META five posts a day limit( was: introduction Middelsprake)
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 17:43|
On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10:35 , Tom Chappell wrote:
> META:-- FIVE-POSTS-A-DAY-LIMIT
> Because of that five-a-day limit, sometimes I don't reply; and, sometimes,
> I reply directly to the person who posted, instead of to the list.
> Henrik says he is considering relaxing or eliminating the
> five-posts-a-day-limit. I think, if his software were up to it, a
> sensible limit would be something like one-or-two replies per thread or
> per thread/contributor combination per two- or four- or eight-hours. [snip]
> Obviously a troll or twit could get around the limit by screwing with the
> subject heading or by deliberately posting replies to the wrong thread;
Yes, yes. But when is a thread not a thread? Anyone who has been on this
list for some time will know that subject headers frequently do not get
changed even when the thread has move way off the original topic. It has
not been uncommon to find the contents of a mail bears no relation to the
On the other hand, a subject heading may get changed because of slight
change of emphasis in a thread or a thread will go off in two quite
legitimate directions. Who decides what is actually pertinent to a thread
and what is not? This IMO is likely to be a source of argument and will
put an unfair burden on Henrik.
The five posts per day limit was introduced at the same time as the 100
posts per day limit. Without a limit on number of posts per person, two or
three people could have monopolized the list, giving no opportunity for
others to be heard.
Why was the 100 per day limit introduced (I think it is actually 99)?
Well quite a few of us, I suspect, remember the old days of heavy traffic.
We would open up our mail box to find some 200 or more mails waiting the
next day! It was quite impossible for many of us to keep up with the
volume of traffic; so a lot of mails were skimmed or even trashed unread
(if the thread did not seem particularly interesting). This was very
Also every so often the volume was simply too much for the server at Brown
to handle and the list got locked, so *no one* could post for a day or two
till John unlocked the list and opened the floodgates.
The new ruling of 100 per day & five per person per day has improved
things immensely IMHO. I think _very serious_ thought ought to be given
before making any further change.
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760