No support for either. The 60sec rule works very well; making it any more flexible will decrease its effectiveness.

Basically, the 60sec rule should be here to stay. If you have an issue with that, deal with it.

DaSpudLord wrote:

Support for changing the 60 second rule to a 30 second rule when you reach 500-1000 posts. But no support for allowing users to completely remove the delay at a certain point, as per cheddargirl-

cheddargirl wrote:

You would be surprised what lengths spammers go through to try. I've seen some spammers make projects, comments, and studios and stay on for months so that they try to appear like a legitimate user - on the surface, they would look like a newbie trying to figure out how to make project until they would start spamming. It isn't much of a stretch that they would aim for a 1000 post limit if it meant that they would be able to get away with posting spam more easily.

Besides, back during the 1.4 era when exact post numbers were displayed, we had cases of users going overboard with posts or spending so much time on just the forums just to inflate the number. We don't have that anymore, but it isn't hard to imagine that users will do the same thing just to achieve a faster post time rule, with the possibility of the rule being abused once the limit is reached.

Also, for new scratchers, I don't think we need to shrink the rule to 60 seconds as they reach 500-1000 posts, again as per cheddargirl.

Semi-support; I agree with DaSpudLord

No support. You shouldn't be posting that much on forums… then the forum would be pretty super spammed.
Sorry for necro

I think that the 60 posts per hour is a good idea; spammers would break that too.

Support!! It would make my life go so much easier!

Support for the first one. If they aren't going to remove it, it should at least be better after some time.

I'd even accept a 30 second rule after 1000+ if it were needed.

The 60 second rule IS annoying since if you are trying to reply to multiple people and the first reply is a shorter one, then you have to wait 20-40 seconds waiting. However, I don't think shortening it by itself is good. A better suggestion is to limit people on posts so that they can't spam. It should work like this:

You would have a set number of posts per day.
New Scratcher: 20 posts a day
Scratcher: 40 posts a day
(NOTE: You would have a 60 second delay as a New Scratcher, and a 30 second delay as a Scratcher, effectively still reducing spam.)

Spammers wouldn't be able to spam that much, and it would still allow for a smaller delay.

AntFilms wrote:

The 60 second rule IS annoying since if you are trying to reply to multiple people and the first reply is a shorter one, then you have to wait 20-40 seconds waiting. However, I don't think shortening it by itself is good. A better suggestion is to limit people on posts so that they can't spam. It should work like this:

You would have a set number of posts per day.
New Scratcher: 20 posts a day
Scratcher: 40 posts a day
(NOTE: You would have a 60 second delay as a New Scratcher, and a 30 second delay as a Scratcher, effectively still reducing spam.)

Spammers wouldn't be able to spam that much, and it would still allow for a smaller delay.

Imagine having to deal with this if you are somebody who would post more than that in a set day. Having to wait literally hours before you could post again.

This would be worse for New Scratchers with a lower limit, and no ability to edit posts after a page refresh. People would have to resort to commenting on profiles to get through.


The original idea is better since, it would take far longer for spammers to be able to spam effectively than to get banned for doing it repeatedly.

Ziggy741 wrote:

What if someone pretended they were a normal user until they became a Scratcher and got 1000+ posts, and then they started spamming?

Correction - the suggestion states 500 posts.
Even then, would take too much time - you would have to post 500 legitimate posts (and not spam) to be able to go from spamming 1 post per 2 minutes to spamming 1 post per minute (which isn't worth the effort).

Since they are required to post material which is worthy of “not spam”, they would have to hire an actual guy to work to do this.

500 posts at 1 post per 2 minutes would mean the spammer would have to work for 16 hours 40 minutes (assuming they work non-stop and are able to churn out 1 “not-spam” worthy post per minute, starting as a New Scratcher), to be able to spam at a mind-boggling 1 post per minute. This would split into 2 8-hour days to get a account from posting at 1 post per 2 minutes to posting at 1 post per minute.

Support for first, not second. Same reasoning as Hamish

Possible new limits:
120sec for brand new user
90sec with 25 posts
75sec with 50 posts
60sec with 75 posts
45sec with 100 posts
30sec with 150 posts
20sec with 200 posts
15sec with 300 posts
10sec with 500 posts
5sec with 1000 posts
no delay with 1500 posts

Monniasza_spzoo wrote:

Possible new limits:
120sec for brand new user
90sec with 25 posts
75sec with 50 posts
60sec with 75 posts
45sec with 100 posts
30sec with 150 posts
20sec with 200 posts
15sec with 300 posts
10sec with 500 posts
5sec with 1000 posts
no delay with 1500 posts

No support. (People WOULD spam to get the 5sec rule)
Also, please don't necropost uwu

WaterComesBack wrote:

Monniasza_spzoo wrote:

Possible new limits:
120sec for brand new user
90sec with 25 posts
75sec with 50 posts
60sec with 75 posts
45sec with 100 posts
30sec with 150 posts
20sec with 200 posts
15sec with 300 posts
10sec with 500 posts
5sec with 1000 posts
no delay with 1500 posts

No support. (People WOULD spam to get the 5sec rule)
Also, please don't necropost uwu

These limits will include only non-spam posts.

Support, it just slows down my daily forum thingy whereas I respond to all interesting posts I can find.

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

Support, it just slows down my daily forum thingy whereas I respond to all interesting posts I can find.

The 60-second rule might be thread specific.

Support, the 60 second rule is pretty annoying especially for people who actively use the forums, but who knows what lengths spammers will go to to earn a 0 second rule, that's equal to a Scratch Team members <number> second rule

rollercoasterfan wrote:

If you have more than 500 posts, it becomes a 30 second rule. If you're a new scratcher, it becomes the 60 second rule. If you have more than 1000 posts, you completely lose the rule. If you're a new scratcher, it becomes a 30 second rule.

The reason this would work is because users who have over 500 posts aren't spammers. If all those posts are spam posts, the user would be banned, most likely.


This idea came from Superdoggy on this topic, which was just a topic to see who hates the 60 second rule.

but I honestly don't think using post count is a good idea and I think it's currently rejected

I don't support because spammers could make their way to 1000 posts and then spam on the forums.

rollercoasterfan wrote:

The reason this would work is because users who have over 500 posts aren't spammers. If all those posts are spam posts, the user would be banned, most likely.

True

Isn't this technically rejected?

Reev0102 wrote:

Isn't this technically rejected?

One would think so, as this talks about decreasing it.

Holy Book of TOLORS wrote:

10.1 Remove or decrease the 60 Second Rule
The “60 Second Rule” refers to the fact that Scratchers need to wait 60 seconds after posting in the forums before they can post again (120 seconds for New Scratchers). While this may seem annoying, it is extremely effective against spam. Moreover, it can require users to carefully think about what they have typed before posting. You generally do not have to wait for very long between forum posts anyway; it is just 60 seconds. Decreasing it is also rejected; that is, the number of seconds will not be changed.