That would be up to the person posting or replying to the offer/giveaway/request. I am not advocating that there be contribution requirements to visit or participate in CC... I was merely explaining my opinion that ignoring contributions elsewhere on FT is part of why CC has become the way it is.

If I have something to give away and (let's say) two people reply... both have equally compelling stories but one has a few hundred meaningful, contributory posts to FT and the other does not. In that situation, I would likely choose the contributor rather than the lurker, barring other extenuating circumstances. Similarly, if I see a request thread and I happen to have the item that the requester is seeking, I will consider his/her posting history (and hence contribution history) before replying.

There is no one standard... deciding who contributes and how to weigh that contribution is up to the individual. However, given what I believe to be Randy's original intent behind enacting CC, I think that ignoring or devaluing FT contributions outside of CC is, IMHO, also ignoring/devaluing that intent.

Again, my point is not that only contributors (prolific or otherwise) should be able to visit or participate in CC, but that one cannot decouple FT contributions from CC "reputation," especially when deciding whether to gift something to someone (by offer or by request). If people treat CC posters as if their non-CC FT contributions don't matter, then IMHO CC may as well not be part of FT at all.

I can't answer that question, but I would say that such a member could perhaps be suspect in his/her intentions. Again, there's no one clear standard; that judgment call is up to the individual.