# Waiting, waiting, waiting. ..



## HLGStrider (Nov 7, 2003)

Was it really necessary to increase the time between post time by thirty seconds?

In the past I have born with the sixty seconds. I understand the reasoning, and I know that not everybody runs the forum on two windows in order to try and get off line as quickly as possible. . .

but it is such a pain, and now with thirty seconds more?

Has spam really been increasing all that much?

For example, I tried to post this the first time and it said I couldn't so I had to push backspace and try again. ..this isn't a one word post (hardly) and it isn't spam. . .blah.


----------



## Gandalf The Grey (Nov 7, 2003)

My dear *HLGStrider,* 

When you think of it, it's highly ironic for someone to post a message called "Waiting, waiting, waiting. .. " in which you describe wanting to communicate with lightning speed at an ... * drumroll please * ... *ENTMOOT*  , of all places! * hearty, good-natured grin *  

After all, to sum up what Treebeard would say, if it's worth saying, it's worth taking a long time to say!  

Gandalf the Grey


----------



## Aulë (Nov 8, 2003)

Yes, even I noticed the increase to 90 seconds. I rarely had to wait with the 60 second per post limit, but this 90 second rule is ridiculous. Especially when I am posting two posts back-to-back (such as judgements for debates, and debate posts) and when I am sending out PMs to groups of people.

May I ask why this was done?
The old limit seemed to work fine, so why alter something that does its job?


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 9, 2003)

> After all, to sum up what Treebeard would say, if it's worth saying, it's worth taking a long time to say!



Just listening to me would give Treebeard Oak Galls. . .talking or posting or typing.

I type fast. I also tend to post as I talk which is fast. I think of things to say off the top of my head and thinking of them more doesn't usually change them so there is no reason to wait.

A minute in a half can be a long time. Sometimes there is even need to post fast.

For the sake of the "real" sort of spam (the kind done to spread adverising to porn sites) the sixty second rule made a lot of sense. However, I have never seen this happen here, so I assume that the sixty seconds was enough to stop it. . .why an increase to 90?

Perhaps I'll catch a mod on MSN soon and grill them about it. No mods on tonight.


----------



## Niniel (Nov 9, 2003)

I hadn't noticed the change yet, but if it's true I think I'll find it very annoying. I seldom post that fast, but sometimes I do, e.g. when sending PMs to different people, and when I do that I'm definitely not spamming. So I don't see why all the non-spamming members should be 'punished' because of a few who do spam.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 10, 2003)

I haven't checked out if it applies to PM's too, as well as posts. That would be MAJORLY annoying. With no way to send group pm's when you want to contact three or four people with a message the sixty second one is bad enough.

Another good reason for wanting to post quickly are things that happen in the Guild of Writers. When posting a long piece for review, it is often necessary to post it in three or four posts. It is a pain in the neck to wait sixty seconds between posting the first six paragraphs and the second six.


----------



## Rhiannon (Nov 10, 2003)

Waiting, waiting, waiting. ..

...I'll never get out of here. I'll die in Casablanca...

*cough*

It does apply to PMs as well, and yes it is very annoying when sending out groups of PMs, as well as when posting long things such as lectures that take up more than one post.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 10, 2003)

I'll ask WM and let you know why this was done.


----------



## David Pence (Nov 11, 2003)

It was increased to deal with a troublesome ex-member who was spamming the site. I'll decress it to 60 shortly.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 11, 2003)

I didn't know anyone had been banned lately. Had he or she been on the forum long?


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 14, 2003)

I understand you not answering that if you don't want to, by the way. . .private mod/administrator business and all that. . .

Anyway, I think this thread is resolved so if you want to close it or flotsam it, go ahead.


----------

