I agree with ludwig. I think there should be a 4 post limit on both articles and general discussions. It would create less confusion and frustration if the same number of posts were allowed across the board on olo.

I must admit to a degree of frustration when someone has just blasted at me about being a feminazi, and I can't blast them for being a chauvinazi until 24 hours later! It is actually damaging to my (usually totally solid) mental health at times!

The posts should not be any longer than 350 words though.
I have never felt the need to go on for that long anyway I don't think.
If a post is too long, I will lose interest in it and just skim it anyway.

"i got sick of getting the no post allowed message..in articles so stopped going there..."

Yes one under god, this is what I fear: that a lot of (most?) people that OLO attracts are spending the vast majority of their time on the general threads and basically bypassing the article threads.

They've got to go to the trouble of at least half-decently reading the article in order to meaningfully comment on it. That is a pain for a lot of people. They don't need further discouragement on top of that, by way of a very restrictive post limitation.

The Articles area of OLO under seej - who would have ever thought to see the day!

While not wishing to be one for ducking a worthy issue, I have to admit I'm of two minds as to Ludwig's request. I'll try and be mandrake, and express them both.

My first reaction is to endorse the view put in david f's post of Thursday, 3 December 2009 at 10:37:55 AM.

If one's purpose in posting is to influence others to consider a subject from a possibly different perspective from that which they otherwise might, surely it is important to help keep the apparent quality of the Forum as high as possible. Indicated relevance within any given post to the content of an article, where possible accompanied by brevity, are reliable aids to that end.

IMO, there are few greater turn-offs for a viewer of a thread than seeing an extended series of posts that constitute nothing more than a slanging match between a small number of posters over some (generally minor) point of contention.

Kalin1, in the post made on Thursday, 3 December 2009 at 10:58:39 AM, makes the point that "with people who want to write prolifically about something, that would really only be annoying if they have nothing intelligent to say." I have mentioned this elsewhere on OLO, but what about OLO publishing articles by OLO identities? (Ludwig springs to mind as a potentially interesting author.) That way editorial control can be exercised as to the quality of expression and non-repetitiousness of subject matter, while leaving content in the hands of the (usually incognito) author.

This is probably subjective, but I find there are times on OLO when there will be very few articles that arouse my interest, whilst simultaneously there may be topics (substantially selected by registered OLO users) that I find much more interesting. Perhaps, over time, the topicality of subjects in the General Discussions area of the Forum supplants that of the Articles area, at least so far as registered OLO users are conerned.

I agree with Ludwig on this, in general - and thanks to him for raising the issue. He agrees that some limits to posting frequency are necessary, but is asking quite reasonably for a relaxation of the limits in the Articles section of the OLO Forum. I agree that the current rules can constrain communication unnecessarily, and a little onerously.

However, I wouldn't want to see graphic emoticons and other bells and whistles here. I'd rather read the words - but I wouldn't object to being able to emphasise points and central concepts with basic editing facilities like bold face, italics or underlining.

One thing I'd really like to see is an increase in allowable posts for the OP in threads in both the Articles and General areas. These threads are a form of conversation, which is sometimes truncated by posting limits. If you've started a discussion you probably want to respond to people who comment, who probably would like to read a response.

Just sayin'.....

Forrest, your opening comments quacked me up! (:>)

“My first reaction is to endorse the view put in david f's post…”

Yep, I have no problems with the 350 word limit.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3272#77612

“IMO, there are few greater turn-offs for a viewer of a thread than seeing an extended series of posts that constitute nothing more than a slanging match…”

I’m sure the forum rules could be better observed and regulated. I would have thought this quite important, in order to uphold good quality correspondence and thus not risk losing good posters such as yourself.

One of my major themes on this forum is the rule of law, which I am particularly concerned about in regards to road safety, but which I consider to woeful right across our society.

I see it on OLO too, with clearly elucidated rules which are poorly observed and regulated, both via a lack of reportage of infringements by posters to the administrator and an apparent lack of expression from the administration to encourage reporting.

At this point, I express my guilt, not at breaking the forum rules, but at not reporting posters who do.

Another important aspect is the reliability of OLO. It was offline for more than two days last weekend, which is just the latest of many such events. No one said boo about it, which I found surprising. Maybe they are just getting used to it.

It was operating really fast last evening, but this morning every little step is taking literally several minutes!

Editorial control is another area that I don’t understand, inasmuch as the articles are tightly controlled and yet the general thread opening posts don’t even have their titles grammatically corrected, let alone their content! This seems to work directly against the professionalism and appeal of this forum IMHO.

I agree with Ludwig.

As the entire site is devoted to opinionated people, it doesn't bother me if posts are long or frequent. I can just not read a post if I don't want to.

Also, the limits mean that those arguing from the established orthodoxy are at an unfair advantage, because what the body of theory underlying it has already been condensed into convenient phrases or slogans and passed into common use or acceptance. But if you're trying to persuade readers to consider something from a novel point of view, you have to explain the underlying theory that shows the common assumptions should be questioned or rejected. The limits frustrate this, while readers could skip over posts they don't want to read in any event.

Therefore I also ask for some relaxation of the limits.