Forum wait period

HungryCrackPot · Post by **HungryCrackPot** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:32 am

Maybe this is just me, for being IP banned twice and all, but what is the waiting period between posts now? It seems an awful amount longer than, say, 2 months ago.
Just trying to post this, I had to click submit 3 times so far. This seems to be a problem, as some of us read rather fast, type fast, and then must wait for another 2 minutes to submit the post.

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:17 am

Hey,

The flood interval is a global setting for all users and is there to keep people from trying to run up a high post count. It also keeps people from double-posting. The flood interval is set to 60 seconds.

Phade.

EarthCurrent · Post by **EarthCurrent** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:51 pm

I say it should be upped to 90 seconds. If you can't put 90 seconds of thought into what you want to say next, is it really worth saying?

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:25 pm

[is tempted by the 90 second idea...]

RadicalEd0 · Post by **RadicalEd0** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:28 pm

60 is bad enough

EarthCurrent · Post by **EarthCurrent** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:34 pm

RadicalEd0 wrote: 60 is bad enough

But 90 seconds is even badder!

And more bad is good!!!

Besides I've grown rather tired of the ongoing feuds between certain members of the board. 90 seconds, I believe would allow cooler heads to prevail, and encourage people to actually read posts as opposed to scanning the first line then automatically hitting the reply button as they rush to get the next word in.

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:13 pm

You're putting too much faith in our fellow members E.C.

Bump it up and Phade's gonna have to listen to more bullshit, and bullshit = members bitching.

Yeah, 60 seconds is bad enough.

Btw, ppl are still trying to run up a huge post count?

I know that people are making threads about, how they got 1337 amount of posts and what not, but I don't think that's a "FINALLY! I got 300 posts," I think it's more of a "Oh cool, I got 300 posts!." Those people are the ones who hang out in the bottom parts of the forum neway, so their post count is always going to be dropping. The bottom part of the forums have been really slow lately as well, with noone posting. There's really no need for bumping it up more.

EarthCurrent · Post by **EarthCurrent** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:04 pm

fyrtenheimer wrote:You're putting too much faith in our fellow members E.C.

Faith is all I have to go on anymore. It saddens me to think that I cannot even rely on that...

fyrtenheimer wrote: Bump it up and Phade's gonna have to listen to more bullshit, and bullshit = members bitching.

The ones complaining will be from the OOT crowd and I have little care about their overall concerns about their inability to post-->post-->post as quick as possible. And, in my opinion, I doubt Phade does either.

fyrtenheimer wrote: Yeah, 60 seconds is bad enough.

I don't feel that 60 is all that bad, though I hardly see a reason to wholeheartedly stand against an increase in the time required between posts. Truly, the only people who would complain are those who do nothing but post-->post-->post merely to see what sort of reaction they can get from their attempts at the witty. Perhaps we would loose some amount of spontinaity in the OOT, but I and suspicious of even this being affected overly much.

fyrtenheimer wrote: Btw, ppl are still trying to run up a huge post count? I know that people are making threads about, how they got 1337 amount of posts and what not, but I don't think that's a "FINALLY! I got 300 posts," I think it's more of a "Oh cool, I got 300 posts!." Those people are the ones who hang out in the bottom parts of the forum neway, so their post count is always going to be dropping. The bottom part of the forums have been really slow lately as well, with noone posting. There's really no need for bumping it up more.

Overall, I was quite pleased when Phade and the mods removed the visible post counts. As you suggest, I pointed out my 1337 post merely because I wanted to make a humorous screen capture of the event to share with the board.

However, it is not really against the "spamming" crowd that I call for an increase in time, though occasionally this does get out of hand in some threads. Rather it is against the seeming increase in beligerent trolling and reactionary feuding that has been going on. And to avoid sounding the hypocryt, I admit that I too have trolled and engaged myself in pointless flaming, but I have noticed those times when I have hit the "submit" button but run against the 60-second time barrier there have been numerous occasions where I was given pause and many times realized there was no real reason to post so I didn't bother posting.
Perhaps it is merely wishful thinking, but I think 90 seconds would indeed be helpful.

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:29 pm

I wouldn't mind it goign up to 90 secs, but i would rather recommend 45 seconds...just because i wanted 30 and 45 was in the middle.

Neway, i think 60secs is fine.

/end

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:33 pm

:O

Well yeah EC, I'm sure he won't care, I wont care, others wont care. But then it turns into a nuisance, and they're are some pretty immature people on here. And it turns into a riot, over something stupid, like other things recently.

Maybe for some people it's to "post-->post-->post merely to see what sort of reaction they can get from their attempts at the witty," but you see one thread, you post, you see another interesting one, you post. And what if it's not off topic? To wait would get annoying, and your hitting the submit button and waiting and then finally giving up only proves that.

Btw, that feuding ...have you seen how long their posts are? Please, bumping up that time won't do a damn thing for people to stop arguing.