With 3-post trial in GD-P, who thinks it is still a good idea?

[kentuck]

As most folks know, there is a 3-post limit per 24-hour period in the GD-P forum. Does everyone still think that is a good idea? Or do you think it stifles legitimate discussion? No doubt, there is a lot of infighting over there. Sometimes it feels like the Twilight Zone.

Personally, I thought 5-posts would have been better. There are several very good people that post there that are limited in their input with the 3-post limit, in my opinion. Any other thoughts on this?

[Tesha]

1. I'd vote for one post. And every post should contain links to the poster's...

other recent posts.

Tesha

[pecwae]

4. Not bad at all.

If someone wants to post more they can take advantage of their journal.

[jordi_fanclub]

17. Better yet...

Add "member since" in each header.
Just to check if the spam "wave" was created in Jan 8 or Feb 28 or Mar 30.
Maybe it's only my sense but seems some dates have some kind of special "attraction". :sarcasm:

[reflection]

41. Not a bad idea at all. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

2. I think it's really, really good.

I know that you want to read five threads started by me each day, but, sadly, you'll just have to accept my three.

:P

[kentuck]

7. How did you guess??

I wonder how much brilliance I am missing? :-)

[SaveOurDemocracy]

37. I'd vote for extras for you, Maddy!

:evilgrin:

[cliffordu]

3. I'm good with three..Leaves me more room to snark on others....

Maybe I should go to snarkanon....

[TheDoorbellRang]

27. I think we'll all have to join snarkanon after June 3rd

:rofl:

Good one. :thumbsup:

[cliffordu]

32. The 12 steps of snarkanon:

* Step 1 - We admitted we were powerless over our snarking - that our trolls had become unmanageable
* Step 2 - Came to believe that a moderator greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity
* Step 3 - Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of the DNC as we understood them
* Step 4 - Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves
* Step 5 - Admitted to DU to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs
* Step 6 - Were entirely ready to have the DNC remove all these defects of character
* Step 7 - Humbly asked Skinner to remove our tombstones
* Step 8 - Made a list of all OP's we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all
* Step 9 - Made direct amends to such posters wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others
* Step 10 - Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it
* Step 11 - Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with DU as we understood DU, trolling only for knowledge of the DNC's will for us and the power to carry that out
* Step 12 - Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to Republicans, independents and Ron Paul supporters,, and to practice these principles in all our affairs

[TheDoorbellRang]

35. LOL. Coming soon to a forum near you (and me)

The "Sear Enemy" Prayer:

GD-P, grant us the serenity to "ignore" the posters we cannot change,
The courage to wade into the midst of flame wars, guns ablazing,
And the wisdom to leave GD-P for a while when we start doing re-writes of the Serenity Prayer.

:rofl:

...think we'll have any luck with those Ron Paul supporters?:spray:

[rinsd]

5. Its a thread starting limit not post limit.

[Why Syzygy]

6. I like it. I wouldn't want to see more than 3 from many posters here.

[GodlessBiker]

8. You realize that this counts as one of your three.

[kentuck]

11. Yes. This is my last of the day.

I will see you tomorrow. :-)

[GodlessBiker]

13. If this is what you use your three thread limit on, three is not too few.

[enki23]

9. i'd be in favor of cutting it down to 1, personally

but i'm not big on starting posts these days.

[DJ13]

10. I would prefer either no limit or no less than 6

Most of the disruptor's that forced the limit to be imposed have already been tomb stoned.

Seems pointless now.

[MADem]

12. I say take it down to ONE. Make the sockpuppets more obvious that way. NT

[cliffordu]

15. Actually - I think you're right!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Three is right, I think

for one thing, it has caused many to find other topics to talk about that fit in with other forums.

[backscatter712]

16. It's necessary.

As long as the trolls and freepers are trying to stir the shit, yeah, it needs to stay in place, or we'll be overrun by their garbage.

Personally, I'd be more in favor of stricter rules and more tombstones to deal with them, but I'm not the mods.

[Spazito]

18. I think it was an excellent idea....

It has made a distinct difference from when there was no restriction. More posters are having to weigh whether the issue they wish to address is worth using one of their three threads allowed.

It is still a mud wrestling match in GP-D, there is no question about that, but I do think the limitation has made a difference.

[kentuck]

19. No doubt.

It was chaotic before the limit was imposed. If I wait until I come up with something brilliant, I may never post again. :-)

[Spazito]

31. LOL, Humor is needed as much, if not more at times, than

"brilliance" and you have used yours, for the most part, to do both, sometimes inadvertently in the same thread.

I am too chicken to start ONE thread using either, never mind contemplating three! Yeah, I know, pathetic in the extreme.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kid a]

21. I agree with 5. Especially with dupe post/tech problems lately.

Used up two threads yesterday after a donate thread posted twice.

[Yossariant]

22. Three is plenty.

[emilyg]

23. I'd be happy with 1.

[ozone_man]

24. It was a great idea.

Keep it at three. If anyone needs to post more than three threads in GDP, maybe they need to get a life, or a job. :)

Seriously though, it has greatly reduced the idiotic posts and drive by threads, yielding more thoughtful threads. It slows the thread velocity down, so they don't sink like rocks.

[Texas Hill Country]

25. 3 posts is good i think

[Texas Hill Country]

26. 3 posts is good i think

[tammywammy]

28. I think it's excellent

Before the limit, there was too much spamming.

[Occam Bandage]

29. Three is great. I wouldn't mind seeing it kicked up to five during nights that there's

a debate or a primary/caucus.

[izzybeans]

30. .

I don't mind it. It tempers the least among us. And the best are forced to (hopefully) get better.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Don't mess with it

Best thing that ever happened to this place.

[Forkboy]

34. It's great. Now they need to up the post count before being able to start them.

From 10 to about 50.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

36. BEST. MOVE. EVER!! n/t

[JNelson6563]

38. I say make it one!

People might think a bit more before posting some of the stupid crap that still gets posted.

Julie

[donheld]

39. It's a fabulous Idea!

[azmouse]

40. I like the 3 post limit.

Alot.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

43. 3 is good could live with 2

[suston96]

44. 3 posts limit and there are still dozens of new threads on the same topic. nt

[DerekJ]

45. I am all up for reducing it to 1 post.

[TragedyandHope]

46. 3 is good

0 might be better.