@moonbus saidBut people were alerting countless posts that were not breaking the TOS. The abuse had reached a kind of peak.
If some poster, for example, tries to use the site to sell fake passports and posts twenty adverts for his illegitimate business at 3 a.m. and some other user spots them at 3:10, why shouldn't he alert them all at once? I have on occasion alerted exactly such posts, advertising illegitimate businesses here.
@fmf saidNot at all, what the person said was in their opinion they saw nothing wrong in the number of alerts as the Moderators make the last decision which was correct. I think the Moderators were overwhelmed with alerts about you and the gooster, mostly the gooster. So the best way to limit the overload would be to restrict alerts to 3 per poster. I like to call it the the "Gooster Rule"!!! π
Well, there are people saying Russ's decisions about the alerts mechanism was bad.
-VR
@very-rusty saidWhen you say "not at all", do you mean you think there have NOT been people saying Russ's decision about the alerts mechanism was bad?
Not at all, what the person said was there opinion they saw nothing wrong in the number of alerts as the Moderators makes the last decision which was correct.
@very-rusty saidIt's right here in this conversation, the last couple of posts we have exchanged. Do you really think people like Suzianne and moonbus DON'T think Russ's decision to limit the number of thumbs per day was a bad decision?
Show me the quote where it was said fmf!
@fmf saidI do not dispute that the alert-feature could be subject to abuse. I was not a party to that particular episode and do not have a strong opinion on what led to it (no doubt it had its causes and reasons). I do not see a cogent argument for limiting the number of alerts a poster can send, a few abusers notwithstanding. Similarly, chatter and silly posts are just the price we all pay for having an open forum, not censored by the state. I do not see a cogent argument for limiting the number of posts a user can send in any given time period -- unless of course it becomes such a deluge as to adversely affect the servers (which would constitute a DOS attack and prohibitable for that reason alone).
But people were alerting countless posts that were not breaking the TOS. The abuse had reached a kind of peak.
@moonbus saidDo you dispute that everyone having an unlimited number of anonymous attempts every day to curtail each other's speech by getting each other's posts deleted ~ and by extension, whole threads deleted ~ cannot be described as a pro-free speech facility?
I do not dispute that the alert-feature could be subject to abuse.