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. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. All

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