Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 6:37:33
In reply to Re: Question regarding post rules » rskontos, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 0:56:58
> > On the social board, I was wondering if the do not post more than 3 threads was the same.
>
> Yes. Writing is the only board where Dr. Bob has historically allowed it to be completely relaxed, AFAIK.
>
> >And could you define, the playing around scenario.
>
> Ahhh...you mean in the FAQ:
>
> "Playing around with others at Psycho-Babble Social.?" Right?
>
> That's kind of hard - for me at least, to precisely define. I'd almost need to find an example, and I'm not sure if I can do that. I think the overall intent of the rule was not to have any one poster, or perhaps several more 'long time and confident group of posters' - to appear to monopolize a board or thread, since some newer or more reserved folks might feel overwhelmed and like it wasn't okay to join in.
>
> OTOH, I think Dr. Bob didn't want this rule to be so hard and fast or rigid that on some cases one poster couldn't creatively say, use single words to write something vertically.... (that might need more than 3 posts) or, once I recall an ongoing story many posters wrote by adding parts to it, where maybe one poster added to it more than 3 times in a row, just to keep it going. I'm trying to describe those more humorous or unusual postings [again, it's tough to paint a word picture of 'playing around' till it happens!] wouldn't be required to comply with this rule under the 'playing around' exception - for what appears as a one-time thing for the purpose of the creative look of consecutive posts/threads, or to complete a joke, story....rather than a poster just "taking over" a thread or board and posting many times with no apparent room/time for others. [Not that posters mean to do that at all, it's more the possible *appearance* of multiple, repetitive postings to less confident posters.]
>
> That's the best I can do......sorry I know it's 'bout as clear as a muddy stream.... Perhaps another deputy will rescue me?
>
> Just a cautionary reminder (and you probably don't even need it) if you have a specific concern about a poster/threads started anywhere on Babble, you will probably want to use the Notify the Admin... button instead of posting that question or further clarification here :-)
>
> Respectfully trying to help....
>
> -- 10derHeart
>
> Deputy 10derheart,
You wrote,[...intent of the rule...not to have a member..{appear} to >monopolize< a thread...some newer or more reserved folks {might} [feel] overwhelmed and like it wasn't OK to join in...].
I ask; Then could not it be that there could be members that are new or reserved that could feel OK to join in, let's say at the 4th post or 7th post? If so, could not those that might feel overwhelmed about seeing a name more than 3 times without another member's name in between ignore the thread and find another thread to join and those that want to wait untill they have enough infomation to join in have the opportunity to see what the member has to post and that member be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts so that those that are do not {feel} that it is not OK for them to join in n have the opportunity to read what the member could offer to them in terms of education and support?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:802069
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/802191.html