Support forum suggestion : 24 hour non-double posting

[Rok]

I believe that when you make a post on a topic/thread, you are only able to make another post after 24 hours or if another user has made a post after that, and you are able to edit your previous posts. The staff complains about the situation of double-posting on this Support Forum, so I believe this would help a lot . Vote

[Guest]

Why are you suggesting this when just before you were bumping your thread because you didn't want it to fall onto the next page? With this feature, you wouldn't be able to do that.

[Rok]

I know, but I'm just saying. Anyways, I could of waited a whole 24 hours (if this would be applied) and then Bump it. This would also bring down the limits in which some of the staff are having. Wouldn't you want to take a little virtual-pain off of their shoulders for helping us?

[Pacific]

I agree because some people post continuously without sense. I voted yes.

[Guest]

No offense, but since it's already the rule that we aren't to bump a topic for 24 hours, it would be better if people just followed the rules than to have the techs set up something that would divert their attention away from say... forum issues. (I have posted no less than 5 requests for help and have received 0 help.)

It would also be better if the mods were allowed to MOVE a topic to the proper section instead of just locking it up. Or better yet... set a 24-hour limit on a previous post, unless otherwise stated by the person that started the thread, before a thread is locked with "this appears to be resolved". I'd vote 'yes' to that 24-hour period, but not for something the members should already know. Sorry. (Although, I'm not going to cast a 'no' vote.)

[Caihlem]

Oh.... my God!

There already is a rule against double posting
Suggesting to implement an already existing rule...

Kyouri; we can't be online 24/7, and we don't necessarily know the answer either
I can't answer CSS questions, nor was I on today seen as had Uni for instance (but that seems to not count apparently )

=> Lock (like only we know how to do)