The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What about 4 posts a day as the limit?

What about 4 posts a day as the limit?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
Two posts a day is often limiting in the Articles section of
OLO. Personally I think that changing this limit to 4 posts
per day, as in General, would be an improvement.

What do other poster think of the suggestion?
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 25 October 2007 3:01:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Certainly has my vote, but I've already emailed Mr Young on the matter and he doesn't seem inclined to budge. Perhaps if enough of us started creating multiple identities or moved threads to General, he might change his mind.

Oh and 350 words is a bit rough too - an extra 50 would go a long way.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 25 October 2007 3:21:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The adjoining office is probably ASIOs... let them gather their information on writers. What is Escelon about but info gathering. Why not The National Forum?
Posted by Gibo, Thursday, 25 October 2007 3:32:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmm. I was going to make the point that on the flip side of the coin, it would allow certain posters to fill the threads with preaching or nonsense, but I think gibo made my point for me...

I think the current system works pretty well - I do get frustrated at times as well, but overall I think having more limitations on the article commentary with relaxed restrictions in general works pretty well and allows more views to be heard.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 25 October 2007 4:27:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
4 posts works for me. Although I must admit - this is quite an educational experience for me ...
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 25 October 2007 4:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was only wondering. Everyone gathers info on everyone else these days. I'll be watching you too TRTL.
Posted by Gibo, Thursday, 25 October 2007 5:24:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about a total word limit rather than a set number of posts with a word limit per post. Some discussions are better handled with a number of short post, others discussions work better with a larger post. 700 words a day per thread on the article area etc (with limits on the total words posted as well).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 25 October 2007 5:36:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It could be a good idea, Yabby - but I fear it would be provide a greater opportunity for the lunatic fringe to swamp us with even more religious blather, diatribes of hate or other verbose expressions of idiocy. R0bert's idea of a total word limit is interesting.

As some will know, there's been a fair bit of sockpuppetry occurring in some discussions lately, but the moderators seem unwilling to do anything about it even though they're aware it's happening. Last week I submitted a discussion starter on the subject, where I wanted to gauge people's opinions about the practice that some people have of posting to this forum under various different IDs (some openly, others dishonestly) but it was rejected for some reason.

One of the more prolific sockpuppeteers has declared war on me in one thread, simply because I exposed his dishonesty. I'm disappointed that the editors and moderators of this generally excellent forum seem unwilling or unable to control this behaviour. Allowing users to post 4 comments per day per topic would remove one excuse for sockpuppetry, but it probably wouldn't stop those who think that their opinions are more worthy than others', and who have the technical expertise to create various accounts using separate IP addresses.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 25 October 2007 6:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You do that gibo.

It's probably a wise move. I'm actually an evil, UFO-flying demon out to corrupt mankind through heinous methods such as employing logic and reason.

Don't worry too much though - it would appear you're immune.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 25 October 2007 6:55:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't worry Graeme, of course ASIO is watching you. But who should really be watching you is the good people at the Sutherland Community Mental Health Centre.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 25 October 2007 7:13:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is four posts a day on any one thread- each 24hours- and twelve posts in all isnt it?

Hey, I know what about an honesty system Yabbs.

The ones who are prepared to put their name where their mouth is get extra posts for being honest.

So far it looks like only Morgan and pale would gain. Umm that doesn`t really help you- does it.

Yup a reward system for honesty.

We could make it interesting with a shilling on the side if you like as well.
How about this. Ask Graham to start up a OLO on line betting system so I can make heaps of money from each porkie you tell.

he he he

No Seriously- If you want or need to post more you should be able to have that option I totally agree with you Yabby.

After all people put hours into OLO out of their own time and if everybody STOPPED then Graham wouldnt have the business so in that sense Yabby your priceless to OLO.

Yo Yabby check the new greens thread out.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Friday, 26 October 2007 6:03:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why are there limits on comments at all?.

Fair enough on the topic creation side. How many topics do you need to create in a day?. There's plenty of forums out there if you want to fill the place with trash. But why can't you comment as much as you want?.

My personal observation so far of this joint is that debate is discouraged. Comments AREN'T, but a good old heavy debate ends up having a ref jump in before it's really necessary.
Posted by StG, Friday, 26 October 2007 6:42:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PALEIF, a choice to not use a real name on this site is not about honesty or dishonesty for many of us. It is about being able to comment without our views having a potential impact on careers, it's about being able to relate personal experiences without having the flow on effect of identifying others involved.

It involves the reality that not everybody we encounter on line respects boundaries, I don't want one of our religious nutters on my door step preaching at me, I don't wish to be assaulted because someone didn't like what I said here, I don't want someone at C$A adding me to their little hit list because they don't like my views about their organisation.

For many of us it is a responsible choice.

I've seen nothing in my time on OLO to suggest that those who use real names are in any way more polite, honest or rational than those who choose an alias.

Rather our perceptions and values relating to privacy and risk are different.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 26 October 2007 8:05:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think PALEaIF are showing their sense of humour R0bert.
On the issue of honesty in names......hummm?

___________________________

I'm still trying to get the hang of the black v the red threads! The posting limit is very frustrating, and the autocensor reminds me of a headmistress I once fell foul of!

IF this structure IS resulting in dual/multi ID's; then it defeats its own purpose.
Posted by Ginx, Friday, 26 October 2007 8:17:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've got to concur with R0Bert there PALEIF.
There are posters here who I wouldn't trust with my identity.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 26 October 2007 9:23:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about if we split the difference and make it three (3)!
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 26 October 2007 10:05:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OLO most definitely needs posting limits that are strict and apply to all.

My main gripe is the presence of cheaters who blatantly go under two names. I can’t imagine why on earth the moderator would allow this for one moment.

OK, so they can then presumably come back on the forum in a surreptitious manner. I don’t suppose there is a lot that the moderator can do about that.

But for the moderator to be seen to not be policing his own strict rules is a bad look indeed.

.
I’d suggest that four posts on the general threads in 24 hours is just fine. But THREE posts on article threads would be better than two. And perhaps six article posts in total in 24 hours instead of five.

.
“PALEIF a choice to not use a real name on this site is not about honesty or dishonesty for many of us.”

Too right R0bert. For some of us it is really irksome to have to go under a ‘spewdonym’ in order to avoid potential conflict with one’s employer! In fact I strongly protest about not being able to express my own views under my own name….and my views are the most eminently sensible views of anyone on this forum!! (:>|
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 26 October 2007 10:12:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with PALEIF on the use of pseudonyms. Dishonesty and cowardice are probably too strong a terms but they are definitely the ones that come to mind for me. I can see RObert's reasoning but for most people using your Christian name should still gives a high degree of anonymity surely. The main drawback that I see is that it can expose you to sexist, racist and possibly ageist stereotyping, especially in the minds of some posters. I still strongly believe though that an opinion worth having is worth putting your name to.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 26 October 2007 10:14:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not good enough Bugsy.
And I dont appreciate you trying a cyber stalk to locate me. Its cheap and threatens a situation Im involved in.
I protested to Graham but he seems to feel there is sufficient security to prevent stalking.
I do not.
I protest against this attititude by leaving the site as a writer. I will be happy as an observer until security improves.
Try and remember what I said about the invader. Many, many, many christians believe in the visions and prophecies and I, like them, reckon its going to happen. You are not to cyber stalk. It wrecks a discussion site.
Posted by Gibo, Friday, 26 October 2007 10:24:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No no, my dear Graham, I implore you....do not succumb to the verbose Yabby's request.

Already King Motor Mouth has outdone chat show hostess, Oprah, where he's averaged a "mere" 63 blubberings per month on OLO. Some of us will not cope with more of his automated mouth overload?

And this week, his Tupperware tirades grew so tedious that even my leg fell sleep!
Posted by dickie, Friday, 26 October 2007 1:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think any limits at all are silly. It feels like we are being treated as children.
Posted by freediver, Friday, 26 October 2007 2:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some people have mentioned religious zealots, as a possible reason
for not changing the 2 post limit. I think it would actually be
a crying shame, if the threat of religious zealots prevents posters
from enlightened discussions. Easy, just scroll past their comments.

Certainly in some of the economics debates, posters such as Wiz
and myself, find the 2 post limit frustrating, as economics disccusions
are often fairly complex. I personally see no good
reason to have a two post limit in one section, four posts in
the other. Perhaps GY can explain his justification and reasoning.

As to Dickie, don't be such a sore loser. It sounded like you were
about to jump off the proverbial cliff this week. You really should
not take these debates so very personally and perhaps learn to
separate emotion from reason.

Ad hominem attacks won't win any debating brownie points, reasoned
thinking will. Reality does not go away, when you close your eyes
and wish it would. The rest of the world is not about to turn into
farmer hating vegetarians, as you might wish. Thats the reality,
face it or not. But sticking to the point of this thread might
have been the far better option.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 26 October 2007 4:42:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to see a one post per article per day limit, but have no problem with four a day in the general forum. The frequent squabbles in the articles shows how little some regard the opportunity to participate. One post per day for the articles might discourage the biffo and encourage a bit more thought. Leave the biffo for the general forum where it belongs.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 27 October 2007 1:58:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fester

I agree with your comments regarding the 'biffo' and feel that Yabby's suggestion of four posts a day might definitely add to the problem. But I still think two posts a day rather than one is the way to go. Having only one would be very restrictive especially when a thread is new and there are a lot of people adding input and often a lot of points to respond to.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 27 October 2007 3:09:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If restrictions are to encourage civility, is it that difficult to stay reasonably civil to your fellow members and post as often as you wish?

A restriction on posting is a form of censorship and indicative of the view the moderators must hold for members......we cannot be trusted to behave so they impose behavioural restrictions in the form of posting limits in an attempt to force approptriate behaviour.

I don't like that attitude and resent being treated like a child.

Come on mods, we are all adults here and capable of behaving as such, surely.

Regardless if I am right or wrong, I invite the mods to comment.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 27 October 2007 4:44:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the other hand ditch, I've been to other forums such as this, which do eventually end up being overrun by a few prolific posters who feel the need to impress their view on all others.

This oneis better - and part of that, is because no one poster can monopolise debate.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 27 October 2007 5:10:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I know what you mean. I've been a member of forums with a similar problem. Personal abuse needs to be dealt with by the mods before having to enforce restrictions which amount to a freedom of speech though.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 27 October 2007 6:22:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch

“I don't like that attitude and resent being treated like a child”

I don’t think the rules of this forum do that at all. There have to be parameters in which we all operate. It can’t just be open slather.

It is was open slather, or considerably looser than it is, many serious contributors to the discussions would no doubt abandon it and go elsewhere, along with many highly qualified article contributors. The quality of debate and of freedom of speech and of opportunity for one’s free expressions to be read by a reasonably wide audience and sensibly responded to, would drop right away.

I’m in favour of the rules as they are, in principle, with a bit of tweaking regarding post numbers, perhaps.

I can’t see how the rules of this forum restrict freedom of speech, and I’ve always been an arch advocate of free speech.

Could you elucidate. Thanks.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 27 October 2007 9:17:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The rules of this forum restict freedom of speech Ludwig because they limit what you can say/speak = limiting freedom of speech. If you are restricted in what you can say then your freedom to speak is resticted. OK? It's pretty simple really.

So why would open slather not work? What possible reason is there for restrcting what you or I or any member here says in this forum? Why would it not work if we could post with no limitations?

What is the issue?
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 27 October 2007 10:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yair I don’t think it is that simple Ditch. I can’t see that the rules restrict what we can say to any significant extent. Copyright, defamation, flaming and off-topic limitations, all of which are perfectly fair and reasonable, still allow us to fully (or pretty damn close to fully) express our views and partake in proper debate.

Internet forums are vastly better than letters to the editor of newspapers for example, which I was into for many years before the internet.

“So why would open slather not work?”

Firstly, it is not the moderator’s decision to prevent copyright or defamation infringements. You’d have to change the law to get past those restrictions.

We don’t want raging abusive arguments or deliberately offensive carry-on. So limiting flaming to a minimum is desirable.

Of course we want on-topic discussion on any thread.

And fourthly and most importantly, we all want this forum to remain a high-quality arena for all sorts of subject matter and for the ordinary person to be able to mix it with scientific experts, politicians, etc.

If it becomes ragged and uncouth, the value of our free expression will be diminished, as I explained in my last post. You might be able to express yourself fully, but who would be reading it?

So the right sort of restrictions, as we have on this forum, actually improve the quality of our freedom of speech because a high-quality forum attracts a bigger and better quality of readership and contributorship, which means that each one of us gets our message across to more people.

This is just basic commonsense surely.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 27 October 2007 11:25:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabbys Said

perhaps learn to
separate emotion from reason.

Dickie- Now there you go free - '"insensitive" lessons from our old Yabbs.
Yabby has some advise to give on how to be insenstive..
[ Now I am going to be singing that song all day]

He will teach you to put money before misery- Give the man some more posts.
he he he.

Actually Dickie Yabby keeps the live export debates going. We really should be grateful for the time he takes to copy all those lies of the Government and Industrys web sites.[ he he he]

Despite being off post the bottom line is farmers are sick of animal welfare groups complaining about the cruel live animal trade then turning around and refusing to do anything practicle about it.
[ Such as help reopen abattoirs here.]

"So are pale".

I think both yourself and Yabby have unlimited posts just like should everybody else on this thread.

I agree with Yabby if its a detailed subject we often need more space.

This is especially true Dickie in the sort of detailed posts you put up..
I dont know how you manage to cram so much info in such a small space.
However you do it keep up your amazing work.
GY Please give us more posts.
You wont will you Graham?
How say you Spanky?

Anyway cheer up all by the way things are looking you will all be able to go on strike about it soon.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Sunday, 28 October 2007 5:29:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, I see now that we are talking about slightly diiferent things here. I was specifically referring only to the restriction on the number of posts while you are speaking more broadly re couthness on not straying off topic etc. I agree with there being restrictions over things like flaming, couthness etc but I am against a restriction on the number of posts that can be made each day. If members were allowed only 1 post per day we could still be extremely abusive, for example. Restricting number of posts does not help keep this forum civil and interesting. It actually has a negative effect on the volume of potentially intelligent and civil debate that can take place.
Posted by Ditch, Sunday, 28 October 2007 7:28:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an excellent thread asking a very valid question which I reckon should be asked.

I'm inclined to agree with you Ditch on the restrictive nature of the forum; I find it frustrating. ( when the censor comes up in red telling me that: "it is not necessary to put so and so"...;the damned thing is so polite it makes my teeth curl!)

However, I'm in agreement with TRTL's comment of 'no one poster can monopolize'. Also Ludwig's comment's of 9-17pm last night.

This forum works better than any I've seen. I LOATHE restrictions; but they work here.

The site has a massive m/ship, and regular new members. A large percentage of who post.
The format works.

It seems to me that if it were THAT restrictive, the m/ship would not be what it is.

My ambivalent tuppennyworth!
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 28 October 2007 11:57:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the correct balance has been struck.

If we're limited to two posts, we're less inclined to waste them on personal attack. If there was no limit, my feeling is that some posters would definitely up the ante on the 'biffo' to the point that the quality of the debate would be adversely affected.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 28 October 2007 4:40:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Browyn, you posted to the "privileged whites" thread - nearly half that thread is taking up with ridiculous personal attacks and arguing over multiple identities (which I fully admitted to being guilty of doing myself, but no-one has objected about my own behaviour so far). I would venture to suggest that none of the squabbling would have taken place if it weren't for the restrictions.

How can "2 posts a day" be a well-struck balance? A balance between what?
Posted by wizofaus, Sunday, 28 October 2007 4:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why anticipate the worst Bronwyn? I disagree with your assumption that members will not be abusive as they would not want to waste any of their quota on flaming. On the contrary. It's ptretty clear that many here make sure they get the boot into other members whenever the opportunity arises and obviously do not want to miss doing so before their quota is up for the day. My involvement in this thread has been restricted until a few minutes ago because of this 4 per day per policy. I have not nor do I intend to be abusive to anyone. I simply want to discuss the topic, but the restrictions inhibit my ability to do that.

By all means restict the abusiveness. The mods can continue to do that as they do now but why the 4 per day? I'll say it again, I find that offensive as the mods here it seems cannot trust the members to be civil. If that's what it revolves around. It may have more to do with restricting bandwidth useage, I don't know.

But it is a silly restriction to place on adults if it's to do with trusting us to be civil with eachother.
Posted by Ditch, Sunday, 28 October 2007 4:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are we becoming a society of wusses? A bit of "biffing" is part of our culture. Excessive "biffing" or vulgarity is controlled adequately by Graham where the offenders are penalised with suspension from OLO.

The problem posters are those who refuse to address any questions posed; who fail to substantiate their claims; who babble on oblivious to other posters' comments and who endeavour to hog a thread.

"Dickie- Now there you go free - '"insensitive" lessons from our old Yabbs. Yabby has some advise to give on how to be insenstive.."

Too true Pale - we "emotional" posters must endure constant lectures from Yabby.

Unfortunately there are posters who are incapable of reconciling emotion with reason. These are the "masters-of-style" who would maniacally reason that Jack the Ripper was a gentle soul. These are the ones who aim at the sickest possible idea and set about proving its cogency (with face covered of course!)

Of course most of us are aware that morals are not derivable from reason alone - if at all.

However, OLO is a great learning curve for all posters though I am fearful that additional access to the "Article" threads can result in other posters losing interest.

Four posts, possibly in succession, from just one egotistical poster, has the potential to become very tedious indeed.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 28 October 2007 11:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wizofaus

"How can "2 posts a day" be a well-struck balance? A balance between what?"

It just seems like a balanced position to me that's all. The forum appears to be working well so why mess with it. And speaking personally I've never found it restrictive. But seeing as you ask, it strikes a balance between the suggestion made earlier by Fester for one post (which I do think would be restrictive) and the call made by others for unlimited posts.

"I would venture to suggest that none of the squabbling would have taken place if it weren't for the restrictions."

I didn't read the posts all that closely but I can't see how lifting the restrictions would have ended the bickering on that thread, or on any other thread for that matter.

Ditch

"But it is a silly restriction to place on adults if it's to do with trusting us to be civil with each other."

The reason the moderators restrict the numbers of posts is probably more to prevent a small minority of posters hogging the thread and in effect shutting others out than it is to encourage civility. I just happened to agree with Fester's comment that limiting the posts might also limit the 'biffo'.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 28 October 2007 11:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all
I suppose GY tries to keep it down so he doesnt have to go through too many comments each day.

On the other hand he may feel if he gives more than two posts this time it will set way to a whole bunch of requests.

We should be grateful we have some place to air out thoughts in this country.

Then again as I said before if none of us posted there wouldnt be a forum.

Why not put this to the vote.?

All those who support Yabbys idea of more posts say "eye"
All those against the idea of more than two posts say "N0"

Blimey Graham ring the bells looks like the eyes have it.

Dickey - ah yes the curse of caring.
Is it a curse- or a gift- to care about these poor creatues ?
Speaking about eyes have you seen the new footage of of all they cattle horses sheep goats deer eyes as they go blind on the ships Dickie.?

The poor darlings thrashing their sick frightend heads around in fear until they no longer have the strenght.

Of course the ones still left alive that are not thrown into the sea or put down mincers alive are dragged kicked and bashed often another thousand miles in over 50 degree heat in CLOSED trucks or stuffed into CLOSED boots of cars making it over a hundred degrees.

If the UN want to do something they can help open abattoirs here and set up refigration to export meat to the world.

How about we vote on that Yabby.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Monday, 29 October 2007 2:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever,i'll go with the flow.The only thing that irks me is the people who open a thread and then deride any person who doesn't agree with them.I thought this site was to give our opinions and discuss subjects,not to be abused or treated as an idiot if we have an alternate view.Some of the posters remind me of school yard bullies.Some,get on the same bandwagon regardless of the topic,ie BOAZ and The animal liberation movement.I can't see where either of those are germane in this instance.What on earth have animals(unless they have a computer and can write)got to do with this topic. I must admit i'm having fun and don't mind putting the cat amongst the pigeons on occassion. g'day to you all and i'll be waiting for more interesting subjects.
Posted by haygirl, Monday, 29 October 2007 12:10:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haygirl

While I agree that reference to animals may be off topic, it is relevant to the author of this thread though your reference to Boaz is not.

The author continually endorses and promotes the barbaric treatment of animals and also vociferously defends the exports of Australia's live animals on the ships of shame to a heinously cruel fate.

Sadruddin Aga Khan(Former UN High Commissioner of Refugees:-

"The suffering of sentient creatures is an intolerable blight on humankind and our moral progress. No compassionate being can witness animal suffering and not feel empathy and the desire to change a society that permits this to happen."

The author of this thread has actively dominated and hogged all animal welfare sites, promoting his Marquis de Sade philosophies on OLO where it is clear he regards all other species as cannon fodder.

Surely then, we who detest cruelty to animals are entitled to enquire on this thread as to why our resident Marquis de Sade is now criticising a well-managed and efficient forum where his posts already exceed those of most others members?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 29 October 2007 2:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"While I agree that reference to animals may be off topic, it is relevant to the author of this thread"

You miss the point entirely Dickie. The point of this thread is
to discuss 4 posts versus 2 posts as various limits, in various
sections of OLO. Various people have mentioned it, I simply
opened it up for discussion for everyone and invited their opinions.

The fact that animal libber extremists like yourself and Pale are
trying to turn it into yet another animal liberation thread,
is fairly obvious. As if we havent had enough of those.

People who are interested in that topic are free to read the
points of reason made there and form their own opinions.

I don't think that they or I particularly care how much you hate
me. But then perhaps now you feel better having gotten it all
off your chest :)

Anyhow, it would at least be considerate of others other then
myself, if you stuck to the topic and kept animal liberation for
animal liberation threads.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 29 October 2007 4:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The fact that animal libber extremists like yourself and Pale are
trying to turn it into yet another animal liberation thread,
is fairly obvious. As if we havent had enough of those."

Oooohhh.......Yabby, does this mean that you will cease corrupting and contaminating threads and articles which compassionate professionals and posters raise simply to plead for the humane treatment of our defenceless animals?

The last animal welfare thread on 12/10/07, "Midas McGauran and his Mixed Grill of Misery", you posted a "mere" TWENTY EIGHT times to distract other readers from the topic.

Since you regard compassionate people as extremists and cry-babies, why do you, without exception, dominate and hog their threads?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 29 October 2007 7:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread has been started for the sole purpose of discussing the thread posting limit. To introduce other totally unrelated topics is thread crapping, pure and simple.

I am very sympathetic to the treatment of animals, and their mistreatment saddens and disgusts me. But this thread's purpose is not to resolve or discuss that subject. We all know that, so why don't we all accept it and stick to the topic at hand.

And don't anyone come back and accuse me of a lack of caring for animal welfare. If you do then you are showing an extremely high degree of ignorance.
Posted by Ditch, Monday, 29 October 2007 8:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although I'm sympathetic to the cause of animal welfare, in the case of dickie (and others who seem similarly fixated on whatever topic it is) I'd suggest that two posts per thread per day are quite enough. This is because I'm also sympathetic to the welfare of humans.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 29 October 2007 8:48:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And you have a good sense of humour.

If there was a two post a day limit I would not have been able to say that today. :)
Posted by Ditch, Monday, 29 October 2007 8:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch
Fair enough comment. I think its just that we are so used to debating yabby on the cruel live Animal Export trade we simply forget which thread we are on.

Point Taken- We do aplogise.
.

Have you ever thought that may be his way of contributing towards helping both farmers and Animals.
No- We dont agree with much of what he argues either.
However hes got one thing right.
We should put up or shut up.
You and I know the Government and Industry will NEVER change things.
Yabby is saying- Ok you animal lovers lets see you put up a viable alternative.
THATS where he wins every debate hands down.
Hes right of course.
We either get involved in reopening plants here or except there will ALWAYS be the cruel live trade which WILL tripple!

.
Ooops Sorry all. I did it again/.
Dickie why are you posting here on Animal Welfare instead of your own thread?
Yabby is waiting for your reply to his post and we ARE being rude to others,.
Sorry buddy but if we gate crash every thread nobody will want to hear the truth.
We respect your efforts and encourage you to continue with your thread.
I hope GY increases the posts but lets face it- We all get the same number at least.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Monday, 29 October 2007 11:43:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Everybody
What about asking GY to add a IM system to OLO so posters can- Take it outside if they wish to debate for hours and hundreds of words?
Just an idea.
Nite all
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Monday, 29 October 2007 11:47:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been watching this thread with interest. Not sure why anyone would complain about their free speech being curtailed on this forum. We try as hard as we can not to interfere as my forbearance from contributing to this thread earlier than this point demonstrates.

The rules are enforced mostly via an algorithm that has no concern for your point of view and applies the rules completely equally. We back it up with a suspension system so there is a consequence for breaking the rules.

Why do we impose post limits? In the first place I think of this as a town meeting. Most large scale regular meetings that I am aware of impose restrictions on the number of times that you can speak, and how long you can speak. It ensures everyone gets a go and that long-winded speakers don't end up intimidating others and monopolising the conversation.

On top of that, experience suggests that without limits the forum would quickly degenerate. When we started discussion threads on OLO there were no limits. It quickly got out of control. There was a large number of posts, but it wasn't a pleasant place to go so the quality wasn't high and there was a problem with abuse. So we adopted the posting rules and applied them via programming rules.

Before we started the forum we also had an email forum. We applied posting rules to it which worked more or less well, but after a time it tended to be the same people and they tended to abuse each other. Then I stopped applying the rules and let them post as often as they liked. I closed it down a couple of months ago because it degenerated even more.

The posting rules that we use are adapted from ones that are recommended by Steven Clift of Minnesota eDemocracies - one of the most respected pioneers in this area.

I don't believe that freedom comes without limits, and in fact that greater freedom can come with the right limits - liberty doesn't equal licence. I'll continue this in the next post.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 5:59:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do the general and article forums have different limits? The articles tend to attract a broader cross section of contributors, so we wanted to ensure that there were more opportunities for all of them, so 2 posts per day was the original limit, and we kept it.

With the general forum we reasoned that the person who started the thread might want, or even need, to post more than twice, so we decided four times was reasonable. We also extended that to other posters.

I think that the number of posts combined with the word limit encourages more thoughtful posting. I wouldn't support the proposal just to have a word limit. My observation suggests that shorter posts are more likely to be flames than longer posts, they are also less likely to be thoughtful.

I am concerned about sock puppets, but it is often difficult to pick them up, or prove that they are indeed sock puppets. And my experience is that most of the ones I catch are people trying to flout suspensions. CJ Morgan is complaining about inaction on my part. My response to that is that I need to be sure I'm not penalising someone who is operating within the rules, so we need to check, and those checks may take some time.

To stop it entirely we would need to insist on posters providing us with real contact details, which is what it might come to eventually.

I think the forums work pretty well, although I am concerned about a tendency to abuse amongst some posters. My problem there is drawing a line between what is normal conversational argy bargy and bullying, and where to draw the line when things escalate. We've had some posts on this thread that break rules of relevance etc. but other posters have pulled the poster(s) back into line and the whole has self-corrected without any damage being done. I think that the same tends to happen with most of the potential flame wars.

I'm up against the word limits, so I'll sit back and listen for a bit more.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 6:18:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, surely it would be at least worth trialling a 4-post a day limit for the Articles section. I would be quite willing to discard my alternative login with this change.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 6:40:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert

My name is Sue how do you do?

Ah Gee Robert - why didnt you just say so in the first place to save all that misunderstanding?

So your really a girl.

You know we really should have guessed that by your many comments
.
Its just so confusing when people dont use their real names.

Well I am glad we sorted that one out at last.!

Seriously though - Its Grahams business and I suppose if we all had no limits it would double or even tripple his work.
We ought to take that into consideration as well.

Graham I honestly think there will come a day when by law you will have to make people post in their real names.
I heard about six months ago the Government are taking steps to control some of the forums and internet.

They say it will take ages to work through but I think a bill will hit the deck sooner or later and especially If the Labour Government are elected.
As you know we have always supported honesty.

Honesty "starts" with being honest about whom you are.

Anything less is sneaky and cowdly in our view.

Stand up for what you believe in.

Robert- Boo

Its Avon Calling.

[ just kidding] Try to lighten up young lady. The world is a beautiful place full of surprises.
I mean you wouldnt be dead for quids would you?

He He He
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 7:01:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham

"I think the forums work pretty well, although I am concerned about a tendency to abuse amongst some posters. My problem there is drawing a line between what is normal conversational argy bargy and bullying, and where to draw the line when things escalate."

I agree this must be difficult and I think you seem to have struck the balance pretty well. But bullying can be quite subtle and done in such a reasonable tone that it virtually goes unnoticed by others, and yet it can be quite wounding for the person on the receiving end. There mightn't be any escalation involved and your attention wouldn't necessarily be drawn to it, but these comments may deter those to whom they have been directed from further contribution to the thread or to the forum more generally.

I had the following comment directed at me.

"Bronwyn, argument is purely about logic. All the opinions in the world contribute nothing. If you choose to enter a debate, then you must employ valid logical argumentation only. Anything else is simply that which clutters up the thread."

This was nothing less than polite and patronizing bullying. It hasn't deterred me but I wonder how many others have encountered similar comments and been put off from further contribution to the site.

Would you have deleted such a post if I'd requested it at the time?
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 9:45:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the other hand Bronwyn, where do you draw the line as to what's a genuine rebuke and what isn't?

There are a number of practices that do need an occasional rebuke - there are those who draw other topics toward their own area of interest, those who preach, those who have a political axe to grind, or even those who repeatedly employ the same fallacious arguments.

Where do you draw the line between pointing out inconsistencies or flaws in argument, and genuine bullying?

I'm not saying bullying doesn't happen and shouldn't be halted in severe circumstances, but I do believe the moderators need to use a very light hand, which they do, otherwise the debate is too constricted. There are already those who cry foul, saying their freedom of speech is being tampered with, and that's with a very light touch being applied.

I guess I'm just saying that posters need to have a reasonably thick skin and realise that there are others out there who will resort to underhanded tactics, especially if their debating or critical reasoning skills are weak, though I think a bit of argy bargy is necessary. I'd sooner have a colourful forum where the extreme instances of bullying or defamation are handled, rather than a sterile one where debate is restricted.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 10:10:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL, that's simple: it's the difference between "You're a stupid idiot", and "That's a stupid, idiotic argument, because of X, Y & Z".
I've never held back in criticising others' arguments, attitudes or opinions, but I like to think I've generally managed to avoid ever directly insulting the poster (except perhaps one or twice, largely in jest).
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 12:41:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY: "CJ Morgan is complaining about inaction on my part. My response to that is that I need to be sure I'm not penalising someone who is operating within the rules, so we need to check, and those checks may take some time."

Graham, I'm not really complaining about your inaction, rather I'm disappointed that you've been unable to act for the reasons you state. As I outlined in my email to you, the way that I think he's doing it would be very difficult to detect if you're relying on IP addresses to identify people with multiple accounts.

I have every faith that you're working on it, and in that particular case he seems to have hoist himself well and truly on his own petard anyway :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 5:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham said, "On top of that, experience suggests that without limits the forum would quickly degenerate. When we started discussion threads on OLO there were no limits. It quickly got out of control. There was a large number of posts, but it wasn't a pleasant place to go so the quality wasn't high and there was a problem with abuse. So we adopted the posting rules and applied them via programming rules."

So by saying things degenerated I take it you mean posters became abusive. That seems to be the way things go online unfortunately. People are often very much more inclined to get aggro on line than in face to face situations. A virtual identity is the refuge of the spineless bully. There's a lot out there and it's so easy to be abusive when the only response will be another virtual insult.

I was one of the posters who claimed a restriction of freedom of speech was the result of a restriction on posting. I stand by that comment, however it's not a restrction on freedom of speech in the commonly used way. But if your experience with running this forum has lead you to believe that a limit on posting results in a better, more civil, more manageable forum then well and good. It's unfortunate that the virtual world has meant so many closet hoons, wimps and bullies have made their existence so significantly felt.
Posted by Ditch, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 8:29:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for those comments CJ. I think that in terms of forum quality this one does quite well. That's partly the result of the rules, but mainly a result of the community that's built itself around the forum. I'll have a further think about expanding the number of posts allowable on article threads.

We're just making some adjustments to the forum to make pages load more quickly, which you may have noticed. One other thing I'd like to do is add a character counter to the entry box so that you know when you're up against your word limit.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 10:09:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1)

Given that this thread has now covered all aspects of posting, I put my final comments here.

I would like to have posted yesterday, but the nature of my work can get me called away suddenly, and that happened.

So; it was the day before yesterday that I was suspended for 24 hours.

I have said here that I 'LOATHE' restrictions. Too right! But I acknowledge the need for them. That view hasn't changed. However, I baulk at the reasons for my suspension.

Given that a post of mine was deleted; and WAS given as the reason for the suspension I feel somewhat justifiably aggrieved !It is inappropriate for me to reprint it here.But I CAN refer to the substance of it.

It highlights how easy it is for a poster to get a post removed and a suspension applied.

I objected to a statement that asserts that >those on the Left of political thought are responsible for the mass killings of millions because of their political beliefs<!

I questioned the intelligence of the poster who would write such rubbish. I WOULD DO IT AGAIN. The post was recommended for deletion. That is upheld. It's that simple??

SO......; a statement viz: > < is NOT offensive; calling its author an u-little-t IS!!

Online Opinion is THE best forum in Australia for intelligent discussion. Without question. It's moderation is low-key (?), AND I have NEVER encountered a more approachable site owner than Graham Young
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 3:22:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2)

What I do object strongly to is the capacity of an INDIVIDUAL (GY; I wish you had an italics facility!) being so empowered thus, can get a post removed that he/she does not like!

I remind the reader that it was the post referred to that was given as the reason for the suspension, NOT the fact that more than one member of OLO was none too pleased with me!

What is this all about? We are adults for Godssakes! Discussion on radio/phone/personal has layers. Discussion/frustration/irritation/arguments/rows/anger. That IS life.

I have been called: troll/cretin/hormonal/' ugly wimmin' /' lift yer frock up luvvie' . Have I left any out? I would NEVER report this. It won't kill me!! It is levelled by those for whom I have little respect (and v/v!), so what? IF I post strongly, and I do; then I must take the consequences ( this simple fact being completely lost by one intellectually challenged individual...).

I have asked for two posts to be deleted. One I felt to be overtly racist (though this is ALSO in the eye of the beholder); ... and the sock puppet.

Has OLO such a frail sensitive structure that one cannot make the comment I did without being reported/suspended? Surely not?

Why has online discussion allowed the jargon words: flaming/troll/...sock puppet...
What do they REALLY mean? With the exception of ''sock puppet '' '(NOTHING can justify the adopting of duel or multi identities to support ones own views and/or attack others. I do NOT include in this a poster who has declared a duel identity and does NOT use it as a tool of attack).
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 3:24:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
3)

Surely the adoption of 'flaming' and 'troll' as an online terminology, is purely the jargon definition of a poster one does not agree with? I am sick to death of the online poster that makes such glib assertions of ''no fault'' when ALL the evidence is to the contrary, THEN proceeds to attack and ultimately brands his/her detractor as flaming or a troll (hardly professional behaviour from one poster who chooses to behave in a manner that none of his fellow authors would do, EVEN when some of THEM have been criticised quite strongly!)

The poster/s who assert that even though they have chosen to concentrate on putting their target in what they perceive is his/her (my) place; when challenged baldly assert the opposite and resort to insults!

I WILL assault the credibility of a poster who makes the outrageous statement I highlighted above, and got suspended for!
I WILL NOT approach the moderator to delete a post that insults me personally.
I DO NOT like this AT ALL when it comes from someone who I had not even addressed let alone insulted!
BUT hitting the delete button? NO!!

OLO is like a magnet! One day I dare say I will be drawn back to it. But this suspension: ON THOSE GROUNDS; has left a nasty taste in my mouth.

It will be like traversing a minefield to avoid someone ' running to teacher'.

I won't do it.

If I am to be treated like a child and 'suck the dummy' , well hell! I WILL spit the thing as far as I can!

Detractors: Take your cowardly potshots HERE.................

I'm out.
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 3:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Take a cool shower Ginx. Don't let it get to you so deeply. It's not worth getting stressed about to such an extent. If you can post with a cool head you might find you don't stir up the opposition to the extent of getting involved in a war. Unless that's what turns you on of course.
Posted by Ditch, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 6:07:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby-
Darn you and your bright ideas. This new system is a nightmere if your working with a six thousand year old RSPCA Computer - trust me!
Whats so hard about pointing your mouse to the bottom of a thread anyway?

Especially when somebody is debating "you'. Now instead of just looking up to catch you out on your porkies I have to remebmer which different page each porky you told is on!
As you tell so many its a night- mere.
Ok Heres an idea GY- What about if somebody posts something that PROVEN a Lie or a porky or misinforming the public you come up with some punishment.[ perhaps take a post off them]?

So if most people get four they get three- If its two then one.
No but wait the we would loose Yabbs all together.
He would dissapear like a puff of smoke.
Poor Old yabbs.
Still it may appeal to Dickie.
Seriously for people who are debating something serious such as Australias greatest Shame Live Exports- The new page system makes it very hard.

I still maintain if you want a forum to be taken seriously everybody should pay something.[ Even if its just two dollars a month for the poor or a donation.
I cant see any sense in allowing people to abuse you and the will if its free.
Nobody actually appreciates something when its free. If they have to pay something and use the real names it might surprise you how much nonesense will dissapear.
Sort of like our poor old resident Yabbs
Just kidding Yabby- A little smile for our mate Dickie.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Thursday, 1 November 2007 7:29:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, I welcome the change to page by page downloads,
its far quicker. My only comment would be that I might
have made the default page the last one, not the first
one.

Pale, there is a little button with "all" written on
it, so that you can download the whole thread if you
wish. The changes have been made so that even people
like you can cope :)
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 1 November 2007 8:37:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
[ Smile]
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Thursday, 1 November 2007 5:54:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll second that. The page by page option is helpful and quick.
Posted by Ditch, Thursday, 1 November 2007 8:33:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm really interested in feedback on the new system. Actually, from memory we also took feedback on the post limit stuff as well. Anyway, we've put it in place. It should be easier for some. But we are interested in how it affects everyone's experience of the site.

There is no magic formula, so please let me know what you think. It could be a display entry, or a data entry.

The forum only exists because of you, and we appreciate that, and while we take ultimate responsibility, I'm always keen for community feedback.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 1 November 2007 9:39:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
Its ok because I have stared a little file- Called "Yabbys Porkies."

I am keeping a copy of the name of the thread and then each page will have a direction- Yabbys Porkie page one-[reference to] page two etc.
Although its extra work it will be helpful in the long run I guess as I will eventually have a complete file.

Its already starting to read like that silly new web site the Industry put up.
Of course as you take a lot of info from it - then it would wouldnt it.
You may find this comment off post- However speaking of the new web site - called The truth about Live Exports " cough cough- I cant see where that was a smart move yabbs.

Here we are educating the public that the Government are in bed with the cruel Live Export Industry- And here they all are happily opening a web page together.
Everybody - The Government MLA Cattlemans Association and others.

I cant see how that does any BUT educate the public that we are RIGHT.
I mention this becuase you said it was your idea to the Industry and Government.
Keep up the good work please!

Just as well Graham didnt go for my idea of taking posts off people telling porky`s ah Yabb.

GY do we get extra posts for warning people and Landmark- We should.
Evil Bastards
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Saturday, 3 November 2007 7:13:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, it would be very nice if instead of opening to the first or last page, it jumped to the first *new* post (i.e. it would have to remember, per user, what the last time they opened each thread was).
Also, I don't like having "New Post" automatically open in a new window - by all means have two buttons "New Post" and "New Post in new Window", but as it is now there's no way of replying using the same window (previously I used to right-click and choose "open in new window" when that's what I wanted).
Posted by dnicholson, Saturday, 3 November 2007 7:33:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dnicholson
Enough Already- Stop. Whats wrong with the way it is.? No more changes Please!
If you make too many changes you are going to put new posters off as the system looks more complictated.
And some old ones I might add. Part of the reason we even started on OLO was because it was unlike some- A straight forwad simple method.
The more simple the better for forums. Its ok for us old school ones but if its complicated to follow it will turn new posters away.
Just because its a political forum doesnt mean it has to be as complicated as the lot in Parliment.
Grass Roots- Simple works with the public.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Saturday, 3 November 2007 9:08:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well it's certainly not complicated as it is and a few more minor changes are not going to leave anyone lost. Opening on the first unread post makes a lot of sense to me.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 3 November 2007 10:47:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dnicholson, thanks for the suggestions. I'm not sure how easy it is to keep track of where users were when they were last on the site, so I'll have to check on that one.

On the opening a new window issue - we made a deliberate decision on that because we were getting user complaints about the problems with entering a post and being able to scroll back through the thread. Posters were losing their data, so we decided the best way to deal with it was to have the entry screen open in a new window.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 3 November 2007 11:00:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GY
I need to reply to three people. I cant reply for fifteen hours.
When people post me questions I like to have the manneres to reply asap
Have you had anymore thoughts on Yabbys request for more posts to repond ?
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Sunday, 4 November 2007 10:50:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been following this discussion since the beginning and have really enjoyed it.

As someone who regularly has to edit posts back to 350 words, I find the enforced discipline of both the word limit and the posting limit very useful. They regularly force me to reflect and re-edit, and these processes invariably make my text better.

So take this as a ringing endorsement of the posting limits as they stand now. They really help.

What’s prompted me finally to post at this late stage was something I picked up on Larvatus Prodeo (http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/11/03/saturday-salon-123/#comment-416073)

The Open Forum is conducting a survey on attitudes to an online forum for the purpose of contributing to government policy development: http://www.openforum.com.au/Survey

The questions there prompted me to think about the things that are missing here, and how the OLO experience might be improved. For example, expanding the range of RSS feeds available would be good: e.g. feeds for favourite authors, users and topics. Being able to block posts from particular users would also be nice – there are several people around here whose words simply don’t need to appear on my screen.

The possibility to recommend posts would also be nice – the ABC Online discussions have an “Agree” button, which I think is good. So far I haven’t seen evidence of people gaming this feature, but I think it would need to be linked to the user’s login – you could only click “Agree” once.

I sometimes search the forum postings – this would be much easier if there was also a Google search box for forum.onlineopinion.com.au.

Still, I think that OLO works really well. I find it a great place to experience the views of others, and to modulate my own opinions. Thanks.
Posted by jpw2040, Monday, 5 November 2007 12:03:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JWP2040
Thanks for your interesting comments. I think it all comes back to what the poster is trying to acheive. For example we have just opended a thread regarding the Governments stand on Live Animal Exports.
I had five different questions from many different angles to try to respond to.
I responded only to one and had to wait fiteen hours to repond to others.
In our case for example we have to cover many different codes and many ears.
One we cover the ALP and two the RSPCA Stand. Three is a wider Animal Welfare Policy.
Then we have to respond to questions from the meat industry and some farmers.
That makes it very difficult and often we offend people without any intention of doing so.
So is because we can not answer their questions and give them the time the deserve.
GY said he was thinking of allowing more posts to hosts of threads. That would be very helpful.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 9:00:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy