rehoult

I would also like to say that I think the end result is a good idea. 180/180 is a reasonable restriction for a forum like CC (O/T I'd like to see having the restriction added to the 'Trick It' thread, which similarly is inundated with brand new members who want everything laid bare for them) where trust is required.

I understand there are people who have a hard time getting to that level, especially when they think they don't know enough to participate. My first post on FT was answering someone's question and turning out to be entirely wrong in my answer. In the years since then I've been wrong on other posts as well, but that's just part of life. Sometime other people know more than us, but imagine a university campus where people didn't speak if they thought other people knew more than them. Silence. It is through conversation that we learn.

OTOH, I similarly agree with a few posters that this seems unfair to the people who already have access, especially to those who have successfully made trades and would now be removed. They have proven their trustworthiness though trades, so I don't like the idea of removing their access so they can once again build up their post count to 'prove' themselves. I think some thought should be put into how to handle the transition to the new rules, but I leave such discussion to the TB as I believe there have been enough ideas thrown around for them to figure it out.

cblaisd

As the original CC moderator (and back when it was simply Randy making decisions rather than all the TB stuff), I can tell you that this situation has happened before. When post restrictions were first implemented in CC, folks were invited to email Randy and request grandfathering. He would do so, if the reasons were good.

kipper

Is this an option for those affected, should this motion pass? Well, being grandfathered, not emailing Randy.

cblaisd

No idea. I presume that is the CD's call in consultation with the CC mods.

wharvey

As one of the current CC moderators, I totally support this position.

We are finding more and more people are just working to get access to Coupon Connection to then take from the community.

We are not changing the "activity" measure... it is still an average of one post a day. We are just asking that you keep up that level for 90 additional days.

Stats do not lie... the number of people who stop contributing to Flyertalk once they gain access to Coupon Connection indicates that some only want access to CC. Now, will this stop that? I doubt it... but I do believe it will lower the number of people who play that game.

I want to thank the Talkboard for considering this motion... and like that it brings consistency to OMNI and CC in that regards...

Now, how about letting those CC posts count?

rehoult

That would certainly solve my concern, I just don't want to see people who have contributed to CC to then be removed from it. Remembering that one generally can't just 'take' from the community, as most trades actually involve trading and not just giving.

tom911

I'm disappointed to see one Talk Board member submitted his vote on this issue just three hours after it was posted. How can you consider member input and represent the membership when you vote so quickly? Add into this that the majority of the membership here, including those in the 90-179 post range, are probably unaware of this discussion unless they happen to find this forum, and will only become aware of it after the vote if it impacts their access.

I'm going to start a thread in Coupon Connection with a link to this thread so the members on that forum will be aware of the discussion. As many here know, I have advocated the Talk Board doing a better job communicating with the members, and I think this is one way to do that, particularly when it impacts a single forum. I hope the CC moderators will allow it to stay in place there through the voting period.

For the record, and for consideration of those Talk Board members that have not voted yet, I'm against the change. The Coupon Connection moderators can identify post padders just as easily as I can, and I have reported a number of them in the past. I see no reason to change anything.

I have to agree with one member who commented on rudeness on some forums here. I see the same myself and can see why members are reluctant to post and be critiqued by veteran posters. 90 posts can be a lot for these folks, and 180 may just be impossible. I'm happy to have them here if they can only contribute 90 posts.

catharsis

I feel like I should echo the comments of certain other posters. I feel that this change would be perceived as excluding those members who do not live up to an extremely narrow definition of 'desirable behaviour'.

This does not personally affect me. I have never logged into the Omni forums. There is a wealth of information on FT and I suspect few have read every post on every forum.

It is my belief that the requirements for a certain number of posts and length of membership is intended to measure 'commitment' to FT. I would respectfully suggest that the existing bar (90 posts in 90 days) would already be considered 'near-obsessive' behaviour by many outside FT.

Omni may well have higher requirements - but one could suggest that only those FT members who use FT as their primary 'Social Media' may use omni, and they would easily gain the required post counts.

It is my belief that users with 90 posts in 90 days may have made a significant contribution to FT - the over-simple equating of 'volume' with commitment is unreliable. I would also strongly argue that in some cases it is the breadth of experiences rather than the depth of knowledge available on FT which is most useful. (read: more uninformed users may be better than a limited number of 'experts' in certain situations)

Increasing the levels in my opinion absolutely represents the "pulling up of the drawbridge" by those already inside.


I don't mean to rabbit on - I just wanted to express my opinion in case any TB members cared.

Cholula

I voted for it 15 minutes after it was posted.

This is an issue I don't need to poll folks on to make up my mind. We had discussed the issue internally and I'd quickly made up my mind.

I was presumably elected to vote using my best judgment rather than ask folks how I should vote on every issue.

I read this forum for the commentary and use stated opinions for those issues I'm not familiar with or have no opinion about.

This wasn't one of those instances.

tom911

I'm not asking you to poll the members or ask them how to vote. I'd just like to see the opinions offered by members on this forum given some consideration, even if that consideration is to completely ignore their comments, before voting 15 minutes after this thread is open. Couldn't you have waited a few days before voting to at least give the appearance you had some interest in reading what the members post here?

BurBunny

A bit of a different voice here.

By "civilian" standards, I'm EQM obsessed, and a FF expert. However, by FT standards, I'm still more intermediate in my knowledge and experience overall (and far from advanced or expert, except in specific areas). Because of that, I tend to read far more than I post, seeking to boost my understanding and skills. When I have something to contribute I do, but would rather have my voice be somewhat valuable rather than simply more noise.

As a long-term moderator, host and teacher of community standards going back all the way to 1990, I've watched as members in various forums seek to boost their post count for myriad reasons - status, the mistaken belief that quantity = quality, boredom, etc. Coupon Connection is yet another reason, and I don't personally think that raising the post count threshhold will change that behavior or serve as a barrier, nor should post count be seen as a measure of whether or not someone is an active or valued member of a forum.

Because of the nature of FT, many of the people who would be beneficial in CC, due to the amount they travel and earn tradeable instuments, often simply don't have the time to spend making a post a day.

I'm all in favor of increasing the membership requirement to the longer 180 days, as I do believe continuing posts over that length of time shows committment to a community. But I don't think the post count itself should be increased. 90 posts over a 6-month minimum time frame is significant to traveling professionals.

Just as 90 posts is less of a barrier than the membership duration for those only seeking access to CC, 180 posts will be no more of an issue, but the 180 day requirement will be.

By all means, increase the membership duration minmum, but instead of raising the post bar, please send a message that you value quality of posts over sheer numbers. Let those of us working our way up the ladder in our experience contribute when we feel we have something valuable to offer, rather than simply encouraging "me too" posts to boost post count.

Cholula

Although I wouldn't use the terms "secret club" or "private club" I also have no particular issue with those terms.

OMNI and CC are forums only for those who have taken the time and effort to make an extremely minimal commitment to FlyerTalk.

180 posts in 180 days is, obviously, only one post per day.

If someone can't think of one single thing a day to add to the discussion here then I can't see allowing them entrance into these specialized forums.

We're not asking for a donation of blood or a promise of your first born here. Simply an minimal indication that you are a contributing member to the core forums of FlyerTalk.

GUWonder

I am of the same opinion. Thank you for representing a position that aligns with my thoughts on the matter.

HCA

My opinion is 180 days/90 posts. I read a lot but there are too many experts here thus I usually don't want to post a potential wrong anwser for the question.

neuron

I think the 180/180 proposal is fair. While I agree that FT is an open source for information, the exchange of items should be considered a bonus for those who have put in time and posts.