Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: META five posts a day limit( was: introduction Middelsprake)

From:Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder@...>
Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 18:24
Henrik, is it possible to be a member of the ConLangList but not get all the
mail in my box, but read them in the archives and reply from there?
There are so many messages!
I'm a member of the Lowlands Linguist List too, and of Folkspraak Yahoo
Group, and I only read the archives of  those lists, the so-called
"no mail option"...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Brown" <ray.brown@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:45 PM
Subject: META five posts a day limit( was: introduction Middelsprake)

> 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 > subject heading. > > 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 > unsatisfactory. > > 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. > > Ray > =============================================== > > > =============================================== > "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always > interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760 >


Stephen Mulraney <ataltane.conlang@...>