A suggestion about GD forum access

[Shoulderthinggoesup]

So, as a member that does his best to refrain from piles of shit posting and spends more of his time reading/learning, I still cannot comment in the GD despite being a member for over a year. In my mind, using post count as the barrier to access creates a bit of a perverse incentive in a forum that tries to keep the signal-noise ratio down and recommends using the search function instead of posting the same questions over and over. On top of that, I have seen quite a bit of bitching about all the new members causing "issues" in GD, and have noticed people with 2 months here with 800+ posts...

It really isn't that big a deal, but I would like to be able to contribute to threads on GD now and then without having to pad my post count. Could we either switch to a "length of forum membership" or add and either/or requirement?

Thanks for the consideration.

-Shoulderthinggoesup

[Hound]

+1 This is very well-reasoned and I fully concur with this logic. With my read to post ratio, it would take me years to be allowed to post in the GD forum under the current criteria. I would appreciate a reevaluation of the 200 post count stipulation.

[JSantoro]

"Re-evaluations" occur at least every fiscal quarter or more, when somebody brings up their desire for some adjustment to the policy. There's not a lot of evidence of that, though, because those threads don't tend to hang around too long.

The internet abounds with venues for you to express yourself in regard to socio-political subjects, jokes, and general chit-chat. The primary thrust of M4C is trechnical information; GD exists on sufferance,alone, because our membership basically desires such a thing. It provides us with our most frequent and most sizable headaches.

While this is specified in the EE limit rules, it's not in the GD verison: Those 200 posts are required to be contributing posts. Somebody that floats a bunch on non-substative one-liners and "+1!" posts stands out like a turd in a punch-bowl, gets told to knock it off, and has posts hard-deleted so that their count is reduced to only that which actually adds to the conversations in which they participate, be it questions or answers/commentary.

So, yeah, good signal:noise ratio. We has it, and the 200 post requirement is a(small) speed-bump on that road. The folks that have a burning in their beaver for GD access get discovered pretty readily, and either get the message, or get shown the door. They're not our desired demographic; Facebook and Twitter are un-moderated, and better fulfill theirself- perceived requirements.

As for an "EITHER post-count/OR temporal element"....better that folks gain acces to the most worthless and troublesome part of M4C by having to work a bit for it, within the limitations of policies/practices (wherein they learn them) than simply wait it out.

Hope you don't take that as some sort of assertion that you don't have anything to contribute in GD....I've no way of knowing that, period....but if the 200 post count rule seems arbitrary....well, that's only because it IS arbitrary.

It's also simple, straightforward, relatively easy for the mod/janitorial staff to police, and it's not gonna be changing any time soon. It certainly doesn't prevent wingnuts, but makes them question whether the ablility to talk about what dress Eric Holder wore to the Oscars this year is important enough to them to put in the work required to be able to do that.