Psamathe wrote:Based on your personal opinion or the results of the poll (which if anything suggest an increase!). I can't see any consensus for a reduction.
Based on reducing the workload of the volunteer moderators. Not my reason but it's an understandable one.
My poll is only advisory, of course... I also don't see how the current standings (5 for 1, 3 for the current setting and 2 for unlimited) can be interpreted as suggesting an increase.
I said "I can't see any consensus for a reduction
" not suggesting an increase. 6 for reduction, 5 for same or unlimited is not a consensus for change. Another reduction in functionality making things in debate harder to follow - but seems the way things are going these days, lower functionality. Is this really going to make things clearer (5 say no, 6 say yes!)?
Edit: Sorry, the above quote makes no sense because it is actually originally responding to anoher post that the system has now automatically edited out - illustrating how nested quotes are useful in making sense without having to scan bace through a thread. The post trail eas initailly repsponding to:
Based on your personal opinion or the results of the poll (which if anything suggest an increase!). I can't see any consensus for a reduction.
But even tht'a been "auto truncated by the looks of it!" so it still makes no contextual sense and I can't be a $%^&ed to keep editing to fight the new system that ..... If people don't want to use something then don't use it but to stop others who do .. way of the world these days.