It makes no sense to refer to current TOS and saying that they are following guidelines, because I am suggesting that the guidelines be changed.
And again, regarding "discouraging" data posts, you have not provided any rationale, let alone a convincing one, that such posters would be "discouraged" by confining their posts to one thread per year per board (one thread for each such poster).
And as far as the subjects of the data not being related but merely having some of their vital data fall under a classification like obits or grave data, that is *precisely* how both printed and digital collections are organized, i.e. by type of data, with researchers perusing such works for data that interests them, *regardless* of whether all the individuals whose data is contained in a work are actually related or not.
As for difficulties in viewing long threads for admins, that is a consideration but not the only one here. And perhaps the fact that you admin so many boards is part of the problem you have. As to your feeling obligated to read each and every post in a board you admin, I suspect that is an overly zealous interpretation, especially for an unpaid volunteer. And if admins do actually read each and every post, then there is no reason for the "report abuse" option is there?
I am trying to propose a solution that accommodates everyone, while you keep pushing the status quo as perfect and your own personal preferences, both as a user and admin.
One final word regarding your bogus "discourage" assertions. I would think that the vast majority of volunteers who would like to contribute data for the benefit of their fellow researchers would be thrilled to be given a dedicated thread in every board of interest, where they could post their data free of charge and with the likelihood their contributions would be available for a long time to come.