Post Count Limits

[Grayman]

I am curious of what everyone thinks of hard coded post count limits. What are the benefits and complications?

I am not suggesting we do it. I am honestly curious. Anyone see such a thing in action?

I think people will put more thought into their posts if they were limited. They wouldn't be able to argue as much and if they did they would have to wait until tomorrow to finish and by then they might have cooled off.

 

[Jennywocky]

I am curious of what everyone thinks of hard coded post count limits. What are the benefits and complications?

I am not suggesting we do it. I am honestly curious. Anyone see such a thing in action?

I think people will put more thought into their posts if they were limited. They wouldn't be able to argue as much and if they did they would have to wait until tomorrow to finish and by then they might have cooled off.

Well, it's technically feasible to just change settings on accounts so members can only make a certain number of posts per day, I think.

Then again, this isn't the ENTJ forum.

 

[Grayman]

Don't make me hit you with my paddle!

Well, it's technically feasible to just change settings on accounts so members can only make a certain number of posts per day, I think.

Then again, this isn't the ENTJ forum.

I know that it easy to setup. I was wondering more about what it does to a forum and how it affects users, posts, and discussions.

 

[Helvete]

I think it would net negative results if the cap is low enough to hinder the natural flow of the forum, which on occasion will have days of significantly higher activity than others on certain topics. This would just drag some things out over an unnecessarily long time period. It may help to deescalate arguments and possibly guide the users into more thought out discussion leading to mutual (dis)agreement, which is obviously optimal. It would also aggravate many users who are discussing an issue calmly, cutting off their discourse, bringing about, more drawn out discussions. People may max out their posting limits in protest, or simply leave.

If the limits set are high enough not to be disruptive to what's going on, then what's the point? There's a moderation system already in process for outlying circumstances. (The last Q kind of makes me think the first part of my post is now redundant).

 

[Jennywocky]

Yeah, the issues Helvete points out -- it can disrupt an acceptable natural flow to the forum, a flow that varies rather than remaining static. A lot of the free-form posting will be diminished, which could be good for those who cannot regulate themselves but bad for when people want to blow off some steam and won't be able to.

Makes more sense to use as a modding tool -- have a usergroup with a capped ppd count that someone who is spamming the forum without regard for quality can be placed in, unless there are other means to inhibit their lackadaisical approach. But not for those who haven't abused their posting abilities.

 

[Helvete]

Makes more sense to use as a modding tool -- have a usergroup with a capped ppd count that someone who is spamming the forum without regard for quality can be placed in, unless there are other means to inhibit their lackadaisical approach. But not for those who haven't abused their posting abilities.

I thought the forum rules sorted this problem out. You could cap problem individuals and tell them why but ultimately isn't telling them why enough? Putting them on a leash doesn't mean their behavior will change, just limits it. It's the users choice as to how they respond to a warning so why create more work for the mods? Besides I can see restricted ppd groups back lashing and causing hassle. Why so much babysitting?

 

[Jennywocky]

I thought the forum rules sorted this problem out. You could cap problem individuals and tell them why but ultimately isn't telling them why enough? Putting them on a leash doesn't mean their behavior will change, just limits it. It's the users choice as to how they respond to a warning so why create more work for the mods? Besides I can see restricted ppd groups back lashing and causing hassle. Why so much babysitting?

Well, like I said, they can use the tool if they want. I kind of don't care either way. Every site has its own mentality on how they want to approach such things.

Personally, in my times modding on other sites, I think I have seen limits on post count only be applied to 2-3 members (so that's out of hundreds or a few thousand members). It was beneficial to help them get used to posting less, and their post quality did improve because they weren't just making fluff posts... but, like I said, whatever.

 

[PaulMaster]

I have no interest in participating in a cencored or restricted expression environment.

Whats so hard about skipping over posts, threads, or even entire users?

 

[Grayman]

I thought the forum rules sorted this problem out. You could cap problem individuals and tell them why but ultimately isn't telling them why enough? Putting them on a leash doesn't mean their behavior will change, just limits it. It's the users choice as to how they respond to a warning so why create more work for the mods? Besides I can see restricted ppd groups back lashing and causing hassle. Why so much babysitting?

The backlash is more due to the vagueness of rules. You want more room to budge and interpret the law but by doing this you take on the responsibility of that interpretation.

If a user clearly knows what the speed limit is and they choose to drive over it they have no one to blame but themselves and they know this. If you say, don't go unreasonably fast and then you feel some guy was and you ticket him he will likely feel you targeted him or that you didn't like him. This is worsened when you let other people go faster on the same road even though you let them because the situation was different, maybe less people around. Ref rule #1 as an example

Anyways, I think other forums with strictly defined rules would have less issue with this setup.

 

[Helvete]

The backlash is more due to the vagueness of rules. You want more room to budge and interpret the law but by doing this you take on the responsibility of that interpretation.

If a user clearly knows what the speed limit is and they choose to drive over it they have no one to blame but themselves and they know this. If you say, don't go unreasonably fast and then you feel some guy was and you ticket him he will likely feel you targeted him or that you didn't like him. This is worsened when you let other people go faster on the same road even though you let them because the situation was different, maybe less people around. Ref rule #1 as an example

Anyways, I think other forums with strictly defined rules would have less issue with this setup.

Well then it seems this has nothing to do with limiting post count then if your issues are with the rules...

 

[Grayman]

Well then it seems this has nothing to do with limiting post count then if your issues are with the rules...

...The vague rules create more work for you not me...what do you mean my issue? You must feel the gains are worth the effort. Obviously other forums are different and so post count limits would cause a different reaction.

 

[Helvete]

What of my initial points in regard to stricter forums? I have no experience with stricter rules so what are your thoughts here?

 

[Haim]

The backlash is more due to the vagueness of rules. You want more room to budge and interpret the law but by doing this you take on the responsibility of that interpretation.

If a user clearly knows what the speed limit is and they choose to drive over it they have no one to blame but themselves and they know this. If you say, don't go unreasonably fast and then you feel some guy was and you ticket him he will likely feel you targeted him or that you didn't like him. This is worsened when you let other people go faster on the same road even though you let them because the situation was different, maybe less people around. Ref rule #1 as an example

Anyways, I think other forums with strictly defined rules would have less issue with this setup.

So you say
1)let's make a stupid rule.
2)well we made stupid rule then we must do it in justice way, otherwise the spammer will feel unjust, now the spammer will say "well thank you for limiting me"
3)really who have the power to actually think?, every one that reach more than X posts is an evil non-human spammer, X-1 is a good citizen by the law, everyone knows that X post make you evil and they would not want to be evil .

 

[Grayman]

What of my initial points in regard to stricter forums? I have no experience with stricter rules so what are your thoughts here?

There is no reason to believe that stricter rules would make things harder. Is that what you are referring to? Maybe you can quote exactly what you are referencing...

1) setting the tone by quickly tallying infractions for even the small stuff
a) if you get a very clear and stated infraction for something small you are less likely to try something big.
2) Setting a limit
b) no chasing people across threads and constantly trying to reshape them. 3 Strikes thats it. easy peasy
3) Clear Rules
c) no constant discussion or explaining why you gave them an infraction. It is right here rule number 3.4b. There isn't much else to say.


Yes if you change the format of the forum people will suddenly take up arms and parade the halls of the forum. The tone has to be set from the beginning. New people coming into the rules are likely to adapt as soon as they learn that you take it seriously and are very consistent with your iron rod.


It is kind of like painting the house periodically so that you don't end up replacing the whole siding when things get out of hand.

 

[Haim]

There is no reason to believe that stricter rules would make things harder. Is that what you are referring to? Maybe you can quote exactly what you are referencing...

1) setting the tone by quickly tallying infractions for even the small stuff
a) if you get a very clear and stated infraction for something small you are less likely to try something big.
2) Setting a limit
b) no chasing people across threads and constantly trying to reshape them. 3 Strikes thats it. easy peasy
3) Clear Rules
c) no constant discussion or explaining why you gave them an infraction. It is right here rule number 3.4b. There isn't much else to say.


Yes if you change the format of the forum people will suddenly take up arms and parade the halls of the forum. The tone has to be set from the beginning. New people coming into the rules are likely to adapt as soon as they learn that you take it seriously and are very consistent with your iron rod.


It is kind of like painting the house periodically so that you don't end up replacing the whole siding when things get out of hand.

That often cause trigger happy behaviour of punishing non really harmful behaviour, it lacks the flexibility of dealing with people, being punishing for every little bullshit is an hostile environment, and no being punished for bullshit rule is only going to piss off the "offender" and make him resent the management.The management of rules is really great here, it is the key for open environment much need for intellectual decision, if you so want you are welcomed to open other boring closed censored forum.

 

[Grayman]

That often cause trigger happy behaviour of punishing non really harmful behaviour, it lacks the flexibility of dealing with people, being punishing for every little bullshit is an hostile environment.The management of rules is really great here, it is the key for open environment much need for intellectual decision, if you so want you are welcomed to open other boring closed censored forum.

I am glad you like it here...

I would make the case as to why I disagree with your first statement but that might require a whole other thread.