Za-Chary 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.

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Za-Chary 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.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Za-Chary 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.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

qwerty_wasd_gone wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Za-Chary 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.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

qwerty_wasd_gone wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Za-Chary 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.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

The way it would work is instead of making it so you could only post messages every 60 seconds
Instead it would work like this

If you post too many messages (let’s say 5 for example) within a timer, then you get restricted from posting for 60 seconds.

The timer works like this

Each time you post there’s a timer that counts from 60, if you post within this timer, the timer resets and the counter increases by 1, when the counter gets too high you get restricting from posting for the next 60 seconds

KangaCoder wrote:

Messages - forum posts, I'm assuming?

This would actually make things worse. If you can post 5 messages within 60 seconds, that's 4 more possible spam messages that the ST has to deal with. With the current rule, only 1 possible spam message can be posted every 60 seconds.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

qwerty_wasd_gone wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Za-Chary 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.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

Exactly, the 60 second rule would still apply but it would have more freedom while still preventing spamming

MyScratchedAccount wrote:

Would this be similar to SpamAlert?

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

qwerty_wasd_gone wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Za-Chary 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.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

The way it would work is instead of making it so you could only post messages every 60 seconds
Instead it would work like this

If you post too many messages (let’s say 5 for example) within a timer, then you get restricted from posting for 60 seconds.

The timer works like this

Each time you post there’s a timer that counts from 60, if you post within this timer, the timer resets and the counter increases by 1, when the counter gets too high you get restricting from posting for the next 60 seconds

Thats exactly what she’s suggesting.

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

qwerty_wasd_gone wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Za-Chary 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.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

Exactly, the 60 second rule would still apply but it would have more freedom while still preventing spamming

We should let the purge with cops, that way, we have more freedom while still preventing thievery.

Scratch--TheCat wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Za-Chary 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.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

So, I’ve stated my opinions on the 60 second rule and I think I’ve come to a workaround that prevents spamming but removes it

The way it would work is instead of making it so you could only post messages every 60 seconds
Instead it would work like this

If you post too many messages (let’s say 5 for example) within a timer, then you get restricted from posting for 60 seconds.

The timer works like this

Each time you post there’s a timer that counts from 60, if you post within this timer, the timer resets and the counter increases by 1, when the counter gets too high you get restricting from posting for the next 60 seconds

If you repeatedly trigger the censor let’s say 3 times, the ammount of time it takes for the counter to clear gets increased along with the max amount of posts you can make within that time, it resets after not posting for an hour and moderators would be able to set these values
Before you say this is rejected. It’s not, this is a workaround for the 60 second rule

Please share your thoughts about this

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

This literally has nothing to do with this. I’m going to edit the post to explain it better

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

If the max counter value would be theredicolly set to 1 then it would just act as the normal 60 second rule

And no that’s now that I’m suggesting

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

This literally has nothing to do with this. I’m going to edit the post to explain it better

5 posts in 60 seconds, right? Or 5 posts in 600 seconds? That would be annoying when you’re told to wait 4 minutes to post again.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

If the max counter value would be theredicolly set to 1 then it would just act as the normal 60 second rule

And no that’s now that I’m suggesting

So, 1:60? Just keep 60, otherwise 5 posts in 5 minutes will get annoying. 1 in 60 frees you up a lot of 4 minute pauses.

randomguy3513 wrote:

That is way too forgiving. I think you should get a 120 seconds mute if you post 2-3 times during the counter and it can increase if you keep spamming.