hhmorgan

In Favor!

cblaisd

Well, yes; that's exactly what the motion intends to do.

And again: ^^

I, for one, can't remember the last time I logged out; there's no point to it, except extra work, when one has broadband.

Sagy

In theory you are right.

In practice...
Can you please provide a real-life example in which a registered member can not log-in?
If you believe that "can not" is too high of a bar, is there example in which a log-in requirement will cause a meaningful hardship (let's agree that just typing username and password is not a hardship).

Thanks

DeaconFlyer

I fully agree that a post-count minimum should be enacted before a member can post.

No one should be able to post before they have 100 posts.

GUWonder

That makes no sense.

For the context challenged, the initial question in my post was about supporting a post-count minimum before enabling viewing of the Mileage Run forum by registered FTers.

GUWonder

A registered FTer may not necessarily always or even generally be logged in even while using FT and/or helping FTers. The reasons for that (not being logged in) may include examples of people on FT being stalked by others and thus not wanting to log in even if registered on FT and having chosen the profile feature to block public visibility about the log-in history. I won't go into the backgroung behind that, but it is but one example where being logged in may not be ideal/practical.

cblaisd

That is ALL that is involved, insinuations to the contrary notwithstanding

The sole time I can see where a registered member could not see the forum is when serving a 7 or 30 day suspension. (And there are very effective -- and timely, unlike in the past -- venues for appealing such). And if the person has received a permanent ban (which takes an extraordinary amount of effort), then that person is no longer a member of FlyerTalk and the question is moot.

Someone who was obsessively concerned about being "visible" can either take advantage of the invisibility option or quickly log back out after viewing the forum. There's really very little downside to this proposal and much to commend it, other vague insinuations notwithstanding.

GUWonder

That is not the sole time.

But thank you for yet another example where being logged in may not be practical/ideal, even as YMMV.

cblaisd

You've given no other example. You've talked about folks who might not want to be logged in due to some sort of hyper-fear about something, but not wanting to be logged in is not the same as being unable to log in. The latter is what you have claimed. And I would be happy to be corrected if there is some occasion on which an FTer in good standing is not able to log in.

GUWonder

That is not the sole time.

Actually, I already had in the post prior to yours. The other times where some FTers cannot see the forum will be when such FTers are not logged in to FT under their handles. So it is not just solely FTers who are suspened temporarily or permanently.

DeaconFlyer

And you proposed expanding it to all FT. Which i agree with. 100 posts before you can view any FT forum.

cblaisd

Since responding reminds me of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," I will once again point out and then let you run with it: What you are describing is exactly the point of the motion. I am not sure why you are confused about that.

Just a note of correction: a permanently banned former member is is not an FTer.

GUWonder

So when it comes to currently active users of a forum and the display shows "192 (63 members & 129 guests)" as it did a few minutes ago in the MR Deals forum, then the 63 covers FTers -- including those who have choosen to hide their log-in status by way of the FT member profile feature -- while the 129 "guests" includes persons who may or may not be FTers?

No, it was not a proposal of mine. It was part of a line of questioning.

GUWonder

Confused about what? The section of my post you quoted above was merely indicating that the following words of yours were inaccurate: "The sole time I can see where a registered member could not see the forum is when serving a 7 or 30 day suspension." Even those FTers who are not suspended will not be able to see the forum when not logged in.

Well, I wouldn't know about that. They still have member handles that note "suspended".

cblaisd

I have asked IB admin for a definitive answer to this question.

No, they won't. As stated in the motion. ^