Should we have a 3 thread limit tomorrow like we had in the primaries?

[Beaverhausen]

Tomorrow will surely be nuts here and I think it would help if we reinstated the 3 thread limit.

Anyone with me?

apologies if this has already been discussed and/or decided.

[scheming daemons]

1. The mods are already limiting tomorrow to DU donors... so that should make it saner...

[joshcryer]

5. Posting only or will it affect *viewers*?

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. Read the sticky at the top of the page..... this is part of it.

We may need to limit access to the website so only registered members may read and post -- leaving unregistered visitors blocked out. And in the worst-case scenario, we may have to limit access to donors only.

[Orsino]

12. Sounds like all access, but...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7640634&mesg_id=7640634
"In the event that a massive influx of visitors to Democratic Underground overwhelms our servers and makes it impossible for anyone to access our website, we may be forced to take extraordinary measures to stay online. We may need to limit access to the website so only registered members may read and post -- leaving unregistered visitors blocked out. And in the worst-case scenario, we may have to limit access to donors only."

No one is definitely going to be blocked, but Skinner promises preferential treatment for donors, then for logged-in registered users, should any filtering of traffic become necessary.

[Schema Thing]

2. Definitely!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Why?

We had the three post limit because a small group of now-banned trolls kept spamming the board with the same stories over and over.

I don't see how that's an issue now.

[elocs]

4. I hope we do not have the hundreds of single post chat threads like during the debates.

So many seem to believe that they have the most very important thing to say and it deserves a new thread of its own.

[Beaverhausen]

14. that's what I'm thinking we need to avoid tomorrow

[bluethruandthru]

20. I think you're right!

I've noticed some members...even long time members...who feel the need to start a new thread for every thought that pops into their head.

[Beaverhausen]

21. like what's happening right now with the sad news of Obama's grandmother passing

everyone is posting their own thread.

[Mark E. Smith]

6. Nah.

Why ruin the fun?

[TexasObserver]

7. Yes!! No one is THAT interesting.

What is it with posters who never look to see if one of the 40 threads already on their topic might cover the thought they just had?

[stillcool]

8. I think so too..

I'm sure there will be more than enough active posts. Why gum up the works with redundancy, and bump good posts off the board as soon as they go up? It only applies to GDP right?

[PeaceNikki]

9. Maybe people should just exercise some judement and self-control

and not post every thought as a new thread.

Or is that a bit too much to expect?

[depakid]

10. If it helps to keep the site running....

[skooooo]

13. I can't remember if I donated or not..how do you tell?

[Beaverhausen]

16. your gold star by your profile. Looks like you are OK

[SoxFan]

15. Definitely NOT

News will be developing fast and furious tomorrow. A 3 post limit would make the free flow of info difficult to sustain.

[Beaverhausen]

17. not post limit but thread limit

[EmeraldCityGrl]

18. Not everyone can afford to donate. I'm voluntarily only responding to

threads started by others.

[Beaverhausen]

19. kick for more responses

I just don't want DU to shut down tomorrow from overload when everyone posts their every thought on a new thread.

[bluethruandthru]

22. Well....just look at the site now.

How many threads have been started stating that Obamas Grandmother has died? Did no one check to see if there were other threads that already stated this news??

[Beaverhausen]

23. kick for the evening crowd