5 Posts per day limit

[Steve]

---  "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> Random832:
> > > And I don't think that posts in one discussion 
> > > should go towards any "limit" so as to prevent from
> > > posting in an unrelated discussion.
> 
> Jen:
> > Your second idea is more appealing to me and would 
> > also help the problem Betsy mentioned of discussions
> > drying up. ...
> 
> Random832:
> How about - a limit of three posts per person per subject
> per day? ....
> 
> -- 
> Random832
>

bboyminn:

First, I think you are trying to solve a problem that only
Hypothetically exists. I'm also inclined to agree with
Shorty Elf when she(?) said -

"< I'm just saying when you've been here day after day, 
year after year, and seen what causes some of these rules
to be put in place, it will definitely help in the 
understanding deparment. >"

The rule exist, though they may seem very arbitrary and
restrictive at times, because there was a need and a 
mutually agreed upon solution.

As to the Five-A-Day rule, that is more of a guideline
than a rule since the Elves have no way of enforcing it.
When the issue originally came up, I agrued that people
weren't just posting to see their electron in print. If
the posting volume was high, it was because /interest/
was high, and not because people felt some arbitrary
obligation to make their voice heard in every thread.
And, I still think that is true. But, that said, I
also support the rule.

The staff of the main group are all voluntary. Believe
it or not they all have lives that make demands on them
outside this group; kids need to be fed, jobs need to be
worked, groceries need to be purchase, sleep needs to be
had, etc....

When over 8,000 (8,234) posts are flowing per month which
is an average of 275 PER DAY, their job of monitoring the
group becomes extremely difficult and demanding. I believe
somewhere Jordan/Random implied that 10 small posts or
one big post with 10 internal comments amounts to the
same thing. But that is not true, at least not to the 
elves who have to review it. One large post can be scanned
quickly, and it can be reasonably assumed that it is
substantive. However, 10 individual posts need to be delt
with individually. 

We can see now with the recent influx of new members that
the number of very short unsubstantial posts has increased
noticably. Now, the elves aren't Nazis, they have some
reasonable flexibility, thought at times when you receive
a howler in your in box, it may not seem so. Yet, those
new members will quickly get the hang of things, and fall
in line. Many of my first post in the group, oh so many
years ago, were of the want to see my own electrons in
print variety. Still I learned and grew.

I consider myself to be one of the more frequent posters,
though I rarely go over the limit. That said, if there are
a lot of interesting subjects, and I think I have 
something worth while to say, I have no problem going over
the limit. I don't think the Elves mind that so much as
long as I really am adding to the discussion, and not 
wasting everyone's time. 

Also, when a new book comes out, there are many many 
things the need discussing. So, I don't think the 5 per
day rule is strictly enforces at that time. Though certain
people are reminded to keep it on topic, to the point, and
keep the volume down (both the amplitude and the 
quantity). Keep in mind that during those times, the elves
are probably more interested in taking part in the 
discussion than monitoring it and sending out howlers. 

I think the key is to AVERAGE 5 or less per day, and
despite the fact that occassionally I go over my limit of
5, I frequently only post one or two per day because at
those low volume times, the interesting subjects aren't
there.

So, to some extent Jordan/Random it right, the 5-a-day 
rule is pretty arbitrary, but rarely is it ever 
restrictive. Five-a-day works out pretty good and is a 
good reminder to everyone to keep their post meaningful.
There is already a rule against 'Me Too' and 'I Agree' 
posts unless those posts also expand the discussion.
Between those two rules, I think the group is fairly,
functionally, and effectively regulated without being
unnecessarily restrictive.

My point is, are you trying to change the rule because
you simply don't agree with it, or because you see that
it is not working. Are we dealing with your desire or a
problem that needs to be fixed? 

Personally, I see that it IS working, and see no reason
to change it. The group rules do not come about 
arbitrarily, a problem exist and a workable solution is
found. Further, the rule in question has served us well
for several years, and has never created a problem. If
no problem exists, then why try to force a solution
on it? 

Steve/bboyminn