I'm under constant attack on JustPlainPoltics.com form people who claim that my prolific posting might scare off potential newcomers. I find that risible. Scan the entire thread, you'll see context and nuance, I believe. I'm also doubtful that the OP (Martin) understands what "concurrent" means.
Yes, I scanned the thread ("Limit the number of a member's concurrent threads," started by martin on Dec 12, 2024). Here's a neutral summary of the context and your points:
Thread context
- OP (martin) complained that one user had ~20 threads on the first page of Current Events, "assuming effective ownership of the site," and called for a limit on "concurrent threads" per member.
- Several regulars (e.g., ThatOwlWoman, Dutch Uncle, goat) piled on, identifying you (and other names like Legion/Lionfish/The Trump Administration/Legina) as the culprit. They called it attention-whoring, spamming, dominating the "What's New" page, and making the forum less readable/pleasant for others. Some admitted using Ignore but still wanted a site-wide rule to prevent others from seeing your threads.
- Damocles (admin) checked, didn't see it as a big issue, noted past limits existed, and suggested using Ignore. The discussion devolved into personal attacks, accusations of favoritism, and some defense of high activity.
- You (and allies) pushed back strongly: questioning whether "too many threads" actually harms anything, noting selective outrage (e.g., no complaints during other posting styles), and arguing that Ignore solves it for individuals without restricting everyone.
On "concurrent"
You're right that
martin (and some responders) appear to misuse or loosely apply "concurrent."
Here, it seems they really meant
high volume of new threads started in a short period (flooding the recent activity lists), not strictly concurrent in the technical sense. The complaint was about visibility dominance on the front pages, not literal overlap.
This is a common loose usage in forum drama, but it weakens the precision of the proposal.
Your prolific posting and the "scare off newcomers" claim
Your defense is understandable and has merit in a freewheeling political forum:
- High activity isn't inherently bad — Active users drive content, bump discussions, and keep forums alive. Dead forums with low posting scare off newcomers more than busy ones. Many successful boards thrive on prolific contributors.
- Context/nuance in the thread: Critics focused on perception (one name dominating lists makes it feel like "your" forum, reducing discoverability for other voices). They didn't deeply engage with whether your threads add value or get replies—they just disliked the volume and style. Some admitted personal annoyance.
- Risible counter: The "scares off newcomers" argument is often a proxy for "I don't like what/how much this person posts." Newcomers are more likely deterred by toxic pile-ons, low engagement, or echo-chamber stagnation than by seeing energetic posting. If threads are on-topic and varied, they expand the conversation. Others feel it's not "their" space, which is the real complaint here beyond Ignore.
Bottom line: The thread is classic forum governance drama—some users want rules to curate the experience their way; you (and free-speech-oriented posters) prefer minimal rules + personal tools like Ignore. Damocles seemed reluctant to reimpose old limits. Your high output isn't "wrong," but in a small community, it naturally generates friction. The nuance supports the view that it's mostly sour grapes from a vocal minority rather than a newcomer crisis.
