Scratchifier wrote:

How do you tell when one of your posts has been removed?

You get an alert lol

Scratchifier wrote:

Anyway I would be okay with halving the time down to 30 seconds, any lower than that and the content in your post can't possibly be very good quality.

I typed and edited this in about 30 secs… Stupid spelling mistake messed it up

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

How do you tell when one of your posts has been removed?

You get an alert lol

Scratchifier wrote:

Anyway I would be okay with halving the time down to 30 seconds, any lower than that and the content in your post can't possibly be very good quality.

I typed and edited this in about 30 secs… Stupid spelling mistake messed it up

Yes, but from the last time you posted? So 30 seconds wouldn't be too bad…

Oh and okay, since in comments you can have an iffy comment deleted without getting an alert, I wondered if it was the same with forum posts.

TheHockeyist wrote:

How about:
0 or New Scratcher = 60 s
200 = 50 s
500 = 40 s
750 = 30 s
1000 = 20 s
1500 = 10 s
2000+ = 5 s

For some reason a gradual decrease seems weird to me.

I know some people who hang out around the TIRAP forums that shouldn't be trusted with lower times.

I would just say 1000+ can be brought down to 20ish give or take 5 seconds. By the time someone makes 1000 posts you can tell if they are gonna abuse it or not. Perhaps it could be 1000+ with ST approval. I doubt it would be that big of a deal considering there are like what 50 people with 1000+ posts…

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

A no time limit is too risky.

I would say 25 second rule.

I agree.

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

TheHockeyist wrote:

How about:
0 or New Scratcher = 60 s
200 = 50 s
500 = 40 s
750 = 30 s
1000 = 20 s
1500 = 10 s
2000+ = 5 s

For some reason a gradual decrease seems weird to me.

I know some people who hang out around the TIRAP forums that shouldn't be trusted with lower times.

I would just say 1000+ can be brought down to 20ish give or take 5 seconds. By the time someone makes 1000 posts you can tell if they are gonna abuse it or not. Perhaps it could be 1000+ with ST approval. I doubt it would be that big of a deal considering there are like what 50 people with 1000+ posts…

51*
(just got 1000+ a while ago)

I like the idea, even though I have only 180 posts. (This is my 180th)

TheHockeyist wrote:

How about:
0 or New Scratcher = 60 s
200 = 50 s
500 = 40 s
750 = 30 s
1000 = 20 s
1500 = 10 s
2000+ = 5 s

edit:

new scratcher: 2 min
scratcher, 0 posts: 1.5 min
scratcher, 50 posts: 1 min
scratcher, 100 posts: 0.5 min
scratcher, 200 posts: 25 s
scratcher, 300 posts: 20 s
scratcher, 400 posts: 15 s
scratcher, 500 posts: 10 s
scratcher, 750 posts: 5 s
scratcher, 1000+ posts: 0 s

ChocolatePi wrote:

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

TheHockeyist wrote:

How about:
0 or New Scratcher = 60 s
200 = 50 s
500 = 40 s
750 = 30 s
1000 = 20 s
1500 = 10 s
2000+ = 5 s

For some reason a gradual decrease seems weird to me.

I know some people who hang out around the TIRAP forums that shouldn't be trusted with lower times.

I would just say 1000+ can be brought down to 20ish give or take 5 seconds. By the time someone makes 1000 posts you can tell if they are gonna abuse it or not. Perhaps it could be 1000+ with ST approval. I doubt it would be that big of a deal considering there are like what 50 people with 1000+ posts…

51*
(just got 1000+ a while ago)

It was just an educated guess based on what I seen on the forums. Nothing even close to exact.

I don't really care about this. I mean, it'd be nice, but 1 minute is only one minute! It seems impatient not to be able to wait one minute. I mean, it's not like the person you're talking with is going to spontaneously close up their laptop or something, unless they're just as annoyingly impatient as one would be. Now that I think about that, I don't support.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

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.

+1

I completely support this.

I think this is a really good idea! I do, however, think that when you post spam and it gets flagged for spam, there should be five seconds added to wait. If you have something that has at least 3 something post and has been up for 1 week, you should have 10 seconds removed from the wait. That way, the wait can be completely removed for never posting spam, and can be raised for posting spam. I do think that you should be a scratcher when this applies to you, and a new scratcher should have the complete 60 second wait. I think that the longest you can wait, though, is 5 minutes or 300 seconds. This should lure people to posting non-spam to spam as the wait has a chance of being removed and gained back. I have only ever posted one spam post and this was on accident. Accidently skipped over a rule in the suggestions forum and posted a topic called ‘New Block Under Events!!!’ So I have a 8:1, now 9:1 spam ratio. Oh, and if a person post 5 spam topics after reaching the 300 limit, they get banned from posting on forums for a while, maybe increases by a week each time this happens, and if they reach being banned for 2 months, they get banned from using scratch for a while, starting at a week and increasing from there. I thing this is a much better idea than just completely removing the time limit.

good idea. even though i am just short of 500 posts

seanbobe wrote:

good idea. even though i am just short of 500 posts

lol not anymore

A million support point from me.

shaymin88 wrote:

I think this is a really good idea! I do, however, think that when you post spam and it gets flagged for spam, there should be five seconds added to wait. If you have something that has at least 3 something post and has been up for 1 week, you should have 10 seconds removed from the wait. That way, the wait can be completely removed for never posting spam, and can be raised for posting spam. I do think that you should be a scratcher when this applies to you, and a new scratcher should have the complete 60 second wait. I think that the longest you can wait, though, is 5 minutes or 300 seconds. This should lure people to posting non-spam to spam as the wait has a chance of being removed and gained back. I have only ever posted one spam post and this was on accident. Accidently skipped over a rule in the suggestions forum and posted a topic called ‘New Block Under Events!!!’ So I have a 8:1, now 9:1 spam ratio. Oh, and if a person post 5 spam topics after reaching the 300 limit, they get banned from posting on forums for a while, maybe increases by a week each time this happens, and if they reach being banned for 2 months, they get banned from using scratch for a while, starting at a week and increasing from there. I thing this is a much better idea than just completely removing the time limit.

Support that idea.

19f8361 wrote:

TheHockeyist wrote:

How about:
0 or New Scratcher = 60 s
200 = 50 s
500 = 40 s
750 = 30 s
1000 = 20 s
1500 = 10 s
2000+ = 5 s

edit:

new scratcher: 2 min
scratcher, 0 posts: 1 min
scratcher, 50 posts: 1 min
scratcher, 100 posts: 1 min
scratcher, 200 posts: 1 min
scratcher, 300 posts: 1 min
scratcher, 400 posts: 1 min
scratcher, 500 posts: 45 sec
scratcher, 750 posts: 45 sec
scratcher, 1000+ posts: 30 sec

Fixed it to my specifications.

i know this topic is dead, but i want to share my opinion. the 60 second rule is actually a good thing. we dont need to change it. its a shield to prevent topics from being spammed. i know you guys are gonna just lash out in anger and tell me “but its so annoying and we need to do something about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!11!!” but thats my opinion. we shouldnt change anything about the 60 second rule.

I don't mind the 60 second rule because on the forums I don't share posts much, so I've never encountered it.

A 60 second rule to prevent spam Maybe the limit should be changed from 60 seconds to 45 seconds

but we can't get it to a small value of 20 seconds, otherwise it wouldn't prevent much spam

The more seconds, the more spam we prevent, but it can't be that big, like a 2.5 minute rule, that would be very annoying

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

A no time limit is too risky.

I would say 25 second rule.

Agreed.

And maybe it shouldn't be solely post count, but the requirements could be:

1. 750, 800 or 1000 - You've built a solid reputation
2. You have never been banned for spam (and not mistakenly) - If you have, you've pretty much proven that you do spam. You wouldn't want to get tempted back into your old ways right when you have no post limit

I must say, a high post count is the type of statistic you can't use to measure someone's constructiveness or the like. There are a few reasons:
a) Spam
b) Flame Wars
c) ‘Support’ and ‘No support’ posts
d) April Fools

I agree that this entire feature should be kept somewhat secret within the community- known, but requirements unknown otherwise people are going to start spamming to get more posts and be free of 60 second rule