A starter home?! This home is a finisher home! A shelterer of gods! The GOLDEN GOD!

I am untethered, and my rage knows no bounds!

Oh okay, everything about you (from the propagandistic posting patterns to running heavy defense of Monk who you should know nothing about as < 2-week-old accounts to your long, copy-pasted, Gish galloping comments to the abject nonsense you spew to your general writing style) tells me you and barrygoldwater are just ban evasion alts of Monk. In that case, piss off.

How did you see “MUCH worse now than back then” when your account is 11 days old? Riddle me that.

No, no, you’re misunderstanding: every single number you see in Philip’s comment was 1) a post and 2) in /c/politics. You can go look for yourself as I suggested. For instance, when Philip’s comment says “2024-10-19: 6” that means (and you can go verify using the means I described on desktop) that Monk posted 6 times to /c/politics that day. That excludes comments.

Actually, no, this isn’t correct. Go to Page 4 of Monk’s post history, and you’ll see that indeed all of those numbers are posts to /c/politics. @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat was correct here; I was checking the wrong month.

EDIT: @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat is right that Monk substantially ramped up their post count in the month of October, being typically 6+ per day. I was mistaken about point 1 for that month, although I stand by that other months like September, they were about 3 per day.

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.

I have yet to see any frequent posters pushing misinformation.

I have yet to see any frequent posters discouraging participation.

I have yet to see any frequent posters pushing quantity over quality.

To me, it seems like this post is addressing what’s currently a non-issue. That is, this feels like someone’s pet peeve about frequent posters dressed up as something beneficial using a list of non-applicable pros.

Meanwhile, news communities are posted to so infrequently on Lemmy that literal bots exist to fill the gaps. I would much prefer a human than a bot indiscriminately hammering the community with news (absent any evidence whatsoever that this would improve human engagement, when realistically, any humans who’d want to participate could do so at any time but haven’t).