Hello,
I'm an everyday user of /pol/.
Someone suggested that the posting limit on our board should be increased to 500 posts instead of the typical 300 that we have.
I in particular sift around a lot of generals on the board which typically die extremely fast then have to be posted again and again.
Are there any arguments on why this is a bad idea? I think it would be better so that /pol/ doesn't have hundreds and hundreds of threads all at the same time flying by faster than anyone can see.
>>571265
Seconding this suggestion. /pol/ regularly follows events where the posting comes in about as fast as during a sports game on /sp/, and threads can finish in much less than 10 minutes. It would help the board a lot if we could get a 500 post limit.
>>571265
Why stop at /pol/? The top 20 boards by traffic should get the push to 500 posts, barring /a/,/b/ and /v/.
>>571272
I can assume that could be in order as well but as of now I'm speaking for /pol/.
That's not a bad idea though; the higher traffic boards SHOULD get more posting room since they have so many people.
>>571272
/b/ no, random makes sense.
Having a long-ass bump limit might be nice if it allows topics to burn themselves out before some chucklefuck decides that they need to remake the thread (several dozen times).
I think it should be decreased to 50 posts and everyone has to type at least 2000 character to post, without it being a text wall of NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS.
And the captcha should be solvable to people with at least 130 IQ.
>>571265
500 would be an improvement, 1000 might be even better. More room in the thread means it hangs around longer and there's a larger window of opportunity for substantive stuff to be written before the thread is archived. The biggest waves don't form in ponds but oceans. Let's go bigger.
>>571280
750 seems to be a good number. We can also have a forced autosage if the thread stays up too long, say 24-48 hours?
>>571283
I'd want to see how it worked before any kind of forced autosage kicked in. I'd only want that if it were really becoming a problem.
>>571283
Nah see it could work like this:
If the OP puts something in his options menu like the word "MAGA" he could keep his thread to 1000 posts indicating that he wants to create a thread for longer discussion.
/pol/ is getting pretty busy, yeah.
But will it be able to sustain it post-election?
I'm trying to think of the last time the numbers were changed for a board, but my memory isn't very good.
>>571284
Well the forced autosage was just to bring attention to it as an option. It's not really necessary most of the time, /pol/ is fast enough that the dead threads get removed quick. Deciding on a good bump limit is far more important right now
>>571265
What /pol/ needs it to have it's post cooldown timer raised to 1 minute like most other boards.
>>571265
Same and agreed. The threads move way too fast on /pol/. I think a 500 bump limit would be great for the board.
Hopefully Hirogoot or an Admin will respond
>>571291
Wow, I just checked and it's 15 seconds.
That's bizarre. Has it always been like that?
Even [s4s] has a minute.
>>571291
I really don't see any harm from the reduced cooldown.
Cunts who spam still get banned by the mods, and it keeps the discussion flowing fast.
>>571265
generalfaggotry is cancer.
your threads die so fast because every two seconds someone makes a new "WOWE RLY MAKES U THINK X BTFO XD^^" meta thread.
>>571265
>/pol/tard
>tripcunt
Please kill yourself, outsider.
>>571278
this
>>571265
Im all for this. This would stop threads from 404ing too quickly
>>571265
I got a better idea, ban all the generals and kill yourself tripfag.
>>571850
no lol
>>571278
>DURR URRR /POL/ BAD HURRRRRRRR
God I love seeing /qa/ compete in the special olympics
