Creation of New Threads Restricted to 1/person/day in OT Part II

[Provost Harrison]

AdaMada, before you irritate me to hell, it is <u>SATURDAY</u> not <u>SATERDAY</u>. It is quite a common word, anyone should be able to spell that one. So please remember that one.

[MarkG]

it's very interesting how easily people are suggesting more moderators, control groups, etc these days....

[Alexander's Horse]

E-mail Mark before you start a thread? Gee, that's a good idea (not). For a start I can't E-mail from my office, which is from where I send most of my posts (like now).

Now to answer Mark's question. This new rule does inconvenience me because although I don't post threads every day, I sometimes post more than one thread on the OT at a time. A five or ten minute delay would be enough to stop 99% of spammers. Let's face it, they have a short attention span. As for the 1% of really serious attacks, this restriction won't stop them. It could actually make them worse because D/Ls is the obvious way to get around the restriction.

I get the feeling there's another reason Mark has done this. When are you going to fess up Mark? Running out of server space are we?

[Urban Ranger]

Put me down as <strong>totally against</strong> the rule.

Markos, take a look in OTF. The DL stampede is already starting. Sure, you can ban some posters, but what's the point? Many used to be law abiding citizens of Apolyton. As it was pointed out elsewhere, some of the likely consequences are:

1. Invasion of other forums by spammers, either by starting nonsensical threads or by threadjacking
2. DL stampede (already starting)
3. Threadjacking (AH is doing it already)

You are creating more severe problems than the one you are trying to solve. It was at least under control when it was only limited to OTF, but you're going to have a big headache when it's everywhere.

Now you are saying that you have only two requests to start threads. However that isn't the whole story. There are a lot of people (myself included) who start threads at the spur of the moment and couldn't be bothered to wait 24 hours to see a discussion going.

Another possible consquence is you could have your e-mailbox flooded by requests (real and otherwise).

All in all, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages by many times.


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

[Lancer]

Server space AH?

Btw Mark, I would have started a second thread today. I also would have checked my threads in the Civ 2 Community forum if I didn't feel like I was being manipulated to post in other forums. Nobody likes being forced...

GS has posted ten to one odds against the limit and that seems realistic enough to me. When that is considered in the light of the fact that the limit is still in place I must ask why you bothered to ask our opinion on the matter at all? Also, now that the opinion thread is so dead set against, you want emails...

What a pointless pain in the ass. I will not email you every time this limit pisses me off. I may end up on a 'whatever happened to' list however.

We really need a site for mature adults. Every time a new forum splits off it's teenage anarchy. Someone please split one off dedicated to reason! I'll help w/ the set up if I'm asked. A new forum would work if it's set up w/ a good moderator that weens out the disruptive and maintains a moral standard. With the framework up for serious posters to enjoy then you've got the foundation for a forum that will grow, particularly if the serious posters here at Apolyton have a second thread they want to post...

Ming? Someone?

Forum please...

[Alexander's Horse]

<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. Threadjacking (AH is doing it already)


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

I DID NOT

See what you've done Mark, now we're fighting amongst ourselves.

There aren't enough life jackets in this boat.

[onepaul]

are we still taking a vote (like it matters) why the hell should majority suffer because some spammy bastard can't control himself and a new rule must be set up to screw with everyone else? I guess this works in the summer, 'cause it's kind of slow, but come on, if you do have to make rules, why not set the limit higher (maybe 3 or 4 threads, or something).
anyway, who is Bird and Franklin, unless they're both newbies why are they voting in the Off-Topic matters? anywho, I'm against it. Although I think that Off-Topic should be shut down for the summer so the kids go outside and smell the tress...


in case, you're a lazy bastard like me: against

edit: spelling sucks, and so does the grammer, and I'm too lazy to use a spellchecker and to finish the sentence with the period
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by onepaul (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

[Alexander's Horse]

Other theories:

a. Mark wants more people to post on the Apolyton forum (Hey! let's make this the new OT! No thread restrictions here!)

b. Mark has no friends and is resorting to desperate measures to get E-mail of any kind.

[Sergeant Sheets]

Onepaul- Franklin is one of the oldest posters here. Like me, he's from the Civ 2 Universe, and I think he goes further back than that.

But really, this is just an unnecessary pain in the ass.

[The Brain]

I say make it 3 Threads/Person/Day and I'll be happy even though I rarely start threads.

No one needs more than 3 Threads a day, but this is coming from a guy who makes like a thread per month so what I say is bull crap (or horse crap).

------------------
The Brain: Weirdo who takes modern culture and stabs it in the eye
-I think you stepped in something
-MOO!
-Founder of DoH!
-You Smell!
-This thread has been given The Brain's Seal of Approval
-Contains Vitamin A, B, Q, Z, and 27
-This post will self-destruct in 5, 8, 6, 9, 0!
You all make as much sense as Brain. -Alexander's Horse
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by The Brain (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

[Ari Rahikkala]

Part 1:



MarkG, I appreciate your goals. I can see that you try to create a forum system which completely makes spam impossible without moderation by humans. I'm pretty sure that if you could, you'd make a system which prohibits making any kind of pointless threads or posts. For you, Apolyton is a place of serious discussion of Civ-related things. And those who don't want to be serious can go to mod-asylum or ACOL.

However, I'd like to have you remember that you have acted like a hypocrite; Some of your posts can be completely classified as "pointless". I'd like you to show an example for other Apolytoners.

(Darn, I just couldn't keep it formal until the end or continue it... See the smiley on the top of this post)

Part 2:

Now as everybody is anyway fed up with being against MarkG, they could go to read the <A HREF = "http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HTML/001104.html?date=10:56">"You know you have played too much Civ when..." thread</A>. Thanks.

Part 3:

I decided to dig up a very good post from the previous thread on this subject, so here's a post from Oldwarrior_42(Who is one of the best posters at Apolyton. The only one who has really provoked me(not in this case))

<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>
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>
1) 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.

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

EDIT: Added link
EDIT: Oh great, I forgot the smiley from part 1...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by LightEning (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by LightEning (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

[Hugo Rune]

I'm a definate against, not a "for with modifications", but I was just trying to be constructive.

Other possible ways of doing this (if you really, really, need to):

1) Use it as an alternative form of punishment. One month of "one thread a day" for the bad, bad spammer. And a "Village Idiot" title.

2) Give it to people who deserve it, using an automated script. Anyone who dares post four or more threads in one day automatically loses unidieic polythread privilidges, for a few weeks.

3) Make it a monthly quota instead. ie., you can only post fifteen threads a month. That should serve all purposes except #1, but I don't think that is a major problem anyway. People will be more guarded and think twice before posting, resulting in less spam.

[Cthol]

Minus:can only start one thread a day.(i don't start threads so often)

Plus:less spam, good threads remain on the first page longer.

I'M FOR! i think "Creation of New Threads Restricted to 1/person/day in OT" is a good idea.

besides you can always ask another ppl to create a thread for you, if ppl run out. ask onepaul, he's a mod.

[Mark von Wagner]

<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) 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>

I agree with these ideas, but I feel that your solution is on the same order as using a battering ram to squash a fly. A limit of one thread per person per hour would stop anyone but a really determined attacker, while allowing serious posters to start new threads. Alternatively, I would be willing to try to modify the forum scripts to allow a limit of 5 new threads per person per day.

On the subject of organized spam attacks, there is almost nothing you can do to stop a determined attack. For example, I could set up my computer to automatically post a new thread by a new login every 45 seconds. I could simply leave my computer running all night, and by the time a moderator noticed the attack, there would be 400 to 800 new threads in the off-topic.

[MarkG]

continue here http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum20/HTML/000799.html