WOW. The thread limit works great!

[mudesi]

I'm going to use one of my three right now just to express my opinion that not only should this be made permanent and be implemented in GD as well, but that it works beautifully.

I have just read through 4 excellently written, well thought out, and extremely intriguing threads with several recommendations. After spending several minutes reading them and many of their replies, I was pleased to see that they are still in the first half of page number 1.

Them, along with a few other new ones that are equally compelling.

The thread limit has, after being implemented not even a day, encouraged people to post quality, not quantity. When you know you'll have to wait 24 hours before you can start another three threads, you take the time to post something substantial.

I believe I posted a thread many months ago in GD asking for this, way before the primaries were even beginning. Obviously, I was for it then and I'm for it now. If anything good has come out of these primaries, it's this.

So who's with me? I think this is great. I think it should stay.

[Frances]

1. Agree

[Flabbergasted]

2. I think it would be worth a shot.

Perhaps we could have a toal of three posts in a 24 hour period. Then people would really make it count.

;-)

[Mist]

7. There wouldn't be much give-and-take convos with only 3 posts per day! nt

[DCKit]

24. It's 3 OPs/day to frustrate spammers.

You can answer and comment on other posts until your fingers drop off.

[Mist]

29. I know--I was just responding to the suggestion of a 3 post a day limit! nt

[FrenchieCat]

3. I'm glad!

I might have posted more than that during most days, but many were reaction to the dumb threads others were putting up. I was fighting the headlines, sorta speak. Now, that is no longer as big of a concern.

I suggested 3 thread limits when Skinner asked...

Glad that was done.

[ClericJohnPreston]

17. Wha, WHA, WHAT???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA :rofl:

[mtnsnake]

4. I think it's only fair that Hillary supporters are allowed 30 threads per day on GDP

since we're outnumbered by 10 to 1. :evilgrin:

[musicblind]

25. haha

I know you're just joking but WAS funny...



... because these days it's true :(

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. I hate it

I donate money to this place, and I spend more time in this particular forum than all the others combined, plus, I've been here for six freakin' years. I don't think it's fair to treat me, or anyone else who has been here for a long time, like some first-week poster who spams the board with 17, 18 posts on the front page.

and face it, we all know this was done for the four or five people who were banned a few days ago - so what's the point?

Personally, I think if you donate money to this place, you should be able to post as much as you want. I don't think starting 5, 6, 7 threads over a 24-hour period is excessive.


It's the freakin' primaries. THIS IS THE FUN TIME OF YEAR.

It makes no sense to me, especially with P2BA and KG and others tombstoned.

[Flabbergasted]

8. They were banned but they, or others, will be back.

Won't they lift the limit once the primaries are over?

[jefferson_dem]

9. I thought it was a good idea...but i've realized it's a drag for a thread-starting mutha' like me.

Now I have to wait until tomorrow at noon to launch another...

That's a :cry: to me. Maybe a :applause: for some of you.

[Catherine Vincent]

20. I love this new rule.

:)

[sandnsea]

14. I thought it would be at least 5

I was shocked when it was only 3. There are a lot of posters here who post several good items a day. And there are some of us who could post a Pulitzer and never get a response.

[Bongo Prophet]

28. Maybe there can be more thoughtful OPs, and it'll be less like a dorm chatroom. I hope so.

It was far more than just a few posters, in my opinion. I am sorry you hate it, but I think you can adjust. Just use that limitation as a spur toward more creativity. ;)

I have been here since 2001. (I reset username in 2004, needed to be reborn after that crushing "defeat")

[NMMNG]

6. I don't think it needs to be expanded past GDP

Or that it needs to be made permanent. But for now it's a wonderful policy. In addition to the Ignore list it's making things much more bearable. The people who love to go on posting frenzies will be brought under control and be forced to parse their posts to what they believe is most important. They can no longer just have keyboard diarrhea and create repeated one or two sentence OPs, or create five in a row that are pretty much the same as the five before them.

[musicblind]

26. I agree

I think it is a great idea! However, I don't think it should be expanded past GD: Primaries unless vile filth starts showing up in the other forums. I think the Late Breaking News, especially, has good filters in place requiring people to think out their posts. I love checking up on the LBN section several times a day.

HOWEVER, YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY for the post limits! I know I am new here but I love how the Admins take notice of the problems their fans have and try and fix them! I know we can't make everyone happy, and I feel for the people who aren't (Though chin up! It's only temporary until after the primaries), but I think this works for the vast majority. I see a lot more "happy" than "sad". Still, to the people who are sad about it, I know you guys must love this place! It is so addictive! So I am sorry. :(

[sandnsea]

10. There's no substance in here at all

I think it stinks and the people who used to post numerous articles a day can't post anything. All we have now are vanity posts.

[harun]

12. Articles are for Latest Breaking News, and there is no limit there

Sorry the spam you like has been cut down.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[sandnsea]

13. Articles pertaining to the candidates

Not all of them are LBN.

[Olney Blue]

11. Does this only apply to GD-P? What about late breaking news?

[mathewsleep]

15. have you noticed a lot of "new" people around here.

people with 20+ posts already running their mouths.

[ronnykmarshall]

16. Whitney isn't happy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g89hNVQ96YE

[UpInArms]

18. I agree with you - there is much more quality going on and less

mudslinging.

I also can tell you that reading your thread here - I can't see many of the responses because only "ignore" shows up - so you must have hit some nerves.

Keep up the good posts!

:hi:

[LisaM]

19. It's way better all of a sudden. I love it.

And I think you can post articles in the editorials forum.

[Alhena]

21. We need to have open threads where people can post important info ...

such as new polls even if they are at their posting limit. If we did that I'd like the new policy better.

I'm maxed out until tomorrow and I had what I thought was an important poll to post earlier and couldn't do it. Eventually, someone else found it and posted it, but it felt a little like I was a kid being told to stand in the corner.

[mudesi]

23. You answered your own concern

Someone else will always eventually post it. Frankly, there are so many people here that every single important news item or poll or anything else will always be posted by someone.

[musicblind]

27. I think THAT'S a good idea

and a good compromise for the people who are unhappy with it!


Cause I really don't want the posting limits to be raised right away, but I understand that some people, with intelligent things to say, really want to be able to contribute more.

It is for the greater good, the forum already looks nicer and better thought out posts are popping up, but your idea will help to keep people from feeling left out when they reach their post limit.

We could do a thread for additional articles

and a thread for additional polls that's maybe pinned to the top or something? IDK. I wonder if the people who are not happy would be happy with this concession if it were made?

[Sir Jeffrey]

22. Now if only we could get a limit on people posting the Wilson Op-Ed nt