But neither of those contribute to the discussion. There's no contribution to the forum collective when you don't take part and share opinions/ideas/thoughts.
Post count based ranking is exactly that, if you're merely an observer why would any rank appeal to you? Membership would suffice for lurking.
Unless if your primary reason for the membership is the marketplace, but then that would negate everything you've said in protest of forums being a refuge for hobbyists.
If everyone ended up with a post count like yours, we'd be just uncles sitting in a circle, sipping tea and occasionally grunting while avoiding eye contact.
This is a weird argument.
You know, if post count matters for marketplace and one was eligible on the past criteria then shifting that goal post is a bad play. This ratcheting mechanism is unfair.
My argument was about that alone. The rest were questions to the mods about what their end goals, for which I hypothesised possible answers. It baffles me that the core of the discussion is lost to peripheral arguments. I will request you to stick to the core.
Coming to the peripheral arguments which you keep on using to vilify me as some sort of a hypocrite. My protest was to changing standards putting infrequent seasoned members to the status of newbies. My argument was about post facto treatment. If you read my posts again, you will find, I came to know of this limitation only when I was posting about laptop recommendations. If post requirement was to encourage forum participation, any reasonable person will find this measure self-defeating.
What I also find a difficult to digest proposition is that I wanting to participate in marketplace is a bad idea. You participate too. So, what’s the problem with I, who has positively concluded more trades than many patrons and other members: including some mods wanting the access and reputation which I earned back?
It appears for some the argument is not on how to make forum more accessible and inclusive but how to gate-keep and feel exclusive, including to throw other members under the bus using a shifting goal post. Shy members be damned. If they say anything, claim they are not a good member to the forum.
If marketplace is such a bad place where those who had access, had reputation and had their access revoked is a good thing then get rid of marketplace altogether. If it is the part of the forum then those who had access and reputation should mean something on this forum as a whole.
Even now this argument is happening on an unequal plane. I post something it takes upto 24 or more hours to be approved by the mods. You get to have an express say, I have to wait, even though I have been around way longer. And We are not even in the marketplace.
And if the post threshold is to limit marketplace access to prevent fraud then I don’t understand why this restriction is imposed on the general forum. Forget about the shifting goal posts.
To summarise:
1. Shifting goal post is unfair. Rules should be post facto, else in between game rules can be changed which is a bad play.
2. Older members should have the rights they had before the new rules were imposed.
3. Shyness should not be weaponised against the shy. You may be vocal, good for you. Don’t force it on the other members. Diversity is the essence of this community.
4. Marketplace restrictions should apply only to the marketplace.
