I quite like the no double posting rule.
1. As it has been said before by Quin and a few others, it keeps the forums tidy. I know that members will have an inclination to not contribute to a thread if it's basically one person or a couple posting constantly. Without the rule, I think it just asks for spamalot to rear his ugly head.
2. It doesn't take two seconds to click 'Edit' on a post. I understand that there's the argument that some people won't read it or overlook it, but you can bring more attention to it by highlighting it some way. Double posting just seems kind of lazy?
a calm sea never made a skillful sailor | MILLIEGOESBEEP
Fair enough. I was coming at it from the perspective of having a clear and easy to understand rule about double posting for newer members. I do think something like no double posts except when bumping a thread with no activity after a reasonable amount of time may do the same job and be plenty clearer than some vague no spam rule or some such thing, but you are right that simply saying no double posting then having unwritten exceptions is no clearer and provides a lot of room for discussion and disagreement.
I realized sometime this morning that I didn't even really address where I stand on no double posts at all actually, instead focusing on the wording of the rule and how effective it is, which is pretty pointless when the real discussion is whether it's needed. The more I think about it the more I do believe, as you seem to, that it's a remnant of a bygone day when the user base was much younger on average and people actually cared about post counts. I do believe editing is preferable when you're returning with more thoughts shortly after making a post, but the thing the rule seems meant to protect against (spam and post count boosting) are probably non-issues now given our main user base and could be easily handled by a broader no spamming rule.2. Why is any given instance of a non-spam, non-duplicative double-post such a bad thing, anyway? Why is it always something a staff member has to bother editing? Most people here seem to accept it as an axiom, which is why I was curious to challenge it in this thread. The only remotely persuasive answer I see is aesthetics, and is it really that big of a deal if someone's sig appears two posts in a row? I understand a thread would look ridiculous if double-posting is taken to excess, but of course the staff would still step in then.
I really don't mind double-posting being verboten; If you want a thread bumped, ask someone to post in it so that you can update. If nobody's willing to bump it, chances are nobody will read your update anyways.
Just for the record, Bleys is the one who PM'd multiple people in the middle of the night because he was terrified at the thought of double-posting in his FFV thread, despite the fact that his last post was almost a full day earlier. So obviously he needs some therapy and medication before his perspective on this topic can be considered sane.
Two people. The two participants in that thread who were online at the time I sent the message.
I'd do it again, too. Even if it's allowed I am not a double-poster.