Creation of new threads restricted to 1/person/day in OT

[MarkG]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by DanS on 06-14-2000 03:37 PM</font>
Points of clarification, please...

(1) If you post an on-topic topic, are you then forbidden to post an off-topic topic in the time period? Can you say that quickly ten times?

(2) If you post an off-topic topic, are you then forbidden to post an on-topic topic during the same time period?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>the restriction is only in the OT. you can post 100(to get the meaning) in the on topics forums if you like, but you can post 1 in the OT
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>(3) Are moderators also forbidden to post more than once in the same time period?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>no.
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>MarkG: why not create an ad hoc rule, rather than an automated one? Ming seems to think it would be more "efficient" for the mods in the long run.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>it seems that decisions made by people sometimes tend to create even more fuss than the actual problem was in the first place. when possible, and when it's right, an automated rule works better imho
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Also, I "sort of" call into question your intent. If attacks were the posts to be guarded against, then you would institute the rule forum-wide. But you aren't doing this, which leads me to believe that you are trying to regulate the content.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>how exactly do I regulate content? Such a restriction is not made on the on-topic forums, as they have no spam problems.
images are also enable in the on-topic forum cause there have be no mis-use of the ability to post. see where I'm going?
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Believe me, there are better, positive ways to increase the quality of OT.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>post them please

[Cthol]

now when the OT is censored, the spam artists will move to apolyton forum.


i think the 1 hour/per thread idea is good, but who cares what i think?

[MarkG]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by CapTVK on 06-14-2000 03:15 PM</font>
In the 2nd case I would take their complaints into consideration and try to promote self-regulation. And self-regulation works best when there are a FEW but CLEAR rules, not a bunch of "thou shalt not..." commandments.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>1) how do you promote self-regulation? I'm very interested...
2) what exactly is not clear in our rules?

btw, I have yet to hear from someone who was affected by this decision

[Cthol]

HEY! let's make a 1 post/per day, yes post = NO SPAM! many DL's though.

[MarkG]

btw, people, did you see what BD posted?
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>2 posts/ 2 hours
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
see? want to go to something like that?!?

[Cthol]

i seems that markos has spammed in this thread, every third post is posted by markos. hhmmmm......

if you wanna spam go to the OT!

PS. the angry face is there because of the new rule.

[TCO]

My primary objection is MTG's. In the good threads (ROland/Stenish/MTG threads), we often need to start another topic becuase of the complexity of the issues. It's too hard to coordinate that. The posters in those threads should have the power to do that.

I think you should just stop pussyfooting around with the discipline. If somebody disrupts the community, just ask them once to stop. If they don't, ban them permanently. no loss to get rid of people who don't care about the community or who are still wrapped up in rebeling against "Daddy". Keep a controlled access list and it should be no problem. probably only have 300 or so actual users.

and while we're at it, bring back the branching threads.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by MarkG on 06-14-2000 04:31 PM</font>
btw, people, did you see what BD posted?

2 posts/ 2 hours
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
see? want to go to something like that?!?

This sites not that good MarkG. Not for that kinda post.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I agree completely with GP. Thats the way things should be run. And just where is DanQ?! He's always going 'what about me guys!! I'm co-owner you know... blah blah blah'. Did he have any say in this or is this just MarkG going crazy all on his own.

[MarkG]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by GP on 06-14-2000 05:03 PM</font>
The posters in those threads should have the power to do that.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>it remains to be seen if this decision causes problems in these cases...
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>I think you should just stop pussyfooting around with the discipline. If somebody disrupts the community, just ask them once to stop. If they don't, ban them permanently.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>unfortunately for what you suggest, it took 5-6 bannings of someone in order to be accepted by the grand majority of this forum that he should be permanently banned(RainbowJDS)

[rah]

I agree that something is needed.
1 a day is probably excessive.
1 every two hours should be enough to stop most of the spam and Ming and ML can handle the people that push that limit.

Gutsy stand Mark, Bravo

Anything to make people think before starting a thread. Opps forgot this was about OT.

RAH

I start a handful of threads a month at most and most of them are on-topic.

[WarVoid]

MUST... KILL... RAH...

Anyways, this is ridiculous.
I know i've done it but most of the veteran spammers have left since Black Saturday. Spam is not really an issue anymore.

Unless you consider the Coffee Shop.

I say 1 new thread every hour. No less.

[Alexander's Horse]

This is really stupid.

I post maybe 2 or 3 threads per day when I find something interesting and want to share it with my FRIENDS there. Took about overreaction to a few spammers

And how are you morons going to work out what is a day? My day is not your day. In fact, I wouldn't know what day it was on Apolyton since I'm a day and some hours ahead of you. Do you expect me to work it out?

WHY DON'T YOU JUST USE YOUR COMMON SENSE ON THREAD NUMBERS LIKE YOU DO NOW!!

Idiots.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 14, 2000).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 14, 2000).]</font>

[benedetti]

Add another dissenting voice MarkG. I am probably the fourth oldest logon at Apolyton (after you, Dan and Ming). In all of this time I may have started 20-30 threads at best, and practically all of them in On-Topic. Therefore you can see that this rule does not affect me at all. From my totally objective point of view, I fail to see the logic behind your decision. Please reconsider it.

GP's solution appears to be a very good one. Just warn the spammer and if he/she persists in his/her idiocy, just ban him. And as Ming would say, case closed!

[Alexander's Horse]

I agree with my friend Benedetti. And I am not against sensible restrictions to stop spammers. But this is idiotic.