posting

[andybracing]

ive checked in on this site from time to time for probably 30 years ish, even wrote an article , at the request of whoever was running this site at the time, on my experiance as a race engineer, however its not some thing i do everyday, but, tried to post a reply to something , in the forum, and i had a genuine insite to the question asked, however, was denied, as i hadnt posted the required amount, so it would seem that only people who post all the time with often usless stuff, get to post, when people with a real insite cant, very odd

[BertieWooster]

If you are trying to post in the News, Politics and Economics sub-forum then the requirements are that you need a minimum of 1,000 posts and 12+ months as a member before you can post. See here: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[Alex Z]

The post count requirement does seem very high. I’m more of a reader than a high volume poster, but am definitely capable of intelligent discussion about current affairs, and won’t be allowed to engage for a long time yet.

[Acorn1]

I agree, I have had some interesting and valid information to add to some of the discussions, however as a newbie I am unable to.

I can't imagine what's gone on in the past for such draconian rules on what is after all a general discussion forum with an emphasis on cars.

[rigga]

Acorn1 said:

I can't imagine what's gone on in the past for such draconian rules on what is after all a general discussion forum with an emphasis on cars.

That's the issue, pistonheads now is a far ranging discussion board, compared to the early days, much is light hearted and informative, parts are divisive and down right nasty at times , banned returning posters kept fanning the fires, unable to stop them returning, the option taken was to limit their postings in the way that's been implemented.

It's not perfect, nothing is, but something had to be done , their website,their rules unfortunately.

[jeremyc]

Acorn1 said:

I can't imagine what's gone on in the past for such draconian rules on what is after all a general discussion forum with an emphasis on cars.

PistonHeads is first and foremost a motoring community; the forums should be focused on cars, bikes and motoring matters. Side discussions on other matters are tolerated, but are not the prime focus of the site.

I see this measure as a means to get the forums back on track with this primary focus for the community.

[Sheepshanks]

jeremyc said:

istonHeads is first and foremost a motoring community; the forums should be focused on cars, bikes and motoring matters. Side discussions on other matters are tolerated, but are not the prime focus of the site.

It baffles me why members bother with the more contentious sub-forums, other than wanting to pop in now and again and run around letting off steam.

[bigandclever]

andybracing said:

ive checked in on this site from time to time for probably 30 years ish

Very 'ish'

[Acorn1]

jeremyc said:

Acorn1 said:

I can't imagine what's gone on in the past for such draconian rules on what is after all a general discussion forum with an emphasis on cars.

PistonHeads is first and foremost a motoring community; the forums should be focused on cars, bikes and motoring matters. Side discussions on other matters are tolerated, but are not the prime focus of the site.

I see this measure as a means to get the forums back on track with this primary focus for the community.

Side discussions are tolerated?

There's whole sections dedicated to subjects other than cars, bikes and motoring?

[Alex Z]

The site owners would get much more engagement if they bothered to upgrade the forum to use a less antiquated platform, but there’s zero chance of that happening either.