--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], gullible fool <fflmod@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Richard and Judy, Rick said he wanted to try out > > > > limiting the quantity of posts first and maybe move on > > > > to doing something about the quality of posts later. > > > > The hope is that it won't be necessary to moderate for > > > > quality because members will use their five posts > > > > carefully. > > > > > > Oh, hm, I guess I must have misinterpreted this > > > from Rick (message #135736 from last night): > > > > > > Me: > > > Try requiring Barry to stop and see what happens. > > > > > > Rick: > > > It's probably a time zone thing, but at this point, he has > > > stopped and you haven't. Tomorrow the ax falls. > > > > > > And this (message #135730): > > > > > > So starting tomorrow if either of them [i.e., Barry or Judy] > > > mentions the other in an offensive or defensive tone, they'll > > > be switched to moderated status. In other words, their posts > > > will require moderator approval before showing up on the list. > > > > > > Oh, wait, I see. It's *just* Barry and me who > > > are subject to moderation. It's still perfectly > > > OK for Vaj to attack Lawson. > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying. > > > > Since I don't really have much to say today, I > > thought I'd be generous and use the second of > > my five allotted posts to remind Judy that > > she's used up four of her five already. > > Posts reporting attacks aren't supposed to count, > actually. I should think posts requesting > clarification of the new regime wouldn't count > either, since obviously we can't be sure we're > observing the new rules if we're not clear how > they apply. > > Rick? gullible fool? Alex? Could you clarify, > please? Do "process" posts concerning the new rules > count toward the five-posts-a-day total? > > Perhaps one of you could make a formal post > explaining the whole thing in detail so as to > eliminate any confusion.
Although the request for confirmation is a good one, for the record, I'm a proponent of the five-posts-per-day limit meaning *five* posts, period. This is my third of the day, and I'll keep my total below five, whatever "clarification" is posted by the moderators. My *reasons* for taking this stand are: 1) It seems to me that a person who claims that someone has "attacked" them is VERY MUCH making a statement, and that statement should count as one of their five posts of the day. This inter- pretation will make people who *tend* to make such claims more reluctant to do so, which if I am not mistaken is part of what these new rules were intended to accomplish. 2) It should be obvious that those who want to "fudge" the five-post-a-day limit could do so ad infinitum by making "clarification" posts to the moderators, *in which* they imbed other slams against one or more posters or moderators here. This has already happened, on just the first day of the new plan. In my opinion, taking a "hard line" with the five-post-a-day limit would (again) work better to accomplish the stated goals of this new policy, that of cutting down the overall traffic, and cutting down on the number of negative "slam" posts. Bottom line is that if the limit is set at a fixed five posts per day, EVERYONE will have to stop and *think* before they press Send. They'll have to say to themselves, "Self, do I *really* want to waste one of my five posts a day on this crap?" If one allows all sorts of "exceptions" to the rule, the answer they come up with is all too often going to be, "Why YES, I *do* want to make this petty post, because it doesn't "count" against my limit." If the policy allows NO exceptions, the answer is more likely to be, "NO, I don't want to waste one of my five posts on this issue. I will save my energies (and my posts) for something more substantive." And isn't that exactly what the new policy is supposed to be all about?
