Discuss Scratch
![[RSS Feed]](http://cdn.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/__5b3e40ec58a840b41702360e9891321b__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]"){kind=icon}
- rollercoasterfan
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
I'd like that. That would be helpful. Although at that rate, I would've made at least 70 posts in the last hour if I didn't have to wait.Okay wut?Well… maybe, but that might create a sort of a “race” for other Scratchers to try to get 1000 posts…
I'm thinking that something like 60 posts per hour, and 10 seconds in between posts would be a better limit.
NO PLS DONT!!!!!!!!!
60 posts per hour = 1 post per minute = 60 second rule. Except if you could make 60 posts per hour it would be more flexible, rather than having to wait a set 60 seconds per post you could make one post 13 seconds after another, then wait only 50 seconds and make another, then maybe a few minutes later make another post… basically the same limit but less of an annoyance.
- Zekrom01
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
Okay wut?Well… maybe, but that might create a sort of a “race” for other Scratchers to try to get 1000 posts…
I'm thinking that something like 60 posts per hour, and 10 seconds in between posts would be a better limit.
NO PLS DONT!!!!!!!!!
60 posts per hour = 1 post per minute = 60 second rule. Except if you could make 60 posts per hour it would be more flexible, rather than having to wait a set 60 seconds per post you could make one post 13 seconds after another, then wait only 50 seconds and make another, then maybe a few minutes later make another post… basically the same limit but less of an annoyance.
thats true.
- Amaru2
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
I think this belongs in Suggestions. I guess 
- Blank1234
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
I was going to put this:
but then i was reminded of the annoyingness of the 60 second rule (by the 60 second rule of course)I don't like it nor hate it. It has to exist because if it didn't exist, there would be spam.
- Deerleg
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
It makes me wonder how this belongs in Show and Tell.
- rollercoasterfan
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
It makes me wonder how this belongs in Show and Tell.xD Should I report it to be moved?
- Deerleg
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
Probably.It makes me wonder how this belongs in Show and Tell.xD Should I report it to be moved?
- rollercoasterfan
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
Okay. I'll turn it into a suggestion.Probably.It makes me wonder how this belongs in Show and Tell.xD Should I report it to be moved?
- rollercoasterfan
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
Actually, I'll keep this and just make a new topic.Okay. I'll turn it into a suggestion.Probably.It makes me wonder how this belongs in Show and Tell.xD Should I report it to be moved?
- Tymewalk
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
I'm thinking that something like 60 posts per hour, and 10 seconds in between posts would be a better limit.I agree with this, based on this:
60 posts per hour = 1 post per minute = 60 second rule. Except … it would be more flexible, rather than having to wait a set 60 seconds… basically the same limit but less of an annoyance.I would find this very useful for bumping up a lot of posts at once.
Also, even if someone still does spam, they can only post once every 10 seconds, and they're limited at 60. Even by posting once every 10 seconds (which is nearly impossible), it would take 10 seconds per post * 60 posts per hour = 600 seconds or 10 minutes. For the next 50 minutes, they couldn't spam, which would probably be enough time for someone to find the spam posts.
- Zarlog
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
^^^I'm thinking that something like 60 posts per hour, and 10 seconds in between posts would be a better limit.I agree with this, based on this:60 posts per hour = 1 post per minute = 60 second rule. Except … it would be more flexible, rather than having to wait a set 60 seconds… basically the same limit but less of an annoyance.I would find this very useful for bumping up a lot of posts at once.
Also, even if someone still does spam, they can only post once every 10 seconds, and they're limited at 60. Even by posting once every 10 seconds (which is nearly impossible), it would take 10 seconds per post * 60 posts per hour = 600 seconds or 10 minutes. For the next 50 minutes, they couldn't spam, which would probably be enough time for someone to find the spam posts.
Too bad trolls exist in the first place, because if they didn't, we wouldn't need this.
- applesauceepicness
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
Who Hates the 60 Second Rule?
I have to agree the 60 second rule is annoying!