User with low posts is able to PM now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DPOSCORP

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 10, 2000
Messages
10,044
This user PM'd me to try and buy something from me.

jrobertson427

I was just curious if we still have a minimum amount of posts that had to be made before users can start PMing.
Or I am thinking of a different forum?
 
User has posted at least 100 messages & User has been registered for at least 30 days.
 
I updated my email and Now i am no longer able to PM people is it just a coincidence?
 
RoldanLT said:
User has posted at least 100 messages & User has been registered for at least 30 days.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up. I was going crazy trying to look for the conversation button.

Was that always the rule or did that just change yesterday? I ask because when I joined not too long ago and have like 10 post I was able to start a conversation with people.
 
So, I've also just lost the ability to start PM conversations. The only reference I can find to a minimum post requirement in the forum rules is here:

"(16) No BUYING, TRADING, or SELLING anywhere with the exception of the For Sale / Trade forum. The FS/T forum has its own set of specific rules and has a required 100 post minimum to participate. WARNING: Do not spam the forums to reach the required minimum, your posts will be deleted or your account banned. Please read their rules before posting in that forum. No PRICE CHECKS allowed except in General Mayhm. [H]ard|Forum is NOT RESPONSIBLE for any loss due to any sale or exchange of any item in the For Sale / Trade forum."

But that only applies to starting new threads in one specific subforum, it doesn't say anything about PMs. Is there another set of rules somewhere that states you can't send a PM until reaching a the 100 post count?
 
New software, new rules. Kyle is changing the rules to meet new situations and once completed, the written rules will catch up with the actuality of things.

I have also lost the ability to start conversations along with several of the Admins, making it difficult to contact members about unwritten rules being broken. :D
 
Please recheck MajorDomo
You should be able to start conversation now.
Sorry about that.
 
MajorDomo said:
New software, new rules. Kyle is changing the rules to meet new situations and once completed, the written rules will catch up with the actuality of things.

I have also lost the ability to start conversations along with several of the Admins, making it difficult to contact members about unwritten rules being broken. :D
Click to expand...
Fixed?
 
Thought it was just my tablet acting up when the button for pm's went missing. Glad to see I'm not crazy.
 
MajorDomo said:
New software, new rules. Kyle is changing the rules to meet new situations and once completed, the written rules will catch up with the actuality of things.

I have also lost the ability to start conversations along with several of the Admins, making it difficult to contact members about unwritten rules being broken. :D
Click to expand...

So... not to rock the boat or anything, but here's where I'm puzzled: As far as I can tell, the PM post requirement was 'fixed' by RoldanLT as a result of DPOSCORP's prompting in the original post of this thread... But if this is a new rule that Kyle is implementing and the written rules haven't been updated yet, then how would DPOSCORP know about it already? It seems more likely that DPOSCORP is actually thinking of another forum's rules (as he suggests may be the case in his OP) or possibly misremembered Rule 16, which disallows new members from posting in the FS/T forum. RoldanLT may have also been thinking of Rule 16 when he adjusted the PM permissions per DPOSCORP's complaint.

I suppose the other possibility is that Kyle does actually want to implement a new rule that restricts new users from sending PMs, and that just happened to coincide with DPOSCORP's complaint based on a misremembered rule? The odds of that seem like they'd be pretty slim though.

If this really is the way things are supposed to be going forward, then so be it. I just want to be sure this is an intentional change to policy, and not simply a mix-up.

Thanks in advance for any clarification!
 
Nothing has changed here, just some technical issues with our new forum software.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top