60 day rule

[sunnywest74]

Hello, I would just like to say thanks for not letting me in to your locked password area after I have posted over 10 times. Well I hope you guys had a great Christmas and Happy New Year. The 60 day rule I think sucks since it was a holiday season and I did not have time to post every single week. O well hope that you all have a great 2009 season and hope to crush you all at the tables, well I guess it wont be in your little forum since you have locked me out. I am not a poster, I am a poker player and I have met your rule by posting over 10 but guess thats not good enough, hope your little group has fun cause your just filtering out the players that dont post like every day, sorry I dont have time to bullshit, got money to win seeya, Sunnywest74.

[scrawnybob]

hi all

just to open with a "hint" before the supporters of the new 10 posts in last 60 days go overboard - or post negative response ...

sunnywest74's feedback is not alone view of the new 60 day 10 post rule

we have had several members leave, we also had a good deal more members who had been active without "encouragement" also comment that the rule isnt a good one and they wont be taking part as a result of the new rules

inevitably alot of "freeroll only" members have been unhappy with the new rules and more specifically the lack of freerolls in the new leagues - this was to be expected BUT

on the one hand the issue of freeroll password sharing needed to be addressed - hence buy-ins only for the leagues ... to keep the integrity of a credible league for members

however the purpose of the 60 posting rule was intended to encourage members to post more actively in the forum to qualify for the passwords and games ... AFAIKS for a variety of reasons this has not happened

I think many members feel this maybe a rule too far & in combination with the lack of freerolls - they are actually less inclined to post

suffice to say our rules are NOT written in stone - IF I can achieve leagues that are free or more free of passwords sharers via the buy-in only schedule then I could make the posting rules more flexible

Clearly there are issues and if the result is that otherwise active or semi active stop posting then this isnt remotely in the interests of the forum to enforce it

I will review it - but for those that passionately believe the new 60 day rule is good - please also consider that it may be having more or a negative than postive effect

Ive always said that personally I would rather members be as active or as in active as they like rather than being forced to post - IMHO the buy-in rule is probably more effective in cutting out sharing than the posting rule

most importantly we need to get posts and dicussions in the forum that people want to read and want to contribute to !

food for thought

cheers scrawnybob

[peaches]

i dont think the rule is bad at all i for one was quite frusterated with the pw thieves lsast season. And i agree on better quality posts i am going to try and add to that myself.

[scrawnybob]

hi

just to add Ive just looked at the posting numbers for this year 1st -18th Jan 2009 compared to same period in 2008

2009 - 752 posts

2008 - 1506 posts

Given that simple stat - that the actual number of posts for the same period is half that of a year ago - while it might be that there are less junk posts ... its also pretty obvious that there are just alot less posts

so the 60 day posting has had a detrimental effect on the forum not a positive one

All things considered it may be that the locked password area with a flat 10+ posting rule (ie. no 60 day limit) and the change to buy-ins only IS enough to stop the password sharing problems and having additional rule of 60 days is actually counter productive

I will sleep on it - and no doubt get alot of determined feedback on all sides - but it doesnt make sense to torpedo the forum if we get more posting freely than we do under duress - if that's how the majority feel

off to the pub and will look at it in the morning

cheers scrawnybob


PS. IMHO taking out the freerolls will solve the password sharing issues

it maybe that having taken out the freerolls people arent posting anyway - but I'm just getting the feeling we are trying to solve the password problem with two solutions - when one (no freerolls) would do the trick

and instead of the addition of 60 day posting rule encouraging more posting - its actually discouraging posting and involvement - and maybe isnt needed

PPS. For those that are passionate about the forum and those that have negative feedback ... I want to hear it ALL (politely and positively even if negative views)

IMHO there are TWO issues and they are NOT neccessary solved with use of both filters (no freerolls & increased posting requirements for passwords)

SO

for those who aren't posting ...

is it because the are currently no freerolls in the leagues ??

or because there is increased posting requirement generally putting off posting ??

bear in mind as previously outlined - I intended to put on some non league freerolls - that way they dont mess up the league integrity but also we still put on some freerolls

(possibly with zero posting requirements - so f**k wits dont make 10 cr*p posts I have to keep going through to delete / others have to read / report etc)

feedback ...

[kingjames07]

just to add Ive just looked at the posting numbers for this year 1st -18th Jan 2009 compared to same period in 2008

2009 - 752 posts

2008 - 1506 posts <<<< quote from bob


if it is possible bob for this same time pieriod can we get a stat on how many posts were made by people that joined spammed 10 posts and never posted again????....im just curious

[kingjames07]

i see you edited while i was posting bob....lol

so here it goes here is my feedback


i am a firm believer on the 10 posts in 60 days rule...there is no reason someone can't make 10 "quality" posts in 60 days only requires not even 2 posts per week...the only ones this rule will make mad are the ones that are here for passwords only

the lack of freerolls will only make the ones mad that are here for free money and care nothing about 4kingpoker


i luv the small buy ins with money added and will play in freerolls(not quite sure why i still do)...

the only thing i have seen so far with the new "10 in 60" rule is the members that have been members for a long time....that when they joined they made the required number of posts...only to never be heard from again...that when the new rule went into effect in december they reappeared only to make 10 posts in the first week of december and once again haven't been heard from since


P.S: i know you will do your best to make the right decision to make more of the members of 4king happy....i will respect your decision what ever it may be....sorry for babbling....lol

[mgb 63]

hello fellow 4kingers,have not been active on 4king,but had good reasons2008 sort of sucked 4 me had case of kidney stones,they were no fun,then i had to have left knee replaced,ouch this totally sucked and is very expensive,planning on getting back to work next month(feb8)HOPE ALL IS WELL WITH EVERYONE IN 2009,hope to see you on felts
mgb 63

[scrawnybob]

hi KJ

lol its not that specific BUT I have looked at the posting numbers (see below)

comparing this years period with last years - there is a distinct hole in 2009 of the above average regular posters now

ie. the ones that make a decent amount of posts (with some influence of the posting jackpot probably) at the top end of the scale - are lower than Jan 2008

Ive rechecked the dates - 1st Jan - 16th Jan bear in mind the password posting requirement I think would have probably been 5 in 2008

2008 total 1209
2009 total 701

yep there was (predicabily) a bit of a lump of 5 posters in 2008 but afaiks in 2008 there is more sub 5 posters (the requirement) and more above 5 (excluding exactly 5) posters as well

more specifically there were 50 members in 2009 making a single post and only 34 this year making a single post

at the top of the posting obviously it comes down to fewer members having a much bigger effect on the post count - but we had 6 posters making over 30 posts in Jan 2008 in 2009 we have 1 (me)

I'm not sure how much we can draw from it but

my main concern is that we / I am in danger of using two sledge hammers to crack a nut
instead of just one or maybe even a smaller hammer ;-)

The last thing I want is crappy feedback and image / rep that we are a bunch of rule freaks and its a forum that doesnt allow fun or freedom to just post - its got to be a balance between protecting the leagues from password abusers while also being an open for all forum

simply the vast majority of poker players arent even in a forum - if we then put off the 5-10% that are interested in being in a forum because to the casual reader / occasional poster we are rule crazy - then the forum will not grow and they'll be less posting and that becomes a downward spiral

the other issue is that IF freerolls were on offer with our new posting requirement of every 60 days - from looking at what happened during the last season - the bad posters who want to get the freeroll password WILL post 10 more boardline posts to get it ...

That in itself is exactly what we want to avoid

this is why I think the buy-in only league with zero freerolls IS what is reducing the password problem

having the additional 60 day 10+ posting requirement IMHO is not helping but potentially hindering - reducing natural posts - while if we put freerolls back in it would become posting carnage again

therefore we DONT need the 60 day posting rule - if we stick to buy-in only for the leagues
and I stick in some occasional non league freerolls without posting requirements or something

there seems little point

a) in forcing people to post if the buy-in games dont get crashed

b) in getting tonnes of junk posts to fill the requirement if we ran freerolls

c) if by making a rule it results in less good posting and not an incentive to post for the passwords - but an irritation that turns members off the forum entirely ... and that IMHO IS what is happening


just a thought

cheers scrawnybob

[LombardiStix]

It almost feels like the freerolls should be the only thing protected under the 60 day rule. Since the freerolls are the ones in danger of being pw-shared. I'm all for whatever you must do to keep traffic on the site, I will just stick to the buy-ins (this is not a complaint, because I prefer buy-ins anyway). I just want to know how we can attract and promote playing with purpose... Meaning the forum really acts as a sharing place for discussions on the games we have not just (Can you belive this piece of shit who pushed me all in with 27 off?) And maybe my expectations are too high. Maybe most players don't see this as necessary or helpful. (Maybe thats why most players...) Well anyway, my 2 cents.

Stix

[derringer007]

What ever you decide is fine with me scrawnybob, after all its your forum to do as you see fit for the best and integrity of the forum and i respect that. IMHO if a member cant make 10 quality posts in 60 days to get in the locked PW vault is just plain pitiful. (BOO-HOO Cry Me A River) I hope you keep the TPT & TOC all buy-ins for the foreseeable future to keep the TPT & TOC leagues honest. I agree with Stix that the FRs were the PW sharing problem. The free-rollers never posted anyway and just played for free to win the money you (SB) add to the payouts. (My 2 cents.)