Limited Membership

[Shawn Gossman]

Do you think a "limited membership" strategy would work to get members active on a forum?

So, basically when a new member joins, they're put in a "Limited membership" group. They can only do certain things, but they don't get access to things like signatures, promotion forums, etc.

In order to get access, they have to be active and gain a certain number of posts and be on the forum for a certain amount of time. Then they have to maintain the activity in order to keep the better member group.

Kind of like gamification in a way.

What do you all think?

 

[Uncrowned Guard]

I can see the appeal of a limited‑membership system, but I feel like it would end up being more confusing and frustrating than beneficial for most casual users. If features start disappearing because someone hasn’t logged in for a while, they’re probably just going to come back a month later and wonder why certain buttons are suddenly greyed out. That kind of friction tends to push people away rather than motivate them.

I do use a lighter version of this idea on my own forums, but mainly as an anti‑spam measure rather than a long‑term activity requirement. New members get placed into a starter group and need to make around 10 posts before they’re moved into the main group. The only real restriction is that they can’t send private messages to non‑staff until they’ve proven they’re not a spam account. It’s simple, predictable, and doesn’t punish legitimate members for being inactive.

Gamification can work, but once it starts removing features people expect to have, it often backfires. A small, clear onboarding restriction or adding features as users gain posts is one thing; constantly shifting permissions based on activity is another.