Yep, I agree. Its not a matter of an absolute law to have posting limits, at all times, or not, but for this forum, now, I like it, it works, and the number of posts per week is large enough to accommodate what each of us enjoys saying.
--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Alex, it seems to me that the only person making work for you > > > is you. Nothing could be simpler to enforce than the Posting > > > Limits. You just look at the Post Count from Friday and if > > > someone has gone over 50, they sit out the next week. Period. > > > > > > Period. > > > > From now on, that's the way it's going to be. But, the case by > > case, human element enforcement policy has been there from the > > start, if I'm not mistaken, and that's what made work for me. > > Back in the beginning, for the first couple of months, > there was no "down side" to going over the posting limit. > So a few people continued doing it, regularly exceeding > the limit by several posts every week. I think you can > guess who the primary offender in this respect was. > > Then Rick was convinced to put some "teeth" into the limit > by imposing a week-long "time out" on those who went over > the limit. I don't remember any "exceptions" being made > then, although some certainly have been since. > > <snip> > > > IMO, the posting limits are there to mollycoddle whiners who > > can't be bothered to use appropriate filtering. > > Some of us, myself included, don't want to read FFL via > email. Therefore the option of "filtering" is out for us. > More important, I think you may be misremembering the > extent of the problem, and why the need for limits came > up in the first place. Several people -- three in partic- > ular -- were consistently making 30 to 40 percent of the > *total posts to FFL*. When asked to cut down, all three > not only refused, they "upped their numbers." To remind > yourself what those numbers were, check out this post, > from September 2006, back in the Bad Old Days that some > want us to return to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/115524 > > For the record, when I have had occasion to delete a > post, as I have sometimes done when posting, then > immediately noticing a glaring typo that would make > it difficult to understand, and posting a correction, > I've always added two posts to the count I keep for > myself. I did that because it was obvious that this > is exactly what the Post Count program would do. It > would record the number of posts actually made, and > never delete any from its totals even if they were > deleted by the posters. > > I still think that posting limits are a good idea, > even if they are a bit of a pain in the ass. The > little amount of work they cost me, because I actually > count, is more than worth not having to open FFL and > find that one or more persons with no self control > have made 20 posts each overnight, all of them basic- > ally saying the same damned thing or flaming the same > damned person. > > I remind people of the situation that has brought > this whole discussion up again. What about the example > of someone so desperate to post and "correct" someone > that they *forget what day of the week it is* gives > you confidence that they would be able to control such > urges if the posting limits went away? Just sayin'. >
