--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> 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. > > Just an opinion. As I said, I'll abide by > anything you guys decide -- no muss, no fuss. > And that *includes* me leaving the group > entirely, if you want.>>
Turquoise, you would not last a month without bad-mouthing someone. you would be the first to fall. OffWorld
