# Rate-limit first-responders in specific categories
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/rate-limit-first-responders-in-specific-categories/99555
**Category:** Feature
**Created:** [10월 15, 2018, 3:42오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/rate-limit-first-responders-in-specific-categories/99555 "2018-10-15T15:42:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@erlend\_sh](https://meta.discourse.org/u/erlend_sh)
#### Post date: [10월 15, 2018, 3:42오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/rate-limit-first-responders-in-specific-categories/99555/1 "2018-10-15T15:42:39Z")
Continuing the discussion from [Thoughts from the Elm community on Intentional Communication](https://meta.discourse.org/t/thoughts-from-the-elm-community-on-intentional-communication/99332/2) and [“The Hard Parts of Open Source”](https://youtu.be/o_4EX4dPppA?t=2698):
> [@Thoughts from the Elm community on Intentional Communication](https://meta.discourse.org/t/thoughts-from-the-elm-community-on-intentional-communication/99332/2):
>
> The **Rate Limits** part shared above is based on experiences from our Discourse instance where we definitely have some posters that crowd out other perspectives with their speed and volume.
Very interested to hear similar stories from other communities and how you did or couldn’t address them. All I know for sure is that this would have to be category-specific because in a category like our #Support there’s very little wrong with being a frequent first-responder.
---
### Author:  [@robmc](https://meta.discourse.org/u/robmc)
#### Post date: [10월 15, 2018, 4:05오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/rate-limit-first-responders-in-specific-categories/99555/2 "2018-10-15T16:05:21Z")
I faced this in a community I managed. This was a community for experts and novices and we found that “experts” were more willing to respond with confidence, so any topic that was started would fairly quickly accumulate comments from this specific sub-group and not necessarily give space for new participants.
We tried creating topics that would encourage new, less expert, members to participate, but there was no way to stop the well-meaning experts from getting involved, so our less confident members continued to read, but not post.
We tried adding new members to a “hidden” group that showed them certain topics that were not visible to all members, but ultimately this was confusing.
We also had a similar experience when having a conversation about the differences in attitude to our subject between the genders. It seems the male members were still a little too willing to offer their advice (even if intended to be positive and constructive).
A means to (temporarily or in a focused way) limit the rate of participation of a group in target areas could be a useful feature.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [10월 15, 2018, 6:53오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/rate-limit-first-responders-in-specific-categories/99555/3 "2018-10-15T18:53:00Z")
This one is very tricky.
I completely understand and agree with the concern but it is hard to come up with rules that work here which would not have other unintended consequences.
---
### Author:  [@evancz](https://meta.discourse.org/u/evancz)
#### Post date: [10월 17, 2018, 3:59오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/rate-limit-first-responders-in-specific-categories/99555/4 "2018-10-17T15:59:38Z")
Perhaps “rate limits” could be a moderation tool, an addition to the more extreme ban and timeout tools.
If the setup was “they can post N times per T”, it is possible to run out partway through a constructive interaction. I think “conversation flows” would improve the dynamics here. “Can participate in N conversation flows per T” is an interesting rule because now you cannot run out partway through, _and_ those conversations are naturally gated by the participation of the conversation partner.
**So I’d propose it as a moderation tool.** If it proves itself in practice, I’d consider expanding it to a voluntary option for folks who want to reduce their use of the internet. (With so many companies designing for addiction, I personally think websites should give you tools to use them less!) If that is good, then there’d be a lot more data to consider a broader application.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [10월 17, 2018, 10:53오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/rate-limit-first-responders-in-specific-categories/99555/5 "2018-10-17T22:53:51Z")
One thing you can do (and I’ve done multiple times here on meta in the past) is lock certain users to trust level 0, which has fairly strict rate limits on how often people can post. That puts them in the “I want minimum levels of participation from this person” box.
Putting a specific _topic_ in lockdown mode is something that has been discussed before and I tend to agree is correct, because some topics are farrrrr more controversial than others by their nature. See
> [@Post Rate Limit Trigger for a topic that's heating up](https://meta.discourse.org/t/post-rate-limit-trigger-for-a-topic-thats-heating-up/98294):
>
> Generally, our users are well behaved, but when we get into certain topics, little flame wars crop up on very sensitive issues that do actually need to be worked out. We can moderate them and flag them and work through the behavior, but by the time that’s happened, we’ve lost the positive momentum that was in the topic to begin with. The issues at hand are also very complex and hard to tell if someone is giving legitimate critique or is being unfair. What the moderators need is more time to rea…
I would like to see this happen automatically though (kind of the way we execute a timed close on topics with too many live unhandled flags) because otherwise we’re heaping a bunch more emotional labor on staff to somehow know when topics are heating up and take manual action.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [10월 17, 2018, 11:15오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/rate-limit-first-responders-in-specific-categories/99555/6 "2018-10-17T23:15:45Z")
Also, just wanted to point out other discussion rate limits in Discourse that kick in, depending on thresholds in site settings
### Pop-up reminders for all users
- Replying to the same topic too much (dominating the conversation)
- Replying to the same person in the same topic too much (get a room)
- Multiple sequential replies
### Limits for all users
- Max 20 new topics per day
### Specific to new (trust level 0) users only
- can’t reply to the same topic more than 3 times until another not-new user replies to them first
- must wait 120 seconds after creating a topic before creating another new topic
- must wait 30 seconds after posting before creating another post
### Specific to users in their first day after posting for the first time, regardless of trust level
- can only create a maximum of 3 topics
- can only create a maximum of 10 replies
* * *
One thing that has been discussed is [a limit on the number of sequential replies a person can make to a topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/allow-only-x-consecutive-replies-in-the-same-topic/69756), and I definitely support that, but I also think a limit on _length_ is necessary to go along with it – otherwise you could keep editing your last reply to make it longer and longer.
Or for that matter only reply 3 times, but each reply is 10,000 words..