Multi-quote rule

The rule states:

Jack Bishop94 said:Everything you need to know about Multi-quote.

So, here is the deal with Multi-quote -> —it's right next to the quote button (the order is Edit, Quote, Multi-quote, then Quick reply to this message -> http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/266...iquotequic.png).

What does it do? Exactly what it sounds like—it lets you handle multiple quotes at once.

How do you use it? Just hit Multi-quote on every post you want to include, then hit Quote on the very last one—and boom, all those posts are sitting right there in your draft.
That’s really all there is to the science of Multi-quote.

You also have the Edit option—if you've already posted and realize you forgot something, just hit Edit (similarly, if you find a post you want to quote later, hit Quote on that post, copy it, go back to your own post, hit Edit, paste the quote, and keep typing).

Don't forget—spamming consecutive posts instead of using Multi-quote can get you sanctioned for violating the PDF forum Help rules.
Use Edit on your existing posts instead—because any repetitive, "stamped" posts will be deleted.

Rules are rules—that much I get—but the actual purpose behind this specific one isn't quite clear to me, and I'd love to actually discuss it.

If the whole point is to prevent "stamping" posts, then I have to ask: what even is "stamping," and why is it an issue?

If we're talking about two posts from the same user appearing back-to-back as pure spam cluttering up the forum, then merging them doesn't change anything—it's still just spam clogging the feed.

But if we're talking about two non-spam posts from the same author, there's usually a reason they're separate. Sometimes discussions move fast—you post something, and before you can follow up, someone else replies, and suddenly you've got two posts in a row. Most people won't bother scrolling back to check my first post for updates, but they definitely will if there's a fresh post waiting for them.

Besides, separate posts allow you to organize thoughts within a thread. When you're responding to different people, sometimes you want to give them individual attention rather than throwing everyone into one noisy pile. In those cases, you respond separately.

I'm not suggesting we scrap Multi-quote—some people, myself included, find it useful. But I'd prefer if we weren't threatened with a ban for every two consecutive posts, because the logic behind the rule feels thin. If anyone can actually explain the reasoning, I'm all ears. 🙂

I find myself wondering about the exact same thing; I agree with every single point you made.☕

I actually laid out my full take on this in this post.

rustydrifter10 said:Post spamming happens when someone drops two or more posts back-to-back that are so short they really should have just been one single message. We're talking a gap of just a few minutes here, because if you wait a couple of hours or even a day, you've probably moved on to a completely different thought anyway.

You see it all the time with some users—mostly the newer folks—who feel the need to start a brand-new post for every single sentence they write. It results in a flurry of online activity where we end up with several posts in a row that were clearly meant to be read as one cohesive thought. Plus, a lot of people don't realize how to use the MQ button effectively, so instead, they'll quote one post with a tiny reply, then quote the next with another tiny reply, and then a third... honestly, that’s just another form of spamming.

It isn't an issue if the posts are distinct or cover totally different ground (it's a bit tricky to explain, but if a topic gets complex and you need to address three different points over several sentences, that's fine), but it becomes a total mess when someone breaks one single idea into multiple posts that have to be pieced together to make sense. Or worse, when we get hit with a mountain of quotes where there's only one line of actual response under every single block of text. Especially frustrating is when someone quotes fifty lines of text just to respond to one tiny part of it (by the way, please just quote the specific snippet you're replying to! It’s nearly impossible to follow the conversation when the quote box is massive and your comment is buried).

A lot of our sub-forums actually have rules against this specifically. They ask that if you have a bunch of thoughts you want to share all at once, just put them in one post. That way, we don't clog up the entire page with a wall of quotes and almost no answers, or a stream of short, disconnected posts that look messy until they eventually get merged.

Anyway, I'm rambling again. My apologies! 😁

It really gets under my skin when several different posts get lumped together into a single Multi-quote.

First off, it makes everything incredibly cluttered—I’m certain a huge chunk of people just give up on reading those massive walls of text.

Secondly, there’s a perfectly good reason why people respond to various users in separate posts: threads often branch out into several distinct directions. The fundamental visual issue with forums is their linear nature (much like the old-school Usenet 🧐) — so, by forcibly shoving multiple unrelated points into one basket, you're essentially mashing completely different conversational threads together.

Because of that, I find almost any application of this rule to be pointless, unnecessary, and frankly, counterproductive. Spam is spam, whether it’s squeezed into one post or spread across ten (I mean, does anyone honestly think they're "padding their stats"? It's not like you win a Rolex for hitting 10,000 posts, right?). Even those amateurish one-liners are better off being deleted entirely rather than being stitched into equally mindless Multi-quote posts.

In my opinion, threads are far more cluttered by people quoting entire essays just to write half a sentence underneath them, or merely to add a signature.

Stop enforcing this rule as if it were an offense; it just doesn't make sense.

rustydrifter10 said:I actually laid out my full take on this in this post.

Thanks for the Quick response 🙂

So—assuming we aren't just talking about someone failing to grasp how Multi-quote works, or merely breaking up a single thought—this isn't considered spamming, right? It won't result in a ban, nor will the moderators merge those posts together?

Jack Bishop94 wrote to me in a total state of hysteria: "last edit Jack Bishop94 : today at 7:07 PM. Reason: MQ is explained in the rules of this PDF -> READ THEM AND FOLLOW THEM!!"

(IS ALL THIS SHOUTING WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS REALLY NECESSARY!?!?!? 😁)

The thing is, I wasn't even able to perform a Multi-quote on the specific post I was replying to in that second half of the merged post, simply because it hadn't been published yet at the moment I hit send on my first one.

To me, editing a post that my interlocutor has already read just to tack on new details—especially a full response to their point—seems rather foolish and unfair. I operate under the assumption that people have more important things to do in their lives, and certainly more productive things to do on this forum, than playing detective to see what I might have tweaked in a previous entry.

It feels quite absurd to have my posts merged and to receive such hysterical warnings about subforum rules (or the implied threat of getting a strike). 😕

Maria Reyes4 said:Thanks for the Quick response 🙂

So—assuming we aren't just talking about someone failing to grasp how Multi-quote works, or merely breaking up a single thought—this isn't considered spamming, right? It won't result in a ban, nor will the moderators merge those posts together?

If that's the case, the implications are even more frustrating. It essentially means: they know the rules perfectly well, yet they choose to ignore them out of pure stubbornness...
That’s what drives me crazy on Reddit; it honestly makes me lose the desire to contribute anything at all. I realize it isn't necessarily the fault of the moderators—the rules are what they are—but goodness gracious, it feels like absolute tyranny...☕

rustymason92 said:If that's the case, the implications are even more frustrating. It essentially means: they know the rules perfectly well, yet they choose to ignore them out of pure stubbornness...
That’s what drives me crazy on Reddit; it honestly makes me lose the desire to contribute anything at all. I realize it isn't necessarily the fault of the moderators—the rules are what they are—but goodness gracious, it feels like absolute tyranny...☕

How could it possibly get any worse than refusing to group posts together? 😕

To me, "spamming" individual posts is what actually counts as spam, and there's already a way to handle that.

Failing to use Multi-quote isn't spamming—it's just failing to use Multi-quote.

Maria Reyes4 said:Thanks for the Quick response 🙂

So—assuming we aren't just talking about someone failing to grasp how Multi-quote works, or merely breaking up a single thought—this isn't considered spamming, right? It won't result in a ban, nor will the moderators merge those posts together?

I didn't say that was a hard rule; it’s more just my own take on things, and the other moderators don't necessarily have to agree with me. In fact, looking around, it seems like plenty of people feel differently. Personally, I don't mind seeing a few posts in a row—honestly, merging them all feels like extra work for no reason. 😁 That said, I will step in and merge them if they’re clearly connected, like when someone is finishing a single thought across two posts, or sometimes if the posts are just incredibly brief.

When I first started out, I used to regularly merge posts from the same user because that was the official moderation guideline back then, but I eventually realized that, in my opinion, it often isn't the best way to go. Most of the time, those consecutive posts actually touch on different parts of the conversation. Plus, merging them can turn a thread into a massive wall of text, and let's be real, super long posts can be a total pain to read. 😁

I actually once sent out a PM warning someone about "spamming" their posts, and afterward, I felt a little bit crazy for even doing it.

Maria Reyes4 said:How could it possibly get any worse than refusing to group posts together? 😕

To me, "spamming" individual posts is what actually counts as spam, and there's already a way to handle that.

Failing to use Multi-quote isn't spamming—it's just failing to use Multi-quote.

Excuse me, what!?😕

I don't think I quite grasp this whole concept of mass-producing posts. Is the objective really just to stifle users in their unbearable urge to inflate their post counts as much as possible?😕

Multi-quote

rustydrifter10 said:I didn't say that was a hard rule; it’s more just my own take on things, and the other moderators don't necessarily have to agree with me. In fact, looking around, it seems like plenty of people feel differently. Personally, I don't mind seeing a few posts in a row—honestly, merging them all feels like extra work for no reason. 😁 That said, I will step in and merge them if they’re clearly connected, like when someone is finishing a single thought across two posts, or sometimes if the posts are just incredibly brief.

When I first started out, I used to regularly merge posts from the same user because that was the official moderation guideline back then, but I eventually realized that, in my opinion, it often isn't the best way to go. Most of the time, those consecutive posts actually touch on different parts of the conversation. Plus, merging them can turn a thread into a massive wall of text, and let's be real, super long posts can be a total pain to read. 😁

I actually once sent out a PM warning someone about "spamming" their posts, and afterward, I felt a little bit crazy for even doing it.

That’s exactly why I threw a question mark at the end. 😁

It would be nice if the other moderators actually showed up—honestly, having to reach out to every single one individually is getting old.

Multi-quote

rustymason92 said:Excuse me, what!?😕

Which part isn't clear?

The rules state that spamming will result in a ban—so, let’s be clear, spamming is the actual issue here. It’s a total misconception that failing to use Multi-quote automatically qualifies as spamming posts.

If someone actually wants to start an argument, they should just head over to the Debate & Knowledge section and vent in the chat rooms.
How on earth do you expect to churn out any decent content when you're constantly interrupting such serious discussions!?😕🤷

Maria Reyes4 said:Multi-quote

That’s exactly why I threw a question mark at the end. 😁

It would be nice if the other moderators actually showed up—honestly, having to reach out to every single one individually is getting old.

Multi-quote

Which part isn't clear?

The rules state that spamming will result in a ban—so, let’s be clear, spamming is the actual issue here. It’s a total misconception that failing to use Multi-quote automatically qualifies as spamming posts.

If we follow that logic, then spamming is basically being treated like some kind of malicious criminal act—which is just absurd. I honestly don't get why anyone would ever do that on purpose. The only thing I get from my account is the opportunity to listen to every single idiot, once they run out of actual things to say, start spouting nonsense about how my profile proves I have no life and spend 24/7 on this forum. Or, optionally, that I’m using this site to cope with my real-life frustrations (which, as everyone here clearly knows, I don't actually have).

Maria Reyes4 said:How could it possibly get any worse than refusing to group posts together? 😕

To me, "spamming" individual posts is what actually counts as spam, and there's already a way to handle that.

Failing to use Multi-quote isn't spamming—it's just failing to use Multi-quote.

Exactly.

Maria Reyes4 said:Multi-quote

That’s exactly why I threw a question mark at the end. 😁

It would be nice if the other moderators actually showed up—honestly, having to reach out to every single one individually is getting old.

Multi-quote

Which part isn't clear?

The rules state that spamming will result in a ban—so, let’s be clear, spamming is the actual issue here. It’s a total misconception that failing to use Multi-quote automatically qualifies as spamming posts.

If you join a community as a newcomer and start posting and Quoting like crazy without learning the rules first, the moderators will link those actions together in a warning.
As for the long-time veterans, they also get chewed out for doing the same thing, even if their intentions aren't quite the same as the newcomers'. Sometimes, you'll see ten different people jump into a two-person discussion. You Quote one post and reply to it, but by the time you hit send, someone else has already replied to that same post. If you try to Quote again, you end up with two consecutive Quoting actions that aren't truly linked, even though they belong to the same thread. On a major site like Reddit, that wouldn't fly if it was noticed within a short window.
I am not entirely sure what the specific penalties are or if anyone has actually been banned for this exact reason, but I do know that receiving warnings feels incredibly bitter.😁
And honestly, sometimes that feels worse than any actual penalty.

And yes, I realize you already mentioned this in your opening post, but I felt compelled to say it too because it really bothers me.🙂
It’s much easier when there are two of us on the same page.😁

Multi-quote will stay, but banning or any other kind of punishment for not following the rules shouldn't happen unless someone gets a warning first and keeps ignoring it over and over again... ☕

I won't penalize anyone for failing to use Multi-quote or for combining posts. This forum has far too many rules 😁

Carl Sanchez40 said:Multi-quote will stay, but banning or any other kind of punishment for not following the rules shouldn't happen unless someone gets a warning first and keeps ignoring it over and over again... ☕

Why on earth would you penalize a user just because they sent two posts back-to-back? 😕

Is it because the second post they were replying to was published in that split second between them starting their reply and hitting "submit"?

Is it because they want to address one specific issue related to the main thread in one post, and then pivot to broader, related topics in a second one?

Or is it because they don't want a single massive wall of text containing quotes from ten different people, preferring instead to break their response into several logical segments?

If someone simply hasn't figured out how to use Multi-quote, the solution is easy: send them a private message with a link to the instructions.

If someone chooses not to use Multi-quote because they're busy trying to inflate their post count by spamming mindless one-liners, there’s no reason to merge those useless comments; you can just delete them.

If someone refuses to use Multi-quote because it doesn't suit their current needs, and they're being threatened for it, that feels like handing a man a hammer and then punishing him because he isn't using it. You gave him the tool. If he decides he doesn't need a hammer right now, that shouldn't be your problem. He has the hammer; he can use it if he wants to.

I'm with Nicholas King on this one. I’ve never been one to police "spamming," and honestly, there are times when I find myself dropping a few posts in a row myself... especially on threads like the mystery where you've got several different conversations happening all at once.

On the US forums I moderate (Health and its related sub-forums), I frequently merge consecutive posts from the same user.

My criteria for merging posts depend on two things: the length of the content and the timeframe between them. If combining two or more posts results in a single manageable entry and they were posted close together, I merge them regularly. I don't issue warnings or bans just for posting sequentially; however, if I notice someone is constantly flooding the board with one-sentence posts, I’ll send a private message asking them to consolidate.

Beyond simple spamming, what bothers me more—and I see this quite often on the Health boards, especially from newer users with low post counts—is when people blast identical messages across multiple different threads. In those instances, I delete the duplicates and leave only one original post. If the behavior persists, I follow up with a warning via PM.