Zone1 I would like to suggest a maximum of 3 new threads per day by any one poster

[Dogmaphobe]

there was another time I was wrong in 1988.

There you were walkng down the street with your friends in 10 below zero temps. You spotted that lamp post up ahead looking all sparkly and pretty. They encouraged you to lick it........

 

[Calypso Jones]

more likely this.

 

[iceberg]

Care to flesh out your reasoning?

I do tire of the pro/con Ukraine trolls if that is what you are referring to.

Likely a skews bullshit prevention move

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I need more attention than what I can get with just three discussions dedicated to my unique perspective about subjects that have already been posted by the dumb members.

 

[petro]

I think very few posters exceed that

Shit.
You would be out of a job.

 

[Quasar44]

I just need to be able to EXCEED 3 on SAturday and Sunday

I go into major depression on those 2 days .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe the headline is self-explanatory.

Yes.

Poll it

 

[beautress]

Is there a Holocaust forum

Holocaust History

I have been seeing a lot of article and threads on the Holocaust but have not found one which deals with the History, before, during and after. Therefore I am starting one now. Any Holocaust denier is welcome to post and discuss here. Discuss, not attack, or troll. Proof that it did not...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[JoeMoma]

I have noticed a poster or two (or three) that starts lots of threads. Oftentimes it's clear that the Opening Poster spent very little time if any reading the article or watching the video he links in the opening post. That said, some of these threads do spur interesting conversations and some don't.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

people should just be glad that it was Lisa making a suggestion smd not me.

my own suggestion would have been shot down immediately as being too radical, too experimental, and something that would involve a complete about face from the way things are done here.

it would be scorned by mods, ridiculed by posters here and I would be told it was unworkable, impractical and hopelessly naive.

my suggestion would be to start treating everybody the same.

 

[Lisa558]

people should just be glad that it was Lisa making a suggestion smd not me.

my own suggestion would have been shot down immediately as being too radical, too experimental, and something that would involve a complete about game from the way things are done here.

it would be scorned by mods, ridiculed by posters here and I would be told it was unworkable, impractical and hopelessly naive.

my suggestion would be to start treating everybody the same.

I like your suggestion better - treat everyone the same.

 

[MarathonMike]

I think very few posters exceed that

We all know one poster who easily exceeds 20 threads per day.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We all know one poster who easily exceeds 20 threads per day

You need to realize that it takes a LOT of threads to vent all that hatred

 

[MisterBeale]

I believe the headline is self-explanatory.

I'm not sure that is necessary, but if I had my druthers, I would mandate that you had to post 1000 messages in other folks threads before you are clear to start and create threads.

There are some folks, that clearly have some mental issues, they always only post OP's, and never post in any other person's threads. It is always, and only, about them. I think we even have some bots and foreign agents, whose mission it is, to either gather data on the POV of Americans habits and opinions, or to create an influence operation.

IF we had such a rule, THAT would cut down on such insane posters and foreign influence spooks and bad actors. If folks were required to intelligently engage with the board in a meaningful way, for a thousand posts in others threads, before being allowed to start making lots of threads of their own, it would screen the forum for those who have the ability to make quality threads, that aren't here just to spam the board with inflammatory or provocative propaganda to grind their own agendas.

I loath being viewed as a product, I honestly do.

Who do these clowns think they are? They really are transparent, and folks of all political thought, whether you are on the left, or the right, see right through them.

 

[okfine]

I'm not sure that is necessary, but if I had my druthers, I would mandate that you had to post 1000 messages in other folks threads before you are clear to start and create threads.

There are some folks, that clearly have some mental issues, they always only post OP's, and never post in any other person's threads. It is always, and only, about them. I think we even have some bots and foreign agents, whose mission it is, to either gather data on the POV of Americans habits and opinions, or to create an influence operation.

IF we had such a rule, THAT would cut down on such insane posters and foreign influence spooks and bad actors. If folks were required to intelligently engage with the board in a meaningful way, for a thousand posts in others threads, before being allowed to start making lots of threads of their own, it would screen the forum for those who have the ability to make quality threads, that aren't here just to spam the board with inflammatory or provocative propaganda to grind their own agendas.

I loath being viewed as a product, I honestly do.

Who do these clowns think they are? They really are transparent, and folks of all political thought, whether you are on the left, or the right, see right through them.

1000 posts and then they go willy nilly?

 

[MisterBeale]

1000 posts and then they go willy nilly?

Anyone that has the goal of going. . . "willy nilly," propagandist or data mining? Or to just stroke their ego out of lonilness and boredom?

I don't think they could meaningfully do a thousand posts. They would eventually resort to trolling or crap like that. Or get bored and leave before they could do a thousand.

A thousand posts would be enough to identify and neutralize them.

. . . I think.



Of course, there will be anomalies.

How many OP's does moonglow make?

 

[okfine]

Anyone that has the goal of going. . . "willy nilly," propagandist or data mining? Or to just stroke their ego out of lonilness and boredom?

I don't think they could meaningfully do a thousand posts. They would eventually resort to trolling or crap like that. A thousand posts would be enough to identify and neutralize them.

. . . I think.



Of course, there will be anomalies.

How many OP's does moonglow make?

I don't think Moonglow is in the question.

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't think Moonglow is in the question.

I was acknowledging that, such a system, as you say, would not be perfect. I was using our treasured member, moonie, as an example, of how a person might quickly rack up a thousand posts, without much quality content, and then, post OP's, "willy nilly." They could just as well, do it from the right too, with loathsome, diversionary snipes. It doesn't matter much.

We already have "willy nilly." IMO, this would cut down the, as you say, "willy nilly."

You are free do disagree, naturally.

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe the headline is self-explanatory.

It's a good suggestion. And in FACT is being considered in a modified form.

DISCLAIMER: ---- I haven't read thru this thread. Dont know where it goes and what people have said or whether mods have weighed in.

A LIMIT already exist. Applies to all Zone1 and Zone2 forums. And its the POLICY -- may not be in the rules -- that there IS a limit of One thread per One member per day per TOPIC.

THAT makes sense. Because it's pure "thread duplication".

What we are considering is that because Zone1 is civil discussion and it REQUIRES that the Oposter put extra effort into DEFENDING their topic -- it makes sense that ONE thread in any Zone1 forum is enough for the day for any member. You could have ONE is Religion, One in Race, One in Clean Debate, etc per day but NO MORE than that.

I think there's a good chance of that happening soon.

It can be justified for THOSE forums because of the "in depth" nature of the discussion and attention those sensitive topics deserve. NOT SO MUCH in Media, Current Events, Politics and other FAST MOVING targets.


Good suggestion. Comments?

 

[Lisa558]

It's a good suggestion. And in FACT is being considered in a modified form.

DISCLAIMER: ---- I haven't read thru this thread. Dont know where it goes and what people have said or whether mods have weighed in.

A LIMIT already exist. Applies to all Zone1 and Zone2 forums. And its the POLICY -- may not be in the rules -- that there IS a limit of One thread per One member per day per TOPIC.

THAT makes sense. Because it's pure "thread duplication".

What we are considering is that because Zone1 is civil discussion and it REQUIRES that the Oposter put extra effort into DEFENDING their topic -- it makes sense that ONE thread in any Zone1 forum is enough for the day for any member. You could have ONE is Religion, One in Race, One in Clean Debate, etc per day but NO MORE than that.

I think there's a good chance of that happening soon.

It can be justified for THOSE forums because of the "in depth" nature of the discussion and attention those sensitive topics deserve. NOT SO MUCH in Media, Current Events, Politics and other FAST MOVING targets.


Good suggestion. Comments?

Not sure that ONE thread isn’t too restrictive. True that a topic in Zone 1 requires extra work in defending the opening post, but - and I realize I don’t get a vote, but you asked for my comments - if that is the reason to limit it to one, I think two would be within reason to maintain the attention required. After all, many of us are retired professionals where we were handling and/or overseeing numerous projects simultaneously.