Petition to lower the thread per 8 hours on the OT

[Murgatroyd]

I'm BUMPing this thread to counter the psychological influence of the other recently bumped thread on this topic.

Murgatroyd
----------------
Repeal the 1 Thread/8 Hour Limit!

[connorkimbro]

<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>IMO the off-topic forum is clogged up enough as it is.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Says the guy who's been here less than a month.

Not trying to pull seniority, but those that have been here a long time might have a more accurate perspective.

Anyway, i think that A limit is good, but it should be 3/24 hours instead of 1/8 hours. It's too damn frustrating otherwise.

And it will be like it always was, the best threads are the ones that survive. I personally saw a problem before, but there definately is a problem now.

[Ming]

I see a big problem with 3 every 24 hours vs 1 every 8 hours. As it is now, people are starting a thread whether they really think its needed or not, just so they don't "waste" their thread. MANY, MANY, MANY threads have started with a line like, "I had to use my thread", or "I didn't want to waste my thread"
Since there is a limit, many people feel like they "HAVE" to use it.

Now, since they can only do one every 8 hours, it minimizes the problem. If they could do 3, the problem only gets 3 times worse.

Granted, there are many times people have GREAT ideas for multiple threads at one time. But, if it is such a great idea, it can wait.

It's wouldn't be such a problem if only one or two people created multiple threads at any given time. But before the limit was actually written into the software, there were MANY abuses of the unwritten rule to not create too many threads at one time. And this premeditated spamming was what forced the rule to be put in place. The biggest complaint at that time was that good threads were dropping to page two in a matter of hours because of all the "perceived" spam threads.
Now, good threads actually stay on page one, proving that it must be working.

So yes, because of the actions of a few, a limit had to be established. It's too bad, but that's the way it is for now.


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

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ming (edited September 08, 2000).]</font>

[Dr.Oogkloot]

<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 connorkimbro on 09-07-2000 02:32 PM</font>
Says the guy who's been here less than a month.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I've been actively posting here more than a month, and what's more important, I have known about these forums and sometimes lurked since about february this year.

<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>Not trying to pull seniority, but those that have been here a long time might have a more accurate perspective.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Could you explain please? In what way is their perspective more accurate? I still think the off-topic is clogged up enough, and that doesn't have anything to do with past experience.

[Xuenay]

Xuenay

------------------
"Now Lone Star, you will see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb!"
-- Dark Helmet

[Bill3000]

bump

[The Call of Snapcase]

THE CALL OF SNAPCASE

[Iain Lindley]

I don't think that a 3/24 rule would continue to solve the problems that the original 8 hour rule was brought in to combat. However, I'm inclined to think that a 2/16 (or perhaps even a 2/20) may offer the 'best of both worlds', to use a rather tired cliché. Any comments?

[Murgatroyd]

2/16 hours sounds good to me. It would also (I think) end the problem of people using their "1 thread". Using "one of my two threads" just isn't the same, psychologically.

Murgatroyd

[Urban Ranger]

I have a question. I want to know how many times do people have so much to say that they can't make do with 1 thread every 8 hours.

Spam threads excluded.

[Lews Therìn]

Looking at the code in the Freeciv forum, 2/16 or 2/20 would be just as easy to implement as 3/24.

BTW, I was recently hit by the limitation.

[Iain Lindley]

Any more comments?

[Lancer]

Lancer

Being unwilling to even TRY lessening this restriction means that we are dealing with closed minds on this particular subject. This petition doesn't stand a chance, but count me in, what the heck.

[Jesus Egg that Wept]

All limits are by definition arbitrary, we are only talking quantum.

3 in 24 seems much more sensible than 1 in 8, if you are going to do something daft like have a limit in the first place. So what, if people feel obliged to use up their 3 daily threads, if they are spam then have the moderators lost the ability to close and delete. Hell no!

Give me a "Hell no" and 3 threads in 24.

[Murgatroyd]

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum20/HTML/001028.html#5

MarkG, is this really lower on your list of priorities than new quotes?