Announcement

**Provost Harrison** · June 15, 2000, 08:09

Look MarkG, I'm trying to be sensible about this. I have posted three meaningful threads in a day, and then not posted for weeks. There have only been two incidences where this has happened (Black Saturday and EvC in a strop). But that is it! An off-topic forum is, by definition, going to encompass everything apart from Civ. So it is going to be bigger by necessity. But this is neither helpful nor will it solve the problem of spam threads. A lot of people will just use dl's and then cause more of a headache than the original problem.

You are going to have to make up your mind one way or another whether you want the off-topic, rather than pissing people off one by one so they leave. But we do make a significant base in the website. I post to other forums on this website, but none of which are as lively. I urge rationality, that is all. Ming and MLeonard do a fine job of retaining control. You really shouldn't undermine their authority (your decision, I know, but pride comes before a fall)

**Alexander's Horse** · June 15, 2000, 08:10

<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 Graag on 06-15-2000 08:05 AM</font>
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?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

5. Where were you, relative to the grassy knoll, when Kennedy was assasinated?

**Graag** · June 15, 2000, 08:11

A tad extreame, AH?

**Provost Harrison** · June 15, 2000, 08:14

Look MarkG, I'm trying to be sensible about this. I have posted three meaningful threads in a day, and then not posted for weeks. There have only been two incidences where this has happened (Black Saturday and EvC in a strop). But that is it! An off-topic forum is, by definition, going to encompass everything apart from Civ. So it is going to be bigger by necessity. But this is neither helpful nor will it solve the problem of spam threads. A lot of people will just use dl's and then cause more of a headache than the original problem.

You are going to have to make up your mind one way or another whether you want the off-topic, rather than pissing people off one by one so they leave. But we do make a significant base in the website. I post to other forums on this website, but none of which are as lively. I urge rationality, that is all. Ming and MLeonard do a fine job of retaining control. You really shouldn't undermine their authority (your decision, I know, but pride comes before a fall)

**Graag** · June 15, 2000, 08:23

I agree and second pretty much every word of Provost's post.

**MarkG** · June 15, 2000, 08:27

<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 OldWarrior_42 on 06-15-2000 08:04 AM</font>
you create the potential to drive disrupters to the other forums to get their satisfaction.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>when the potential becomes reality, we will deal with it. right now I'm looking for real life examples of the effects of this decision
<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>You are already driving many of your good posters away.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>be specific. which ones?
<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>If the threads become so long,due to limiting them to one thread
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>we're not limiting the number of total threads, we'are limiting the creation of threads by one poster
<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>1)You will not protect the forum from "organized spam attacks".
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>even if a group of 10 people has 40 logins, they can only make 40 spam threads. without this limit, they could do 400(to give an example)
<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>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... )
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>yes, that's one of my goals
even if the poster has "spent" his thread on a serious issue, I'm sure he'll find other mindless thread 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>Do you not listen to the thoughts of your employees?(or whatever you want to call them).
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>unpaid people are not employees. just because they are willing to spend their freetime doing this, it doesnt mean that they should

**MarkG** · June 15, 2000, 08:31

<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 Graag on 06-15-2000 08:05 AM</font>
1. What is the purpose of the OT?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>to host discussions which do not belong in the on-topic ones
<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. Did you introduce the thread restriction soley to make the moderator's (Ming and Mleonard) job easier?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>no, I also did it to destroy 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. Did either Ming or MLeonard ask for any measures to be taken to make their job easier?
<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>4. If, in time, the new restriction adversely affectes the OT, will you be willing to remove it?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>read my previous posts on this thread and tell me if you i havent said something similar

**MarkG** · June 15, 2000, 08:38

<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 08:14 AM</font>
But this is neither helpful nor will it solve the problem of spam threads. A lot of people will just use dl's and then cause more of a headache than the original problem.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>I dont think many people are interested in playing the DL game
<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>You are going to have to make up your mind one way or another whether you want the off-topic, rather than pissing people off one by one so they leave.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>if I'm pissing off people who like to spam, so be it. for some "strange" reason, on-topic forums dont have the problems of the ot. perhaps it's because it doesnt have just civers...

**Graag** · June 15, 2000, 08:52

And the follow up...

<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>Q. What is the purpose of the OT?
A. To host discussions which do not belong in the on-topic ones.

Q. Did you introduce the thread restriction soley to make the moderator's (Ming and Mleonard) job easier?
A. No.

Q. Did either Ming or MLeonard ask for any measures to be taken to make their job easier?
A. No

Q. If, in time, the new restriction adversely affectes the OT, will you be willing to remove it?
A. Read my previous posts on this thread and tell me if you i havent said something similar.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
Ok. We've establish the OT is to host off topic discussion.
We also have established that Ming and MLeonard did not ask or suggest any measures to be taken to make thier job easier.
From my experiance the OT is not overrun by spam and worthless threads.

From this

1. The OT is for discussion of anything off-topic.
2. The OT moderators have made no complaints about the current situation of the OT and no requests for changes.
3. The OT is only marginally affected by worhtles threads.
(From 1, 2 and 3) 4. The OT requires no
changes.

Therefore:
5. You (Markos) have created a thread limit.

Markos I challenge you to prove any of these points wrong and to explain why 5 makes sense given these points.

**OldWarrior_42** · June 15, 2000, 08:53

<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>unpaid people are not employees. just because they are willing to spend their freetime doing this, it doesnt mean that they should
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I realize they are not your employees....I used that term for lack of a better word.But when you get people who volunteer their time,then dont listen to what they have to say...it may,and I stress the word may,lead them to feel unneccesary or undermined as Provost stated.Anyways,by you saying that it doesnt mean they should spend their freetime here doing what they doe,seems to promote an air of non appreciation for what they enjoy doing.And to air it in public was a mistake as well.It can be seen as having that meaning.

<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>even if a group of 10 people has 40 logins, they can only make 40 spam threads. without this limit, they could do 400
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Organized site destroyers or hackers can tear this place apart in seconds.That is what you should be concened about.Not some ot forumers who create a bunch of spam threads that get taken care of in quick time anyway.They are just nitwits who hang out here on ot and like to fruck it up abit.It has never been to the point where you have been hit by Organized groups of site disruptor's,hackers or spammers.If you did,this site would not still be running right now.And the fact that it is limited to ot proves it is not organized,but just a select group of goofballs from the ot, wasting time.They usually end up being taken care of by Ming ...so whats the point of you stepping in over Ming's head to create more rules to piss more people off.

<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>be specific. which ones?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Saras showed up at ACOL today for the first time.He never bothered to register there because he was quite comfortable here.He has finally decided that the comfort zone he was used to is becoming tighter and less comfortable.That is only one I know....but watch the migration slowly take place.They will hold posting sessions on both sites until the last straw is hurled on them...and then its adios.(This is all only possible scenarios.I do not say they are written in stone,but why even bother to tempt fate when it is not neccesary?)There have been a couple others as well...I forget right this minute.

<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>when the potential becomes reality, we will deal with it.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Waiting for the house to burn down before buying a fire extinguisher is counter productive.Let the men you appointed moderators do their jobs as they have been quite capable in the past.

As I said,you're call.I dont deny you that right seeing as how it is your site anyway... but if you are looking to make an informed decision,then seeing things from all sides and getting as much information as possible can only help you in the long run.

Do as you wish...I will leave you alone now as it seems to me that you already had your mind made up anyway and put this discussion out here only as some gratuitous gesture.(I perceive it that way but I could be wrong.I have been wrong once or twice before in my life )

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by OldWarrior_42 (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

**reismark** · June 15, 2000, 08:55

I usually agree with Markos' actions, but unfortunately for him in this case, I agree with the majority and believe that this is taking it one step too far.

Here are my reasons why:

1. Posters will find loopholes. As Ming stated, this new rule will result in a massive increase in the utilization of double log-ons. Ask yourself, Markos: which is the worse problem? Double log-ons runs away with it for me, because most people are a) sensible enough to follow the rules and b) don't go wild with posting threads anyway. By inserting this rule, you're just giving those who don't fall into these two categories another excuse to break the rules.

2. Whether you want to think it or not, you are directly targeting the people who frequent the Off-Topic forum and branding them with a... shall we say "stigma." This is unfair to the SENSIBLE OT visitors not only because they have enough separate restrictions on themselves already, but because this is another one just to tack onto them. If you're so concerned about limiting posting of threads, why not set a higher limit for all the forums? Most people don't post more than two or three threads a day in the other forums anyway...

3. As I mentioned in my other two points, the overwhelming majority of OT posters are sensible people: follow the rules, post a couple of threads each day. The same regard for which we hold the death penalty here in America should apply here: in the case of the OT, it's better for a bad poster to get away with spamming or whatever than for a good poster to get punished (with these restrictions) for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. Wake up and smell the coffee: you are never going to be able to get rid of all the problems in the OT. That's why you have Ming and MLeonard there. Remember when OT was unmoderated? It wasn't as orderly, but almost as quiet as it is now. Let Ming and MLeonard do their jobs - this sort of thing is something they should have had a say in since they're doing all the work over there. If they feel it's unnecessary (and Ming has expressed that a number of times in this single thread), CAN IT!

Let me put it this way. Do you want another Black Saturday? If you don't, GET RID OF THIS RULE NOW.

**reismark** · June 15, 2000, 09:03

Oh, and just so it's clear, I'm against any limit - that suggestion for a larger limit for the entire forum was just one of my sarcastic comments...

------------------
reismark@nycmail.com
"Please provide the date of your death." - IRS letter
The Millennium is Here! Run For Your Lives!!

**Paul Hanson** · June 15, 2000, 09:19

There are far too many loopholes for people to exploit on this one.

1.Get someone else to post a thread for you.
2.Post a thread in another forum, and wait for it to be moved to the OT.
3.Just post in another forum, like the Civ2-General Forum, turning that into the OT.
4.Just post your topic in another thread, ie threadjacking.

This will also:
1.Increase the number of DL`s (despite what you say, I believe some people will still play "the DL game").
2.Thus increasing your workload, plus that the mods
3.Drive people away from the forums (although I`m sure you don`t really mind about that )

And soforth. This is a really bad decision, Mark.

**Ming** · June 15, 2000, 09:25

Gee... not even the coffee shop gets to 150 posts in less than 24 hours.

Just to make things clear, I don't have a problem with setting a limit on the number of threads started. I do think that the current level that is being used is not the right level. There are many good reasons to have such a rule. But I would have to agree that if a real hacker wanted to cause problems, this won't stop them.

Remember... MarkG would like to hear from you all by email about specific situations where this new limit has affected you. Granted, it seems like the general concensus is obvious based on all the posts here... but give him the specifics. That would be far more productive than posting revolution crap

------------------
Ming
CivII & Off-Topic Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net

**Roland** · June 15, 2000, 09:26

My 2c from the closed thread in exile...

The aim of reducing the number of new threads posted should be accomplished through rationing.

This rule has no impact on the demand for threads, but seeks to reduce the supply of a commodity that has so far been relatively abundant and free.

There is just the problem that there is a lot of slack thread capacity. It is safe to assume that the number of new threads per day in the OT is significantly below the number of eligible posters.

It only takes little market-making effort to get people with excess new-thread-posting resources to make use of this in the interest of restricted posters.

Another phenomenon is related to the inability to storage the right to post new threads. This right is eliminated with the expiration of the one-day-timelimit. As a new thread becomes a somewhat valuable item under this new rule, people will be tempted to use other means of hoarding.

This can be done by posting a thread with a useless topic every day, and with little effort converting to a topic they deem fit to post later. This might be considered spam by the moderators, but enforcement will be tricky and annoying. Actually, the enforcement effort needed will easily surpass the time and effort for the established spam control measures already in force.

Also, as the rule is limited to the OT-forum, problems of evasion and substitution will occur. Spam may simply spread to other forums, maybe in disguise, which again leads to the need of additional work efforts by the moderators.

Economic history has shown again and again that rationing does not work as a tool of policy. And this case will be no different.

And in plain english: It's a stupid idea, Mark.

Announcement

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

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment