I try to avoid most threads in GD. Even if they agree with you they still pick a fight.
Last edited:
Change to MM access after 1st January 2024
- Thread starter Feek
- Start date
- Status
I try to avoid most threads in GD. Even if they agree with you they still pick a fight.
100% agree... you ****
Looks like Maccy saw through our sneaky plan. Just smile and wave boys, just smile and wave.
Well if you really want to rock the boat discount posts in here. Oh boy that would need a huge bag of popcorn for that
Is it time to make it 90 posts per 90 days yet?
Soldato
One post per day for 90 days... If you miss a day you have to wait til you've hit your 90 streak again!
Oooh I like
This is by far the most ridiculous and insulting thing I've ever read.However, after typing that, the core principle of OcUK is arguing a point that you don't believe in
Soldato
wow, completely missed this, as I only get on here now and again.......guess I may be done as I dont get to post that much, as I have little value to add to most conversations...cheers all for the last 18 1/2 years. 
Hello. I can no longer access MM. After reading this entire thread, I am led to believe the reason for this is that I'm a leech who is contributing absolutely naff all towards the community. I've tried to pick sense out of nonsense in this thread, but despite people's efforts to justify this change, I've not read a single reasonable explanation of why a fix was required for something that didn't seem broken.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see that this rule was maybe created in private, by a group of unpaid volunteers some time ago, potentially without consulting the wider community, and that it is now being implemented via automation.
For all you budding Ethics Philosophers out there, in this scenario, is the MM access a carrot to encourage posting more often, or is the removal of access to the MM a stick to force you to post?
Throwing myself into the meatgrinder, I've been a forum member for about 20 years, made over 14,000 posts in a short period, and went to great lengths to illustrate my posts. I could easily spend 30 minutes on just one single post, so I didn't just spam my way to 14k. It took me 20 mins to write just this one single post. Even though I am heading towards old age, I still love my PC hardware, so buy or sell something on the OcUK Members market at least once a year on average. I think I've had close to 100 transactions and never had a problem. Deffo has been a nice place to buy/sell decent-priced hardware for the past 20 years.
I can't meet the minimum requirements because I don't like to post anymore. I find some people's posts unnecessarily offensive, verging on potentially toxic behaviour which doesn't make nice reading. Even in this thread, I can see a few unmoderated individuals trying to provoke an emotional response, in a simple discussion about forum rules. This is a general internet problem really, and not aimed at OcUK forums being more toxic than the average web hangout.
I would argue that in my time, I was very active and I would like to think I made a meaningful contribution to the OcUK forums by helping beginners overclock their INTEL/AMD systems and also speccing them new builds using all OcUk parts. I always received plenty of thanks from the individuals I helped, which was enough, but the amount of unmoderated ad hominem thrown against me from others was unreal, even from the forum mods themselves, which eventually led me to quit posting.
We normally honour our veterans for their previous service, but here we see OcUK stripping them of any privilege they may have earned during their lifetime unless they return to active duty.
I hope you will consider removing this MM requirement to spam the forums once a certain amount of posts are made. I support changes that make the forums safer but I'm not seeing that in this example.
Apart from that, Happy New Year, I hope 2024 is a good one!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see that this rule was maybe created in private, by a group of unpaid volunteers some time ago, potentially without consulting the wider community, and that it is now being implemented via automation.
For all you budding Ethics Philosophers out there, in this scenario, is the MM access a carrot to encourage posting more often, or is the removal of access to the MM a stick to force you to post?
Throwing myself into the meatgrinder, I've been a forum member for about 20 years, made over 14,000 posts in a short period, and went to great lengths to illustrate my posts. I could easily spend 30 minutes on just one single post, so I didn't just spam my way to 14k. It took me 20 mins to write just this one single post. Even though I am heading towards old age, I still love my PC hardware, so buy or sell something on the OcUK Members market at least once a year on average. I think I've had close to 100 transactions and never had a problem. Deffo has been a nice place to buy/sell decent-priced hardware for the past 20 years.
I can't meet the minimum requirements because I don't like to post anymore. I find some people's posts unnecessarily offensive, verging on potentially toxic behaviour which doesn't make nice reading. Even in this thread, I can see a few unmoderated individuals trying to provoke an emotional response, in a simple discussion about forum rules. This is a general internet problem really, and not aimed at OcUK forums being more toxic than the average web hangout.
I would argue that in my time, I was very active and I would like to think I made a meaningful contribution to the OcUK forums by helping beginners overclock their INTEL/AMD systems and also speccing them new builds using all OcUk parts. I always received plenty of thanks from the individuals I helped, which was enough, but the amount of unmoderated ad hominem thrown against me from others was unreal, even from the forum mods themselves, which eventually led me to quit posting.
We normally honour our veterans for their previous service, but here we see OcUK stripping them of any privilege they may have earned during their lifetime unless they return to active duty.
I hope you will consider removing this MM requirement to spam the forums once a certain amount of posts are made. I support changes that make the forums safer but I'm not seeing that in this example.
Apart from that, Happy New Year, I hope 2024 is a good one!
Soldato
I rarely use the MM, and I think this is a good idea. The members market is one section of this forum, a forum that only exists because a community builds content by actively participating. It's not right people can reap the benefits because others are doing the leg work. If the content wasn't here, the people wouldn't be here to advertise or buy products on the members market.
A place you can sell products without participating in the forum exists already in multiple forms: eBay, Gumtree and FB Marketplace to name a few.
It's really a non-issue, the requirements are so easy to fulfill.
A place you can sell products without participating in the forum exists already in multiple forms: eBay, Gumtree and FB Marketplace to name a few.
It's really a non-issue, the requirements are so easy to fulfill.
I think long term members have paid their dues in that regard.
Why not just close peoples account and delete their posts if they aren't of value if inactive for a while or theres a resourcing issue.
Soldato
Nothing has changed in regards to expectation as per Feek's opening post, the expectation was you remained an active part of the community after reaching the minimum post count to gain MM access. That includes long term members, and therefore no exception to the rule.
The only thing that has changed is now it's an automated system based on a prescribed number of posts and timeframe.
The only thing that has changed is now it's an automated system based on a prescribed number of posts and timeframe.
Soldato
The rule unfairly targets people that like to read threads and contribute when they feel necessary, which could be less than once a week.
Were long timers and/or people with overall large post counts considered to be excluded from this rule? They would have provided enough information over time to meet the original concen?
Were long timers and/or people with overall large post counts considered to be excluded from this rule? They would have provided enough information over time to meet the original concen?
Last edited:
Associate
When threads such as 'The random image thread' exist it just seems a pointless rule update. It's coming across as the rule has been put in place so that there would be more 'value added' type posts alas that will not necessarily be the result me thinks.
I'm a long time member and lurk much much much more than I post but as I've said in a previous response I will tow the line as rules are rules at the end of the day. I guess I am the type that doesn't like change when I think there's no real reason for it. I've been a member on here for 20 odd years and these forums have never been quiet in all of those years!
/2nd rant, heading back into the woodwork, there to stay now
I'm a long time member and lurk much much much more than I post but as I've said in a previous response I will tow the line as rules are rules at the end of the day. I guess I am the type that doesn't like change when I think there's no real reason for it. I've been a member on here for 20 odd years and these forums have never been quiet in all of those years!
/2nd rant, heading back into the woodwork, there to stay now
- Status