Kudos and the Hard Line

[Thumpalumpacus]

The main reason this is implemented is to prevent double posting, not to prevent people inflating their post count.

In a thread, you should not post multiple times in a row, but instead edit your post and add your new comments. Since most people don't do this, we force it on people. This only happens in the first 60 minutes of the post believe. After that, we expect people to edit their posts to include changes.

I oppose changing this. If you are posting so fast that you are making new posts before other people have commented, then you should add your new thoughts to your current post.

Also, if people are opposing this because it means you might end up kudosing a post you disagree with, I don't think disabling the merge will help. Someone could still write a popular post, gain kudos, and then edit it to say "Kill all the gays" or something similarly horrendous. Are we to disable the ability to edit posts too?

I don't think people make it a habit of doing that sort of bait-and-switch ... but if you find someone who does, perhaps informal/formal/ban process could be implemented?

Also, rather than editing a post to update it as the poster encounters newer answers, the multiquote button is the most useful tool -- collect the posts to which you wish to reply, "quote" the last post, and they all appear in the posting field.

[Tiberius]

I don't think people make it a habit of doing that sort of bait-and-switch ... but if you find someone who does, perhaps informal/formal/ban process could be implemented?

Why? What rule have they violated? People are allowed to edit their posts.

Just as an FYI to everyone, if you make multiple posts in a row, they will be merged manually now. Multiple posts are not allowed as they affect the flow of conversation, and there is literally no reason for them. If you think of something else to say in a thread and nobody has posted since your last post, then you will need to edit your post and add the new thoughts to it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think people make it a habit of doing that sort of bait-and-switch ... but if you find someone who does, perhaps informal/formal/ban process could be implemented?

Why? What rule have they violated? People are allowed to edit their posts.

It seemed like you were concerned about it:

Someone could still write a popular post, gain kudos, and then edit it to say "Kill all the gays" or something similarly horrendous. Are we to disable the ability to edit posts too?

I was positing one possible answer. But if you're not that concerned, feel free to ignore my suggestion.

[Tiberius]

I'm not concerned. People were concerned about kudos being applied to posts which are later updated via a merge. I'm pointing out that this can still happen, via the edit feature.

If the reason the merge was disabled is to protect kudos, we should disable the edit feature too, no?

Just so I'm clear, I don't really care if someone changes their post after they get kudos.i don't think it's a big enough problem to get concerned about. Even a member in this thread who said they had it happen to them admitted that they didn't remove their kudos. It doesn't seem like it's a big issue.

[Losty]

No you are not understanding. If I make a long serious post in reply to you, and people agree with me then they might kudos my post. If after that I make a reply to Stimbo with a something like "I want you inside me, does that count?" The same people who kudos'd the first post may not want to kudos the second post. It's not often that people feel the need to make two separate posts in a row, but it does happen.

To be perfectly honest if one of my posts merges that I don't want to be merged, I usually just wait until someone else posts and then edit the merged part out and make it into a new post anyways. It's not for my post count or kudos, but just because I honestly don't think the two posts belong together.

I prefer that posts not be merged and we be allowed to decide for ourselves if it's best to edit our new comment in or make a new post. I don't care about it enough for it to be a big deal though. You force merge our posts or you don't. Life goes in either way. 

[Tiberius]

I understand the issue completely.

My objections to double / triple posting (i.e. the same person posting 2 or more times in a row) are as follows:

1) It's bad forum etiquette. If you are replying to a thread, your reply should contain all responses you want to include for the people that posted before you. That is why quotes display the username of the person you are quoting, and why merged posts put a solid line between them to make it clear that two or more posts became one. This has, by the way, been how we deal with double posting since as far a I remember. The auto merge feature just made our work easier.

2) It needlessly breaks up the conversation flow. We don't have a limit on post content, so you can fit your views into one post fine, then someone can respond, and you can respond again in turn.

3) Kudos should be given for good posts, not necessarily posts you agree with. Kudos doesn't mean you agree with the post, or certain parts of the post, etc. If you really want to show agreement with a specific part of the post, kudos it and make a response.

4) I don't buy the "serious" / "non-serious" mix issue. If you quote the person you are replying to, then it will be obvious that the replies are separate, especially if they are separated by a line as they were.