Posting Thread Limits

[lost-in-nj]

not good.....
why is one persons threads better or more relevant than mine?? or yours??
and yes... I want an answer.... a GOOD answer

not MY CANDIDATES BETTER THAN YOURS...

a reason


I know that there are stupid, inane and useless threads posted.....

but thats what hide a thread is for......
all of a sudden people think their time is better than
what the opposition posts....

it's really getting kind of thick here...

HIDE A THREAD
is your friend

please

do not limit what I HAVE TO SAY


Thanks

lost

[aquart]

1. Name In Lights Syndrome (NILS)

A nasty condition of the ego causing incessant original posts. Known to choke and cripple message boards as surely as kudzu.

[lost-in-nj]

2. so this is what you do??

this (NILS)???
so you can see yourself??????

post stupid answers to threads to pad your post count and make
no FUCKING sense at all????

WTF???

lost

[aquart]

14. Sweetie, I don't need to pad a thing.

[Rosemary2205]

3. I'm still stunned it is even being considered.

It just seems so ANTI everything DU stands for.

[auntAgonist]

4. excellent points lost,

freedom of speech. Hide thread works :)

aA
:hi:

[LeftyFingerPop]

5. You are correct lost. n/t

[SPKrazy]

6. I don't see how one person's threads are more relevant if everyone is limited to the same number

on that note

I am not sure what the number should be if there is one to limit it to.

Some people spam the board with blah blah this, or blah blah that

yes, hide a thread works, and that is a solution

GD-P has gotten pretty silly sometimes...

Ultimately it will be a decision that the admins make based on what they think is best for DU, which is their business that they run.

The fact that they ask, is just a courtesy in a lot of ways, to see what the response could/would be.

I'm for some kind of limit in GD-P because then everyone is limited to the same and will save the inane threads and be more likely to post threads that are relevant, just not sure where that should fall.

:hi:

JMO

[enigmatic]

9. I agree w/ you on this

3 a day is enough; 5 is pushing it, but I could handle that, too.

[SPKrazy]

10. like i said, i have no idea where the number falls

3 or 5 seem low to me, but

if everyone is held to the same number there is no favoritism being given

if it saves bandwidth, stops some of the insanity caused by trolls and what have you there, then it seems reasonable to me

[enigmatic]

11. It would help w/ trolls in GD: P

And I'm all for that..

[The Straight Story]

7. Well hell, people here tell me I cannot smoke in bars :)

I see all too often people wanting to limit what others can do :)

[lost-in-nj]

8. Hi you two!!!

been a while.....

:hug: :hug:

lost

[The Straight Story]

13. Did ya miss my last 2 rants

;)

[spoony]

12. No one's limiting what you have to say

Just suggesting that you say what it is you want to in fewer threads. Save up a few thoughts on a candidate or whatever before posting so it'll go in one thread instead of three or four.

[smoogatz]

15. It's really about not letting a few hyper-zealous posters dominate.

Some of whom may be actively working for/employed by the various campaigns. It keeps GDP from turning into a free propaganda site for campaign surrogates. That seems like a good thing. Also, I have to say--given the nature and quality of much GDP content of late, less is more.