Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Posting Limitations


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 Rich

Rich

    Quack-Quack.net

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:20 PM

Can we please get rid of these damn 30 second between posts things? They're so goddamn frustrating, and make tabbed browsing pretty pointless as I wind up just sitting there staring for half a goddamn minute. Even worse, when I misspell something and go to edit, I even have to fucking wait to edit.

It's nothing but an excuse for the mods to be lazy. Get rid of it and make the mods do their damn job to get rid of spamming.

#2 zionoverfire

zionoverfire

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:23 PM

I second this suggestion!!!

I like to reword things and post quickly since I'm not on dialup

#3 Scorch

Scorch

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:23 PM

It prevents spamming. Mods can't be around all the time. I agree on the time editing thing, though. Editing shouldn't have a 30 second wait.

Posted Image


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#4 basketkase543

basketkase543

    I Heart Costco's Chicken

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:25 PM

I agree that editing shouldn't have a wait.
My Fanvid Site (with fanvids of Spider-Man and Lost):
Posted Image

DS Friend Codes
Tetris DS: 527-025-117-984
Mario Kart DS: 085985-736184 (basketkase)

#5 swetooth9

swetooth9

    Go Tar Heels!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:25 PM

It prevents spamming. Mods can't be around all the time. I agree on the time editing thing, though. Editing shouldn't have a 30 second wait.


30 second limit for posting is fine...but immediate editing SHOULD be allowed, i agree

#6 cyberlian

cyberlian

    The Big Aristotle

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:26 PM

I cast my vote for no waiting for editing...

#7 zionoverfire

zionoverfire

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:26 PM

It prevents spamming. Mods can't be around all the time. I agree on the time editing thing, though. Editing shouldn't have a 30 second wait.


oh well at least I now know why there is a posting limit, but yes 30 second is way to long I think 15 would be a good number.

#8 Rich

Rich

    Quack-Quack.net

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:27 PM

It prevents spamming. Mods can't be around all the time. I agree on the time editing thing, though. Editing shouldn't have a 30 second wait.



Fuck that. There are enough mods to warrant no limit.

#9 6669

6669

    Inactive User

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:27 PM

Yeah, that sucks especially when you want to edit the post you just made.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Free Magazines! | thanx CAGs! | MySpace

You that have that devil infactuation should really find a hobby or somethin?!?


#10 hutno

hutno

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:28 PM

I like the no wait editing idea

#11 swetooth9

swetooth9

    Go Tar Heels!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:29 PM

It prevents spamming. Mods can't be around all the time. I agree on the time editing thing, though. Editing shouldn't have a 30 second wait.


30 second limit for posting is fine...but immediate editing SHOULD be allowed, i agree

#12 Scorch

Scorch

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:31 PM

It prevents spamming. Mods can't be around all the time. I agree on the time editing thing, though. Editing shouldn't have a 30 second wait.



shaq-fu that. There are enough mods to warrant no limit.


14 mods and 1 admin is enough to handle twenty thousand people posting every few seconds?

A thousand mods still couldn't prevent spam.

Posted Image


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#13 Rich

Rich

    Quack-Quack.net

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:35 PM

Yes, it is enough. 20,000 people post here every few seconds? This is news to me. CAG should implement a report post button and get rid of the damn limits. At least if someone is spamming, an email will be sent to the mods who are apparently not doing their jobs. Besides, what's to stop someone from spamming once every 30 seconds as opposes to the 10-15 it would normally take.

Posted Image


#14 deathcabforcutie

deathcabforcutie

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:36 PM

yeah i think there should be a limit for posting.. theres no way you can read two topics, type 2 replies, and post twice in 15 seconds unless the threads are complete shit and your reply is too.. but i agree on no waiting to edit posts.. that gets frustrating.. im sure the problem is there just isnt a way to seperate the waiting period for the two..
www.savesurge.com

liquidsnake- "there is no sex in playboy, so therefore its not porn...its classified as "art". also most of the penthouses dont have any sex in them either"

#15 deathcabforcutie

deathcabforcutie

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:37 PM

Yes, it is enough. 20,000 people post here every few seconds? This is news to me. CAG should implement a report post button and get rid of the damn limits. At least if someone is spamming, an email will be sent to the mods who are apparently not doing their jobs. Besides, what's to stop someone from spamming once every 30 seconds as opposes to the 10-15 it would normally take.


i dont think its really to prevent it.. because thats not really possible.. but more or less to discourage it...
www.savesurge.com

liquidsnake- "there is no sex in playboy, so therefore its not porn...its classified as "art". also most of the penthouses dont have any sex in them either"

#16 Ugamer_X

Ugamer_X

    You can trust me

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:37 PM

It prevents spamming. Mods can't be around all the time. I agree on the time editing thing, though. Editing shouldn't have a 30 second wait.



shaq-fu that. There are enough mods to warrant no limit.


14 mods and 1 admin is enough to handle twenty thousand people posting every few seconds?

A thousand mods still couldn't prevent spam.


Lol, C'mon, we may have 20,000 members but only about 1000 contribute (somewhat) regularly. :D

BTW, I agree with the editing thing, it's a pain to wait when you need to edit a message.

#17 JSweeney

JSweeney

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:38 PM

Are you paying for the site?
Do you work to keep the site on-line?
Voicing an opinon or making a suggestion is one thing...
Getting indignant over the quality of a free service is quite another.
Don't be so ungrateful.

#18 RBM

RBM

    do I look like I'm joking

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:40 PM

I'd agree with the editing thing...if the preview option weren't available. But it is.
:roll:

#19 Rich

Rich

    Quack-Quack.net

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:42 PM

Are you paying for the site?
Do you work to keep the site on-line?
Voicing an opinon or making a suggestion is one thing...
Getting indignant over the quality of a free service is quite another.
Don't be so ungrateful.


Get the Fuck off of your soapbox. If Cheapy is offended, he can tell me himself. Until that happens, my point stands, the limit is bullshit.


Deathcab--If I just replied to 2 threads, get off the site for a minute or two then come back and both have responses, then I can very well read the response to both and reply to both in less than 15 seconds.

#20 cyberlian

cyberlian

    The Big Aristotle

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:44 PM

While we are making suggestions for improvement, I think it would be nice to be able to be able to go to either the first or the last page of all the recent threads that are listed on the front pages. This is not a complaint, just a suggestion for improvement...

#21 zionoverfire

zionoverfire

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:44 PM

Are you paying for the site?
Do you work to keep the site on-line?
Voicing an opinon or making a suggestion is one thing...
Getting indignant over the quality of a free service is quite another.
Don't be so ungrateful.


This change is simply a suggestion, I'm sure if CheapyD posted that I change couldn't or wouldn't happen everyone would be happy that thier concern was noted and this topic would be droped.

#22 Alpha2

Alpha2

    Custom user Title

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:44 PM

I've never had to wait to edit a post. Assuming you wait through the "posting message" screen when you return to the thread and hit edit it instantly lets me fix a mistake.


See, just changed "If" to "Assuming" and added this sentences rigth after posting.
http://therealalpha2.deviantart.com/

Oh so now you are using intelligence and common sense to win the arguement...that's low man! This is CAG and you aren't allowed to do that.


#23 CaseyRyback

CaseyRyback

    Your New Nightmare!

  • Super Moderators

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:45 PM

the only limitation I would like to see lifted is the one between how often you can send PMs.

If all I include is a DC# in my PM then I have to wait a pretty long time to send the next person thier DC#

Posted Image


#24 JSweeney

JSweeney

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:46 PM

Are you paying for the site?
Do you work to keep the site on-line?
Voicing an opinon or making a suggestion is one thing...
Getting indignant over the quality of a free service is quite another.
Don't be so ungrateful.


This change is simply a suggestion, I'm sure if CheapyD posted that I change couldn't or wouldn't happen everyone would be happy that thier concern was noted and this topic would be droped.


Zionoverfire, it's not the suggestion that I think is a bad idea.
Not being able to edit immediately is a minor inconvience, and yes, it would be nice to not have to deal with it.
There's no reason to take the tone this thread has, though.

#25 TheRaven

TheRaven

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:47 PM

Damn, it's 30 freakin seconds...Get over it.

If your time is so valuable that an extra 15 seconds is pissing you off this much, then you shouldn't be wasting it here in the first place.
Playing: Rainbow Six: Vegas, FFXII & Phoenix Wright

#26 JSweeney

JSweeney

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:47 PM

the only limitation I would like to see lifted is the one between how often you can send PMs.

If all I include is a DC# in my PM then I have to wait a pretty long time to send the next person thier DC#


There is a limit? I didn't know that.
Of course, being a mod, I guess you'd be sending quite a few more PMs than I, eh?

#27 cyberlian

cyberlian

    The Big Aristotle

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:49 PM

I didn't get a totaly negative tone from his posts; imho I thought he was just offering a suggestion about something that kind of annoyed him.

#28 Rich

Rich

    Quack-Quack.net

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:51 PM

Damn, it's 30 freakin seconds...Get over it.

If your time is so valuable that an extra 15 seconds is pissing you off this much, then you shouldn't be wasting it here in the first place.


You've completely missed the point. Good job.

While we are making suggestions for improvement, I think it would be nice to be able to be able to go to either the first or the last page of all the recent threads that are listed on the front pages. This is not a complaint, just a suggestion for improvement...


IBTN. Clicking the front page should take you to the most recent unread post.

I didn't get a totaly negative tone from his posts; imho I thought he was just offering a suggestion about something that kind of annoyed him.


There was no negative tone. Sweeny is imagining things. He's probably never met a normal New Yorker and isn't used to curses.

(waits 20 seconds to hit submit to submit the edit)

#29 TheRaven

TheRaven

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:52 PM

I didn't get a totaly negative tone from his posts; imho I thought he was just offering a suggestion about something that kind of annoyed him.


Wow, what do you consider to be negative then?
Playing: Rainbow Six: Vegas, FFXII & Phoenix Wright

#30 zionoverfire

zionoverfire

Posted 24 October 2004 - 09:52 PM

Are you paying for the site?
Do you work to keep the site on-line?
Voicing an opinon or making a suggestion is one thing...
Getting indignant over the quality of a free service is quite another.
Don't be so ungrateful.


This change is simply a suggestion, I'm sure if CheapyD posted that I change couldn't or wouldn't happen everyone would be happy that thier concern was noted and this topic would be droped.


Zionoverfire, it's not the suggestion that I think is a bad idea.
Not being able to edit immediately is a minor inconvience, and yes, it would be nice to not have to deal with it.
There's no reason to take the tone this thread has, though.


Yes, I'd prefer that the tone was a bit humbler but I simply think that a thread voicing concern even if a bit angerly is better than no thread at all. In truth I've concidered starting a similar thread (albiet toned down) over the last few days.