Topic: Is rule "32. Posting multiple posts in a row" enforced? (Read 1000 times)

I don't think the Mods are to blame for this. It depends on the posts getting reported. I often get away with multiple posts in a row, but usually there's either a week in between updates, or the posts are too long to fit in one post (I wish my post limit would be increased to 640 kB).
Most higher ranked members know the rules by now, so they don't often "multipost" in a what that makes Mods act on it.

If they're spamming they might get banned, but some users have many hundreds of deleted posts without getting banned.

So the maximum plenty for violation of this rule is the deletion of posts or is there any example if anyone is temporary or permanent ban if any low ranked person is found violating this rule few times ?

I can't really post any follow-up to what I wrote earlier - the more senior ranked you are, the more multiple posts in a row you can get away with.  Lesser ranked, or, not as well liked by those in admin/mods and they will "monitor" you and will delete at any opportunity.  Usually months after the event occurred.

My point of concern is what is the plenty of anyone break this rule ?
I see this is one of the rule on which most lenity is shown. Unless anyone is doing this purposefully repeatedly, it seems they are being getting away with it.

My recollection is that these rules predate signature campaigns. It'd be weird for someone to created a rule for a service that didn't even exist at the time.


Edit:

Wow, this thread is from a few years back and someone managed to grave dig it.

If someone was deliberately and consistently promulgating provably false or debunked information as true of visa versa then you could build a case to demonstrate this to have them receive a formal warning and then ban if they continue. That is trolling here. There is no other sensible, actionable / policeable way to define it or control it.
Trolling is not upsetting other with verifiable truths or on topic relevant information that the reader must be privy to so that they may have a chance at forming the optimal opinion. I mean all other reasonably relevant information must be accessible to the reader that is not conclusively debunked or lacking any kind of corroborating independently verifiable evidence.
So trolling is far more serious than double posting.

Everyone will do the occasional double post. Continuously doing so would get you into problems.

I don't think your would get banned for it until you had a public warning.

I mean if you make a report and point out it's a double post  and your report is marked bad then it's a corrupt mod.
There are corrupt mods here it is undeniable.

I have reporter that twat suchmoon for stalking my every thread and posting the same image demanding debate is stopped.
These are marked bad. Also one total turd greedy scum bag mod gave those posts merit after I reported it.

So yes a double post should be deleted unless it's a bump after 24 hours.
Because they can edit their post to add more info to it if they need.

I dont see it as a big problem though unless they are just bumping really and avoiding the time constraints.

If they are really a troll that has had all of their arguments and claims conclusively debunked but keep repeating them as true then they should be warned not to spread lies and misinformation before being banned for 6 months then banned forever.

This is why all mod actions against members must be transparent. They run off and hide up when you ask who has marked good reports bad or visa versa?
Why not defend your actions if you believe you've done nothing wrong.
What's the worst that can happen ? You reverse your action?

I'm not against double posting actually if they are replying to a different person.
Often I write a reply and by the time I'm finished another person has said something new that I want to reply to so you hit quote and start responding. I don't see that as a huge problem that was motivated by anything bad.

I think Bruno getting away with it was more due to nobody reporting it than moderators looking the other way - they don't usually do it pro-actively but if reported they would delete or merge them. Aside from hitting the 64KB limit there really isn't any reason to not hit "edit" instead of "reply". This is the easiest rule to comply with (and I should know, I used to break it a lot LOL).

I don't know if this is an appropriate necrobump or not, but it's probably an issue that needs addressing for the newbies.

Bruno used to get away with consecuposting like a mo-fo, RIP Bruno man.  But he was apparently a special case that moderators would generally look the other way on--plus that was quite a long time ago since he did a lot of that.  I'd say these days if you don't want your post(s) getting deleted, just edit your post within a thread if you think it's reasonable.

And definitely follow hilariousandco's advice. 

The multiple post rule is enforced on lower ranked users, but overlooked in other users, especially if they have started a thread and have shall we say a loyal following of others.

---

---

In saying that, if other users' posts have been deleted, for any reason it can appear as though one user has posted multiple times in succession without any other poster posting in-between when in fact they hadn't done so at all.

In certain sections where you can't delete your post, such as auctions, you have no choice but to post a second, third etc time to bump etc your auction.

The last post should be edited with new information if nobody else has posted or 24 hours hasn't elapsed since the previous post.

hi,
are my 3 sequenced posts from topic below falling under rule #32 considering they represent a sequence of events so the posting time is associated with it?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/binance-under-ddos-5315592

It's a "yes" or "no" answer, based on this, you may revisit that rule #32.

I like rules but I don't like when they are useless or there is place for misinterpretation

thanks for your clarification.

I don't think signature campaign managers check whether posts made by users are made in a row or not (especially if they are made some time apart). It would be  tedious for a campaign manager to do it for all his participants. For most campaigns, what matters is post count.

Regardless of the signature or not,you may get banned for posting consecutive times and for bumping posts if you haven't been already warned before.You might want to read through a similar case which was handled by theymos.

When Gleb was banned : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/seriously-banned-my-gleb-account-1447346 [I did miss him ]

And this explains everything :

Most signature spammers just post for the purpose of getting paid, and the spammer that I came across was no exception.

Everything could be done with a single post as it wasn't much that he wrote to the quoted users. His posts didn't make that much sense either. In that matter, I can't even understand how such people aren't being denied at the beginning.

Signature campaign mangers do not count duplicate posts and even warn and disqualify participants who do so.
I do not think any sensible person would do it for signature.

It is not. Yesterday I came across a secondstrade spammer that did the exact same thing, but I forgot to report that user as I was busy with reading other posts.

In general, (troll or not) if the user is a higher ranked member with no paid signature, mods are less likely to do something. It's something I definitely like to see change.

Every user should be equally treated when it comes to the rules. If you troll or spam (paid signature or not), then actions must follow. Simple.

Just to bring my point a bit further, is it ok to double post like this?

But not trolls? I mean, we have a guy who will post and then 2 minutes later make another post on the same topic. Meanwhile newbie accounts last I checked can't even post on different topics less than 10 minutes apart. It adds a lot of noise to the conversation and if anyone but a troll was doing it, people would complain that the thread is being unfairly bumped

That rule is more to stop sig spammers and activity farmers needlessly spamming multiple posts in a row.

Generally it is enforced but the, IIRC, posts are not deleted unless they violate some other rule (off topic, pointless to discussion, etc.). Usually the person is warned, and if they continue to do it, they will be banned.

I've reported a particular user (don't worry they'll chime in soon) for repeatedly posting 2 posts at a time, over 5 times now. Nothing I can tell has happened other than that the mod who handles it has found my complaint "accurate". Is this rule enforced or not?