Just thinking about how a few posters seem to monopolize every thread here. I've blocked one but hate to do that as a matter of principle. Maybe limit an IP address to 5 posts per week outside of Bugs and Player Support. If a post get multiple Likes then allow for an extra post. Sorta like a Chinese social credit system! If posts had a "cost" then maybe people would put more thought into them? Might make these forums more interesting and less toxic.
Been playing this game since the beginning and you can see my pathetic post count though I do read most threads. Limiting folks is the wrong path and IMO; a terrible suggestion, just try to ignore (scroll past) whatever toxicity you might come across.
I am one of the obnoxious posters that many players dislike. But not as bad as some who even rile me up Equally I have solved many, many bugs that weren't bugs, why quests are stuck and how to unstick and overall given a ton of help to players So while I can come across as abrasive the scales are well balanced by the help I also give each week. I wish I could say the same for those top 2 we all have issues with too. Limiting posts is not the way to go. Ignore it the best way. I know my sig that says "6000 posts and going strong" is taken wrong because most players have zero idea what that is referring to. Its not post count.
Sounds like a horrible idea. You don't have to read every post in a thread. For that matter, you don't have to read every thread.
It happens all the time on sites that link privilege's to what other users do with your posts such as likes.
It is 100% true that a handful of people are monopolizing the forums. One of our most esteemed and prolific posters managed to post 30 times in one day a few weeks ago. I'm sure he had good intentions, but it seems a bit excessive to me and bordering on an unhealthy compulsion. If everyone was limited to let's say, 3 form posts/replies per day, I guarantee you it would would make players think very carefully before wasting their 3 posts with trivial and flippant content. This rule would also have the side effect of removing much of the noise and toxicity of these forums as the quality of the forums would vastly improve as posters would ensure sure their few posts would be well-written instead of being posted in haste. Posters would be forced to choose their battles wisely instead of having the luxury of making making unlimited, kneejerk, emotional replies. There would be a lot less grandstanding as well with post restrictions. quality > quantity less is more Finally, there is no evidence that posting more will make the devs listen. It may even have the opposite effect as I suspect over the years devs have become numb to the conversations on the forums. I think the devs know full well that a handful of players post here and that the opinions of these people do not necessarily represent the perspective of the player base. However, that does not let the devs off the hook as there are many other ways to sample the mood of the players via in-game polls, emails and direct outreach. I think limiting posts to a few a day is an excellent idea. It's well worth experimenting with on a trial basis. It would also make the jobs of the moderators much easier and perhaps they could use their time more effectively doing social media outreach to help promote the EQ franchise instead of being forum hall monitors.
I like Brontu's argument, but ... I don't think an arbitrary post limit is a good way to go either. I don't visit the forums every day so when I do I tend to make several posts. Sometimes I'll ask a question, get some feedback, and add more details or thank someone for their contributions. Its not uncommon for me to post 3-10 things then nothing for the rest of the week. It would be a shame to limit everyone else's ability to communicate because of a few bad apples that seem to post 30+ times on multiple threads saying the same over and over.
While there are 100% a few trolls and 'post count' collectors, I think this is a bad idea. Most people are civil and even helpful, providing answers or feedback that can either help you resolve your concern and so forth.
I love how Brontus makes an argument about limiting people, because HE thinks it would be good...... And then has a sig quoting Orwell about liberty, LOL! Now, HE would say, that's HIM telling people what they don't want to hear. OK, sure. But what about the posts he doesn't like? That's THEM telling him what he doesn't want to hear. So, liberty for me, but not for thee, is that the ticket?
The forums are fine, don't like reading someone's posts? Ignore them. That is literally what that feature is there for. (I have 4 or so people on ignore myself. I just have nothing left to say to them and well arguing with idiots just brings you down to their level.)
I feel like his post was about putting something in place to encourage people to think about what they want to say before saying it. Also Brontus would be subject to the same thread count as everyone else, so not sure how you got to the "liberty for me, but not for thee" part of your post. At least that's how I interpreted it.
I really don't care either way. You're either for free speech, or you're not. And you're also free to read other people's posts, or not. And put them on ignore, or not. It's just a stupid idea.