posted
Yogie, you asked this before... you may not have seen the final result though as you never replied after the misunderstanding was resovled. Back story, I misunderstood how the 5 Threads, Per Person, Per Day (24 Hour Period) rule was to be enforced. That misunderstanding resulted in your misunderstanding.
Here's the final thought...
quote:Originally posted by me in HERE: GK, please note that I had said "Six correct me if I'm wrong" (not that he or I have "rank" over the other, I had just realized that maybe I misinterpreted the rule).
I had thought I understood the rule that Six, Myself and even many of the members of the Cantina actually gave input in and thus helped create... so we did talk about it before hand. I obviously just misunderstood one part of it. A part, as you pointed out, changes the whole view of the rule.
Even though, I stand corrected. The rule, as it stands right now, is 5 threads / per person / per day (24 hours).
The rule was created for the reason I stated (in my above post, after my misinterpretation) above... to avoid the fiasco that became Kwan News and to provide a safe and controlled enviroment for our members that visit the Cantina.
At Nightly, as with many other places, rules and laws continue to evolve... so this rule may get changed and or otherwise perfected at a later date if needed. At this time the rule seems to be serving it's purpose, dispite your and Yogie's protest.
Anywho... we're all human, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. I misinterpreted the rule.
5 threads / per person / per day (24 hours) in the Cantina.
[ 02-08-2002, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: The Human Torch ]
posted
I've already enforced it three times since its inception. On two separate occasions, someone started six threads in one day. On another occasion, someone started eight threads in one day. In each instance, threads got nuked until the count went down to five.
It's kinda boring to enforce -- especially since I make myself do the "nice" thing of checking all the start dates on each of the threads to ensure that they were, in fact, started all within the same day -- but all those long, boring, heated discussions about the Kwan Yu Crisis took their toll.
Every judgmental guideline or rule-of-thumb -- no matter how seemingly stupid or anal-retentive -- has a reason and a precedent for its existence.
-------------------- Posted as a long-distance dedication to Milkman Dan, why-ever he is. Posts: 18154 | From: Indianapolis | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fairly new, and don't visit all that often, so I am not informed about a "Kwan Yu Crisis". I do spend quite a bit of time roaming a few different message boards, I just think that is a silly and un-needed rule.
My opinions carry no weight, and I do not want them to. But I just think that seems silly to have a rule like that. What if I want to start up a few different conversations about related topics? I am not allowed to under that rule? What would happen, would I get kicked out? It just seems like a rule that is designed to make posters go else where to discuss what they want.
"Anyone who honestly thinks they need more than five brand new threads a day to express themselves is seriously overestimating their own talents.
"Part of encouraging discussion also includes discouraging poor discussions. I don't care if you're Dave Barry, Neil Gaiman, or Robin Williams--at any rate over five threads a day (and that's being ridiculously generous), you're gonna stop breaking new ground and start spinning your wheels in one place.
"Not to mention the community in general gets ticked off whenever they see any one person in general hogging all the bandwidth, whether said person is genuinely creative or not."
The final paragraph is precisely what happened with Kwan Yu "back in the day". He posted lots and lots and lots and lots of topics in the Cantina, until entering the Cantina essentially looked and felt like Kwan Yu Presents The Kwan Yu Show Starring Kwan Yu with special guest stars Everyone Else. It was an uncomfortable situation that was left unmoderated and wound up boiling over into pointless discussion after pointless discussion. Resolution after resolution was tried (after the damage had already been done), with less-than-stellar results.
And now...the current, seemingly oppressive, rarely violated, yet apparently (sadly) necessary rule of thumb.
quote:Originally posted by Fett: Either way, it is a stupid "rule". It serves no purpose what so ever. It can not be enforced, and it will be ignored.
No it is a very good rule, and has been enforced many time by myself and many others.
Posts: 20582 | From: Baker University, Baldwin City Kansas | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
