Later in the thread:
Originally Posted by
Punki
Now that I think about it NickB, I rarely even look at the handle of the poster, let alone his/her post count. I just rely on how credible they sound.
Earlier in the thread:
Originally Posted by
Punki
I really would rather know that a member has been devoted enough to FT that they have (one way or another) managed to rack up 10,000 posts, than to not know anything about them at all.
Having said that, I am also very impressed with those folks who have been a constantly active part of the community for a decade, and still somehow managed to restrain themselves to the point where they have less than 500 or 1,000 posts.
Those two elements, join date and number of posts, work together to give us a glimpse of a member.
So how, exactly, do you gauge any of the stuff you mention in the second quote without
looking at the member's post count?
You talk of "knowing that a member is devoted to FT" and "being impressed with people who keep the post count down" and "post count and join date being a gauge." Later, you say "I rely on how they sound."
Which is it?
It's tough to take this motion seriously on it's face (above and beyond the absurdity of asking Randy to reconsider a decision he's now make twice) when one of the people who sponsored it can't settle on "what it means to them."