If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Why the double post rule?

ShponglefanShponglefan MemberFull Members
edited October 2009 in Site & Forum Support
Can someone please explain to me why this rule is in effect? It seems silly to me as I've never seen it on another forum I've ever posted in (and I've posted on a lot).

I can understand it keeping threads somewhat need in a running conversation. But in cases where a certain degree of time has elapsed (such a day or three), having people go back an edit prior posts just seems dumb.

So can someone explain this?

Comments

  • SiliconNooBSiliconNooB Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    It is a pain in the butt when you want to post some new info in a thread, yet it stops people from posting four or five times in a row and wrecking the conversation, so on the balance it's probably a good rule.

    ... Though there probably wouldn't be any harm in changing it to a: no more than two consecutive posts rule ... (but that may be a slippery slope).
    Lusipurr.com: One man's monument to himself!
    9 out of 10 Dentists recomend UNDERBOOB!
  • ShponglefanShponglefan Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    I can understand the rule in place in conversational type threads. In fact, on other boards I post on people are generally good about not posting multiple times in a row. Usually no more than twice anyway. And people that do post 4 to 5 times in a row are usually told that it's bad forum "etiquette".

    The exceptions are if a person is making a very large post that needs to be broken into several smaller ones or if a certain gap in time has passed (i.e. usually more than a day).

    Now what irked me was I made three seperate posts in the "What are you playing today?" thread. I'd made these posts over 3-4 days, each post reflecting a different day. A mod edited all of the posts together into one, but the single post made less sense like that. But if other people had posted in between my posts, then I'm sure the three seperate posts wouldn't have been an issue.



  • SiliconNooBSiliconNooB Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    I sometimes double post in the FFXIII thread if I find some new info, completely different from my previous post, and no one seems to notice/care. I just think you need to excercise your discretion and only do it when necessary. smile.gif
    Lusipurr.com: One man's monument to himself!
    9 out of 10 Dentists recomend UNDERBOOB!
  • ShinseitoriShinseitori Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    I've seen the rule in a number of places, but I don't personally use it on the board I admin at. Generally in those places that have the rule, it's there to deter people from inflating their post count or cluttering up a thread. I don't mind it personally other than the problem of bringing new info to a thread but not being able to update the timestamp on the thread listing (generally you can get around this in places where you can delete your own posts).
    Rise!
  • MacstormMacstorm Ysy St. Administrators
    edited September 2009
    Good board software combines double posts automatically, so there is no problem. I really see no problem with double posting if time has pasted, it's just lazy if you do it a minute after you post though, the edit button is there for a reason. Honestly, it's nothing that I care about in the least.
    "The universe is already mad. Anything else would be redundant."
    Twitter @FinalMacstorm
  • Confessor RahlConfessor Rahl Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    Double posts. triple posts and so forth are unnecessary and i've been on a lot of forums myself, all of which have a no double post rule. It's no big deal to use the edit button. On the other hand, in the case mentioned above, for thread resurrection (not two year old revivial of course) it's not a big deal.
    "Back when FF9 was coming out. People were rejoicing because it was actually a fantasy game and not a sci-fi game like 7 and 8. It's hilarious in modern context, with everyone wanking themselves to dehydration at the thought of a FF7 remake."
  • CidolfasCidolfas Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    I think it should be part of forum etiquette, as stated, rather than a hard-and-fast rule, as there are some instances where it's warranted and these tend to be obvious.
  • ShponglefanShponglefan Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    The problem is the current rule as written says:

    "Do not double-post. This means posting twice in a row, no matter the length of time that has passed between the first post and the second post. Double-posting is permissible in a few situations: mainly, the RPGamer Podcast threads. If you're not sure if double-posting is allowed or not, assume that it is not until you verify. Use the Edit button; it feels unloved if you do not." (emphasis mine)

    That's why I'd like to see staff actually explain why this rule is in effect.



  • shentinoshentino Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    It would appear that Macstorm's personal opinion and the official rule as written are in mutual contradiction.

    I would like some more verbosity in that regard, and second the request for explanation of what exceptions, if any, apply to the "no double posting" rule.
  • Anna Marie PrivitereAnna Marie Privitere Purr RPGamer Staff
    edited September 2009
    Staff are free to disagree with a rule; when it's happened in the past, we discuss it and either maintain, change, or remove the rule. Some rules are more firmly set then others. So, to give you some ideas why we maintain this particular request, here's some reasons (I wouldn't call this all-inclusive however, because someone will always come along going "but but this point/reason!") in no particular order:

    *Unfortunately, some people view post count as an extension of their genitalia. Even some of our regulars, though they've learned not to be obvious about it.
    *The forums are intended to promote discussion between people, not with yourself. You can go back and check some of the early threads, and see some interesting ramblings by a single individual 5 and 6 posts long prior to the implementation.
    *I realize some people complain "but then whatever I added isn't read." Looking at posts after-edit, and just from being on the forums I can say with confidence this isn't universally true. If it a topic is done, it's done; if it isn't, someone will read it.
    *The time limit is to prevent bumping. It's annoying. As opposed to having a separate rule for it, it's been streamlined into double posting.
    *Unless posts are zomgwtfbbq long, one post is a lot simpler to read then many.
    *Where the rule is not practical, we do allow it -- podcast posts, staff review blogs, certain individual posts by requests. However, as a general rule it stands.

    You're free to dislike or disagree with the rule, but thus far I haven't seen enough compelling evidence to modify or remove it at this time.
    That being said, I believe there is a post-combo timer in the new software, and will look into the option.
  • NimNim _ Full Members
    edited October 2009
    The rule is good, but let's say you post info on a game october 1st and then even more info comes out on october 2nd, is it ok to double post? This way the topic will be bumped and everyone understands there is a new post. It's not always practical with edits, because people will think there is nothing new.
Sign In or Register to comment.