Back to back posts

Can I suggest that the Forum rules advise that a poster should not post a large number of consecutive messages in a thread?This suggestion is inspired by AbbyLeever's posts. Abby could be more effective by making one good post rather than a flood of comparatively minor points all in different posts.Suggested guideline:

• Do not post multiple back to back posts in a single thread. Decide on a few points you want to make, and make them clearly in a single post.

This would take the number of guidelines past the nice round number of ten, which would be a pity. Perhaps rules 1 and 9 could be combined into a single guideline for new topics.Rules 1 and 9 currently are as follows:

• Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
• When introducing a new topic, please keep the post narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.

This could be something like...

• Please open a new thread for a new topic, rather than diverging from the original topic on an established thread. The first post in a new thread should be tightly focused on a clearly indicated topic.

By the way... the link to Forum Rules in the sitemap is broken.Cheers -- Sylas

Sorry to cause problems sylas. You could also just ask me to stop? It seems when I did that with arkathon he only responded to one or two points, where this way forces him to look at each one.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Since you are relatively new to the forum (did I welcome you ) - then I doubt you should be the fall guy Abby, or maybe the fall gal.I have seen many examples of consecutive posting by other posters here, you're not the first.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-03-2004]

thanks mike. you did welcome, and appreciated. The point is valid. Because someone else does it is not justification to do it, if it bothers others, that is justification not to do it, seeing as it doesn't affect the total response anyway (let's say the experiment failed to get focus on certain critiqes anyway).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No problem Abby; I did suggest you don't post quite so many consecutive posts in the thread, and you did agree right away.A proposal to put this up as a guideline is not intended to be a slam on you, but as a suggestion that this would be a useful thing to have recorded in the guidelines... if the admins agree.I should not have singled you out in this thread. It made it appear as if I was aiming a swipe at you individually, and that was not my intent. You just happened to the most recent examle lying around and the one which prompted me to make the suggestion. My sincere apologies.Cheers -- Sylas

No problem. I am fully aware that nobody is completely uselessthey can always serve as a bad example ...cheers

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

For the record, and for study purposes, I request that you post a link to the page(s) of the mentioned example of the "Back to back posts".Thanks,
Adminnemooseus

Since I tend to come and go in my busy life from my computer, when I do get some time I may have two to five posts addressed to me which I haven't responded to. I then do catch up and post responses consecutively to each. Then sometimes if I'm answering long posts I may pick out the most important item and respond. I do the others then one item at a time when I can work it in. At other times if I really want to get attention to a perticular item in a post I'm responding to I may do a separate post on that item and do the rest in another post. Are these, in your opinion, Silas, objectionable?

I think that there are some situations where "back to back posts" are appropriate.Another thing that is sometimes done, is to respond to a number of messages with just one message, with the responses broken down within the message. Again, this is an uncertain thing, in if it is a good or bad procedure. It certainly does foul up the linking notations connecting the first message to the reply message.Buz - You might also wish to supply a link to an example of where you did "back to back posts", and then comments can be make concerning the specific example.Adminnemooseus

look at the "replies to" on this message
EvC Forum: bulletproof alternate universeas a (my bad) example

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

That certainly seems to have been a case where all the responses should have been in one (or at least far fewer) message(s).I haven't reviewed further, but you also seem to have done the same methodology in response to: http://EvC Forum: bulletproof alternate universe -->EvC Forum: bulletproof alternate universePlease don't do such again,
Adminnemooseus

already donebtw -- zippy is one of my favorite comics

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

wow, Here a month and already sucking up to the Moose.... sheesh

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

then I guess I won't tell you about drawing 'earth goddess' figures in high school ...... oops I just did

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sucking up to ME is perfectly fine.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"