Posting this because no one else seems to want to, and it’s a discussion worth having outside of drama or personal conflicts. I’m undecided and can see both sides, but it’s important to address.

Potential benefits of a limit:

  • Frequent posters hold significant influence and could, in theory, push misinformation or propaganda (though I haven’t seen evidence of this it’s a fair concern).
  • A community dominated by one or two voices might discourage new members from participating.
  • Encouraging quality over quantity could increase the value of individual posts.

Potential downsides of a limit:

  • Could reduce overall community engagement.
  • If set too low, it might discourage meaningful participation from well-intentioned members.
  • It could inadvertently encourage the (mis)use of alt accounts.

These are some pros/cons but certainly not all! I encourage more discussion below.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    7 hours ago

    I’ll note that I consistently called out Monk to the point that multiple comments of mine lambasting them got deleted (the mods were just being fair and enforcing the rules consistently; hats off).

    However, there are some points you’ve failed to take into account:

    1. (Most important) Monk posted to /c/politics at most about three times per day. This is realistically the bare minimum amount you’d want as a cap on posts per day. You can go back and check this for yourself; the overwhelming majority of their posts were on communities they created and moderated. Checking the month of September, the exception I saw to this was September 8th, where they posted four. This rule would have done absolutely nothing to deter their propaganda campaign.

    2. As your own comment notes, making alts is a trivial matter, especially assuming you’re more subtle about the angle you’re pushing than Monk was. That I was aware of Monk for months but knew and heard nothing about these purported alts is, to me, evidence of that.

    3. Every single post by Monk was heavily downvoted because everyone knew what they were doing.

    4. The main problem with Monk was their comments, wherein they would engage in essentially copy-pasting Gish gallop responses. The moderators knew banning Monk would’ve made the community healthier because of this exact behavior but refused to take action.

    5. Even if the problem had been the quantity of the posts to /c/politics (it wasn’t), the moderators would’ve been able to use their discretion to ban Monk instead of a blanket ban on frequent posts.

    TL;DR: Monk’s problem on /c/politics had nothing to do with and could not have been stopped by such a rule proposed in the OP.