Feedback: ISO:FT posting privileges

Yeah, ideally I'd like to see more posts as well, the problem is (as someone said above) if someone just wants to see it as a bar to clear then they'll just post stupid/useless things (like in the "what are you drinking?" threads, that doesn't really add meaningfully to BA).

I think that what we're running up against is that it's basically impossible to design rules that make people learn the norms of a community. The only way to do it is to have the community self-police and make sure that violators of the norms are punished (in whatever way). Adding rules may increase the odds of a given person learning the norms without needing to be punished at any point, but can't guarantee it. So you need to balance the rules' ability to turn people away with their ability to facilitate learning/adoption of the norms.

I don't know what the best way is. But I do know that having the ability to shame people who violate the norms is useful. Then again, we seem to be past the point where there's wide agreement that shaming is good, so in some sense our norms are changing/falling apart (depending on your perspective).

Is this what old people felt like in the 60's?

 

I have been a BA user for years but have not been very active in the forum. I have done a number of successful trades and suddenly I cannot post. I visit the webpage very often but I am just not that into posting my thoughts online. So I guess I feel that the guidelines are a bit strict. I definitely feel there should be a waiting period though. It seems like asking for trouble if people can suddenly join and start posting right away.

 

I really liked the way that the minimum karma limit for posting in the old forum allowed for multiple avenues for being involved in BA in order to qualify to post in ISO:FT. Until that's possible again, the current barrier to entry seems fine to me--it's short enough to not be discouraging to most new users who are genuinely interested in being involved (a few more posts would probably be okay, too), and the fact that it exists at all will weed out a solid percentage of those who are not.

 

As someone who has only been here for 5 months, I think 30-45 days seems right. 5-10 quality posts probably matters more than time. 60-90 seems far too long.

Really, everyone should be encouraged to participate in a LIF. You can get a great sense of a person's personality and if you can dick someone over after another person has offered to potentially send you free beer, you clearly have no soul.

 

I'm not sure that any sort of days/posts requirement would have the desired results; to me it seems like someone would crank out their posts the day that they join and then just not even log in for the next ___ days, then try to land a trade.

The smartass in me says we need a standardized-beer-trading-test that people would have to pass so that there is some sort of "proof" that they understand the concept that shelf locals won't land an Izzy..

 

And I can post again! I guess the requirements are not that tough. I was able to make a few thoughtful posts and had posting privileges in a few hours. It is a tough thing to monitor, this beer trading, and I suspect it will only get more difficult as craft beer's popularity increases. Anyway, thanks for getting my posting abilities back!

 

Is there a way to measure activity beyond the number of posts metric? If I'm out to cheat someone in a trade, a waiting period doesn't really bother me much. Create an account, put a note on the calendar, and come back in 30/60/90 days. Even the minimum posts requirement isn't too bad. In 15 minutes I can create 3/5/15/50 posts (okay, 50 may be tough) right after I've created my account, disappear for a while, and then post an ISO/FT. It seems like there needs to be a measure activity. Who would you rather trade with:
A) Someone who has been on the board for only 30 days, posted just a couple real posts, but was on the site each and ever day
B) Someone who registered, made a couple smart-a$$ remarks, then checked his BA account twice in the past 60 days before making a trade.

If we're concerned about protecting the trading community and raising the bar for a thief from cheating someone in a trade, then the only real way is to increase the amount of personal investment (ie, their time) they have to make in the site before they are allowed to post. It doesn't seem to be that the 30-day and 3-post rule really does that. I don't have enough web server experience to know if it's possible, but understanding how much time they spent on the site and using some metric derived from that would seem like a better way.

 

I think the waiting period not only protects from new traders jumping in too quickly, but also from active bad traders from just creating a new account and continuing to burn people. They could either a) rejoin here with a new name, and wait a month or more, or b) join rb, and continue ripping people off from day 1. Most con-artists will move onto the easy job. Think of a car alarm. It isn't really going to stop anybody from stealing your car, but it would be a lot easier to just steal the one without it...

 

Being relatively new I think the idea has been hit on the head a few times now. I love everything BA has to offer but also have a ton of other real responsibilities that limit the amount of time I can dedicate to things like BA. As such, I do a lot of reading and not a ton of posting as I don't often have the time. I don't really see the need to limit access to the trading forum when traders can be protected from newbies like me by making me ship first and just having a conversations. However, since I am new and my kind isn't appreciated I'm sure my opinions carry no weight.

 

Why does three posts in thirty days seem like too great of a barrier to you? This is an honest question, not an attack, because this really doesn't seem like a significant output of time to me, and there are a lot of advantages to having some minor hoops, as discussed in previous posts in this thread.
The activity threshold for being able to post in ISO:FT was much higher when I joined BA, and it didn't make me feel like a second-class citizen, just a new one who hadn't yet put in my dues in terms of activity. I did (and still tend to) respond to trade posts rather than making my own, but there was still a clear message to check things out and contribute before diving in.

 

I just don't understand at all how trading with individuals is at all related to how often an individual posts. To me it just seems odd that I should need to have an opinion worth sharing (as opposed to just posting random stuff) 3 times just to have the privilege of trading. I'm not even that interested in trading but every now and then it would be nice to just randomly post an ISO:FT. I use BA as much more of a resource of knowledge from people who know a heck of a lot more than me. I may have an item or two to share but in general I highly doubt many people would look to me as an expert or even care my thoughts on most topics. To me it just seems odd to tie them together. I get the intent but the idea of treating adults like children just rubs me the wrong way I guess.

 

I think its a good middleground. The previous active for 30 days was too strict though when potentially just going on vacation or not signing on for a few months could make an established member have to wait 30 days to post on there. Please don't go back to that format.

 

1. 30 days is fine- if a user wants to learn they will, but making them wait out another 30 or 60 days doesn't guarantee anything but a more frustrated new user

2. Maybe more posts? 10? not too-high of a threshold, but still.

3. Can you make it so they can't post in ISO/FT until they post at least once in the trading help forum?

 

makes insta-registered troll accounts much harder.

 

Are those really all that prevalent? So much so that a little modding can't nip them in the bud?

I'm just not understanding why people are making such a fuss over this when I don't see how you can get burned by a bad trader unless you don't do your due diligence.

 

I don't think this is about preventing any one bad trader, I think it's about finding ways to improve the overall quality and attitude of the community. Having some small barriers to entry sends a message to new folks wanting to get involved with trading that some minor level of involvement/investment in the community is generally desired, both by the site owners and the community. It encourages people to consider checking out and participating in other parts of the site, or if all they want to do is trade and never post, they have to actually read some ISO:FT posts by others (which is honestly still my preferred trading method when I'm not working with established partners) and also figure out how to send a BM in the first place.
I'm obviously not a prolific poster (I think Stu posts more than enough for the two of us), and I'm not trying to say that anyone else needs to be, but requesting a tiny bit of investment from users before posting in iso:ft seems to me like it will be positive for everyone.

 

I just feel like none of that is necessary if the community itself just polices things accordingly. A new user would get the message pretty quick if no one trades with him/her because they're either posting ridiculous ISO:FTs or haven't shown a level of involvement that a potential trading partner would like to see. A few bad apples etc.

Ultimately the community needs to take responsibility for itself if it wants to see things run a certain way. I know this site is not exactly democracy in its purest form, but the users should be willing to establish the type of community everyone is clamoring for.

 

I think this is an excellent rule for new members....however, as someone who has been trading successfully for a while, and I think its unnecessary to impose this on frequent users...

(this is post #1)

 

Well, let's just break this down.
No waiting period equals all feel welcome, no one required to learn the ropes.
Some people will come to the site not to participate but just to make trades right away.
Forcing people to wait and post may
-cause some to not want to be a part of the site
-just cause the ones who are only interested in immediate gratification to post phony mssg.'s

We need to decide if we want to have a trading forum with folks who come in with a modicum of experience gained from waiting and observing, or if we are concerned that those who come to the site and find that there is a waiting period for trading will choose not to join the site for this reason.

My feeling is that those who would be so impatient as to leave are
-a tiny, tiny percentage, perhaps a nonexistent amount, of total potential members
-not those likely to be productive members of the site anyway

I feel having a trading forum of those who have at least some clue is important. To me this is the core issue of value, and if there should be discussion let's discuss if it is important or not to have traders with a clue.

My vote goes to waiting period and minimum post, as I think the arguments against are spurious.