Consultation: Limiting new threads

[admin]

This is a genuine consultation. I shall be guided by whatever consensus emerges, or do nothing if there is not a broad consensus (is that an oxymoron?).

STF is a discussion forum. Its 'owned' by all of us to which we should have equal access. It is not for anyone of us to pontificate on our own personal obsessions. Well, not too much anyway. Otherwise the forum becomes distorted and some people get unhappy and we get accusations of trolling and stuff.

We have lost some valuable posters because of this.

Hence an idea I have is to limit the number of new threads an individual can START to no more than seven per week. What do you think? Should we try it, is seven a good number? It would not effect the total how many posts to existing threads you can make.

Please can we not make this personal. I shall edit or delete any posts that mention particular posters directly or indirectly.

Over to you.

Admin

[Annie.]

Adding one subject shouldn't be a problem, however an idea pops into your head more than one time a day and sometimes it could be you will have used up your "credit" on something earlier?

[admin]

That's why I suggested seven a week, not one per day, so starting two or even three in a day is not a problem. Its when its happening every day. Very, very few would need to keep a count. So you have no worry.

I would also adopt a Nelsonian eye to starting any new thread that was both extremely important and urgent. We don't want to lose anything of value.

Remember it is only starting new threads. There would be no limits to the number of posts you can make a day, week or month.

Admin

[Annie.]

Ok, I didnt understand, thanks for clarifying.

[Eagle]

Seems OK to me.

[Rachael]

Hmm. I have mixed feelings about this. As someone who regular responds to but rarely starts a thread, it wouldn't affect my activity. And I am reluctant to see any form of censorship, even if indirect. However, I can see why you are considering such a move. I always used the 'View New Posts' function when I come to the forum, and I can see the pattern of new posting. It's certainly dominated by a few members. The question is, if you limit this activity, will it just kill to forum dead, or will other people step in the fill the vacuum? Afraid I don't know the answer to that.

If you were to impliment this policy, it might make people think before they start a thread, and that has to be a good thing, and might perhaps result in conversations about really interesting subjects rather than to-and-fro reactions to knee-jerk click-baiting statements.

In other words, I completely on the fence.

[admin]

Rachael, new posts and new threads are not the same thing. I am not suggesting any limit to new posts.

As for application, I envisage sending a PM when the 8th new thread is started suggesting they slow up a little to get back down on their moving average. Not deleting the thread. Nothing draconian. I am trying to reduce the "you are a troll" "I am not a troll" accusations which cannot really be moderated to the satisfaction of either side.

If it is having a negative or no effect I would be the first to want to abandon it as its extra work for me. Does this move the fence?

Admin

EDIT SORRY I HAVE BADLY LABELLED THE THREAD TITLE. Please read Posts as Threads.

[JRobinson]

seems ok to me.

[Rachael]

Rachael, new posts and new threads are not the same thing. I am not suggesting any limit to new posts.

As for application, I envisage sending a PM when the 8th new thread is started suggesting they slow up a little to get back down on their moving average. Not deleting the thread. Nothing draconian. I am trying to reduce the "you are a troll" "I am not a troll" accusations which cannot really be moderated to the satisfaction of either side.

If it is having a negative or no effect I would be the first to want to abandon it as its extra work for me. Does this move the fence?

Admin

EDIT SORRY I HAVE BADLY LABELLED THE THREAD TITLE. Please read Posts as Threads.

I knew you meant threads, not posts. But using the New Posts function also throws up the new threads because, they are also, er, new posts. That's what I meant when I said I could see the trends that way.

I suppose, to play devil's advocate, you'll have to answer the question of why you think this is necessary and what you hope to achieve. In an ideal world, it will give more variety to the board and possibly encourage lurkers to start threads more often. So, in that spirit, and using the softly-softly approach you outline above, how about doing a trial period? Would be interesting to see what happens.

[chrisj1948]

I am not sure how much it would achieve. Currently you can view by Forum, which means that by avoiding the Pub and the Benefits Office you can miss out on a lot of what might have driven some people away, or you can View Unread Posts, and then make a selection based on what you might be interested in.

I confess that I used to read all new posts conscientiously, but eventually found there was a 'sameness' about many of the discussions. I now look at the RSS feed to see if anything promising has been posted, then view unread posts and make my selection from those. In practice this seems to mean looking at local interest threads and ignoring the general discussion topics.

I agree that some of the 'usual suspects' are prolific thread originators, but there normally seems to be a lively discussion in most of them, albeit by those same 'usual suspects', and they are clearly fulfilling a function. I may not participate but it makes for a board which seems vigorously alive. I think I prefer having a bunch of discussions which I ignore rather than not having that option; and it is always possible that a completely fascinating topic, such as "Advanced Considerations in the Transformation of Hierarchical Data Structures", may appear.

Regards
Chris

[mosy]

I don't understand how such a limit would change anything. Threads however many will either be of interest or boring if not, and it's easy enough to ignore the latter. I don't see why they would put a newcomer or lurker off - surely it's the content that might? Very few threads in The Pub are light hearted so perhaps a rule should be for every 6x serious must add 1x light hearted

Can't say I've noticed prolific starters in other sub forums.
I have thought sometimes that a direct (i.e. onscreen) reprimand for overt personal abuse (in whichever subforum) wouldn't go amiss, but as I don't walk in your shoes...