The Ark" door is closed, and I hope to get to that next week, but I've been kind of busy.

I saw the other thread, too, about opening up the site for 2016:


As for opening it up for Rand supporters, I'm not interested in that myself. Give some youngster the chance to do that. I'm not the spring chicken I once was, and I'm not that into Rand enough that I'd make the sacrifices I did for his Pa.

As for opening it up to others who are interested in Liberty, there are pros and cons. For me and the moderators, the cons are that it is a lot of work and there's just not a lot of reward for all of that work. There is a lot of chasing trolls around, and upon banning the most egregious ones, they come right back.

That is the problem with having a free resource -- infinite demand. There is all kinds of other mischevious behavior that goes on as well: Spammers, bots, linkjackers (people who just post their links here for the traffic, without contributing anything back to the community).

I'm sorry about the guy from Venezuela not being able to join, but he's welcome to read.

What I think more about the DP now is that we are the Ron Paul class of 2007/8 and 2012.

I've had so many people tell me that they're glad the door is closed, and that the trolls and mean people are gone. I feel the same way myself, and it would be pretty difficult for me to go back to that old life of monitoring over the site 24/7, getting calls from Big Mike at 7:00am, or urgent emails before bed that say "YOU BETTER TAKE A LOOK AT THIS!"

No, I can't really do it. I have too many other things I'm interested in, and I just can see explaining why banning or censoring someone here is not a violation of their First Amendment rights for the millionth time.

I understand the desire to get some new blood in here, but I don't feel it.

What I like better is getting to know the people here on a deeper level, and seeing if we can develop something deeper.

And if that isn't enough, I encourage others to start their own projects. Really - the internet is a big place - big enough for everyone, imo.

Not to mention all that stuff about the government trolls. That is the other problem with the anonymous screen names. You just don't know who's hiding back there, or what their agenda is. Like I've said before, it is like boxing with ghosts. Knock one out, and it pops right back up behind you, ready for another fight.

I sound like I'm saying no, no, no, no. And I am, because I don't want to go through it all again. And in order for me to say yes to new things, I have to say no to old things.

Hope that answers your question.


He's the man.

Just one more question, Michael

Just one more question, Michael, if you please.

Am I now a proud member of the elite?

love ya bro..

and I understand.

Ive had the luxury a few times in my life to be at the top of my game. People don't realize the effort and work it takes to maintain it. Its very easy to get there with hard work.. maintaining it is an art unto itself. I doubt you imagined the responsibility starting DP came with and your dedication has shown itself in spades.

Ill just say it like this.. I saw all the work, participated in a ton of it for Ron in 08/12. (More in 08 than 12 for sure)

I feel ya bro. I feel more disaffected now than ever before. I feel like I have grown and Im less of a purist than I was nearly a decade ago. Picking wise battles trumps purity to me these days.

Think about it.. the first campaign had a truther screaming in every thread. Not so much anymore. Our movement has grown. People have moved, gotten different jobs, values have changed.. priorities absolutely have changed.

I feel like Robert Johnson on highway 49. There is a split in the road and when I look back I don't feel that way anymore. Im not going to sell my soul to the devil.. but Im not going to continue to look back either. I want to look forward to our future.

I fully support Rand and I fully support your position. Times are changing and you have absolutely paid your dues. More dues than anyone else here... and you deserve to forge your own path. We all have sacrificed but nobody here has been more committed than you.

None of us know what is coming next.. what I do know is that I experienced an incredible journey with you and this community. As I grow older I will look back with pride and honor. We absolutely stood up for our rights and way of life. All of us.

Whatever is coming... I hope its because of the fruits of the labor we forged ahead of us. The DailyPaul has shined as a beacon in the defense of Liberty. Im very proud to be a part of this community.

Thank bro. I mean it and I believe I understand where you are at. The only thing constant in life is change. The next two elections are going to be intense. Lets hope all of our efforts pay dividends.

In Liberty,


'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Would introducing some free-market capitalism to this site ...

help improve it? Not that I think anything is wrong with it now but I know it takes your time to manage trolls and maintain this site. Time is money in a real sense.

What would people be willing to pay to have a maintained forum that filters the trolls?

I mean it waste our time too reading some of the "out there" garbage some people post. I like reading differing opinions and would never want them censored but when someone tries to represent all pro-liberty advocates with the most insane conspiracy theories and tripe that paints us all as crazies, it needs to be addressed.

If you have 30,000 viewers and they paid $7(?) $10(?) $12(?) $15(?) >$15(?) per year would that make it worth your while?

Obviously, there is no price to read post but if you want to post or comment, yeah, you pay a little. And that doesn't mean you can't be banished for being crazy. It only means you will be banished quicker because a few people will be managing the site full-time.

Just a thought. I know some will think your time should be free but hey, nothing is free, not even liberty.

Requiring people to put their money where their mouth is cuts out a lot of BS.

Aw ahucks

I responded to the other thread and wish I had read this thread before responding to the other thread, not that I would change what I wrote, but that I see where you are coming from in this post.

I think every cell in my body has changed since I first came to DP :D.

Hey Michael.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm cool with whatever you decide is best for you and the DP. This is your place. Just figured I'd share my idea and see if it stuck.

I like the idea of this place becoming a closer more integrated community as well. There are definitely benefits to that. I'm thankful that I made the cut.

Thanks so much for all your hard work. It is much appreciated


Michael Nystrom's picture

Thanks man

Much appreciated.

He's the man.

I'm honoured

lol.. just to think that I almost didn't get back on here, I wasn't active for ages, then decided to check out the website and almost forgot my username and password and definitely forgot my email for password recovery... so it was a close call.

I'm now a DP addict again, getting my hit every day, like shooting heroin, only better.

My guess

Maybe the reason for closed membership is because it's less effort to maintain. Invitations means more potentially aggravating characters whereas now Michael can just prune the liberty tree, so to speak. More easy to harvest from a greenhouse than to cull the gmo sprouts from a field opened to the four winds.

Good point.


There is all that NSA shill

There is all that NSA shill stuff, but as long as google is so far up this site's butt, what do shills really have, like their gonna make a difference to the members here, i don't think so.

Here's MY plan. Set up a code that randomly lets a predetermined amount of users allow 1,2, 3 or whatever memberships per month, week, quarter?, that then must be reviewed by a group of moderators or Michael or maybe just given a 3 month probationary period.

Just food for thought.

I like this site because it was like the OLD Campaign For Liberty site where there were some very good discussions in the threads. I think that there are probably some people out there that could contribute to the conversation if they were allowed to be members.