RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 1:56 pm by Nine.)
(February 22, 2015 at 1:41 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I'd agree with this. Maybe not a 30/30, but a 300/30/30, so 300 posts OR 30 posts and 30 days?
So this would allow newer members that have been really active to come out of the restriction earlier than 30 days, but also keep people who made one post a year ago from spamming.
Exactly.
(February 22, 2015 at 1:42 pm)404NotFound Wrote: The old-timers earned the right not to have the threads jammed with passersby bullshit. If someone is serious about becoming a long-term contributor, 30/30 is an easy hurdle to clear.
Thats already in the rules though. People can just jump in and advertise but if they came in and used a link as evidence to a point they are making no problem. The 30/30 is irrelevant to jumping into 'older members' threads.
Also the 30/30 depends on how much you post. Its not actually that big a deal with the rule but if you blanket ban links for 30/30 then somebody with 300 or 400 posts would still be unable to join in a lot of threads despite really getting involved.
(February 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Sorry guys. Someone starting a thread about the rules doesn't mean they're debatable. The 30/30 rule is there for a reason, and while it's imperfect, I stand behind it as is. Sometimes I wish we could give regular members a sort-of ride-along like the cops do so people could understand exactly what it's like to be in green or red.
But we can still talk about if we think they are right or wrong surely?
I do think you lot are awesome for taking your own time up moderating this place to keep everything smooth. We should still be able to discuss if we think something is wrong and maybe harmful to the community we have here.
