It wouldn't necessarily already be set up on an older account though.
Change to MM access after 1st January 2024
- Thread starter Feek
- Start date
- Status
Disable old accounts after a period of inactivity solves one and two.
Making it more difficult to use the MM will result in the MM being used less, yes. But maybe not *only* by traders who abuse the system.
The last is the only one that OcUK have leaned into. But post count is a terrible metric.
Exactly.
The chosen inactive period is 90 days, during which you're expected to contribute 15 posts
If you mean me, then say it to my face. I have been here, I'm here now, I post when I have something to say. I do wonder what percentage of your 12,200 posts were genuinely "contributing to the community".
Hey, ho. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, much less the rules. Badly handled though IMO. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I'll leave it at that.
They should make it a charge up - I've "contributed" way more than 15 now, so I should now have enough use for longer than 90 daysExactly.
The chosen inactive period is 90 days, during which you're expected to contribute 15 posts
Most of the mods are volunteers.
Who would manage the payments? The unpaid mods? What system would be used? Who would deal with payment issues, disputes and refunds? How small or large should the price be, considering there will be a cost to OcUK by putting such a system in place. Introducing a paid system would be a lot of work.
Seemingly primarily with people looking to extract as much as they can from the forum but who are unwilling to do so much as give back 1 post per week on average. Says a lot about which element of the forum they actually value.
You have access to the MM... your posting habits mean you meet the criteria already...
Are you saying these rules are made entirely by the voluntary mods? And not influenced or dictated in any way by the OcUk shop? Seems unlikely to me.
OcUK must already have a significant hosting bill. They are also not a charity. Let's be real - the forums would not exist if they didn't channel traffic to the main website. Therefore the forums must have a net positive impact on OcUK's bottom line. What level of investment would justify that impact is something only OcUK financial staff will know, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand, just because there's a blunter object available.
Soldato
maybe a new sub form, called "moaning and entitled" would help some to 15 posts
thought that was GPU section
Of course OcUK have a say in it. It's their forum and would probably have been instrumental in the change. But my understanding is that a lot of the people who perform the day to day moderation work are unpaid forum members who are invited to be mods.
The point I was making was that, if that's the case, then we would be expecting them to give up even more free time to administer payments.
Perhaps a mod can confirm or correct me.
Last edited:
Why did you have nothing to say about it when it was announced over three months ago?
Correction.
ALL of the mods are volunteers.
Yes.
I can think of maybe two or three instances over the years where the shop has 'dictated' anything and one of those was recently when there was a vote for changing the christmas forum logo.
All the Commissarios, Dons and Underbosses are unpaid volunteers. There's a very small handful of shop employees who have access to the mod areas but they are not involved in the day to day running of the forums in any way whatsoever. Most of those have the 'Shop Staff' tag and avatar.
The mod team meet with the shop staff regularly and I'm happy to call them my friends.
As for payments, there's not a whelk's chance in a supernova that will happen.
Associate
can someone explain why the post count went up 1st before the manda 15 posts in 90 days?
thats the only mistake I can see against people who dont post all the time
thats the only mistake I can see against people who dont post all the time
I think I did. I seem to recall that I was shut-down in exactly the same way, with the same thinly-veiled accusations of free-loading rather than anyone really willing to debate the points that were raised. I faded away, as I will from this debate soon enough.
It is interesting that all the forums rules are made by the unpaid mod team though. That does subtly shift the emphasis of the arguments I think.
So be it. Just a suggestion.
Last edited:
The post count requirements changed in January 2012, see here.
Then last year, we completed the ongoing clean-up of grandfathered in members who, in over ten years had still not reached the updated requirements, see here. We'd been working in the background on this for a couple of years.
The change we've made now is enforcing a rule that's been in place for a long time. It's something we'd been discussing in the background for quite a few years and it's only now with the updated forum software that we can implement it automatically.
I hope that helps.
Sounds like the most reasonable, measured, slow paced decision ever when described like that.
Awful rule, it just enforces the " SPAM MORE " be active over 90 days to gain access... So all those posts I've already made, and the years of access on OCUK means no access unless I post 15 times over 90 days?
Just change the rules for new users - You must be an active member over a certain period of time or something
Just change the rules for new users - You must be an active member over a certain period of time or something
Last edited:
Soldato
I'll be honest - my first reaction was "That's harsh". After all, I've been here 20 years and while not prolific had many several thousand posts in that time before growing disillusioned.
HOWEVER - It has given me the motivation to get more involved again and I've already found myself getting more involved in the forums once again so I can see why it was done.
HOWEVER - It has given me the motivation to get more involved again and I've already found myself getting more involved in the forums once again so I can see why it was done.
- Status