OT Post Rationing to 1 per 8 hours?

[:) Smiley]

I got the message that I could only post one new topic to OT per eight hours. Would someone like to brief me on the history of this measure, and if it applies to everyone?

[Ming]

It applies to everybody except mods and admin...
It was established to minimize clutter in the Off Topic Forums. Originally, there was a thought that it would be changed to allowing 3 threads in a 24 hour period, but the current 1 thread per 8 hours has done it's job and reduced the number of stupid and meaningless threads. Yes, it does limit the number of threads a serious person can post... but is there anything really THAT important that it can't wait. It does make many people think before "wasting" their thread

------------------
Ming
ACS Civ II & OT Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net

[Lefty Scaevola]

Does not bother a vouyer like me, I post one thread on an average of 8 weeks.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Lefty Scaevola (edited April 27, 2001).]</font>

[Rasputin]

or me, i havent posted one down there for probalby a year... not since i got to king level heheheh, not that i posted only to attain a level of course

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

Some of my colleagues recommended that I write a letter about how being shielded from the consequences of its bad judgment and bad behavior has made the eight-hour rule careless. This is that letter. Let us note first of all that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that the eight-hour rule's expositions all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. Although the eight-hour rule wants to have more impact on Earth's biological, geological, and chemical systems during our lifetime and our children's than all preceding human generations had together, if we fail to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. What we have been imparting to the eight-hour rule -- or what it has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. When I first heard about the eight-hour rule's modes of thought, I didn't know whether to laugh, because the eight-hour rule's harangues are so complacent, or cry, because if I recall correctly, there is no place in this country where we are safe from the eight-hour rule's trucklers, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack.

The problem with the eight-hour rule is not that it's ugly. It's that it wants to take credit for others' accomplishments. If the eight-hour rule succeeds in its attempt to kill the messenger and control the message, it'll have to be over my dead body. Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy, because the eight-hour rule contends that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Sounds rather virulent, doesn't it? Well, that's the eight-hour rule for you. Viewed from all angles, for its own sake, the eight-hour rule should not discourage us from expressing our sermons in whatever way we damn well please. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that its grievances are about as useful to society as a hundred deutsche marks were in 1923 Germany?

The eight-hour rule needs to stop living in denial. It needs to wake up and realize that if it can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If it can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. I recommend that we report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding the eight-hour rule's phlegmatic remarks. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that the intent of this letter is certainly not hatred, but a probing look into an obviously significant issue. End of story. Actually, I should add that it keeps saying that its insinuations are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. For some reason, the eight-hour rule's representatives actually believe this nonsense. We can say that we need to lead each other towards the understanding that the eight-hour rule's hired goons can't defend their antics, and the eight-hour rule can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference. Yes, you heard me right; if the eight-hour rule gets its way, I might very well hide in a closet. There is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of mindless self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards, but the hope that makes you eager to put the kibosh on its agendas. You know what we'd have if everybody wanted to harm others, or even instill the fear of harm? Total chaos. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that the eight-hour rule's thralls are more determined than most callow, ultra-wretched ne'er-do-wells.

[Ming]

Ceci n'est pas Snapcase...
I've seen better computer generated responses

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

I know. It kept on throwing up these crap ones.

No, but seriously, I always disliked this rule and still do. I know at least half a dozen I've waited up, looking at boring threads for hours on end just to be able to post a measly thread. If the eight-hour rule is simply an attempt to increase website traffic through posters waiting and waiting for posting rights it has succeeded...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Really, I thought that was just normal Euro-Commie BS.

[Chris 62]

I would like to request that the wait be increased to 24 hours, because it would annoy people three times as much.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

It bugs the hell out of me, I know that. If it was a twenty-four hour rule it'd bug me less because I would know I could not post anything until a day later. If it was a 3/24 hour rule, I'd think it was sensible.

[Ming]

<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 Ceci n'est pas Snapcase on 04-27-2001 05:07 PM</font>
If the eight-hour rule is simply an attempt to increase website traffic through posters waiting and waiting for posting rights it has succeeded...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

ANYBODY that waits on this site for 8 hours just to post another thread needs to get a life

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

Well, It was four hours. Once.

[Ecthy]

Well, I don't consider the waiting argument a good one, either.

In general, I support the idea of a restricted OT thread posting... now whether it should be 3/24 or 1/8, that's up to thinkers, it's really above me... I think it's quite good the way it is.

[Ming]

From a moderator's point of view, one every 8 hours beats the heck out of 3 every 24 hours. This way, when we close a thread, they can't instantly start a thread in the OTF to complain about the closing

[Ecthy]

<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 Ming on 04-27-2001 06:56 PM</font>
From a moderator's point of view, one every 8 hours beats the heck out of 3 every 24 hours. This way, when we close a thread, they can't instantly start a thread in the OTF to complain about the closing
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

but they can open threads in this forum