View Single Post
  #12  
Old 12-27-2008, 12:08 AM
macondo macondo is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,459
Default Re: New tech feature will limit post edit time

I've arrived at this forum rather late, so perhaps no one is reading it any more.

The arguments presented to support the 15 minute rule are illogical. They might be more logical (although still unsatisfactory in terms of the time often needed for reflection) if the rules stated that only 20 critiques may be written in any 24 hour period. However, since the rules allow one to post more than 20, it is patently absurd to limit the capacity to give smileys OR yellow frowns without allowing a member to return to do so the next day. It is also being assumed by the proponents of the new system that it is only 2-point green smileys that are being 'traded', as SH puts it. However, when one reaches the day's limit, the other options also become unavailable.

Kristaps' argument is unassailable. As long as 'emoticons' (smileys and frowns) are part of TE and as long as people use them, points given one day, or frowns, are not at all different from those given the next in retrospect. The system forces on members an average of 40 points per day, anyway. There is absolutely no reason to suggest this is 'trading' or 'abuse'. It could be argued that when one runs out of emoticons for the day one should simply delay writing any more critiques and leave off until the next day. But in that case I return to my first point: why not make the system inherently logical by restricting the number of critiques to the point where a member's emoticons have run out? Not that I am recommending that kind of arbitrary limit, but it would have some internal logic.

The argument that one often needs much more than 15 minutes to reflect on one's words has not been effectively rebutted. Writing a note later is not an entirely satisfactory way of redressing a poorly worded and possibly offensive critique, refining a translation into another language or adding some technical point that was forgotten; the reason for this is that the critique is the publicly presented response and not everybody reads the notes. Why should one not have the capacity to revise one's public critique? The injudicious wording of critiques has led to the considerable inflammation of passions in other forums recently.

It appears that there is an objection to 'promises' being made, as if they are made in the hope of gaining points in return overnight. I would not disagree with banning promissory statements per se, or statements that 'threaten' frownies.

My guess is that most active members of TE rarely have time to do more than 20 critiques per day and that the so called 'abuse' is hardly a widespread phenomenon. The imposition of this arbitrary 15 minute time limit is ad hoc, arbitrary, illogical and unnecessary.
Reply With Quote