MarkG, keep the current 8 hour thread starting restriction!

[TCO]

Markos,

The OT level of discussion has definitely gone up. There are way less copy-cat threads. And people are posting more in the existing threads and having more in-depth conversations.

Please don't shift to a new system with 3 threads/day. This might make things go back to the old situation.

People have found a good way to get around the problem of new thread-starting when a discussion shifts (or is thread-jacked ). The thread starter just asks one of the participants to start a new discussion on the worthy side-issue. ICQ is not needed, since the request is made as a post in the thread.

I was against the policy originally, but like it now. I've encountered no problems so far.

*Dons asbestos suit*

Bring it!

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by GP (edited July 16, 2000).]</font>

[Andz83]

and there's a possibility to say **** without these annoying stars!! it's nice to be able to say ****

I don't say it her becasue I'd only get banned again

[MarkG]

very interesting!
I personally have no problem leaving things as they are.
more opinions?

[Legman]

I have no problem with it either, never had. And I agree it might have had beneficial effects on the OT.

Take EvC for instance: He's but a shadow of his former self now, much to the joy of several posters, and I think the 8 hour restriction might have something to do with it.

He or anybody else can't just start a new thread everytime their blood boils, because threads have now become a scarce resource, the way it should be IMO.

If you want to start a thread, it better be good. Common sense really.

[Ming]

I agree... It seems to be working fine.

There does seem to be less copy cat and meaningless threads.

I'd say to keep it the way it is

[Comrade Dan]

Either way it's still ****ing annoying of thinking up of a really good idea for a thread, having to wait the required amount of time, then forgetting what it was when it's time to post...

[Ming]

If you forgot it, it must not have been important

[TCO]

CD,

You little commie. You played right into my hands. See the fact that you don't like the policy means it is working...

Nihihihi

(Monkish laugh used with special permission.)
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by GP (edited July 16, 2000).]</font>

[MarkG]

I think Solon said that if a law is attacked by everyone, then it's right(or something like that)

[TCO]

But the law is even better when the main criminals hate it...

[Empress]

I have no problem with the way things are.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

don't care one way or another.

[Mark von Wagner]

My only objection to keeping the 1 post/8 hour limit is that then I won't know for sure if my suggested modification to the site script works or not.

[Urban Ranger]

CD,

If it's important, then you should write it down.

[Murgatroyd]

Although I personally have not had any problems, I still object to this policy.

<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 you forgot it, it must not have been important
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Although it may not have been so important that the poster would keep it in mind for eight hours, the rest of us might have found it interesting.

Murgatroyd

----------------

Repeal the 1 Thread/8 Hour Limit!