Page 1 of 1

Post Limit

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:36 am
by the gattchoon
I'm new to the forums, so maybe this may have been commented on before, but I might as well say it again. I have 3 posts left for the day, anyway. =P

I'm a little iffy about the limit to 5 posts a day. I don't know why there is a post limit to these forums. I know there might not be as many members on IndyDDR as on DDR Freak, but honestly, I think the limit to 5 posts a day is a little silly.

If the limit was made because of people posting useless, stupid, forum-spam type posts, then make a warning-point system. (See DDRFreak.com for details, or ask Jason Ko/J Dogg... I know you may not want to totally bite off DDR Freak, but the forums seem pretty similar, and it wouldn't hurt.) Just a suggestion, because there might be a day or two where I, or some other person, might want to post 6 posts that day and they can't. That would be sad, because the post might actually be significant or important.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:54 am
by MonMotha
Actually, you're not far off from how it works in the end.

The post limit varies by rank. Beginner gets 5, Light 10, Standard 20, and Heavy 40 (and if you need more than even the 20, something's weird). You'll get to light and standard by just being here a little while and making a few posts (and since your account is very old, it's just the post thresholds). Getting to heavy requires having your posts rated highly by the ratings system.

There's various topics in the feedback and news forums regarding the rating system, but the gist of it is that you have the ability (or will, once you get above beginner) to rate people's posts. The number of rating options available is dependant on rank (with the most extreme options being available only to heavy users). If you have enough posts rated highly, you'll be ranked heavy. Since the post limit increase is somewhat inconsequential (as 20 posts/day is rather high anyway), it's mostly a badge of honor. This mostly comes with exposure (more posts gives more chance to be rated), but, especially now that the site is established, most people only think to rate posts when they are exceptionally good or bad (which was the intention originally).

In addition to being able to get heavy by post ratings, you can also be forced down into warning, danger, and eventually, failed. Warning has the same privlages as light, and danger is the same as beginner (in terms of rating availabilities and post limits), but they additionally serve to warn users of the previous "bad track record" of the individual. Failed is reserved for those who are repeatedly rated down (it's extremely hard to get to). Users in the "failed" rank get a whopping one post per day. Ho calls it "The atonement post". Only by having their atonement posts rated upwards can the user come back up in rank.

So basically, get involved in the forums, and you'll hit the higher ranks in no time, and then you'll not have to worry about the limits anymore. The reason for the limits is to make (especially new) users think a little bit more before posting. The hope is to encourage good posting (rather than random gibberish that contributes nothing) by attaching some sort of small value to a post.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 1:07 am
by the gattchoon
Thanks for the memo! Haha!

I thought there was something silly with 5 post limit for everyone, but now it makes sense. Overall, I must say the concept of each rank with their own separate limits is quite cute! =P

I didn't realize how fairly new these forums were until I checked the memberlist and realized the site admin had registered in Dec 2004 (the end, at that).

I really like the idea and feeling of this site, knowing it's mainly for one state -- Indiana -- since DDR Freak went international and finding and talking about Indiana/this area is like a drop in the ocean. Kinda.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 1:36 am
by Potter
what brandon was going on to say is that doesent really work and that maybe the rating syste wasnt such a good idea.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:46 am
by Arka
the gattchoon wrote:I didn't realize how fairly new these forums were until I checked the memberlist and realized the site admin had registered in Dec 2004 (the end, at that).
Technically, the forums predate that - that's just the date of the Great Reset, when the site and forums were revamped. Unfortunately, I don't remember the original inception date any more... anyone more knowledgeable than I care to remind us?

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 5:18 am
by WhiteDragon
Awhile back I stumbled accross the IndyDDR Yahoo group, which seems to have preceded the original forums. The group was started November 23rd, 2000, and the last news post instructing everyone to migrate to the "new forums" is dated September 3rd, 2002.

-WhiteDragon, who can't get back to sleep.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 7:52 am
by SoDeepPolaris
WhiteDragon wrote:Awhile back I stumbled accross the IndyDDR Yahoo group, which seems to have preceded the original forums. The group was started November 23rd, 2000, and the last news post instructing everyone to migrate to the "new forums" is dated September 3rd, 2002.

-WhiteDragon, who can't get back to sleep.
Yeah, we had Yahoo boards-->first php board-->this

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:50 am
by Arka
SoDeepPolaris wrote:
WhiteDragon wrote:Awhile back I stumbled accross the IndyDDR Yahoo group, which seems to have preceded the original forums. The group was started November 23rd, 2000, and the last news post instructing everyone to migrate to the "new forums" is dated September 3rd, 2002.

-WhiteDragon, who can't get back to sleep.
Yeah, we had Yahoo boards-->first php board-->this
Yahoo boards?! IndyDDR, I thought I knew you! :shock:

Now I have to join and see if the old pictures are still there.

Edit: feel compelled to state that I was not serious (even I'm not that sacrilegious).

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:39 am
by Potter
see, proof t doesent work. Expell an opinion that is not highly regarded and it gets downrated. Look at all the ratings on this board and the reason for them and its pretty easy to see it doesent really work.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:58 am
by Ho
Whether it works and whether people use in the way in which it was intended are two mutually exclusive states.

The system works just fine. And yes, there are a fair number of superfluous and inappropriate ratings thrown about by people. But the system is also designed to compensate for such behavior.

Is it perfect? No. But overall it has had precisely its intended effect.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:05 pm
by Potter
I agree, the system is very wel thought out but like msot systems when it gets to the human factor it just fails.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:22 pm
by Arka
Potter wrote:see, proof t doesent work. Expell an opinion that is not highly regarded and it gets downrated. Look at all the ratings on this board and the reason for them and its pretty easy to see it doesent really work.
Dude, you were BEGGING to get rated down. I think this is proof that the system works. 8)
Ho wrote:Whether it works and whether people use in the way in which it was intended are two mutually exclusive states.
I'm fairly sure you didn't mean this as I'm interpreting it, but whenever I work on commercial software I feel this way...
Potter wrote:I agree, the system is very wel thought out but like msot systems when it gets to the human factor it just fails.
Coders and software developers/designers have come up with some amazing natural defenses against "the human factor" in the past ~30 years of software design. Diss not the Code Monkey, for he shall smite thee with a very large wrench.

(Okay, maybe he won't. But he should. Responsible use of powers be damned, that would be funny.)

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 5:25 pm
by Potter
u a gai