I think it's a lot better to put all those replies in one reply, personally. I do find the style of posting you're describing as having a quashing effect on lower-volume posters.  But that's my personal take, not a Policy Take.

But like I've said, I think the better move is to have thread by thread ground rules, rather than a big bludgeon of a policy.

When I look at a thread and see 50% of it is by two posters, (for an example, look at the last 100 posts of the I Hate Susan thread. I don't see how "no no no no no" is any different than "irrelevant."  Plus, it is only vaguely about Susan at this point.) that is pontificating or lecturing, imho, not discussion.     So, as iago suggested, I am going to try to start over and see if we can do not only civil (which can honestly be cold and unwelcoming, no matter how civil it is) but genial.

I was going to let this go, but it's bugged me since I read it.  That is not paraphrasing what I said at all, that's taking what I said and flipping it 180⁰.  My whole point was if you don't want to stand in the corner at a party you have to jump into other peoples discussions.  And unless you are starting a thread you are going to have to jump in somewhere.  Never did I mean, or want it to sound like I was saying, that you should stand in the corner or start a new thread if you don't like it. 

From what I can tell, it's not a concern about someone being a chatterbox; it's about people using what could be considered 'bullying' techniques in order to steer a discussion the way they want to see it go.

I'm not saying that people are doing it deliberately, I'm just saying that it can be interpreted that way.

All fair points.  I'm just saying that it's reasonable to ask that people stop and consider what they're doing - not just their intent, but how it may be perceived.  Again, I'm not trying to say that people should 'never' multi-post or mega-post... just consider the state of the discussion and how those actions may (unintentionally, perhaps) fuel emotions.

I don't think the points are mutually exclusive...

In terms of multi-posting in general, where I've seen it become an issue is when a thread is really active.  You post one thought, and I start to respond, only to find when I hit "post" that you've posted another thought, which I now want to respond to as well.  It can inhibit 'conversation' that way... I hold off on responding until I think you've completed your thoughts.

Perhaps is not intentional, and perhaps some of us are just not as assertive in our approach.  Either way, it seems reasonable not to put the onus solely on those that feel excluded when multiposting is occurring... if you're in a situation where you're about to multi-post, consider whether it's a time when you can simply modify the existing post.

The issue I've seen with this, is that if you post while reading instead of waiting until you catch up, you don't know what else has been said about a particular subject or question.  You may end up multi-posting even when you're addressing a single topic or poster.

But if you don't want to stand in the corner by yourself all night that's what you have to do.  Unless someone starts a thread brand new, you kinda have to just jump right in there if you want to be part of the discussion.