Currently trying to enlist new members while making it harder for them to use a primary feature of the forum. Bad timing?
I haven't voted yet. My problem with post counts is the term "substantive." This puts a lot of work on moderators. When someone posts "Ha!" (No, Been, I'm not talking about you.
) it may be an honest response, or just a quick increase of the person's post count so he can become an entremanure (one who sells $h!t) on the classifieds.
I guess my question is, has there been a rash of new members abusing the current rules? If so, go to 100 and raise the time limit. If there are just a few, kick them out on a case by case basis.
edit--I haven't read all 9 pages, and if this is a repeat, so be it.
) it may be an honest response, or just a quick increase of the person's post count so he can become an entremanure (one who sells $h!t) on the classifieds.I guess my question is, has there been a rash of new members abusing the current rules? If so, go to 100 and raise the time limit. If there are just a few, kick them out on a case by case basis.
edit--I haven't read all 9 pages, and if this is a repeat, so be it.
The answer depends on what your goal is...
If you want to drive traffic to the board, then leaving the classifieds mostly open with low requirements is the key.
If you want to appease whatever complaint of the day that membership has with the classifieds, then you're going to be chasing a moving target.
If you want to make OSA a clean-room type classifieds environment, then locking it down further is the answer. I think that you'll cause it to be much less used though with each restriction.
Perhaps there is some balance... I don't know.
If you want to drive traffic to the board, then leaving the classifieds mostly open with low requirements is the key.
If you want to appease whatever complaint of the day that membership has with the classifieds, then you're going to be chasing a moving target.
If you want to make OSA a clean-room type classifieds environment, then locking it down further is the answer. I think that you'll cause it to be much less used though with each restriction.
Perhaps there is some balance... I don't know.
Best idea yet! Sure have seen some strange stuff going on in there since the conn. tragedy. Not talking about gouging either??????
So we discuss 2 types of market restrictions:
1) Qualitative
2) Quantitative
I say neither & let free markets reign! Why would you want to limit the market? If folks want to buy & sell, let them. If folks want to stay & post so be it.
1) Qualitative
2) Quantitative
I say neither & let free markets reign! Why would you want to limit the market? If folks want to buy & sell, let them. If folks want to stay & post so be it.
So a guy like me, with a plethora of posts under my belt, could be here enjoying this site for years before I could buy or sell? Hmmmmm.....
I agree. Why make new rules. I always look at post count and how long someone has been a member. I tend to sell to those that have been around awhile....but that's my choice. We're all big boys and girls...if you don't want to buy/sell to someone based on whatever criteria you use....that's your decision.
I know I'm a new member, but I like this idea a lot. I'm not looking to post a thread on the classifieds anytime soon, but I also think it will take me a long time to get to 100.
I also think the time requirement would be really effective because the people looking to make quick money won't want to wait. Also, if there is a price hike or scare like in the past, the urgency-feeling usually dwindles after a few months.
I voted no on the poll, but only because there is no middle-ground option.
Similar threads
