From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Fairfield Life suggestion from a friend
--- In [email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm beginning to think this [setting a limit on > the number of posts a person can make] is a good > idea. Whether 3 posts or 5 or 10 - but some limited > number. This could be implemented without having to > put people on moderated status. If someone would > volunteer to be the "counter" then they could post > a note saying So-and-So has reached their quota. > After that, if the person posts, Alex or I could > switch them to moderated status. So if we were to do this, what should the quota be? Want to vote on it? I'll offer an opinion, since I can easily be classified as a frequent poster, often a too- frequent poster. And I'll abide by anything you guys decide. If it were me, and I were trying to accomplish what you are, I'd set the daily limit to five posts, with a 24-hour "suspension" (not allowed to post, period) for going over the limit the first time. For the second over-the-limit infraction, one week's "suspension." And for the third, one month's "suspension." If it works to bring the tone of the group more in line with what it once was, increase the daily limit to 10. OK. What if we were to start tomorrow? (Unless someone wants to go back and count what has happened today.) We could even start with 10 and if that doesn't work, lower it to 5. People could be warden when they had reached 9 (or 4). You wouldn't have to email them privately - a public post would suffice. Who is willing to be the counter? Any opinions on this plan? Any votes on 5 vs. 10 vs. alternate suggestions? After we tackle the quantity issue, we'll tackle the more thorny quality issue.
