Cap the number of word characters that members can post each day. Yay or nay?

[nitrogen]

Balancing power and influence is critical to maintaining harmony among members and diversity of thread topics on this forum.

Influence can be gained by posting a lot. Prolific posters come off as opinion leaders.

It's safe to say nobody gets along with everybody on the forum, just like in real life. It doesn't make one member's opinion more valid than another's. Thus, there's no reason to allow one or a few members to drown out others.

Once one or a few members gain enough influence, the snowball effect kicks in. Those whose values and beliefs align well with theirs feel a strong sense of belonging and post more; vice versa, those with a different set of values and beliefs get annoyed at seeing their posts everywhere, and might become lurkers or take a break from the site. As a result, the prolific influencers get fewer objectors and more supporters over time - this is exacerbated if the influencer(s) is(are) aggressive. Eventually, two things happen from there: they take over the site (intentionally or unintentionally) or a "Civil War" erupts.

Doing anything in excess, including posting too much, is almost always about the "self", a manifestation of the individual's neurosis that borders on obsessive-compulsive behaviors and addictions. For instance, spending all day offering people unsolicited advice might come with a seductive allure because it promises superiority and elitism: the person gets to cement their image as the powerful and wise adviser as over against the languishing and not-so-bright receiver.

They might argue doing so is out of an altruistic intention. Well, altruism itself could be an ego defense, a form of sublimation in which a person copes with anxiety by stepping outside himself/herself and helping others, so they're able to push their needs into the background, and don't have to address or even acknowledge them.

Influence also depends on the content and nature of a post, obviously. Posts of expressing personal opinions, giving criticisms & advice, revolving around sensitive topics, containing strong personal sentiments catch more attention than posts of, say, playing the Offtopic Section games or random topics such as gardening.

If the prolific posters never contribute to creating a toxic environment and always stick to forum rules, then there shouldn't be a problem of them being prolific. But very few have been able to meet such a standard. As far as I know, most of them have had their threads or posts locked, deleted, or warned by the mods. By the way, I'd actually consider myself toxic if I was prolific.

The daily posting limit can also be incorporated into the mods' warning protocol. For example, a 10% warning can come with a 10% reduction of the daily posting limit that expires after a certain amount of time - it makes sense for members with deviant behaviors to be allowed to post less.

Disclaimers:
* Prolific posters aren't necessarily those with a high number of total post count. They could have joined the forum early and accumulated posts over time. I'm referring to the members who currently generate a large number of daily posts.
* By posting a lot, I'm emphasizing the number of characters, not the number of posts/post count or words.
* I don't dictate anything here; above is just my personal opinion. I didn't add "imo" in front of every single sentence to make it flow better.
* Please excuse my sucky English - 2nd language.

 

[Yomyom]

Sometimes I feel that I post here too much, from the moment I got use to the site, like an addiction to attention

 

[Brick In The Wall]

As the top poster (numbers wise) I'll add my two cents. I post so much for two main reasons. The first is that my life is currently very boring (especially with the quarantine) and it keeps my mind occupied. The second reason I post so much is I have an extreme OCD with numbers.

I don't do it to try to gain any perceived "power". The idea seems silly to me, I'm no better or worse then the individual that joins today and has 0 posts.

My stance is obviously against limiting how much people can post. For some people such as myself this place is a major lifeline. What happens if someone reaches said post count for the day but has a breakdown and isn't able to reach out for help or support? They could potentially harm or kill themselves because of some arbitrary limitation.

 

[Quarky00]

I think we should have a different rating system: Likes divided by posts. Muahaha. That way:

• @Brick In The Wall here for example will have 7362 likes for 6003 posts = 1.22
• I will have 3590 likes for 1617 posts = 2.22
• And you @nitrogen will have 1218 likes for 291 posts = 4.18 ..

Oh God, according to my method you will rule us all.... Abort, Abort!!!!!!!!!!!!! *runs away with horror*

(sorry just being humorous to provide us some relief & parody -- will comment seriously soon )

 

[Sensei]

Every time someone talks about toxic posters I become very confused. I might be ignorant and/or stupid, but I very seldom see toxic posts in this forum. In fact, it's one of the least toxic forums I've ever frequented. If I'm one of those alleged toxic posters, I hope someone will have the decency to tell me.

I see some problems with a cap. It might prevent members from posting guides on different topics, which out of necessity have to be long. (The longest guide I've submitted is over 4,000 words long and the one I'm working on now might very well become five times longer.) Posts in which people tell the story of their life or vent about their situation can also be very long and shouldn't be cut up. Finally, there might be situations when a member needs urgent help and exchanging several posts might be necessary. It might sound far-fetched, but it has happened a couple of times.

To be frank, I think most members don't care at all how much other members post, as long as it doesn't border on spamming. People come here because they suffer and consider suicide, not because they long to quarrel and compete. Besides, most members seem to prefer chatting and PM'ing to posting in the forum. Of course, we could take lurkers into consideration too, but they are after all not members and are of second concern by default.

Finally, I don't want to come through as dismissive. I think it's an interesting idea and it never hurts to discuss forum decorum. I simply don't agree.

 

[Lorntroubles]

I like my damn games. Please nobody blindly follow me. Just here for the talks, rants, and connecting with a few before I pass.

 

[Epsilon0]

I voted No and wrote a message explaining my stance, but then I got logged out and lost all I had written. So, I will just cut to the chase:

1. Love your Cheshire cat avatar! "We're all mad here!". Alice in Wonderland is a wonderful book. It has at least three good quotes in each paragraph.

2. I don't think prolific users are likely to establish a dictatorship on SS. If anything, they make this place feel like home.

3. The reason regulars get more likes and responses is because people who know each other tend to engage in conversations. If I see a post written by someone I know and like, I am going to pay more attention to it. Nothing strange about that.

4. There is a culture here on SS, but it is not the product of a handful of prolific posters who influece the discourse.We all create and shape the SS culture - everyone from the admins to the newest member with 2 posts who writes a lengthy good bye thread.

You made a very compelling case, and wrote eloquently, but I am sorry to say I don't agree. And I don't think the admins would go for it, either.

 

[Lethe]

Or, you know, you could just have enough brains to not blindly follow the "prolific" posters or engage in group-think.

 

[Fragile]

limiting how much someone can post would go against everything that this forum represents. there's no other place where we can have our voices heard about the kind of topics that we discuss here. let's not turn this into another reddit where censorship became the norm.

besides, i don't think that this would benefit anyone in particular, it would only take away the coping mechanism of some people.

 

[Epsilon0]

I like my damn games. Please nobody blindly follow me. Just here for the talks, rants, and connecting with a few before I pass.

Ha ha ha! Do you even realize how hilarious your comment is?!?

I am turning into the Cheshire cat now thanks to you!

"Please nobody blindly follow me"

 

[Oyoy]

Thank you nitrogen for addressing a probem.

The reason I admire this site is the lack of censorship. I don't want that to change, if anything I would like less.

 

[nitrogen]

Every time someone talks about toxic posters I become very confused. I might be ignorant and/or stupid, but I very seldom see toxic posts in this forum. In fact, it's one of the least toxic forums I've ever frequented. If I'm one of those alleged toxic posters, I hope someone will have the decency to tell me.

Finally, I don't want to come through as dismissive. I think it's an interesting idea and it never hurts to discuss forum decorum. I simply don't agree.

You wrote identically about "toxic posters" on a previous thread of mine.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...erm-members-vs-new-members.30590/#post-559049

Mind you, many of the members who had some bonding moments on the first half of that thread have either gone silent or banned, including the one you called "wife." It should be clear by now which toxic posters I referred to on that previous thread of mine after the nasty forum-wise conflict not long ago. Perhaps most people are naive, forgettable, and not keen on psychoanalysis.

Now that's already history and no need for further discussion. I'm simply sensing the short-lived balance is being broken again. It's still at its early stage. It's just a matter of time if nothing is done.

I do agree with you that a cap could be a problem for guide and life-story threads. Good point.

Or, you know, you could just have enough brains to not blindly follow the "prolific" posters or engage in group-think.

I wrote about herd mentality before.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...erm-members-vs-new-members.30590/#post-563339

Not blindly follow prolific posters is easier said than done: Research shows in a group of a size >200, it only takes 5% of people to influence the rest 95%, and the 95% follows without realizing it. People unconsciously mirror nonverbal cues, speech patterns, attitudes of those they talk with, experience similar emotions of those around them, etc, meanwhile, they believe they're making independent assessments and good judgment. Herd mentality is pervasive, automatic and contagious.

I think we should have a different rating system: Likes divided by posts. Muahaha. That way:

• @Brick In The Wall here for example will have 7362 likes for 6003 posts = 1.22
• I will have 3590 likes for 1617 posts = 2.22
• And you @nitrogen will have 1218 likes for 291 posts = 4.18 ..

Oh God, according to my method you will rule us all.... Abort, Abort!!!!!!!!!!!!! *runs away with horror*

Does the "likes" get me a membership to Illuminati or a free box of fried chicken? If not, high-fives from 1220 cats are better.

I won't comment more on this thread to avoid starting fights. View this thread as an early warning. Disagreements with me is fine. Remember, I'm not easily offended, only easily bored.

 

[Lethe]

Not blindly follow prolific posters is easier said than done.

This sounds more like your own character flaw that you need to address, not the forum's.

 

[Sensei]

You wrote identically about "toxic posters" on a previous thread of mine.

That doesn't surprise me at all. I'm not in the habit of changing opinions between threads.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...erm-members-vs-new-members.30590/#post-559049

Mind you, many of the members who had some bonding moments on the first half of that thread have either gone silent or banned, including the one you called "wife." It should be clear by now which toxic posters I referred to on that previous thread of mine after the nasty forum-wise conflict not long ago. Perhaps most people are naive, forgettable, and not keen on psychoanalysis.

Now that's already history and no need for further discussion.

Hm, I'm not really seeing the pattern you see in that thread. Much can be said about Jean4, but I think it's quite a stretch to label her a toxic poster. (If you don't understand why I called her "wife", maybe your psychological insights aren't so keen after all? Without exaggeration, I basically know her as well, or rather as little, as I know you. Strange, isn't it?)

I'm simply sensing the short-lived balance is being broken again. It's still at its early stage. It's just a matter of time if nothing is done.

I think your worries are exaggerated. If any clique tries to manipulate or silence posters, let's give 'em hell. I, for one, never fear being hated, neither online nor offline.

 

[BPD Barbie]

For me it depends on the content of the post. If its a wealth of information then really they can write as much as is needed to get that information across. But posting the same shit, pointless threads, just for the lols etc, that should be cracked down on in my opinion. More effort should be put into using the search bar to avoid duplicate posts for example.

 

[Quarky00]

Coupable! I am giving "unsolicited advice". I have been considered as some "wise adviser". I don't pay much attention to it. I've often replied that I'm actually very useless and barely function other than writing here. Similarly to Brick's post I'm just "consumed" by this place as a way to cope, occupy my mind (ridiculously long posts like SN Freezing or Ethical Dilemma), or save my soul from total emptiness -- because I found out there are people around and they're not assholes. Helping others is helpful to me and gives me some small meaning in life. I don't consider it "help" but simply conversing. So I am coping with anxiety by stepping out and dealing with other people's issues, though I hope I'm not doing that while ignoring my faults; I'm not in denial (I hope). Occasionally I argue with members, label them as not-so-helpful, or point out where they are "wrong", so I am sometimes toxic as well. When others show appreciation to the content/text I wrote (i.e. not just affection) I do feel better about myself. I'm not hanging on to every words and I don't need likes. But genuine appreciation and acknowledgment lift me up a bit -- I feel like I'm not that stupid person who can't do anything right in life. Maybe I can "read situations" well and maybe I'm not a complete incompetent idiot. So, again, I tick the box of creating a stronger image of myself (though not 'powerful'). Wait, is this about me?! lol

I view this as more of a thought experiment rather than "let's make a new rule!". I just don't see how limiting the daily (or even weekly for that matter- experiment) characters one can write is effective. It will simply halt prolific writers. Btw my impression was that 'prolific' means fruitful, as in meaningful, but it's simply 'plentiful', as in large amount. So you're basically saying: You can write long posts up to a certain limit. You know what? That doesn't sound too bad. I despise the idea of limiting writers. But the notion is not as bad or outrageous as I first thought of it. Not considering the practicalities and implementation of it (getting a notice "you've reach your 90% quote" would be horrific) -- I'm still on the fence about it. I see where that idea came from and I address it further.

@Sensei presented the cases where that would be a problem: guides and life stories . I don't believe that "urgent help and exchanging several posts" is 4000 characters, in fact those are usually shorter. I think the point you raised that we don't care "as long as it doesn't border on spamming" is the right one. And that is the problem. Some members consider other members as constantly spamming/derailing (not in the narrow sense). I believe that's what the OP addressed, though she gave a deeper analysis to the behaviour of such people -- spamming/derailing/etc as a form of verbal vomiting. It's that 'borderline spamming', which is not against any rule, that is simply annoying -- and on rare occasions creates real problems. I think we've seen it with a very prominent contributor that had left because they were considered 'toxic'. It's rare but it does happen.

[EDIT] I wrote this before reading more posts on this thread, so this wasn't personal, and I was unaware of any personal connection .. Said member wasn't "a toxic poster" (I don't understand the phrase) but was indeed generally toxic to this place. Many threads were overall bad, dubious, disputable, etc; I cant rehash everything. Dozens of members felt this way and mods as well. Dozens of members feel otherwise of course and genuinely sensed great contribution, affection, support and empathy from said member; but they can't ignore the amount of people that were disheartened and appalled -- thus at the end of the day making that member's behaviour (rather than character as a 'poster') overall toxic, sadly.

There is a culture here on SS, but it is not the product of a handful of prolific posters who influece the discourse.We all create and shape the SS culture

I wholeheartedly agree, though there were occasional instances where certain members took over the lead or the conversations here; and/or create a general tone of values they constantly inject to almost any conversation. That is something to think of.

I feel that I post here too much

What happens if someone reaches said post count for the day

You get a "free jail" card That's the beauty of it. OP was speaking of character count, not post count. You two don't write long daily (hourly) manifestos!

And that is the problem. Long repetative manifestos and taking considerable airtime. I'm sorry but few members here past or present are better off writing a PERSONAL BLOG -- detailing their every thought, action, and objection -- rather than post here on personal issues of others. Not sure a cap would solve it , but that issue exists.

 

[mediocre]

I feel like there are a lot of people here who are very intellectual and good with words who have really long posts and that's a good thing so I voted no. I enjoy reading them. I am not good with my words at all.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

@Quarky00 Thanks man I see that now. I can respect the civil discourse here on the subject. But I still agree with @Sensei and @Epsilon0 on this one.

I'm against restrictions and limitations like these as they can be a slippery slope. We have an excellent mod/staff team here and I think if this was a real issue they'd do something about it on their own accord.

 

[Sensei]

[EDIT] I wrote this before reading more posts on this thread, so this wasn't personal, and I was unaware of any personal connection .. Said member wasn't "a toxic poster" (I don't understand the phrase) but was indeed generally toxic to this place. Many threads were overall bad, dubious, disputable, etc; I cant rehash everything. Dozens of members felt this way and mods as well. Dozens of members feel otherwise of course, but they can't ignore the amount of people that were disheartened and appalled -- thus at the end of the day making that member's behaviour (rather than character as a 'poster') overall toxic.

I know you prefer clumsy constructions like "a person who submits posts which create a toxic environment" in English, but sometimes I simply can't be bothered. In the best of worlds, Italian would have been the lingua franca.

As I emphasized, much can be said about Jean4. Knowing what I know today, I don't question your decision to ban her. However, I maintain what I wrote, i.e. that she wasn't "a person who submits posts which creates a toxic environment", at least not per se. Granted, I don't read every thread in this forum, but I don't think I can recall any post she submitted which was insulting or inflammatory. I think we should keep these two things apart.

 

[Lorntroubles]

@Epsilon0 You must like my colorful use of words. But I really like to play games available here.

 

[Quarky00]

I don't question your decision to ban her.

Was not my decision I'm not a mod. And I did not call for a ban anyway..

she wasn't "a person who submits posts which creates a toxic environment"

Environment was toxic following her posts.. You can take the 'blame' off her, but you can't change the results.

I don't think I can recall any post she submitted which was insulting or inflammatory.

(1) This is not the only criteria for toxic.. (2) "Facebook War" (harassing family)- inflammatory, (3) Other issues, really serious, cannot repeat and/or were deleted .

Discussing members who are not here is not welcomed, afaik. I raised a general phenomenon and was careful to keep away from anything specific or personal. Describe what happened ("posts caused X") rather than blame ("toxic poster"). You call it 'clumsy' and defend someone while laying responsibility in the wrong place and being flexible with facts.. That's a downer. I'm sorry if you felt attacked or criticized, not my intentions. Yes it was crucial to discuss general behaviour/result rather than a person

 

[Pryras]

I see where you're going with this BUT....

the whole "prolific poster" thing has never been important to who I take seriously or advice I find helpful. I could see where it could influence a teenager, more posts = higher "status" or whatever, but It doesn't mean anything to me. Cliques can happen in any forum but i don't really see it here. Then again, I haven't been on here for that long.

There are several users on here whose answers I've bookmarked and enjoy reading through. I definitely would not want a character or post cap for that. @Sensei is one of them and so is one the moderators. Don't care about the status or whatever, I just appreciate their responses.

 

[epic]

Once one or a few members gain enough influence, the snowball effect kicks in. Those whose values and beliefs align well with theirs feel a strong sense of belonging and post more; vice versa, those with a different set of values and beliefs get annoyed at seeing their posts everywhere, and might become lurkers or take a break from the site. As a result, the prolific influencers get fewer objectors and more supporters over time - this is exacerbated if the influencer(s) is(are) aggressive. Eventually, two things happen from there: they take over the site (intentionally or unintentionally) or a "Civil War" erupts.

Sounds like a plot from a movie.

 

[Epsilon0]

I think we should have a different rating system: Likes divided by posts. Muahaha. That way:

• @Brick In The Wall here for example will have 7362 likes for 6003 posts = 1.22
• I will have 3590 likes for 1617 posts = 2.22
• And you @nitrogen will have 1218 likes for 291 posts = 4.18 ..

Oh God, according to my method you will rule us all.... Abort, Abort!!!!!!!!!!!!! *runs away with horror*

(sorry just being humorous to provide us some relief & parody -- will comment seriously soon )

I think the correct formula is:

Likes divided by posts times the speed of light squared.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Interesting idea. Understand the reasons. Not in favour of limiting.

Posters can always use spoiler tags and people can choose not to read.

Posters need to understand that some posts full of information or a story need to be long, whilst also understanding that writing too much and being repetitive can put people off reading or just get boring.

A well written post should be as long as it needs to be, no longer or shorter. Concise and to the point.

People spam for a reason and may write too much or too little for a psychological reason.

I could write more, but I don't want to go over my character limi

 

[Sensei]

Was not my decision I'm not a mod. And I did not call for a ban anyway..


Environment was toxic following her posts.. You can take the 'blame' off her, but you can't change the results.


(1) This is not the only criteria for toxic.. (2) "Facebook War" (harassing family)- inflammatory, (3) Other issues, really serious, cannot repeat and/or were deleted .

Discussing members who are not here is not welcomed, afaik. I raised a general phenomenon and was careful to keep away from anything specific or personal. Describe what happened ("posts caused X") rather than blame ("toxic poster"). You call it 'clumsy' and defend someone while laying responsibility in the wrong place and being flexible with facts.. That's a downer. I'm sorry if you felt attacked or criticized, not my intentions. Yes it was crucial to discuss general behaviour/result rather than a person

I used the word "clumsy" to describe a phenomenon in the English language. How on earth can you connect that to the handling of said member's banning? For the record, I don't think that was handled clumsily. I don't see what good can come from discussing Jean4's behaviour any further, so I will just say that I understand why she was banned and that I don't question the decision. It was standard forum procedure and I've seen it many times before in other forums.

For the record, I doubt that this forum is good for my mental health and my chances of recovery, or rather my chances of learning how to cope with my situation, so I won't kiss up to anyone and I don't fear being banned. If I thought your banning of the member in question was wrong or that your masquerade was harmful I wouldn't hesitate one second to say so. The staff is doing an excellent job and this forum helps many people in pain, so I would never make a fuss for the sake of it, though.

 

[Quarky00]

@Sensei , I don't know what is going on, and I hope you are okay I'm sorry if this place is bad for you right now... I understand that and felt bad here as well at times.

I understand about clumsy wording. I know that's what you meant. That was desirable to portray things fairly (explained). "your banning" -- again I did nothing. I expressed hope that member will remain. I can't do back-and-forth if you're not reading. Again I hope you are okay and sorry if offended you

 

[Sensei]

@Sensei , I don't know what is going on, and I hope you are okay I'm sorry if this place is bad for you right now... I understand that and felt bad here as well at times.

I understand about clumsy wording. I know that's what you meant. That was desirable to portray things fairly (explained). "your banning" -- again I did nothing. I expressed hope that member will remain. I can't do back-and-forth if you're not reading. Again I hope you are okay and sorry if offended you

You're a good person, Quarky. Believe me when I say that I have no reason to quarrel with you.