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

[MarkG]

two more notes:

1) the creation of "los bastardos" kind of threads do not help in the change of this decision quite the opposite...

2) please clarify if you're totally against any limit, or if you're just considering it to be too much

[penii]

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

[Gary]

Very nice

Does OT stand for Off Thread these days ? Seems like it on the Off Topic forum.

[Gary]

1) protect the forum from organized spam attacks
Will fail unless you can prevent double log-ins.

2) protect the forum from "God, I'm bored, let's start 20 threads to see if I get banned" incidents
Will have problems for the same reason as i) above, although maybe folk won't be bored enough to look for a vacation.

3) possibly lower the number of totally idiotic threads(that remains to be seen )
Can't see it, as I said in my first post (on page 1).

4) give more room on page 1 for more people (e.g. avoid "Page 1: the kingdom of Nimrod" effects)
OK but was this important anyway. One can always look on page two. If the users want a particular type of thread, they will create them anyway. Besides how will you encourage more people onto page 1 if you have alienated them all ?

5) take away some of the work the moderators have to do to control spammers
Wishful thinking I suspect.

Your call, but I think you are in danger of reducing the value of your product to your customers.


PS Since you ask, I don't see valid reason for any limit, but if you want to have one, then you ought to make it at least large enough not to interfere with normal legitimate activity. I said in my first post that 5 was the minimum I think reasonable (although I favour no limit). Five minimises the problems a single disgruntled, or bored, individual can do (DLs excepted) but is probably sufficient for all but the most prolific responsible poster. And I don't see that there is a happy medium WRT restricting for reasons other than spam attacks. Just an unhappy one.


PPS may not be back to read further unless the "delay" is removed.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Gary (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

[Provost Harrison]

Have a little more faith in your mods MarkG. This thread matter has never, ever been a serious problem, certainly not one the mods couldn't handle. It is too restrictive, and totally unnecessary. Or is this just a further clampdown on OT. You seem to have self-justified them as an easy target, and practice such with great impunity.

[Makeo]

I haven't read any of this thread, but i have to register my STRONG dissaproval of this idea.

It sounds like a good way to kill the OT. This coming from someone who usually starts a thread once every two weeks or so.

[Jesus Egg that Wept]

I disagree strongly with this discriminatory restriction being placed on off-topic. If it is such a great idea then you should place it equally on all of the forums.

Even better, make it so that you can strart one thread only on Apolyton (all forums) in one day.

If you want to kill your site, you might as well do it properly.

[MOBIUS]

WOW! 126(7) posts in less than 24hrs!!!

Is that some kind of record!!!

The PEOPLE have spoken - give them what they want!!!

[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 Provost Harrison on 06-15-2000 05:23 AM</font>
Have a little more faith in your mods MarkG. This thread matter has never, ever been a serious problem, certainly not one the mods couldn't handle. It is too restrictive, and totally unnecessary.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>yeah, it's unneccessary! we have those idio.. eeerr. good people, the mods, who can do the job better...


JETW,
<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 disagree strongly with this discriminatory restriction being placed on off-topic. If it is such a great idea then you should place it equally on all of the forums.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>we dont put restrictions to forums which dont have a problem

Mobius, half(ok, perhaps 1/3) of the posts are mine
beyond that, I'm sure it's not a record...

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

[hydey]

Bad move which will result in more crap posted in on topic subjects. You should just control the spam by closing threads but not restricting others who have important questions they would like answers too

[MarkG]

hydey, I liked the "just" part...

btw, I'm still waiting for actual cases(not theoretical guesses) of people who where affected by this decision. So, far I had two mails from people who lost their "thread of the day" by starting a thread on a topic for which a thread already existed. Tell me if their choice makes sense to you...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

[Alexander's Horse]

Where is EVC when you need him?

*OT suicide squad jogs up to MarkG, garrot themselves with shoe laces*

[OldWarrior_42]

You dont put restrictions on forums that dont have a problem,but by restricting priveleges here...you create the potential to drive disrupters to the other forums to get their satisfaction.

For the record,I have been registered and reading here for over a year.I have created less topics than anyone here...2...That is about the sum total of threads I have ever created here.I also still have only a handful of posts.But I read an awful lot.

You are already driving many of your good posters away.And will be hindering the time spent here by readers.If the threads become so long,due to limiting them to one thread,then they will become excessive in loading time and people will spend less and less time here,either reading or posting.

Some answers to points you made.... <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>) protect the forum from organized spam attacks
2) protect the forum from "god, I'm bored, let's start 20 threads to see if I get banned" incidents
3) possibly lower the number of totally idiotic threads(that remains to be seen )
4) give more room on page 1 for more people(e.g. avoid "Page 1: the kingdom of nimrod" effects )
4) take away some of the work the moderators have to do to control spammers
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

1)You will not protect the forum from "organized spam attacks".Organized groups usually have a plan or course of action that is already capable of circumventing rules.It is why they are considered"organized" in the first place.You will maybe limit the nonsense spammers of bored fools but this can be circumvented as well.
2)As I said,you may limit them but you will not stop them if they are determined.They can create d/l's or just spam other forums.You then create the need to spend more time moderating your other forums for the spammers will go where they can spam.This will not happen overnight....but mark my words...it will eventually creep in.At least you have it relegated to this forum only at this time.But your rule will change that.
3)Maybe,maybe not.Many serious posters might not bother to check here that often or as much as before and they will only bother with their thread.Also by limiting the good posters,you limit the good threads as well.It goes hand in hand.You will lower the percentages of both types of threads,and probably therefore keeping the status quo between intelligent and goofy threads.
Anyway,as MtG states,whats wrong with mindless threads? They are a good way to relieve stress.You will only proceed to drive more people to ACOL(Thanks... )
4)Good point....but who cares? Use the freakin next page button to get what you want.If it's not on page 1,do you leave? Thats even lazier than the accusation raised against you about not wanting to do anything to moderate this place manually...back in the beginning of this thread..someone called you lazy.So thats silly but worrying about where topics are,and the fact that they aren't on page 1 is even sillier.Use the function of next page as it was designed.
So in other words,if people complain about their topics falling off of page 1 so quickly,and that is one of your reasons for instituting this rule...I say bah to them.The lazy sods.:P~~~~~~~~
And it's 5) not a second 4).. The moderators themselves have already stated that it is not a problem as you make it out to be.They call it excessive.Do you not listen to the thoughts of your employees?(or whatever you want to call them).

All in all,I could care less about the rule.I just thought I would provide some more insight and info as to the impact of your decision.Since it is obviously what you are asking for.Good luck with this excessive ruling.It could be the start of an exodus or lead to utopia.We shall see.

[Graag]

A couple of questions for you, Markos:

1. What is the purpose of the OT?

2. Did you introduce the thread restriction soley to make the moderator's (Ming and Mleonard) job easier?

3. Did either Ming or MLeonard ask for any measures to be taken to make their job easier?

4. If, in time, the new restriction adversely affectes the OT, will you be willing to remove it?

[Alexander's Horse]

*OT monk walks up to MarkG, douses himself in petrol, holds out lighter*