Limit creators to two inworld creations per day.

[Suspiria Finucane]

 

---

Suella Ember wrote:

I often wonder why that happens when, to me, it seems much more sensible to reply in the exisitng thread rather than start a new thread. 

It would be nice to be able to do something to try and avoid those issues of multiple repeat threads and new topics just for the sake of it.

 

---

I agree with this part. For example: Why duplicate a vanity thread?

 

---

Suella Ember wrote:

 

It would undoubtedly help to keep the forums 'cleaner' and hopefully ensure that everything was of good quality.

 

---

Question...who is the judge of what is considered clean or for that matter; good or bad quality. If one person benefits by a thread (be that reading or posting a reply) how is that a bad thing?

Also, who can say if a thread benefits a reader who does not reply to it? Limiting threads not only hurts the silent community but the entire community.

 

[Suspiria Finucane]

---

Cato Badger wrote:

@Suspiria: You asked "Was Picasso revered in his lifetime as a great artist?" Actually Picasso's talents were first recognised in 1900 - when he was 19, and he certainly was revered during his lifetime

---

Interesting...a man of many acheivements...

In 1944 Picasso joined the French Communist Party, attended an international peace conference in Poland, and in 1950 received the Stalin Peace Prize from the Soviet government, Picasso was also awarded the Lenin Peace Prize in 1962.

 

[Suspiria Finucane]

 

---

Cato Badger wrote:

@Suspiria: You said: "Leonardo da Vinci was ridiculed and persecuted". I think you may be mixing him up with Leonardo di Caprio, as da Vinci's only serious criticism came from a bunch of invading French soldiers who used one of his sculptures for target practice. Now *that* is what I call *active* criticism of the arts.

---

Does the Spanish Inquisition mean anything to you? Science and the church were not exactly seeing things eye to eye in the 15th century. In fact many of his discoveries/inventions weren't published for that very reason.

 

And no, I'm not mixing anyone up, and would appreciate you not saying so because it is a fictitious interpretation of anything I have stated.

 

[Venus Petrov]

 

---

Suella Ember wrote:

 

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

I was on the opposite side of this argument a few days ago.  I have been looking at it from the other side.  I can see some positives.

---

 

It's interesting you say that because I find myself in a similar position, although I'm not yet prepared to say I fully support the idea of limiting people to a certain amount of new topics per day. I do however, see a lot of good arguments for it. 

 

<snips>

It would be nice to be able to do something to try and avoid those issues of multiple repeat threads and new topics just for the sake of it. However (and this is where I'm still not fully swayed on the issue)

I dislike having to restrict people who might genuinely have a reason to start a lot of threads just because of others who may be starting lots of threads less genuinely.

<snips>

---

I am making the assumption that, should a rule be instituted, the 'N' threads/day would be for all residents, not based upon rank.  In this case, both the 'genuine' and 'non genuine' thread starter would have the same restrictions and, thus, could exersize their 'creativity' in whatever way they choose.

 

[Venus Petrov]

 

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

 

---

---

I agree with this part. For example: Why duplicate a vanity thread?

 

---

There are several threads in the Avatar subforum labeled 'vanity' or are vanity in spirit (e.g., skins/shapes, hair, eyes, boots, shoes, combat).  You, yourself, have started several.   Answer your own question.

 

[Mags Indigo]

---

Henry Darkthief wrote:

To be honest, I don't think limiting the number of threads or posts limits creativity in and of itself. However, it does limit the free exchange of ideas, which is a component of the creative process.

---

I tend to agree with you Henry

[Cato Badger]

@Suspiria: I think you'll find that Leonardo da Vinci was Italian. The clue to where the Spanish Inquisition happened is in the name.

[Henry Darkthief]

I'm going to admit that I ahven't had my morning coffee before I say this, but it seems pretty ironic that there are "freedom loving" people out there who call for restrictions and limits.

I do understand the need for some restrictions and limits, such as children versus porn. But some of these calls are simply nonsense. Limit the number of threads you can start? Why? To get rid of "low quality" threads. Who judges the quality of a thread? Not me, that's for sure.

To stretch things a bit, imagine being limited to asking only 2 questions per day in RL. How many "low quality" questions do you hear in a day? How many questions are nonsensical?

Not having a limit on how many threads we can start does mean that there are some "low quality" threads being posted. Putting in a limit, however, will not stop that. There will still be people who will use their 2 threads to post nonsense. And there will be serious threads not started because those authours abide by the rule.

If this is about having a thread at the top of the dispaly, well setting a limit will not solve that problem. And frankly, that has to be the silliest reason of all for imposing a limit. Its childish, frankly. "Oh no, my thread isn't at the top! Waaaahhhh!!" "Oh no, that thread I was following has dropped to 10th place! We need limits!!" "Oh no, so-n-so has more posts than me, we need limits!!"

Grow up. Its not a race. Nobody gets any prize. Many people don't care about where our thread appears or how many points we have. For me, I do care about not having the ability to talk about things that interest me. I care about not being able to bring thigns to people's attention. I care about not being able to engage in a discussion or a debate.

There's a lot of crap that gets posted in these forums. But there's also a lot of gold, too.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

The majority of blogs are set up and run by one, or a few, persons. The only limits usually placed on such things might be bandwidth usage or server storage space, but neither is probably very common.

These forums are for the use of thousands, if not millions, of SL residents.

[Cato Badger]

@Henry: You asked: 'How many "low quality" questions do you hear in a day?' I'm afraid that the answer at the moment is: "Most of them"! PS DIdn't you also mention something about beer earlier?

[Irene Muni]

Probably I'm a bad person, because I think that the problem is the interest of some residents to have a great rank. Yes, a mailicious thought, but it's my thoutght. So, vote against ranks ( https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-3705 ).

[Venus Petrov]

 

---

Irene Muni wrote:

Probably I'm a bad person, because I think that the problem is the interest of some residents to have a great rank. Yes, a mailicious thought, but it's my thoutght. So, vote against ranks (

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-3705

).

---

Not malicious at all Irene.  Rank is important to those who seek privileges of dubious nature.

 

[Venus Petrov]

 

---

Henry Darkthief wrote:

There's a lot of crap that gets posted in these forums. But there's also a lot of gold, too.

---

And, for debate's sake, limiting the creation of threads to two per day is not a hardship.  Really, it is not.  Especially since one can still post all the youtube vids and emoticons they wish to post to express their creativity.

 

[Cato Badger]

@Venus: If the higher ranks get droit de seigneur I'm off . . . Oh, it's all right, it only applies to virgins.

[Henry Darkthief]

 

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

 

---

Henry Darkthief wrote:

There's a lot of crap that gets posted in these forums. But there's also a lot of gold, too.

---

And, for debate's sake, limiting the creation of threads to two per day is not a hardship.  Really, it is not.  Especially since one can still post all the youtube vids and emoticons they wish to post to express their creativity.

 

---

I agree, tis not a hardship. Its the principle of the matter, though. Doesn't limiting a person's ability to create new threads violate the spirit of freedom of expression? We may not like what we hear or read, but that is no reason to limit such things.

 

[Genn Moderator]

Hi everyone,

 

Just a heads-up, we're seeing some borderline posts in this thread. Please keep comments restricted to the topic only, and refrain from making comments about other members. 

 

Thanks.

[Ciaran Laval]

They're not going to limit people to creating two threads a day, the only way your posting is going to be restricted is if you're acting like a complete numpty.

[Patricia Mattercaster]

Suspiria (awesome name btw), "Killing off" creativity is a bit harsh isn't it? My guess is that it's just a way to keep down forum spam. I'd prefer more Lindens are dedicated to improving the viewer, instead of cleaning up the forums. Perhaps what this website needs is a kind of chat app running on the side so that all us people can join there and flame eachother to our little hearts' content. It would be easier to chat, flame and ban spammers. Why, you could even be a moderator. I do agree tho, 2 posts (or is it threads) is way too limiting, maybe 4 posts per day would be better?

[Mags Indigo]

I'm probably a bad person too Irene because I voted for your Jira a bit ago and have been trying to encourage other people to do so as well. :smileywink:

[Irene Muni]

hehehe Great Mags

Welcome to the specific section of the JIRA "Lost Causes In Advance". But hope never die

[Cato Badger]

@Ciaran: /me looks in the ToS and then the Urban Dictionary (unsuccessfully in both cases) for a definition of "complete numpty".

[Suspiria Finucane]

 

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

 

---

Henry Darkthief wrote:

There's a lot of crap that gets posted in these forums. But there's also a lot of gold, too.

---

And, for debate's sake, limiting the creation of threads to two per day is not a hardship.  Really, it is not.  Especially since one can still post all the youtube vids and emoticons they wish to post to express their creativity.

 

---

And, for debate's sake, limiting the creation of inworld goods to two per day is not a hardship.  Really, it is not. Especially since one option is not to log in at all....

 

[Derek Torvalar]

 

---

Cato Badger wrote:

@Ciaran: /me looks in the ToS and then the Urban Dictionary (unsuccessfully in both cases) for a definition of "complete numpty".

---

 

I hadn't realized there were degrees of numpty. 

Is it any better to be an incomplete numpty, or a half-numpty?

 

[Venus Petrov]

 

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

 

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

 

---

Henry Darkthief wrote:

There's a lot of crap that gets posted in these forums. But there's also a lot of gold, too.

---

And, for debate's sake, limiting the creation of threads to two per day is not a hardship.  Really, it is not.  Especially since one can still post all the youtube vids and emoticons they wish to post to express their creativity.

 

---

And, for debate's sake, limiting the creation of inworld goods to two per day is not a hardship.  Really, it is not. Especially since one option is not to log in at all....

 

---

While I am not an inworld content creator, I would say that kind of limitation could well kill SL (for lack of new content).  Limiting thread creation in a forum would not.

 

[Suspiria Finucane]

 

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

 

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

 

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

And, for debate's sake, limiting the creation of threads to two per day is not a hardship.  Really, it is not.  Especially since one can still post all the youtube vids and emoticons they wish to post to express their creativity.

 

---

And, for debate's sake, limiting the creation of inworld goods to two per day is not a hardship.  Really, it is not. Especially since one option is not to log in at all....

 

---

While I am not an inworld content creator, I would say that kind of limitation could well kill SL (for lack of new content).  Limiting thread creation in a forum would not.

 

---

I see, you only want to limit creation for things that don't fit your personal preferences regardless of how they fit others preferences.