Posting limits--not the same as setting limits

[potioncat]

Dumbledad: 
> As other's have pointed out ... it is. But I'd like to chime in 
with my
> personal view that we should scrap it. I think it is very important 
that
> HPfGU remains a group where post quality is valued over post 
quantity, and
> at the height of posting volume the five post limit helped with 
that quality
> drive. But now the list is at a more manageable post rate I think 
the rule
> makes it less readable. Combining posts that span topics makes each 
post
> less lucid; and if someone has  canon points to add to a number of 
posts,
> then I think we should encourage them to post replies to each one
> separately.


Potioncat:
I have to admit, everyone has come up with some very good reasons for 
keeping the limits in effect, but I really agree with Tim.

I've noticed lately a couple of posters ending with "...have reached 
my limits, will sign off now..." and I couldn't help thinking, "what 
more might they have to say after another couple of posts are entered?

And as much as I like having posts combined when they pertain to the 
same thread; it's a bit busy when the one post deals with multiple 
threads. 

Could we consider a trial period of no limit to numbers of posts, or 
of an encreased number to the limit? Perhaps with the next chapter 
discussion? 

Potioncat earlier: 		
 
> A. Yes, and now we have our eye on you.
> 
> B. Yes, but we don't enforce it.
> 
> C. No, and why weren't you paying attention when it was announced?

Potioncat now:
I really, really hope everyone understood this was supposed to be 
funny. I think someone put a dishumor hex on me, because all of my 
jokes over the weekend fell flat. Not just at HP.

By the way, it was pure coincidence that I submitted this idea on the 
day I hit 5 posts before noon. I don't think I've come close to 5 per 
day in ages.
:-)   Kathy