If you don't think the "Thread Limit" will be enough, please check in here.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I just saw a newbie who's been pretty much flying under the radar and contributing to the negativity in GDP in no small part, say the following: "I don't start threads. Bring on the thread limit."

I think this probably goes for a LOT of posters in GDP. I'd like to see in addition to the Thread Limit, a per-day reply limit in GDP. Perhaps it could be based on your total number of posts, for example 4% of your total number per day. Minimum 5, perhaps a maximum as well (80?). So someone with 1,000 would be able to post 40 replies in GDP per day.

Think about it - it only takes a minute or so to post an ill-conceived snark attack, or continue a flame war. An actual well-thought-out post might take 5-10 mins or so. If a long-time DU'er with over 2,000 posts took 5 mins on average to construct a post, and was posting constantly at that rate it would take them almost 7 hours of to hit their limit of 80. But if they're just a disruptor with 400 posts flying under the radar, they might be all done with their 16 posts within an hour and have to go elsewhere till the next day.

If you think this is generally a good idea to be considered, please recommend.

Thanks!

:hi:

[uppityperson]

1. Keep clicking alert on flamebait and nasty posts.

I think it will be enough, along with people figuring out that alerting isn't tattling but keeping the place sane. If they aren't just tattling that is.

[MadBadger]

2. I still dont think we need a thread limit. Just tombstone one DUer and we should be fine now.

[FlyingSquirrel]

4. Are you thinking the same one I'm thinking?

;)

[MadBadger]

6. I mean, the whole reason for the thread limit in that one DUer.

[joshcryer]

12. There are at least a dozen posters I can think of.

One poster isn't the problem. It's people disrespecting the upper level forum and pretending that they deserve a monopoly on the ideas that are discussed.

[Seen the light]

7. I don't see why in the world they haven't done so already

I mean...I'm proud to be an American too, but sometimes I think that Elad is nothing more than a Freeper troll!

......What? Who did you think I was talking about? :P

(j/k Elad!)

[FlyingSquirrel]

11. lol

There were two with high thread counts in the last couple of days that I was thinking of, but it looks like they've already tombstoned one....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=214538

[avrdream]

26. Oh cool, I alerted on that one when he said foul things to Monkeyfunk.

Don't mess with my Monk!

[Window]

43. Oh, goodie!

A real PIA.



Peace:thumbsup:

[Window]

44. Oh, goodie!

A real PIA.



Peace:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

20. Might that be one with numbers in name, along with letters?

[FlyingSquirrel]

23. That's a somewhat murky question

could apply to a lot of people!

:P

[rodeodance]

29. fish who swim in water do not know water surrounds them

[LaStrega]

3. Ack.

Having done a search, I see I have only a few more posts than the referenced newbie. I tried to see how long said newbie has been a member but no profile available. Is one considered a newbie up to and until they get 1000+ posts or by how long they've been a member.

Anyway I'm happy to report I've not once been snarky to anyone on DU since I joined in April of '07. And further, I think your recommendation is a good one.

Cheers :hi:

(k&r'd)

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. Well I think I'm still a newbie

It's all relative.

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

8. I don't know about a thread posting limit

But a minimum time between posting is an option - a minute or two?

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. Yummy - more limits on free speech

I think we may have jumped the shark this week.

:P

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. Oh please, free speech is for public places not a private message board

sheesh. I guess you'd like the freepers to be able to come here too and exercise THEIR right to free speech?

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. I know, you know, and I said nothing to contradict that fact

However, you do agree these are limits to free speech, right? If so, and I'm sure you must agree, then what I posted is PERFECTLY ACCURATE and correct. Thank you.

[joshcryer]

10. I don't start threads. Bring on the thread limit.

[cooolandrew]

13. Not sure about this limiting spech malarky, I donated prior to this ...

...as I thought isn't it wonderful there is a place to express so freely about politics. Now I'm like hmmm ok. Theere is an iggy button so I am confused as to the need of limits.

[cooolandrew]

37. Anyway just a quibble it is important to donate and keep our voices vocal.

[CK_John]

14. It will just expand the sock puppets. n/t

[TexasObserver]

16. You have IGNORE and you're whining because it's too much trouble to use?

There are some here, you included apparently, who think the answer to posters they don't like is to get DU admins to impose new rules. You sit there stewing about some poster, when all you have to do is put them on ignore. But you won't, because you'd rather start threads and cry about it to other like minded posters, who offer you succor.

I always oppose those who try to disguise their need to impose orthodoxy under the ruse of SECURITY, ORDER, or TIME IN GRADE.

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. I've built up an ignore list and then took it all down...

I'd rather not ignore someone just on the basis of the fact that they're filling up the message board. So it would be nice to have the number of posts somewhat controlled to begin with, and then you can use "ignore" much more selectively and not have to wonder what you might be missing.

[TexasObserver]

28. Here's the problem. The worst, most offensive posters are not newbies.

They're arrogant pricks who constantly denigrate newcomers with nasty comments about being Republican agents, being Freepers, being paid operatives, being sock puppets, being ... NEWBIES. It's the lamest comments from the lamest posters, those who lack substance, but think their one, two, five years in grade conveys upon them some sainthood.

I lurked reading GD and GDP for a year before joining. The chronic nastiness of so many old timers who get away with such obnoxious conduct 99% of the time, was one reason I didn't want to post. Until the primaries started, it was manageable. But then everything got put into GDP, and the shit fights started. Several posters started spamming the board with every thought that popped into their head, and it became impossible to read the board. So I joined to get IGNORE AND HIDE THREAD.

I had a clear picture of what I needed to do and did. I put 100 people on ignore the first two days I was here, and that completely fumigated the board. Now I don't see all that shit that is backed up like raw sewage. All because I don't care what a bunch assholes are saying to me or about me.

[TexasObserver]

31. You seem like a nice enough person and well intentioned

But let's consider the following.

It is elections that bring interest in politics, and that interest which drives new members to sign up daily and participate here. It is both logical and rational to conclude that many people who arrive have a candidate they favor and are here to express that.

It is also logical that the newbies fight back, when they are immediately set upon by many hostile posters who have been here for weeks or years, which posters question the newbies bona fides, accuse them of being plants, Republicans, paid operatives, and worse.

So I ask you, why is your focus the newbies, and not the old timers, who ought to know better and shouldn't be engaging in repeated and chronic attempts to flog the newbies who don't fit their liking? It's disingenuous to attack the newbies and expect anything other than vitriol in kind back.

When a new dog walks up to a group of dogs, the other dogs sniff the new dog's asshole. Here, it's mainly the assholes who are doing the sniffing.

[Alexander]

19. There is only one DUer who really needs to be banned right now.

I think we all know who that is.

Apart from that, I think mods and admins would do well to check IPs, if they somehow can.

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. I accept the nomination.... *sob*

I want to thank my mother, and all the rest of you can go to hell.

:)

[TexasObserver]

30. she likes you, she really likes you!!

you're going to piss off Jebus, if you don't thank him

[Cronus Protagonist]

33. Jebus had nothing to do with my success

Nothing at all. I do want to thank all the little people who made it happen, especially my heros, the munchkins in the Wizard of Oz. *sniff*

[Cronus Protagonist]

34. Jebus had nothing to do with my success

Nothing at all. I do want to thank all the little people who made it happen, especially my heros, the munchkins in the Wizard of Oz. *sniff*

[Cronus Protagonist]

35. Jebus had nothing to do with my success

Nothing at all. I do want to thank all the little people who made it happen, especially my heros, the munchkins in the Wizard of Oz. *sniff*

[TexasObserver]

36. "But, I repeat myself ...."

[jackson_dem]

24. I don't agree with her often but I will defend ProSense's right to post her vigorously

She has done nothing to warrant being banned.

[anigbrowl]

25. Won't work

You guys on DU don't know me because I've been lurking rather than posting for so long, but I've been discussing politics on the internet in one place or another since bill Clinton ran for pres in 1992 (which is why I kept postponing signing up to DU - I was reluctant to have more reading to do every day). And one thing I've learned is that you can't legislate good behavior in open-access online forums, particularly not political ones.

The only way to deal with spam and snarkiness is for the regular user community to ignore it and refuse to answer. When trolls don't get the offended or outraged response they expect, they tend to post to each others threads saying 'Agree' 'It's so important that everyone knows this' 'this thread is gonna be hot tomorrow - the ______ crowd are gonna be screaming!'. After a while they start posting messages like 'why isn't anyone reacting - this is sooooo important'. And so on.

Generally, the more hysterical and urgent-sounding the thread title, the less content there is and the more discouraged the trolls are getting. That's when you startt seeing lots of cut'n'paste with only one-line comments (because the poster has nothing to really say on their own, they just want to sling mud.

I know that this will be old and obvious news to most of you but for the young and idealistic who feel the need to defend their candidate against every slander, my advice is don't bother - trolls (and especially political trolls) want controversy and a high message count on their threads more than they care about actually winning the argument. They know most people won't read every last message, so they just want to make it look like they dominate the forum (and thus set the agenda).

[cbayer]

48. well said. you can see it happening already. nt.

[FlyingSquirrel]

49. Wise words, O wise one. I shall heed them.

:toast:

[cbayer]

27. WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US!

sorry, i am getting hoarse from all this shouting. but sometimes, i am just desperate to be heard.

i don't want someone else to make the rules for us. i want us to make our own rules.

do whatever you have to do to support what you want and stomp out what you don't, but do it with dignity and grace.

please.

[Yossariant]

32. I am the newbie that prompted this thread.

Hi, all! :hi:

I made a snarky comment to a poster who started another lecture thread and the OP is very indignant about it.

I have apologized to that poster.

This kind of thread, though, indicates that a lot of posters, like the lecture threads, have a little too much time on their hands.

I understand there are mechanisms already in place to address forum concerns.

I joined this forum to defend Hillary Clinton against the freeper attacks.

It has not been my home forum, but I have used DU as a research asset for the years that I have been battling monkeys.

A few years ago, I used to post at Bartcop, but when the chiefs outnumber the Indians, the forum becomes too political in ways that I don't care for. I recognize onehandle from that forum.

My usual forums are my hometown forum at the Baltimore Sun and the Guardian.

Maybe another poll is in order.

[alteredstate]

40. Delete - Dupe

[alteredstate]

41. Please direct me to the posts in which you "defend Hillary Clinton against Freeper attacks".

You've made hundreds of posts in a short time. I could be completely wrong, but it appears you're here to slam Barack Obama.

[robbedvoter]

42. Hi, Yossariant! Used to post as Bushknew on Bartcop! Welcome to DU!

Things are looking up - they proposed - seriously - to "purge" all "shillbots" from DU - someone argued that Kos did it already....
:hi:

[Yossariant]

45. Hey Bushknew! I remember you. "Cui bono?" used to be my sig. Great minds, eh?

:hi:

At the risk of hijacking the thread (Since it's dedicated to me, I will) for a trip down memory lane here, you go way back, too.

I thought I saw American Stranger here a while ago, but not lately unless a new handle.

I'm talking, and I know you know, about oldtime Bartcoppers.

Pete Hisey -- Melic -- One of my kids posts there sometimes, but mostly at kos now.

I think I recognize bushlovesmoonies here but we're not on the same team so I'll let that one go for now.

I re-registered at BC when I joined here, but the forum is so small and my posts don't show up until the next day so I'll probably leave it alone.

Great posting here! I'm proud to kind of know you. :toast:

[uppityperson]

47. Thanks for speaking up and letting us know it is you OP is about.

[Coexist]

38. if everyone used the Ignore feature -

anyone posting just to stir things up, wouldn't get the responses he/she wanted.


Just sayin'.

[Coexist]

39. if everyone used the Ignore feature -

anyone posting just to stir things up, wouldn't get the responses he/she wanted.


Just sayin'.

[cloudythescribbler]

46. Let's START with a 5 per day thread limit, and THEN consider a post limit of maybe 30 per day ...

After all, you can never REALLY rid yourself of the trolls, so the first thing when you suppress speech that GETS suppressed is the truth, or the effective restriction of honest posters.

Those people who claim that the problem is only ONE poster puzzle me completely. Look at how many people constantly post on and recommend threads about McClurkin (for example) -- months and months after an incident of what, on its merits, was an unfortunate episode whose significance to DUers is dubious. I know it is suggested that a lot of NON-GLBT people have been saying get over it, but I AM GLBT, and am as sick of it as anyone. And I am quite sure I am not alone although many others no doubt don't want to enter a hornet's nest.

And don't forget, folk, that it takes more than one bee to make a hornet's nest!

Reasonable limits that allow for (a) elimination of specific threads that are flame bait, etc.; (b) similar regulation of specific posts; (c) locking threads (which I have come across almost every day); and (d) a limit on the number of threads per day, if applied judiciously, should contain the problem.

Possibly a posts-per-day limit could be considered as well. But remember, as RWers often say (but that doesn't make it false) you can't regulate away every problem in the world -- and that's true, the only problem is that the RW doesn't fully grasp that THEY are one of the scourges of the world themselves , a role they often assign to dissenters.

[New Earth]

50. is the original thread limit already in effect?

because it seems already, GDP is a bit better today than any days before.

[FlyingSquirrel]

51. I don't think so... we'd probably see an announcement

[mohc]

52. A daily limit does not make sense to me.

The problem being that what we really want to see stopped is spamming or flooding of the board. If you consider how many threads a reasonable person could or should post in a day, that will be way too many posts for say a 10 minute period. And if you base the limit on trying to avoid those sudden bursts, then the daily number will be low enough that reasonable posters will be limited. In my opinion the window needs to be smaller than daily, and it needs to be rolling. I would say something like 2 threads in a 30 minute or one hour window (which would be about 48 or 24 threads daily). I agree though that thread limits probably are not enough. A reply limit window would probably also be necessary, but perhaps with more lax numbers and/or smaller windows.