Members may post no more than three threads in the GD: Primaries forum in any 24 hour period.

[Skinner]

This is a re-post of a thread which has been pinned to the top of this forum and locked. If you have any questions, please post them in this thread.

In an effort to limit the number of redundant, inflammatory and/or pointless topics posted in the General Discussion: Primaries (GDP) forum, we have instituted a limit on the number of discussion threads that any individual may post in this forum in a 24 hour period. Until the Democrats have a presumptive presidential nominee -- and perhaps longer -- no member may post more than three threads in this forum in any 24 hour period.

This change was proposed by the DU Administrators, and was supported by the vast majority of DU members when it was put to a vote.

This is a hard limit which is enforced automatically by our software. If at any point you reach the three-thread limit and then try to post a fourth thread, you will be presented with a page explaining that you are unable to post at that time. That page will provide you with links to your three previous threads, and will tell you the exact time when you will be able to start a new discussion thread.

This limit is for new discussion threads only. There is no restriction on the number of replies a member may post in this forum.

If you believe any individual may be attempting to bypass this restriction, please click the alert link on offending thread so the moderators may look into it.

Thank you for your understanding.

David Allen ("Skinner")
DU Administrator

Please kick and recommend this thread, as needed, so more DUers can see it. Thanks.

[stahbrett]

1. Great news! I missed it the first time (eom)

[NastyRiffraff]

12. Thankyou thankyou thankyouthankyou

I think I love you, Skinner! :loveya:

I voted for 5, but 3 should work just fine! You may have saved several people's sanity.

[emilyg]

159. I did, too.

[Barack_America]

2. Praise be!

This place sorely needed that.

[tammywammy]

3. Thank you Skinner!

[LostinVA]

4. Praise the gods!

[Annces]

55. You are welcome

Remember the tip bowl.

[blm]

5. Excellent decision.

.

[DS1]

6. YES!

[tishaLA]

7. Thank you Skinner.

[Bicoastal]

8. Starting when, Skinner?

I think I already posted more than 3 OPs today.

[Bicoastal]

20. Dagnabbit, starting NOW. Look forward to my next brilliant OP at...

3:00 tomorrow? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :cry:

ON EDIT: Thanks, an' stuff. :hi:

[NMMNG]

9. Thank you Skinner!

:woohoo:

[LoZoccolo]

10. It is true that we did vote for this, but under different circumstances.

Personally, I don't mind either way, and I did vote for the 3-topic limit, but you may want to consider that although not many people went out and said it specifically, it was aimed at thwarting a few members in particular who have now been tombstoned.

[cboy4]

126. I'm glad you weren't on the TD list LoZoccolo....It would

be no fun around here without wagering how many threads you'll have locked on a given day. lol

[Drunken Irishman]

I wish it were 5, but ok.

[Cha]

22. It's too bad that it was

abused by some who had nothing to say..affecting those who have real news.

[MadBadger]

29. I think this is all completely unnecessary.

[donheld]

44. .

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Cha]

54. Well, last night when the

Ignore feature couldn't be in place..it got pretty obnoxious. Someone gets a brain fart and lets it out on out board.

[ClericJohnPreston]

120. Figures

from one of the worst offenders. I can name at least five Obamites that will post what they had for lunch or a snack if you let them.

Hey hnmnf, your posts are a bore. Maybe now, you can try, TRY, to be relevant.

[Bongo Prophet]

129. Can't resist name-calling even in a Skinner thread? Wow. Just.....wow. i give up.

Hey folks, the DU admins can only do so much.

The rest of it is up to us!
Remember, our fellow DUers are human beings, worthy of respect.

Well, most of them anyway.

[liberalhistorian]

144. Hey, at least he didn't call us Obamababies, Obamabozos,

O-bots, Obamessiahs, or Obamamaniacs, which we've been called plenty of times on here!

And for the record, this is not aimed at a particular candidate's supporters; supporters of both candidates have been guilty of it.

[Hawkeye-X]

11. Question - if it just rehashes itself over and over and the 3 thread liimit per day

is already maxxed out by about 90% of the posters in GD:P - will you make an adjustment to allow for a bit more flexibility.

I understand what you are trying to do, and I appreciate the hard work from you and the mods!

Hawkeye-X

[ozone_man]

104. Good decision!

I think this primary season is very unusual in it's excitement, so it will be a better experience for all to limit the thread velocity in favor of longer, deeper threads with more substance.

[Ikonoklast]

13. Thank you.

Wise decision.

[Cha]

14. Wholly Habanero! This is

Grand..thank you skinner, earl, and elad!

[donheld]

15. Thank you Thank you Thank you.

[MadBadger]

16. When did this limit officially take effect?

[Skinner]

32. The limit covers threads posted in the previous 24 hours.

So, some people might have to wait a bit to post.

[rodeodance]

33. when you see the Page you will know.

[ClericJohnPreston]

121. In your case hnmnf

not soon enough....

[MagickMuffin]

17. YIPEE.............THX ADMINS

:yourock:

[quinnox]

18. Reasonable

3 is a good number, I seldom would post more threads than that a day.

[goodgd_yall]

19. Yay, way to go, DU Admin!

[terrya]

21. Thank you

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Thanks, good call!

[RandomKoolzip]

24. Fuck yeah!!

[bicentennial_baby]

25. Question for you! :

Hi Skinner,

Is there any way for the Mods, on primary nights, to post official results threads, so that we don't have to waste one of our 3 threads? That would be nice. :)

:hi:

[IronLionZion]

26. Thank you Thank You Thank You!!! This was badly needed. nt

[southlandshari]

27. Kicked and recommended

n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

92. You!

Where have you been hiding? :hug:

[Hawkeye-X]

28. Got a problem here...

If the three thread limit began as of about 10 minutes ago, then why is my two previous threads included? Both were posted over 12 hours ago (I'd suggest 12 hours instead of 24 hours)

Hawkeye-X

[Skinner]

36. The limit covers threads posted in the previous 24 hours.

Sorry.

[Coexist]

62. kick

[mohc]

38. My guess is they turned the window checking feature

10 minutes ago, but that would not mean posts before 10 minutes ago would not count against you.

[tandot]

This is fantastic. Thanks, Skinner.

Hopefully this will cut down on pointless threads by a few spammers and improve the quality of the content of GD:Primaries threads.

:hi:


on edit: I didn't know that if you write GD:Primaries, it automatically inserts a smilie for the : P

[caseycoon]

30. YAY! Thank you Skinner! n/t K&R

[rodeodance]

31. Thanks so very much

[Bodhi BloodWave]

34. Great news if i may so so as i think this was seriously needed

Out of curiosity tho is there any plans or consideration on two of the other ideas that some posters made on the poll thread, those ideas being

1: Limit the number of recommends a person can do in a day so people won't spam the greatest page with a ton of silly posts since they will have to think which posts deserve to appear there

and

2: institute a 24 hour suspension on posters who get their posts deleted 2 or 3 times in a day due to flame-baiting or similar actions

[crispini]

35. Weeeeeeeeeeeee! Whoopty do!

Make people think before they post. AMAZING.

[NoPasaran]

37. Yay!

[bigbrother05]

39. Thanks Skinner, and the Mods

[Perky]

40. My only objection to this is those who post artilces of interest and polls

I know what you are tyring to do and I think the need is real.... unfortunately it penalizes those who are not inclined to spamming


I fera the mods are going to be over run in the General discussion forum with posts that ought to be here.

[Little Star]

41. ick, I mean Kick!!! hee,hee

[MADem]

42. This is a hard limit which is enforced automatically by our software.

PRAISE the ADMINS!!! HAIL Technology!!!!!!!!!

How wonderful!! Thank you so very much!

Edited due to a misspelling that made it look like I was praising the AMINS (and if we're talking about Idi, there's nothing to praise) instead of the ADMINS.

[MaineDem]

45. Thank you!

Making the best web site even better.

I love you guys!

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Excellent news!

Thanks for doing this.

[THUNDER HANDS]

46. not happy with this

most of the people who had 10, 15 threads on the first page every night have been banned.

If there should be a posting limit, it should apply to non gold-star members.

[Alhena]

60. Kinda agree- not as many interesting new threads

I keep refreshing but it's the same old tired threads.

[marlakay]

47. Thanks hopefully people will choose

more carefully with only three.

[NC_Nurse]

48. Sounds good . Thank you for doing something about

the useless drive-by posting. :-)

[Horse with no Name]

49. Not one of the better ideas.

To start with--everything was thrown into the venom pit GDP and people have a choice whether to go there or not...so now you are going to limit it.
But what the hell--I don't have a candidate anyway.:toast:

[SeattleGirl]

50. Thank you!

Hopefully that will cut down on the amount of sewage in here.

[libbygurl]

Thank goodness. Wise move, Skinner and mods. Thank you. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

51. Yay for DU!! Now if there'd be a limit on people kicking their old threads too!

What Nonsense that crap is!

[Adelante]

52. Okay, thanks nt

[NMDemDist2]

53. I'm thinking this explains all the Hearts you got this week Skinner!

:yourock:

[bigtree]

56. That's a pretty cool computer program. Takes the guesswork out of it.

Thanks!

[Maddy McCall]

57. Thank the internet gods!!!

Thank you Skinner, Earl, Elad.

:woohoo:

[golddigger]

58. K&R...n/t

[AtomicKitten]

59. Excellent.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

61. Thank you much, Skinner!!!!

Thanks thanks thanks. It was outrageous the bandwith being
sucked dry by spammers.

Thanks..

You are right, though - we can expect some sock puppets to hatch out today.

[kid a]

63. now what would be really cool is a three recommnd limit - use wisely - nt

[Horse with no Name]

64. You know Skinner if you worked it JUST right

you could open an "Ebay" type forum.
People could auction off their unused posts or you could sell additional posts for a monetary contribution to DU!
Work it baby, work it!

[Scurrilous]

65. K & R

:thumbsup:

[flowomo]

66. excellent.... freezes not only trolls, but empty "vanity posts" as well

new threads should not be started just because someone heard some airhead call into C-SPAN. Or got a call from a long-lost cousin who decided to vote for Clinton or Obama this morning. Every post should contain a substantive point and this better ensures that will happen. I'd extend the rule across a lot more forums. Do the people complaining actually believe they have THAT much to say of importance, or that can't be appended to an existing thread?

[Joe the Revelator]

67. I think this is a bad idea

News moves quick, and some posters are better at finding this news then others. Limiting the amount of new threads one can post, also limits the news that is available to the forum.


Lets be honest, this rule was put into effect to curb the posting of one particular poster, who apparently isn't even among us anymore.

Sorry guys this is a bad rule, that I actually vote for. I hadn't given it enough thought.

[jefferson_dem]

105. Agreed.

Sure, some abused their DU privies but I'm not at all happy with the thread limit.

With it in place, I supect I'll visit this forum less often. I need a life anyway. ;).

[DeepModem Mom]

160. I hear ya, jefferson_dem. I post a lot of news threads, as you do.

Things were a bit out of control, however -- I think something had to be done.

[Oeditpus Rex]

68. Boy, give a guy a few hearts and he thinks he runs the joint

:eyes:

[TheDonkey]

69. Yay for restricting dialouge and free speech!!!

I will not be donating to DU this drive. I understand the need to limit inflammatory posts but that should be done at the moderation level not some sweeping ban on posting topics. Especially now that Obama is the frontrunner but nothing was done when Hillary supporters flooded the boards during her run.

Real bad policy, and a sad day for DU

[Skinner]

78. Ah, yes. The obligatory bias accusation.

LOL.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

101. Based On Your Lack Of Star, It Appears You Haven't Donated To What, The Previous 4 Either LOL

What were your excuses those times?

:rofl:

[kirby]

127. I agree...

It is sad that people abused the posting feature. It is also sad that the admins had to restrict posting and even sadder that people cheer the restriction. Especially when all that is needed is the willpower to avoid the group and/or threads. Oh well... Its certainly within the prerogative of the server owners to do that, but I still am disappointed.

[MonkeyFunk]

148. Most people are here

because they love politics. This is the ONLY forum in which to discuss the election. Some people made it practically useless for doing that.

Yes, it's unfortunate such a rule was necessary.

[Lil Missy]

138. Yeah, it's an obvious conspiracy.

:eyes:

[Seen the light]

70. You should have given us warning before doing this

I hate that I can't post the thread I want to post now because I hit the three thread limit without even knowing it was going to be an issue. Grrrrrr...

[Skinner]

79. We had a poll open half the weekend.

You all knew this was coming.

[TheDonkey]

96. I saw no poll sticked to the top of this forum, so no we all didn't know.

[mudesi]

71. Can you make this permanent for both GDs? And increase it to 5?

Not than I'm innocent in all this, but I think this ought to be official policy from now on for both GD forums. I think three is a little too low, though. Perhaps 5 or 6 would be better.

Either way, I don't think this should be temporary. A limit on the number of threads one may start increases the probability of starting a good thread and avoiding repeats.

[Skinner]

80. Let's see how it goes before we go global. (nt)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

141. please don't increase it to five

if people want to post just a plain old news item, they could do like we do
in the Election Reform forum, someone posts a Daily News Thread.

But please oh please don't let the spammers have 5 threads per day!!!

And thanks.

[shaniqua6392]

162. I would not like it to go global, so to speak.

Every day I read about a dozen or more truly awesome posts regarding veterans issues from unhappycamper, who is a great asset to DU BTW. I would not want to see those who post multiple articles, etc. that would be relevant and informative. There are many who seek to inform DU members on intelligent issues and post more than 3 times. Then there are those that start threads every 10 minutes that are just attempting to cause trouble. There is a fine line there, I know. I am all for the GDP rule though and I thank you for it.

[Horse with no Name]

175. Yeah silencing DU'ers like kpete would be beneficial to this website

Don't you think?:eyes:

[Political Heretic]

72. Support 100% - I think I've posted more than three somedays, but...

...there's no need. Three is enough.

[Viking12]

73. Yeah! Bewteen the limit and a growing ignore list GD-P might become semi-useful

[Yuugal]

74. Thank you so much!

It has been really hard to enjoy DU lately with so many posters shooting off one-liners and burying the good threads.

[MonkeyFunk]

75. Skinner - a question

If a thread is moved here from GD, will it count toward that person's total for the day? I can see people posting in the "wrong" forum as a sneaky way to get past the rule.

[Skinner]

82. Threads aren't going to be moved here.

If someone posts in the other GD forum to skirt the rule, the mods have instructions to lock or delete.

[MonkeyFunk]

85. Ah

that's an even better solution!

Thanks.

[Danger Mouse]

76. Thanks Skinner.

It's definitely needed!

[mtnsnake]

77. Skinner, would you mind posting a thread for me about the Goddess of Peace? I used my 3 up already

:evilgrin:

[David Zephyr]

81. Thanks Skinner. It will make for a better forum and will attract more members, too.

I'm glad you went with three.

I am kicking and recommending as you asked because it does need to be seen.

This is great news.

[Blue_Roses]

83. Thank-God!

:bounce:

[theHandpuppet]

84. Thanks! K&R

:dem:

[Hill_YesWeWill]

86. I Love You! nt

[THUNDER HANDS]

87. Question, how does the time work?

For example....

I make my first post of the day at 12:01 A.M - my second post at 12:00 P.M. - and my third post at 11:59 P.M.

at 12:01 A.M. the next day, do I get three more posts, or do I get one more post, because the one from 12:01 the previous day came off the books? Or do all from the previous day come off the books?

[Skinner]

90. It is not based on a calendar day.

Members cannot post more than 3 new threads during any 24 hour period. So, if you post a thread at 10am, another at 11am, and a third at 6pm, you can't post another new thread until 10am the next day.

[terrya]

94. Are there any plans to implement this in any of the other forums?

In the future?

Thanks again

[Skinner]

111. Currently, no.

But if it is a blockbuster smash hit, then we would certainly consider it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. 24 Hours Or 24 BUSINESS Hours?

:rofl:

Sorry.... kinda had to do that...

[liberalhistorian]

146. "snicker"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ellisonz]

88. Praise Skinner!

[Tektonik]

89. Wow maybe I'll be able to read GD: P again

first the scum was cleared with the mass bannings and deserved suspensions, next the thread limitations :woohoo:

[chimpymustgo]

91. Good move. Thanks.

[THUNDER HANDS]

93. I think I can sum up my frustrations with this

I understand what the point is, that you'd like to encourage people to post more thoughtful subjects, and use their posts wisely.

From my own experience in GD-P, I can tell you that I've spent almost an hour crafting a post that I believed was well thought out, researched and topical - only to have it fall and get ignored with zero or basically no replies.

Then I'll post something that was literally right off the top of my head, spit it out in seconds, and it'll get hundreds of views and tons of replies and recs.

There's no rhyme or reason to it.

I just think it'd be a shame to limit people expressing their opinions on what is without a doubt the most exciting and riveting and unpredicable primary contest in Democratic Party history.

And I think with the banning that took place before, a lot of issues that had arose when this was initially proposed have been dealt with.

I honestly don't see the need for this. Or at least, the need to limit it to three. That's awfully small, and there are so many topics to discuss, even every day.

I know there was a problem, but I think there should have been more time between the banning and the implementation of this.

Thanks Skinner, even though I disagree with this, I still think you and all the other mods and admins do a spectacular job here.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. There Are Many Topics To Discuss Each Day. But Rest Assured, Those Topics Will Still Be Posted.

They just won't be posted by the same handful of posters, and will give others opportunities maybe. But I would doubt HIGHLY that topics of concern or interest that would've normally been posted, all of a sudden will now fall by the wayside. We have too many DU'ers here who are too sharp to let things fall through the cracks.

I also think 3 is fair. We have a lot of members here. How many of us here have right to be so arrogant to think that the overall audience wants to read more than 3 threads from any given one of us on any given day? I think that's kind of the point. 3 should really suffice for any given day's events, or at least that's my position on it. (Disclaimer being that the rare poster like a Kpete or Babylonsister etc, would have that special following. But for the majority of us? Not so much)

But I know you may not agree with that. But still, give it a chance and see how it goes! And trust me when I say there will be MORE than ample enough opportunity for ALL of us to continue expressing our opinions quite readily during this most exciting and riveting and unpredictable primary contest in Democratic Party history.

Personally, I think this is going to help GDP be a LOT better, and I'm hoping those that disprove give it an open minded chance to see if turns out to have been a good idea for them after all. :)

[THUNDER HANDS]

102. I don't get the whole 'it'll give other people a chance to post' argument

What is stopping them from posting now? People are free to post as much or as little as they'd like....or at least they were.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

103. Not Much Fun To Post A Dupe, Ya Know?

Really shouldn't be that hard to understand, to be honest with ya.

[THUNDER HANDS]

106. so there's only so many topics to discuss?

Then why not place a limit on topics, instead of just posts in general?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. LOL I Think That Might Be A Tad More Difficult To Code Into The Software.

It's all good though. If you feel differently, you feel differently. Just giving the other side of the fence view. :hi:

[THUNDER HANDS]

108. i know

:hi:

[liberalhistorian]

147. Because the good posts drop like a rock based

on all the silly, inflammatory, flamebait or spamming posts, simple as that.

[Skinner]

109. I think your post actually hits an important point.

You said:

From my own experience in GD-P, I can tell you that I've spent almost an hour crafting a post that I believed was well thought out, researched and topical - only to have it fall and get ignored with zero or basically no replies.

Then I'll post something that was literally right off the top of my head, spit it out in seconds, and it'll get hundreds of views and tons of replies and recs.

There's no rhyme or reason to it.

I'm going to be completely honest here: I personally do not care if we have this rule or not. I was prepared -- and, in fact, perfectly happy -- to continue with the state of affairs as they existed here a week ago. We're in the middle of a very hotly contested primary for the presidency of the United States. The stakes could not possibly be higher. In such a situation, I have learned to fully expect ugliness, both here and elsewhere. I do not have much difficulty skipping the threads that do not interest me. And I even think that replying to flame bait can be fun sometimes. You are exactly right: The throw-away stuff is what attracts the most responses. I have said before on DU that what people want and what people think they want is sometimes very different. I think the anecdotal evidence here on DU suggests that sometimes people get more enjoyment from the throw-away stuff than from the thoughtful stuff.

But the bottom line is that this is already the longest political primary in history. People on DU seem to be getting a little tired of it. And as the admin of this website, I felt like the dissatisfaction had gotten to the point where I needed to give all of you an option: Would you like to try something new to see if it will make DU more enjoyable? And overwhelmingly people voted yes. If people had voted no, that would have been perfectly fine, too.

But here we are, the voters have spoken, and we're going to give this a try. At this point, we don't actually know if it's going to make any difference, and if it does make a difference, we don't know whether it will make DU more enjoyable for our members. The only way to know is to give it a shot and see what happens.

And if it's a bust, and everyone hates it -- or if I hate it -- then we'll get rid of it. If we do, this certainly wouldn't be the first or last time that we've ditched one of our half-baked ideas. Believe me, I am not so proud that I won't admit when I know I've make a mistake.

[THUNDER HANDS]

113. thanks Skinner, I appreciate that

I guess it just seemed like odd timing to me. If this was done at the height of the nastiness, I could understand. But it seemed to come on the heels of the mass bannings, and also after the most recent round of primaries, which seem to have taken much of the steam out of the horserace. I mean, it's not over, of course, but it's looking more and more likely that we've decided upon our nominee.

I hope that this is just temporary, because I honestly think it's unfair for a lot of reasons, especially in light of the fact that you have a lot of people who donate their money to this site for the privilege of posting here, and I don't think it would be fair to limit the amount you could donate to DU, so I don't think it's fair to limit the amount you could contribute, posting-wise, to DU.

As for the will of the people thing, I compeltely understand that, but I think if you took a poll on a bunch of various topics, you'd have a completely different site than what you intended.

But thanks for hearing me out anyway. I appreicate it.

:hi:

[Joe the Revelator]

118. I hope we get rid of it

Too much is going to happen in the next three weeks to limit the newshounds to 3 threads a day. Its going to slow the flow of information down to a trickle.

[beachmom]

140. On DailyKos, you only get ONE DIARY per day, and there is no kicking.

If it doesn't get enough recommends, then it dies within 2 hours never to be seen again. This means you have to really get into craft: a great title, a well thought out post, and so on. At least here you can kick it once or twice to see if it gains tractions.

The thing is, GDP is too much flaming and not enough analysis. People throw together posts obviously in 5 minutes and it gets 100 replies, because it PROVOKES, but usually does not inform.

And you just have to accept the fact that many days, you're just not going to hit the jackpot. That's just how it is.

[Renew Deal]

182. DU serves a different purpose and maybe even crowd that Kos.

DU contains tons and tons of information that flows at an extremely fast pace. It's a mix of opinion, news, activism, and general information. We don't seem to always look for the most substance, but the most interesting content. Sometimes that's news. Sometimes it's ideas. And we want lots of it FAST!

I personally don't like the thread limit, at least at such a low level. It has slowed down DU. It has also prevented me from posting things that others find and post later. It's a drag.

[Crunchy Frog]

95. Thank you, thank you, thank you Skinner.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

99. Thanks for implementing this

I'd be interested to see how it works.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

100. HUGE Thank You Skinner! This Should Absolutely Help.

:thumbsup:

[JVS]

110. Won't this just lead to people posting the BS thread once and then kicking it forever...

so they can keep their crap up and still post new threads about other "Issues"?

[Skinner]

112. Maybe.

We'll see.

[JVS]

115. Good enough for my peace of mind. You run a great site here Skinner. Thanks.

[mudesi]

133. That would be easy to spot, though. (nm)

[burythehatchet]

114. Rudy Guilliani called and said

the number should have between 9 and 11 threads.

[MH1]

116. ...

:rofl:

:toast:

[rucky]

117. My headache is gone!

:yourock:

[THUNDER HANDS]

119. Skinner, just out of curiosity, was there any thought given

to creating another Primaries forum, where people could fight and attack freely, and vent their frustrations, ect - and leave the original one for substantive discussions of issues?

That would seem to work for all parties. Those who want a calm, substantive forum could post in that one, those who want a more agressive forum could post there.

I don't know, just tossing ideas out there.

[ClericJohnPreston]

122. Well, that pares down another offender

huh, Magic Rat??? Got any more bogus polls?

[Laurab]

154. Why is it that every single post I see of yours is insulting

to another DU'er? EVERY one. I can't say what I'd like to say due to DU rules, but there is something very odd here.

[il_lilac]

123. glad to hear this

It should make GDP more enjoyable.

[JuniperLea]

124. BEST IDEA EVER!!!

Thank you so much!

[anitar1]

125. Thank you so much. n/t

[cboy4]

128. Suh-weeeet!! -- Huh come none of the usual suspects

have any reaction?

They must be devastated they're going to be cut from 12-13-14 down to three!!

[varelse]

130. Thank you sooooooooo much

<3

[musicblind]

131. Thank you

I think this is a great idea! The forum had become unbearable. :)

[Historic NY]

132. Thank you

[BobTheSubgenius]

134. K&R

[Stinky The Clown]

135. I think this is great

I even noticed that the mix on the Greatest Page is more evenly balanced with other forums.

[TexasObserver]

136. I approve this message!!

No one is more interesting than three threads a day.

[WillyT]

137. Really ??? - Three ???

Hope somebody's paying attention when something important happens.

:shrug:

[aaronbees]

139. Bless ya, Skinner

A smart move. :)

[yardwork]

142. Thank you, Skinner!

By the way, you deserve all those hearts and more!

[Lil Missy]

143. K & R n/t

[Hekate]

145. Bless you, darling Skinner. Multitudes shall rise up and call you blessed. nt

[pinto]

149. kick.

:kick:

[Fiendish Thingy]

150. Thank You Jeebus! k&r! n/t

[Lindsey]

151. Thanks Skinner! Good move.....n/t

[PresidentObama]

152. Absolutely idiotic.

Punishing good posters who post many threads of substance because of the bad posters who post flamebait, spam, etc.

Patch work on a growing problem within DU.

I've got a better solution: Don't punish good members because of the bad ones, and get to tombstoning!

[zulchzulu]

157. I agree

It's a stupid policy in my view.

I think a rating system would be better. If a post gets 10 recs, it takes away the post number. So if you did a thread that was interesting and had more than 10 recommends, it counts as a free post. People could UNrecommend a post too.

I feel like Aunt Asshat walked in to the room.

[babylonsister]

183. I would never call anything Skinner does idiotic, but I agree with your

comment. It's curbing info that might/should be out there.

[PresidentObama]

185. I think you should send him a message, babylonsister.

I know you make plenty of threads with substance, and no flamebait nor spam.

And now you're limited to three threads.

I really enjoy your threads, myself :)

[babylonsister]

186. I am sure he knows the drawbacks, and might be monitoring this

thread. I don't know what the answer is if the majority is backing him up, but it does limit some info getting out there.

[Seabiscuit]

153. Skinner, you picked the perfect number. THANK YOU!

[Laurab]

155. THANK YOU, THANK YOU! K&R n/t

[blayne]

156. Thanks yall.

[RiverStone]

158. Thanks for listening to our vote!

Reminds me of what our Super Delegates should do!

Appreciate it Skinner :hi:

[cornermouse]

161. Thank you Skinner.

[salin]

163. Thank You Skinner!

I came in to the forum this morning for a quick read. I tend to go by thread title and don't notice the poster until after I start reading - after reading a few caustic threads, I realized a couple were by the same people... and thought - well only one more thread today from that person.... Never thought that about posters before, have never really utilized the ignore option as I really don't want to miss thought provoking thread - and folks that I may disagree with do post some thought provoking stuff. But the caustic stuff - too much already. Thanks for this 'temporary' fix to the current problem in this forum.

:thumbs up:

[DemReadingDU]

164. Thank you

[blogslut]

165. Morning kick

Thank you, Skinner. :)

[SaveOurDemocracy]

166. Major improvement ... thanks!

:kick:

[proud2BlibKansan]

167. Great idea. Thank you!

[HamdenRice]

168. Proud2NotBeASpammer! nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

169. Thank you Skinner --

There are times when I wish this were in effect in all the other forums as well.

Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours...

[complain jane]

170. Thank God. And to the complainers,

a quick glance over the GDP forum shows the same friggen thing being said ten different ways anyway, no matter who you're supporting. There's no need to litter the board with yet more screaming all-caps declarations of the same thing that's most likely already here but you've re-worded it added fourteen exclamation points to it. What's more, this only applies to the Primaries forum.

It's not the end of the world. Really.

Besides, you can make fifty different points in one new post if you want to and still have two more threads to start!

Really. There's no victim. No "stifling of free speech". You will survive.

[MadBadger]

171. A quick Look at DU though also sees the same old threads since last night

Nobody is reporting news out there because theyve probably run out of posts. I've seen a couple polls that I would normally post, but I have no posts left.

[thetaoofterri]

172. K & R

[snappyturtle]

173. kick! n/t

[raccoon]

174. We love you, Skinner, oh yes, we do.... Rec'd nt

[uppityperson]

176. I posted only 1 and it got moved. Question.

Fine, it was the brazilion joke, but if I want to try to lighten things up and waste one of my posts, I guess this is against the rules?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4579319&mesg_id=4579319

[Chovexani]

177. Line forming to have your babies.

Right here. :D

[TygrBright]

178. So, can I put my three threads per day up for auction?

Like, the three highest bidders in today's auction get to e-mail me their posts, which I post under my SN, crediting them in the Subject line or first line of the post, as soon as their payment reaches my Paypal account?

Like that?

I haven't thought about this or anything. Just off the top of my head, y'know.

mischievously,
Bright

[Corkey Mineola]

179. Support Group for Multi-Posters meets at Noon.... n/t

[kiva]

180. Thank you! nt

[Lil Missy]

181. K&R And thanks!

[Renew Deal]

184. I have been thinking about this and I don't like it.

I think you're putting a square block in a round hole. The problem we had was infighting, rudeness, and assholiness. The solution you offered hasn't solved that problem. It has just slowed down the flow of information on DU. The bannings have gone a long way to solving the problems we were having.

The big problem in GDP were guys like P2BA posting tons and tons of incoherent and antagonistic bullshit. These people were here just to antagonize other people. DU has been calmer and friendlier since they were banned. This was the absolute right thing to do. You went after the people causing the problems.

The thread limit has slowed down GDP. It keeps breaking or interesting info from being posted because people are sitting on posts or out of posts. There are good DUers that repost news that are being stifled. The most notable one is Deepmodem Mom. She's fantastic. She posts MSM pieces that others miss. She's never antagonistic or even partisan. There are others that post information that is hard to find that cannot go as deep because of the thread limit.

One funny thing about the thread limit is that it hasn't prevented dupes. You would think that people would check to see if something was already posted, but they don't.

Overall, I think the thread limit didn't solve the problem. The problem was behavior and the bannings took care of it. I think the thread limit should be lifted and stern moderator warnings should be should be used when necessary. Also, I think paying members should have a higher limit than non paying members or newbs. Finally, I ran the numbers on the poll you posted. I averaged out all the answers using a value of 30 for unlimited. It came out to 5.03 posts per person/per day. That could be a fair compromise.

1*128=128
3*706=2118
5*419=2095
10*85=510
20*6=120
30*72=2160

7131/1416= 5.03
posts votes

[Auntie Bush]

187. If we ever have an exceptionally big day of important news...

like when someone finally wins the nomination or heaven forbid a terrorist attack etc...Can the three post rule be suspended temporally for a day?
Just wondering. :shrug: