How about disallowing double-posting?

[jbone]

More and more, I'm seeing newcomers make a new post, and then respond to it once, twice, or more, all in the span of about 10 minutes.

How about reconfiguring things such that, after someone posts (be it to a new thread or as a reply within an existing thread), he or she may not respond again to that thread until someone else posts to it OR six hours have passed?

[Otohiko]

Well, no...

think about cases where you screw something up, and want to append your previous post?

I'd agree to it, but if the double-post prevention period coincided with a temporary edit period.

[Arigatomina]

If it's limited to the Site Help section, then I'd agree with this suggestion.

In places like Amv Announcements, I like being able to make two separate posts to reply to two very different reviews (the similar ones can be lumped in a single post, but when you get a positive and a negative, I prefer to separate them). Now, you may get people double-posting just to keep their vid at the top, but those threads get locked, so it's not a problem.

In the Screencaps thread, I'd hate this sort of limit. It would defeat the idea of having a limit of pictures-per-post. People would be cramming 6 hrs of pics into one post instead of making three or four in a row.

Poor people in the Amv contest section would be screwed if they tried to make multiple posts giving the rules of a contest before allowing contestants to post - they'd be forced to do one very very long post or else wait 6 hours between each one.

In the Video/Software/Video sections being able to double-post is very helpful if you forget to add something that would make it easier for people to answer your questions. Just imagine a person who forgets to name the program he's using when he asks about memory usage - he'd have to wait 6 hrs before fixing that, and no one would answer his question becuase they wouldn't know what program he's using.

Maybe in General Amv, gen anime, Site suggestions, and site help. But a forum-wide ban on double posting would cause more problems than it would solve. I for one would sooner PM a friend to post in the thread so can post again, rather than waiting 6 hrs to add something necessary in order to get a legitimate response.

[badmartialarts]

I like double posting. Because my brain is much slower than my fingers, and I always think of something to add or apologize about or clarify a bit. Usually about two seconds after I hit Submit.

[badmartialarts]

Not this time though.

[Lyrs]

More and more, I'm seeing newcomers make a new post, and then respond to it once, twice, or more, all in the span of about 10 minutes.

How about reconfiguring things such that, after someone posts (be it to a new thread or as a reply within an existing thread), he or she may not respond again to that thread until someone else posts to it OR six hours have passed?

jbone, if you figure out how to do it, the chances of it being done are more likely. Furthermore, I don't see how this can be a problem. If the member wants to post ten response to his topic in a row, it hurts no one. If you're a Moderator with "watch this forum" on, it can get annoying, but you signed up to be a Mod and instead of responding to every post, you could organize your time to check through the threads every so many hours.

Anyway, I remember you having thicker skin.

[jbone]

Anyway, I remember you having thicker skin.

Does having an idea to prevent pointless multi-posting constitute "being thin-skinned?"

[Lyrs]

Anyway, I remember you having thicker skin.

Does having an idea to prevent pointless multi-posting constitute "being thin-skinned?"

It constitutes being "thin-skinned," because for one, you were annoyed/motivated enough by the action to start a whole new thread after having respond to the poster.

[yumi+chan]

I think double-posting is good.

[Zarxrax]

Seems like it would be easy enough to implement.