It seems rate limiting was added early on, but had the numbers tweaked last week. My reading is that you can post 10 threads within four hours, and 10 comments within one hour before running into...
My reading is that you can post 10 threads within four hours, and 10 comments within one hour before running into throttling. It seems to be a rolling window.
edit: Though that doesn't explain the 238 minutes so I may be misreading the code.
RE: why it works, it's a tool meant to prevent discussions from escalating from tense to disorderly. Many times online arguments are more destructive and less civil than they might be otherwise...
RE: why it works, it's a tool meant to prevent discussions from escalating from tense to disorderly. Many times online arguments are more destructive and less civil than they might be otherwise because of the continuous emotional state of the participants. If a timer makes people wait to post the next comment, they'll hopefully calm down a bit and come at it from a better place. Plus, while the site is small, it keeps anything from getting too out of hand without the mods seeing it.
I have never seen you behave in a way that I would describe as really 'low-quality'. Argumentative? Maybe. But in a generally respectable and productive fashion. Certainly not malicious. Is two...
I have never seen you behave in a way that I would describe as really 'low-quality'. Argumentative? Maybe. But in a generally respectable and productive fashion. Certainly not malicious.
Is two people having a moderately terse back and forth always low quality or toxic by nature?
I just don't want to see someone like OP changing their habits to avoid being hit with negative tags for being straightforward.
Separately, rate-limiting comments based in part on the criteria of lacking votes seems odd. I would be curious for some more insight.
That makes sense to me because it says something directly related to quality of discussion. This only makes some sense to me because it only seems indirectly related to quality of discussion. It...
getting a significant number of "bad" labels on them (Noise, Malice).
That makes sense to me because it says something directly related to quality of discussion.
replying rapidly
This only makes some sense to me because it only seems indirectly related to quality of discussion. It can lead to “false positives”: preventing fast readers and prolific writers from publishing quality content.
not getting votes on your comments
I disagree with that entirely because a lack of votes can indicate many things entirely unrelated with quality of discussion.
I could be wrong, but based on the wording “some conditions” instead of “one of these conditions”, I believe the trigger is a combination of all of them together.
I could be wrong, but based on the wording “some conditions” instead of “one of these conditions”, I believe the trigger is a combination of all of them together.
It seems rate limiting was added early on, but had the numbers tweaked last week.
My reading is that you can post 10 threads within four hours, and 10 comments within one hour before running into throttling. It seems to be a rolling window.
edit: Though that doesn't explain the 238 minutes so I may be misreading the code.
RE: why it works, it's a tool meant to prevent discussions from escalating from tense to disorderly. Many times online arguments are more destructive and less civil than they might be otherwise because of the continuous emotional state of the participants. If a timer makes people wait to post the next comment, they'll hopefully calm down a bit and come at it from a better place. Plus, while the site is small, it keeps anything from getting too out of hand without the mods seeing it.
I have never seen you behave in a way that I would describe as really 'low-quality'. Argumentative? Maybe. But in a generally respectable and productive fashion. Certainly not malicious.
Is two people having a moderately terse back and forth always low quality or toxic by nature?
I just don't want to see someone like OP changing their habits to avoid being hit with negative tags for being straightforward.
Separately, rate-limiting comments based in part on the criteria of lacking votes seems odd. I would be curious for some more insight.
That makes sense to me because it says something directly related to quality of discussion.
This only makes some sense to me because it only seems indirectly related to quality of discussion. It can lead to “false positives”: preventing fast readers and prolific writers from publishing quality content.
I disagree with that entirely because a lack of votes can indicate many things entirely unrelated with quality of discussion.
I could be wrong, but based on the wording “some conditions” instead of “one of these conditions”, I believe the trigger is a combination of all of them together.
Possibly.
I have nothing of real value to add, I just had a laugh that the shortlink for this is "pee."