Yay, I was invited to the old and resurrected conversation! 
Probably because of my latest post there, right?
Do you recall exactly why the warning on multiple consecutive posts were created at first place?
Iâm glad for this. From what I read here maybe youâd love to see a good way to deal with this issue. Or maybe youâre just trying to dig an idea out of it.
I didnât realize the whole point for the warning was trying to prevent spam. Basically this is the issue or âthe problemâ I wasnât aware of. It looks like youâre trying to apply the just in time theory hoping you can reduce the number of such bad behaviors which, I suppose, you know it does happen a lot from some data youâve collected.
To me the problem was just about keeping the good flow of each separated conversation, which already happens if we reply in different posts. Nothing to do with writing bad content.
But, come to better think of it, it probably doesnât matter.
I still think this doesnât change a tiny bit my suggestion. The image I had in my head was not limited to the mockups Iâve done in the other topic. But while I think I understood better where you were coming from and I were trying again to explain it in a different way, as descriptive and explicit as I could, I decided to drop it (I left the point where I dropped under the edits, if you want to take a peek).
The current system already deals very well with all that stuff. Itâs a bit messy to follow each single message chain from many multiple sequential replies but itâs doable. Maybe my problem was I can easily think of a scenario where itâs so complicated anyone would give up on following it. But in reality I havenât seen such a scenario and maybe it doesnât exist in practice.