Should There Be A Limit

[+sept1c_tank]

Upon further consideration, I think fewer topics would just lead to more of them drifting off-topic in all different directions.

Flood control doesn’t automatically equate to fewer topics, just fewer topics started by a given account within a specified time period. Anyway, I don’t follow your logic, why would fewer topics invoke more off topic conversation?

 

Actually, I think the likelihood of excessive and confusing off topic banter increases when a given member has several topics running simultaneously.

 

...(For the record, that's why I don't even bother trying to read "Cheers!" )

 

Do you suppose anyone has read that entire behemoth (Cheers)?

Edited August 10, 2005 by sept1c_tank

[+Team Perks]

Anyway, I don’t follow your logic, why would fewer topics invoke more off topic conversation?

My logic is pretty simple. Suppose I have three questions today: 1) How do I interpret a certain part of the guideilnes? 2) Does someone know how to get EasyGPS to work with my particular GPS? 3) Can someone tell me why I'm getting an error message when I try to access a certain part of the website?

 

If I'm limited to one topic, my options are as follows. First, I can put them all in the one topic, leading to a confusing discussion. Second, I can ask in another active thread, which may only be peripherally related, leading to a confusing discussion. Third, I can revive the last closely-related thread, which has had no posts since May 2002, leading to a confusing discussion.

 

Since I've probably created a total of four topics in my time on the forums, it would hardly make an impact on me as a poster. As a reader, well...I figure people are going to post as much as they want, whether it's a new topic or not, so it's easier for me to follow the discussions if people aren't limited in their ability to break their comments off into new topics once they outgrow the current topic.

[+Jeremy]

The short answer is, IMO, no. There shouldn't be a limit on topics you should post. I think you (general you) should not need to be compelled to post to every topic that comes up. The uninteresting ones will quickly drop off while the ones that are interesting will rise to the top.

 

However I expect based on this comment someone will turn around and post a bunch of useless posts to make a point, so don't do it. I know how you jokers are

Edited August 10, 2005 by Jeremy

[+Langner91]

Glad to see his smiley buttons are fixed.

 

[+Recdiver]

Ooh Ooh I know let's only allow 52 topics per year. And rollover. With a bonus additional topic if one of your topics generates 10 pages of replies.

[+sept1c_tank]

The short answer is, IMO, no. There shouldn't be a limit on topics you should post. 

 

The use of the word limit, in my original post, was perhaps a poor choice of words. I’m (not advocating) discussing new topic flood control. If flood control is not a good idea for new topics, please explain the logic for flood control on new posts, which already exists.

 

I think you (general you) should not need to be compelled to post to every topic that comes up.

 

Compulsive Posting Disorder is another topic, but you’re correct; one should not feel compelled to post to topics that are of no interest.

 

The uninteresting ones will quickly drop off while the ones that are interesting will rise to the top.

 

Right again.

[+Jeremy]

If flood control is not a good idea for new topics, please explain the logic for flood control on new posts, which already exists.

Spam.

[+sept1c_tank]

If flood control is not a good idea for new topics, please explain the logic for flood control on new posts, which already exists.

Spam.

Why does that same logic not apply to new topics?

[+deimos444]

This is kind of on topic but I think it is common decency to at least scan the replies since you last replied before making a new reply.

It seems that some folks are not doing this.

 

And seriously I don't think that we should be putting "governors" on the freedom to post within the guidelines of this forum.

Part of my problem is that I literally got my butt shot up to keep our system of semi free speech and I have to continually remind myself that this applies to idiots and morons too.

Go figure.

[+sept1c_tank]

...And seriously I don't think that we should be putting "governors" on the freedom to post within the guidelines of this forum.

Part of my problem is that I literally got my butt shot up to keep our system of semi free speech and I have to continually remind myself that this applies to idiots and morons too.

Go figure.

As a huge proponent of freedom of speech, I will reiterate, flood control does not limit free speech, it merely governs how fast you can talk.

[+reveritt]

..Part of my problem is that I literally got my butt shot up to keep our system of semi free speech and I have to continually remind myself that this applies to idiots and morons too.

...

Thanks for risking your butt (and everything else) to serve our country. Because you did it, I didn't have to.

 

As for freedom of speech applying to morons, I wouldn't think any reminders would be necessary, as the evidence of their entitlement is all too abundant.

[+deimos444]

As a huge

How big are you?

400+?

[+Jeremy]

Why does that same logic not apply to new topics?

It doesn't.

[+Jeremy]

Part of my problem is that I literally got my butt shot up to keep our system of semi free speech and I have to continually remind myself that this applies to idiots and morons too.

Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to a privately owned web site (and forum).

[+WascoZooKeeper]

...(For the record, that's why I don't even bother trying to read "Cheers!" )

 

Do you suppose anyone has read that entire behemoth (Cheers)?

Well, of course it doesn't make sense, not if you haven't read Abject Silliness in its entirety first.

[+sbell111]

I pop in there occasionally and read the last couple of pages. Sometimes, I kinda have a clue whats going on. Usually not.

Edited August 10, 2005 by sbell111

[+deimos444]

Part of my problem is that I literally got my butt shot up to keep our system of semi free speech and I have to continually remind myself that this applies to idiots and morons too.

Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to a privately owned web site (and forum).

SEMI free speech!!

[+treasure_hunter]

The short answer is, IMO, no. There shouldn't be a limit on topics you should post. I think you (general you) should not need to be compelled to post to every topic that comes up. The uninteresting ones will quickly drop off while the ones that are interesting will rise to the top.

 

However I expect based on this comment someone will turn around and post a bunch of useless posts to make a point, so don't do it. I know how you jokers are

Thank you Jeremy for saying no to the limit.

 

Its good to know its unlikely to happen. If I pay for a membership for the website I should be able to post as I please.

[+sbell111]

I disagree. No one should be allowed to create more than 2,880 threads per day, not Jeremy, not anybody.

[+sept1c_tank]

Why does that same logic not apply to new topics?   

It doesn't.

I don't understand. You say the reason for post flood control is spam, but that reasoning doesn't apply to new topics. Maybe we're just playing semantics. What exactly do you mean by spam and how does post flood control prevent it (serious question)?

[+Docapi]

(pre-disclaimer- I am doing this fore a reason, not to be a pain)

 

Because it

Edited August 12, 2005 by Docapi

[+Docapi]

makes

[+Docapi]

it a royal pain

[+Docapi]

to do stupid spam

[+Docapi]

like this.

 

I was gonna do it all in one word posts like I see happen all the time in the forums without flood control, but I didn't want to sit in front of the computer for 1/2 hour for 1 real post. It can get really annoying when some goofball decides to boost his all-important post count by posting 50 or 100 one word posts in a row.

 

This took me close to 10 minutes the way it was. Without flood control, I could have done it one word at a time in about a minute.

 

You don't need it as much for topics because you have to enter a topic, a subject, and then the post- it kinda has the same effect as fllod control in itself.

[+sept1c_tank]

...You don't need it as much for topics because you have to enter a topic, a subject, and then the post- it kinda has the same effect as fllod control in itself.

I see what you mean about how annoying that would be. I’ve seen the same thing happen with topics and a moderator has to close them. Unfortunately, the closed topic is still there for a day or two.

 

If a poster could open only a limited number of topics in a given time period (topic flood control), he would be more selective in his thoughts, thus avoiding cluttering the boards with spam or useless banter.

[+deimos444]

 

If a poster could open only a limited number of topics in a given time period (topic flood control), he would be more selective in his thoughts, thus avoiding cluttering the boards with spam or useless banter.

I totally agree!

[+Alan2]

I think we should have a rule for how many new rules a person can suggest we have a rule for.

 

Check! That's my first.

[+budd-rdc]

I think we should have a rule for how many new rules a person can suggest we have a rule for.

 

Check!  That's my first.

I see so many rants of "NO MORE RULES" both direct and sarcastic.... so I better add two more cents...

 

SELF-REGULATION avoids rules.

 

It doesn't take much to listen more carefully and think a bit more before posting a comment. Heck, I don't care if people rant and make purely self-serving comments as long as they thought them through.

[+sept1c_tank]

Self regulation is idealistic. Unfortunately, everyone has their own ideals (bad pun) about what is ideal.

 

If this forum was a highway with no speed limit, or everyone setting their own limit, how much road rage would we see?

[+treasure_hunter]

Learn to control yourself and their will be no need for new rules!! Duh.

[+deimos444]

Learn to control yourself and their will be no need for new rules!! Duh.

Have you accomplished this completely?