you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]OmegaUser296 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Hi, this is off topic but just wanted to ask about a possible rule, limiting how many subs one person can moderate that way we never get someone like N8thegr8 from reddit, I'd say 100 would make for a good limit that way it's high enough that any one person would only hit it if their hoarding subs cough u/JasonCarswell is getting close to hoarding subs as of late cough

[–]send_nasty_stuff 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I agree and 50 is probably enough.

[–]OmegaUser296 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah above 50 would be overboard.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe if half of them were empty.

[–]OmegaUser296 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay using yo as an example (sorry) Most of them would be empty without you falsely filling them, without your posts most of your subs would be empty or near it.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Me "falsely" filling them is such a loaded straw man.

What if someone, not me, were to set up a bunch of subs and each of those had a YouTube channel with a bot posting every new video to its corresponding sub. And no one else posted there. Does that count as "falsely filling"? And if someone, not me, posted one more post in them would that validate that sub for you.

Your argument is lacking any rational substance.