I've been on Scratch for 6 months, and the 60-second rule has been the most annoying thing I've ever encountered.

I mean, with 1500+ posts and 6 months on Scratch, I'm pretty sure Scratch can trust me not to spam. No bot is going to go through all the trouble of trying to make 1500+ legitimate looking posts, right? They would get banned for spam long before that.

So, I suggest for users with a set number of posts (a number that should be kept secret), and maybe some other secret requirements, Scratch should silently remove the 60 second rule.

I like this idea. I've been on two years now, and have 2097 posts, worthless or not, they aren't spam. It is quite annoying, especially when you are trying to post quick replies before going out. Support.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

I've been on Scratch for 6 months, and the 60-second rule has been the most annoying thing I've ever encountered.

I mean, with 1500+ posts and 6 months on Scratch, I'm pretty sure Scratch can trust me not to spam. No bot is going to go through all the trouble of trying to make 1500+ legitimate looking posts, right? They would get banned for spam long before that.

So, I suggest for users with a set number of posts (a number that should be kept secret), and maybe some other secret requirements, Scratch should silently remove the 60 second rule.

Hmm. This would be difficult to implement though… I have 679 (this is 680th) and I've been on the forums for quite a while now… the 60 second rule annoys me too sometimes… but with your suggested requirements, it would take me so long to get there…! However, with nearly 3 years on Scratch, I think that Scratch can trust me not to spam as well. xD

??? Support, mainly because I don't quite see how the numbers would be determined.

Support, but for a lower number.

Such much support!

Support, but like Rex208 said, maybe for 1000+ or 750+?

Also, make sure you get a notification when you get this!

Eh… support but just to lower down the number. For example to change it to a 30 or 20 second rule

Support, but I don't think you should get a notification. As @MegaApuTurkUltra said, the numbers should be kept secret so there isn't some point to reach. The numbers should be hidden like the Scratcher criterion.

Support even though it has been rejected.

Thanks for the support!

• There should be no notification. You shouldn't know that it was activated for you unless you post and don't see the 60 second warning
  
• If a user with this activated ends up getting one of their posts reported and removed, this bypass should be temporarily revoked (ie, some progress towards getting it is reset)
  
• The requirements should be more secret than the Scratcher requirements (I mean we all know that it's activity for 2 weeks including several comments, at least 2 projects, and some love-its)
  
• It should take several factors into account including number of posts, time on Scratch, number of reported posts that actually got removed, etc.
  
• I can see the post number requirement at 1000 or maybe 750 but no lower than that. Also, it should take at least 3 months on Scratch (with activity at least once per month)
  

Support, as someone who spends a lot of time on the forums (probably too much time) this rule has annoyed me several times and I think your suggestion would be a nice solution to this.

Support… maybe a 30-second rule? (4886 posts after I press sumbit!)

Support, it's too annoying.

you don't need to rush yourself to post, especially when it's just 60 seconds. if you ever do encounter the 60-second wait, use the time to spellcheck your post and revise it. or give yourself that break you need to get up and stretch.

support~!

Zro716 wrote:

you don't need to rush yourself to post, especially when it's just 60 seconds. if you ever do encounter the 60-second wait, use the time to spellcheck your post and revise it. or give yourself that break you need to get up and stretch.

Sometimes I can only stay on Scratch for a few minutes, and I need to reply to forum posts fast. My style of reviewing forum posts is 1) going to the my topics page 2) Opening all unread links in new tabs 3) Going through each tab and replying, and this is where the 60 second rule gets really annoying. If I want to reply to 5 topics it takes 5 minutes rather than just 1, and sometimes I don't have the time to waste.

The number should be kept a secret (and possibly RNG dependent within a tiny space, like +-15 range), so that spammer can't abuse it by creating a bot that randomly supports or no supports posts for some amount of time such that it can spam better when it truly spams.

Agree! With 5000+ (and another 1500 on my test account) posts I think I deserve no wait.

Actually, I find that I don't have any problems with the 60 second rule. Its been months since I last ran into the 60 second rule restriction (until today). So, honestly, I don't find that to be a problem. But you do make a point - a scratcher with that many posts should already know better than to spam.

A no time limit is too risky.

I would say 25 second rule.