15-06-2000 12:24									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

two more notes:

1) the creation of "los bastardos" kind of threads do not help in the change of this decision quite the opposite...

2) please clarify if you're totally against any limit, or if you're just considering it to be too much

	15-06-2000 12:28									#122
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

	15-06-2000 13:52									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Very nice

Does OT stand for Off Thread these days ? Seems like it on the Off Topic forum.

	15-06-2000 14:16									#124
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

1) protect the forum from organized spam attacks
Will fail unless you can prevent double log-ins.

2) protect the forum from "God, I'm bored, let's start 20 threads to see if I get banned" incidents
Will have problems for the same reason as i) above, although maybe folk won't be bored enough to look for a vacation.

3) possibly lower the number of totally idiotic threads(that remains to be seen )
Can't see it, as I said in my first post (on page 1).

4) give more room on page 1 for more people (e.g. avoid "Page 1: the kingdom of Nimrod" effects)
OK but was this important anyway. One can always look on page two. If the users want a particular type of thread, they will create them anyway. Besides how will you encourage more people onto page 1 if you have alienated them all ?

5) take away some of the work the moderators have to do to control spammers
Wishful thinking I suspect.

Your call, but I think you are in danger of reducing the value of your product to your customers.


PS Since you ask, I don't see valid reason for any limit, but if you want to have one, then you ought to make it at least large enough not to interfere with normal legitimate activity. I said in my first post that 5 was the minimum I think reasonable (although I favour no limit). Five minimises the problems a single disgruntled, or bored, individual can do (DLs excepted) but is probably sufficient for all but the most prolific responsible poster. And I don't see that there is a happy medium WRT restricting for reasons other than spam attacks. Just an unhappy one.


PPS may not be back to read further unless the "delay" is removed.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Gary (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

	15-06-2000 14:23									#125
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Have a little more faith in your mods MarkG. This thread matter has never, ever been a serious problem, certainly not one the mods couldn't handle. It is too restrictive, and totally unnecessary. Or is this just a further clampdown on OT. You seem to have self-justified them as an easy target, and practice such with great impunity.

	15-06-2000 15:14									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I haven't read any of this thread, but i have to register my STRONG dissaproval of this idea.

It sounds like a good way to kill the OT. This coming from someone who usually starts a thread once every two weeks or so.

	15-06-2000 15:41									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I disagree strongly with this discriminatory restriction being placed on off-topic. If it is such a great idea then you should place it equally on all of the forums.

Even better, make it so that you can strart one thread only on Apolyton (all forums) in one day.

If you want to kill your site, you might as well do it properly.

	15-06-2000 16:16									#128
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

WOW! 126(7) posts in less than 24hrs!!!

Is that some kind of record!!!

The PEOPLE have spoken - give them what they want!!!

	15-06-2000 16:16									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Provost Harrison on 06-15-2000 05:23 AM</font>
Have a little more faith in your mods MarkG. This thread matter has never, ever been a serious problem, certainly not one the mods couldn't handle. It is too restrictive, and totally unnecessary.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>yeah, it's unneccessary! we have those idio.. eeerr. good people, the mods, who can do the job better...


JETW,
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>I disagree strongly with this discriminatory restriction being placed on off-topic. If it is such a great idea then you should place it equally on all of the forums.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>we dont put restrictions to forums which dont have a problem

Mobius, half(ok, perhaps 1/3) of the posts are mine
beyond that, I'm sure it's not a record...

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

	15-06-2000 16:36									#130
	Increase Your PM Length

Bad move which will result in more crap posted in on topic subjects. You should just control the spam by closing threads but not restricting others who have important questions they would like answers too

	15-06-2000 16:55									#131
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

hydey, I liked the "just" part...

btw, I'm still waiting for actual cases(not theoretical guesses) of people who where affected by this decision. So, far I had two mails from people who lost their "thread of the day" by starting a thread on a topic for which a thread already existed. Tell me if their choice makes sense to you...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

	15-06-2000 17:04									#132
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Where is EVC when you need him?

*OT suicide squad jogs up to MarkG, garrot themselves with shoe laces*

	15-06-2000 17:04									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You dont put restrictions on forums that dont have a problem,but by restricting priveleges here...you create the potential to drive disrupters to the other forums to get their satisfaction.

For the record,I have been registered and reading here for over a year.I have created less topics than anyone here...2...That is about the sum total of threads I have ever created here.I also still have only a handful of posts.But I read an awful lot.

You are already driving many of your good posters away.And will be hindering the time spent here by readers.If the threads become so long,due to limiting them to one thread,then they will become excessive in loading time and people will spend less and less time here,either reading or posting.

Some answers to points you made.... <center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font> ) protect the forum from organized spam attacks
2) protect the forum from "god, I'm bored, let's start 20 threads to see if I get banned" incidents
3) possibly lower the number of totally idiotic threads(that remains to be seen )
4) give more room on page 1 for more people(e.g. avoid "Page 1: the kingdom of nimrod" effects )
4) take away some of the work the moderators have to do to control spammers
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

1)You will not protect the forum from "organized spam attacks".Organized groups usually have a plan or course of action that is already capable of circumventing rules.It is why they are considered"organized" in the first place.You will maybe limit the nonsense spammers of bored fools but this can be circumvented as well.
2)As I said,you may limit them but you will not stop them if they are determined.They can create d/l's or just spam other forums.You then create the need to spend more time moderating your other forums for the spammers will go where they can spam.This will not happen overnight....but mark my words...it will eventually creep in.At least you have it relegated to this forum only at this time.But your rule will change that.
3)Maybe,maybe not.Many serious posters might not bother to check here that often or as much as before and they will only bother with their thread.Also by limiting the good posters,you limit the good threads as well.It goes hand in hand.You will lower the percentages of both types of threads,and probably therefore keeping the status quo between intelligent and goofy threads.
Anyway,as MtG states,whats wrong with mindless threads? They are a good way to relieve stress.You will only proceed to drive more people to ACOL(Thanks... )
4)Good point....but who cares? Use the freakin next page button to get what you want.If it's not on page 1,do you leave? Thats even lazier than the accusation raised against you about not wanting to do anything to moderate this place manually...back in the beginning of this thread..someone called you lazy.So thats silly but worrying about where topics are,and the fact that they aren't on page 1 is even sillier.Use the function of next page as it was designed.
So in other words,if people complain about their topics falling off of page 1 so quickly,and that is one of your reasons for instituting this rule...I say bah to them.The lazy sods.:P~~~~~~~~
And it's 5) not a second 4).. The moderators themselves have already stated that it is not a problem as you make it out to be.They call it excessive.Do you not listen to the thoughts of your employees?(or whatever you want to call them).

All in all,I could care less about the rule.I just thought I would provide some more insight and info as to the impact of your decision.Since it is obviously what you are asking for.Good luck with this excessive ruling.It could be the start of an exodus or lead to utopia.We shall see.

	15-06-2000 17:05									#134
	Got spare money?

A couple of questions for you, Markos:

1. What is the purpose of the OT?

2. Did you introduce the thread restriction soley to make the moderator's (Ming and Mleonard) job easier?

3. Did either Ming or MLeonard ask for any measures to be taken to make their job easier?

4. If, in time, the new restriction adversely affectes the OT, will you be willing to remove it?

	15-06-2000 17:07									#135
	Tired of ads?

*OT monk walks up to MarkG, douses himself in petrol, holds out lighter*

	15-06-2000 17:09									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Look MarkG, I'm trying to be sensible about this. I have posted three meaningful threads in a day, and then not posted for weeks. There have only been two incidences where this has happened (Black Saturday and EvC in a strop). But that is it! An off-topic forum is, by definition, going to encompass everything apart from Civ. So it is going to be bigger by necessity. But this is neither helpful nor will it solve the problem of spam threads. A lot of people will just use dl's and then cause more of a headache than the original problem.

You are going to have to make up your mind one way or another whether you want the off-topic, rather than pissing people off one by one so they leave. But we do make a significant base in the website. I post to other forums on this website, but none of which are as lively. I urge rationality, that is all. Ming and MLeonard do a fine job of retaining control. You really shouldn't undermine their authority (your decision, I know, but pride comes before a fall)

	15-06-2000 17:10									#137
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Graag on 06-15-2000 08:05 AM</font>
A couple of questions for you, Markos:

1. What is the purpose of the OT?

2. Did you introduce the thread restriction soley to make the moderator's (Ming and Mleonard) job easier?

3. Did either Ming or MLeonard ask for any measures to be taken to make their job easier?

4. If, in time, the new restriction adversely affectes the OT, will you be willing to remove it?
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

5. Where were you, relative to the grassy knoll, when Kennedy was assasinated?

	15-06-2000 17:11									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

A tad extreame, AH?

	15-06-2000 17:14									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Look MarkG, I'm trying to be sensible about this. I have posted three meaningful threads in a day, and then not posted for weeks. There have only been two incidences where this has happened (Black Saturday and EvC in a strop). But that is it! An off-topic forum is, by definition, going to encompass everything apart from Civ. So it is going to be bigger by necessity. But this is neither helpful nor will it solve the problem of spam threads. A lot of people will just use dl's and then cause more of a headache than the original problem.

You are going to have to make up your mind one way or another whether you want the off-topic, rather than pissing people off one by one so they leave. But we do make a significant base in the website. I post to other forums on this website, but none of which are as lively. I urge rationality, that is all. Ming and MLeonard do a fine job of retaining control. You really shouldn't undermine their authority (your decision, I know, but pride comes before a fall)

	15-06-2000 17:23									#140
	Increase Your PM Length

I agree and second pretty much every word of Provost's post.

	15-06-2000 17:27									#141
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by OldWarrior_42 on 06-15-2000 08:04 AM</font>
you create the potential to drive disrupters to the other forums to get their satisfaction.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>when the potential becomes reality, we will deal with it. right now I'm looking for real life examples of the effects of this decision
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>You are already driving many of your good posters away.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>be specific. which ones?
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>If the threads become so long,due to limiting them to one thread
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>we're not limiting the number of total threads, we'are limiting the creation of threads by one poster
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>1)You will not protect the forum from "organized spam attacks".
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>even if a group of 10 people has 40 logins, they can only make 40 spam threads. without this limit, they could do 400(to give an example)
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Anyway,as MtG states,whats wrong with mindless threads? They are a good way to relieve stress.You will only proceed to drive more people to ACOL(Thanks... )
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>yes, that's one of my goals
even if the poster has "spent" his thread on a serious issue, I'm sure he'll find other mindless thread in the OT
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Do you not listen to the thoughts of your employees?(or whatever you want to call them).
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>unpaid people are not employees. just because they are willing to spend their freetime doing this, it doesnt mean that they should

	15-06-2000 17:31									#142
	Inflate your Upload Space

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Graag on 06-15-2000 08:05 AM</font>
1. What is the purpose of the OT?
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>to host discussions which do not belong in the on-topic ones
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>2. Did you introduce the thread restriction soley to make the moderator's (Ming and Mleonard) job easier?
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>no, I also did it to destroy the OT
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>3. Did either Ming or MLeonard ask for any measures to be taken to make their job easier?
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>no
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>4. If, in time, the new restriction adversely affectes the OT, will you be willing to remove it?
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>read my previous posts on this thread and tell me if you i havent said something similar

	15-06-2000 17:38									#143
	Put an end to popups!

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Provost Harrison on 06-15-2000 08:14 AM</font>
But this is neither helpful nor will it solve the problem of spam threads. A lot of people will just use dl's and then cause more of a headache than the original problem.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>I dont think many people are interested in playing the DL game
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>You are going to have to make up your mind one way or another whether you want the off-topic, rather than pissing people off one by one so they leave.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>if I'm pissing off people who like to spam, so be it. for some "strange" reason, on-topic forums dont have the problems of the ot. perhaps it's because it doesnt have just civers...

	15-06-2000 17:52									#144
	Increase Your PM Length

And the follow up...

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Q. What is the purpose of the OT?
A. To host discussions which do not belong in the on-topic ones.

Q. Did you introduce the thread restriction soley to make the moderator's (Ming and Mleonard) job easier?
A. No.

Q. Did either Ming or MLeonard ask for any measures to be taken to make their job easier?
A. No

Q. If, in time, the new restriction adversely affectes the OT, will you be willing to remove it?
A. Read my previous posts on this thread and tell me if you i havent said something similar.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
Ok. We've establish the OT is to host off topic discussion.
We also have established that Ming and MLeonard did not ask or suggest any measures to be taken to make thier job easier.
From my experiance the OT is not overrun by spam and worthless threads.

From this

1. The OT is for discussion of anything off-topic.
2. The OT moderators have made no complaints about the current situation of the OT and no requests for changes.
3. The OT is only marginally affected by worhtles threads.
(From 1, 2 and 3) 4. The OT requires no
changes.

Therefore:
5. You (Markos) have created a thread limit.

Markos I challenge you to prove any of these points wrong and to explain why 5 makes sense given these points.

	15-06-2000 17:53									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>unpaid people are not employees. just because they are willing to spend their freetime doing this, it doesnt mean that they should
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I realize they are not your employees....I used that term for lack of a better word.But when you get people who volunteer their time,then dont listen to what they have to say...it may,and I stress the word may,lead them to feel unneccesary or undermined as Provost stated.Anyways,by you saying that it doesnt mean they should spend their freetime here doing what they doe,seems to promote an air of non appreciation for what they enjoy doing.And to air it in public was a mistake as well.It can be seen as having that meaning.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>even if a group of 10 people has 40 logins, they can only make 40 spam threads. without this limit, they could do 400
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Organized site destroyers or hackers can tear this place apart in seconds.That is what you should be concened about.Not some ot forumers who create a bunch of spam threads that get taken care of in quick time anyway.They are just nitwits who hang out here on ot and like to fruck it up abit.It has never been to the point where you have been hit by Organized groups of site disruptor's,hackers or spammers.If you did,this site would not still be running right now.And the fact that it is limited to ot proves it is not organized,but just a select group of goofballs from the ot, wasting time.They usually end up being taken care of by Ming ...so whats the point of you stepping in over Ming's head to create more rules to piss more people off.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>be specific. which ones?
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Saras showed up at ACOL today for the first time.He never bothered to register there because he was quite comfortable here.He has finally decided that the comfort zone he was used to is becoming tighter and less comfortable.That is only one I know....but watch the migration slowly take place.They will hold posting sessions on both sites until the last straw is hurled on them...and then its adios.(This is all only possible scenarios.I do not say they are written in stone,but why even bother to tempt fate when it is not neccesary?)There have been a couple others as well...I forget right this minute.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>when the potential becomes reality, we will deal with it.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Waiting for the house to burn down before buying a fire extinguisher is counter productive.Let the men you appointed moderators do their jobs as they have been quite capable in the past.

As I said,you're call.I dont deny you that right seeing as how it is your site anyway... but if you are looking to make an informed decision,then seeing things from all sides and getting as much information as possible can only help you in the long run.

Do as you wish...I will leave you alone now as it seems to me that you already had your mind made up anyway and put this discussion out here only as some gratuitous gesture.(I perceive it that way but I could be wrong.I have been wrong once or twice before in my life )


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by OldWarrior_42 (edited June 15, 2000).]</font>

	15-06-2000 17:55									#146
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I usually agree with Markos' actions, but unfortunately for him in this case, I agree with the majority and believe that this is taking it one step too far.

Here are my reasons why:

1. Posters will find loopholes. As Ming stated, this new rule will result in a massive increase in the utilization of double log-ons. Ask yourself, Markos: which is the worse problem? Double log-ons runs away with it for me, because most people are a) sensible enough to follow the rules and b) don't go wild with posting threads anyway. By inserting this rule, you're just giving those who don't fall into these two categories another excuse to break the rules.

2. Whether you want to think it or not, you are directly targeting the people who frequent the Off-Topic forum and branding them with a... shall we say "stigma." This is unfair to the SENSIBLE OT visitors not only because they have enough separate restrictions on themselves already, but because this is another one just to tack onto them. If you're so concerned about limiting posting of threads, why not set a higher limit for all the forums? Most people don't post more than two or three threads a day in the other forums anyway...

3. As I mentioned in my other two points, the overwhelming majority of OT posters are sensible people: follow the rules, post a couple of threads each day. The same regard for which we hold the death penalty here in America should apply here: in the case of the OT, it's better for a bad poster to get away with spamming or whatever than for a good poster to get punished (with these restrictions) for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. Wake up and smell the coffee: you are never going to be able to get rid of all the problems in the OT. That's why you have Ming and MLeonard there. Remember when OT was unmoderated? It wasn't as orderly, but almost as quiet as it is now. Let Ming and MLeonard do their jobs - this sort of thing is something they should have had a say in since they're doing all the work over there. If they feel it's unnecessary (and Ming has expressed that a number of times in this single thread), CAN IT!

Let me put it this way. Do you want another Black Saturday? If you don't, GET RID OF THIS RULE NOW.

	15-06-2000 18:03									#147
	Support Apolyton

Oh, and just so it's clear, I'm against any limit - that suggestion for a larger limit for the entire forum was just one of my sarcastic comments...

------------------
reismark@nycmail.com
"Please provide the date of your death." - IRS letter
The Millennium is Here! Run For Your Lives!!

	15-06-2000 18:19									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

There are far too many loopholes for people to exploit on this one.

1.Get someone else to post a thread for you.
2.Post a thread in another forum, and wait for it to be moved to the OT.
3.Just post in another forum, like the Civ2-General Forum, turning that into the OT.
4.Just post your topic in another thread, ie threadjacking.

This will also:
1.Increase the number of DL`s (despite what you say, I believe some people will still play "the DL game".
2.Thus increasing your workload, plus that the mods
3.Drive people away from the forums (although I`m sure you don`t really mind about that )


And soforth. This is a really bad decision, Mark.

	15-06-2000 18:25									#149
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Gee... not even the coffee shop gets to 150 posts in less than 24 hours.

Just to make things clear, I don't have a problem with setting a limit on the number of threads started. I do think that the current level that is being used is not the right level. There are many good reasons to have such a rule. But I would have to agree that if a real hacker wanted to cause problems, this won't stop them.

Remember... MarkG would like to hear from you all by email about specific situations where this new limit has affected you. Granted, it seems like the general concensus is obvious based on all the posts here... but give him the specifics. That would be far more productive than posting revolution crap

------------------
Ming
CivII & Off-Topic Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net

	15-06-2000 18:26									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

My 2c from the closed thread in exile...

The aim of reducing the number of new threads posted should be accomplished through rationing.

This rule has no impact on the demand for threads, but seeks to reduce the supply of a commodity that has so far been relatively abundant and free.

There is just the problem that there is a lot of slack thread capacity. It is safe to assume that the number of new threads per day in the OT is significantly below the number of eligible posters.

It only takes little market-making effort to get people with excess new-thread-posting resources to make use of this in the interest of restricted posters.

Another phenomenon is related to the inability to storage the right to post new threads. This right is eliminated with the expiration of the one-day-timelimit. As a new thread becomes a somewhat valuable item under this new rule, people will be tempted to use other means of hoarding.

This can be done by posting a thread with a useless topic every day, and with little effort converting to a topic they deem fit to post later. This might be considered spam by the moderators, but enforcement will be tricky and annoying. Actually, the enforcement effort needed will easily surpass the time and effort for the established spam control measures already in force.

Also, as the rule is limited to the OT-forum, problems of evasion and substitution will occur. Spam may simply spread to other forums, maybe in disguise, which again leads to the need of additional work efforts by the moderators.

Economic history has shown again and again that rationing does not work as a tool of policy. And this case will be no different.


And in plain english: It's a stupid idea, Mark.