Interestingly, I've hardly had to moderate anything at all here (or maybe someone else keeps getting there first). (See what I did there :) ). — Baden
This is more or less correct regarding PF. Especially if one was giving elaborate responses to several different people, a post for each person would generally be considered acceptable. There was a tool for merging posts, however, and it would be used for less sensible sequences of posts. For example, there was a member who used to make a separate post for each individual quote to which he was responding (often leading to six posts in a row directed to the same interlocutor). Or if someone had six one-line responses to six separate interlocutors, they would get merged rather than be left as six separate posts. It's a bit of a judgment call, but not a difficult one to make. I imagine a similar practice will emerge here if the issue arises. But in general, it seems reasonable to allow consecutive posts by default and only merge them if the number gets unreasonable (which appears to be the current policy given @Baden's comments).Others, like the old PF, didn't mind multiple consecutive posts at all as far as I could tell. — bert1
Oh, don't worry: this is only the opening part of The Lord of the Flies, where everyone is still nice to each other. Man's primeval nature will emerge eventually, leaving you mods plenty to do. :DInterestingly, I've hardly had to moderate anything at all here (or maybe someone else keeps getting there first). — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.