Is everybody happy with their 3-vote limit in GD-P ?

[kentuck]

Do you think it has helped with the speeding vitriol that was sliming the computer screens all across America? Do you now think that maybe 5 threads would have been a better requirement? Personally, I think 3 threads per 12-hour period would be better but the present is better than what we had before? Agree or disagree?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

1. Yes. n/t

[David Zephyr]

2. Yes. I wish now it had been two.

If one has more to add after three threads, they can always find a thread and post within it. There are still too many repetitive threads.

I am very grateful to Skinner for the 3 thread limit, Kentuck.

[we can do it]

3. Yes and Too Bad We Can't Leave the Crap Off the Greatest Page

[jtrockville]

4. ^ THIS (nt)

[Tyler Durden]

41. I wish I could recommend YOUR post.

To see that childish bickering on the front page or Greatest page is so demeaning.

[CoffeeCat]

5. I almost think that three thread starts per 24 hours...

...is too many.

I would have been happy with 1 or 2 per 24 hours, per person.

I think any move that opens the floodgates any further, would be a bad idea.

I think it helps us all to be better stewards of the Internet. Often times, we
can contribute to a thread. We don't need to start a new one.

It helps everyone. I'm taking fewer Excedrin, too. :)

[Quantess]

6. I voted for one.

3 is better than no limit.

[aquart]

7. I suggested ten.

[lapfog_1]

8. I never start a thread anyway, or at least very rarely

and never in GDP. So the limit doesn't affect me.

In fact, today was an especially bad day in there, with a lot of slime.

I also note that many OPs have less than 500 posts, but usually over 100. That's odd, but then maybe its only to be expected.

[Quantess]

10. That's because many of them

just joined a few days ago, but post all day long.

[stahbrett]

9. I like it, think 1 or 2 could be even better

Seriously, how many plagiarism-related threads did we get today, even with the 3-thread limit? I don't see a problem at all...

[kentuck]

11. Some folks may be a little more "prolific" than others...

And we would not want to hinder their free speech. But, in my opinion, 3 - 5 would be ideal.

[sandnsea]

12. I think 5 for the newsies

We've got some posters here who bring the news, are good at it, and get response to the news they bring. You can't replace them. Now they don't post so much because they appear to be concerned they're going to go over their limit. I think what we've ended up with are the people who will post their 3 trash posts a day, and not a lot more. I think we need to raise it to 5.

[TahitiNut]

21. Naww... lower it to 1 ... and disable the "Recommend" link on all threads.

:evilgrin:

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Bingo!

Its the spillover to The Greatest Page that gets me. The spew should stay in there.

[EFerrari]

13. Yes.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

14. It's an improvement

There's still too many repetitive smear post, but now at least you have a chance of hiding them at almost the same rate they reappear.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Three a week would be OK-- is anyone actually posting...

anything new?

[BlooInBloo]

16. Good job corralling the jackassery into its own gdp pen...

... and then shooting the whole lot of em with post-limit tranquilizers.

[The Straight Story]

17. Naw, they need a 1 post limit

:)

[kentuck]

18. Or just make it zero posts....

and we can all read Huffington Post and Josh Marshall all day long?

[The Straight Story]

23. Or we can read....

Google.com/unclesam and look up documents relating to Hillary and Obama, etc and so on - and research things for ourselves without all the hand wringing we see on GD-P - you know, like all those people bitching about Obama and McClurkin and ignoring Hillary and the folks she has associated with who are just the same.

I am still undecided myself, but I don't need to read (and rarely do) all the posts in gd-p slamming our candidates over the silliest things.

Zero posts...yeah, that might be good :)

[TahitiNut]

19. I think it caused brain damage for one or two feces-flinging assholes.

Oops! Maybe they were assholes who couldn't comprehend the rules BEFORE the 3-thread limit?
Yeah. I should've thought of that. Darn.
Go figure.
:dunce:

[kid a]

20. i was hoping for 3 RECOMMEND Limit too - make them mean something

[theHandpuppet]

29. I've been in favor of that for a long time.

Too many stupid-ass threads getting pushed to the greatest page for very little reason.

[kentuck]

33. Do you mean..?

You get 3 Recommend votes every 24 hours? Hmmm hadn't thought of that...

[theHandpuppet]

35. Yes, somewhere between 3 and 5.

Like the other poster said, recommendations have totally lost their meaning because folks pop them like M&M's. Or they hit a K&R every time they espy an opinion they agree with -- which doesn't always mean that what they've recommended is deserving of the Greatest Page. Also, it might have the side benefit of raising the level of discourse.

[sandyd921]

22. I don't care what it is as long as

those posts stay out of GD!

[kentuck]

26. I believe GD-P was created for that very reason...?

Because GD was became "polluted" in a similar fashion. So GD-P was created to relieve some of the pressure on GD.

[sandyd921]

32. Yes, but apparently not everyone around here

seems to be aware of that (or else they pretend they don't know).

[TexasObserver]

25. The more threads a poster starts, the less they have to say.

Because it implicitly says "ME ME ME ME ME ME ME, read me!!"

[theHandpuppet]

27. Yes.

It has saved the forum from descending into utter chaos. And I very much resent those who, because they have already exceeded their 3-thread limit on GD: P, think they are entitled to break those rules by posting primary threads on GD.

[Rowdyboy]

28. Strongly agree that 3 per day is enough

[Mountainman]

30. It's better to stay he hell away from there all together. If there ever was a bigger waste band

width I haven't seen or heard of it!

[live love laugh]

31. At least there are other forums showing up on the Greatest Page now...much better. n/t

[Jamastiene]

34. I'd go for one thread in a 24 hour period.

It would certainly make for better conversation and less spamming with hyperbole and bullshit.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I'd be hard pressed to find someone that posts three substantive threads per day

I post maybe one thread per week and it usually has substance so it sinks like an anchor in GD-P.

I'm perfectly fine with the imposed thread limit because we really don't need more attack Clinton or attack Obama threads.

[kentuck]

37. There are some very bright people here ...

That, I'm sure, could post more than three substantive threads per day. Of course, many like myself are usually away from the computer about 12 hours a day and do not have the time to post even more brilliant threads. :-)

[Hardrada]

38. I'm not clever enough to post there

and prefer making aesthetic judgments so I hang around in the Lounge sometimes.

[MiniMe]

39. I don't go over there, its scary

[radfringe]

40. doesn't seem to have helped lift the caliber of postings

still looks like a bunch of toddlers bashing each other over graham crackers VS fig newtons with their milk-time snack

[Tyler Durden]

42. Just another reason why I love you.

And wouldn't it be GREAT if they disabled the "Recommend" function in GD-P so that we'd never see another one on "Greatest?"

[radfringe]

43. Want to see some more sniping in the

GD :P: ?

put in an UNrecommend function, allows people to remove 1 rec from a given post.. :rofl:

[Tyler Durden]

44. OOOO I LIKE it.

The house is burning down most of the time there anyway...What's a little gasoline?

[Ganja Ninja]

45. I just wish I could block the whole damn forum. n/t

[Sancho]

46. It's a good rule. I would be happy with 1 instead of 5.

:dem: