"Raise the Standard" Coalition

[7,052,770]

I dont.  50 posts isn't too hard to get.
All this does really is punish knowledgeable lurkers.

[Colin]

Well it would help. Only if we wanted to interview each and every person and give a registration/citizenship test, both of which I consider unexceptable, this is the only way to try and prevent tomatosoupping.

[7,052,770]

there is no effective way to prevent tomatosouping....One can get 50 posts in less than an hour, so it's not going to stop much.  However, raising the limit does disenfranchise educated lurkers.

[Colin]

there is no effective way to prevent tomatosouping....One can get 50 posts in less than an hour, so it's not going to stop much.  However, raising the limit does disenfranchise educated lurkers.

Their aren't many of them. Matt is the one that was said earlier and he has 46 posts if he just got 4 more through 4 random posts then he would be fine. These random lurkers could just get to 50 and then stay around and vote and read. It wouldn't be much different then having it at 18 except 50 posts takes longer to get and would lead to better informed voters. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Harry, Speaking of lurkers... say "hi" to KatieG for us.

[Platypus]

:S

[Jake]

BUMP

We need to throw some support behind StevenNick's bill in the senate. It will drastically improve the voting situation.

[minionofmidas]

Harry, Speaking of lurkers... say "hi" to KatieG for us.

No. I don't want to see Harry start speaking to himself.

[Nym90]

Actually, there is a way to determine if someone is lurking. If you go to someone's profile, you can go to a section with statistics for that member, and it shows how many total days/hours/minutes they have spent logged into the Forum. There could be a minimum requirement for time rather than posts, but this would be harder for the SOFA to enforce, as well.

However, for those who log in a lot, but don't post much, this would not exclude them from voting.

[minionofmidas]

Actually, there is a way to determine if someone is lurking. If you go to someone's profile, you can go to a section with statistics for that member, and it shows how many total days/hours/minutes they have spent logged into the Forum. There could be a minimum requirement for time rather than posts, but this would be harder for the SOFA to enforce, as well.

However, for those who log in a lot, but don't post much, this would not exclude them from voting.

...although I don't have to be logged in to read. In fact, I sometimes do just that.

[Nym90]

Actually, there is a way to determine if someone is lurking. If you go to someone's profile, you can go to a section with statistics for that member, and it shows how many total days/hours/minutes they have spent logged into the Forum. There could be a minimum requirement for time rather than posts, but this would be harder for the SOFA to enforce, as well.

However, for those who log in a lot, but don't post much, this would not exclude them from voting.

...although I don't have to be logged in to read. In fact, I sometimes do just that.

True, it still wouldn't account for folks who like to browse as guests. It's still not perfect.