Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

[OnlyTheClouds]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

Dead threads die for a reason, and that's because nobody wants to talk about them anymore. If you just missed the thread, tough beans. Just wait a while then recreate another one; it's not going to go anywhere, and after the old one is forgotten you might have more interest in a second one. But if an old one is bumped, everyone is reminded of it and how the thread was over, but this one guy just had to get his post in.

But that was a list thread. No discussion involved, just post a list of something. Those threads are even banned at CAD because of how empty they are. Perfectly acceptable here, but by virtue of the type of thread that it was there's pretty much no way that it could legitimately be bumped.

So what you're saying is if no one posted in PYP, Guess That Movie, or Shopped for 3 or 4 weeks and then some one bumps it, you would lock it?
Of course you wouldn't. Those are high and mighty stickies.
I understand that a forum shouldn't be cluttered with stickies, it's tacky, but if so many people want to talk in a thread and keep it alive, then it's on the same level as PYP, Shopped, and Guess That Movie, it just won't fly because you don't want to sticky it. First come first serve type deal.
Bumping by posting a pic of their car? That's worthwhile in that particular thread. He did what the thread was intended for. If you want people to recreate threads, then all the people from the old thread will carry over all their information from that thread, and then be reminded of why it was dead from that. It's almost the same effect with a little lower chance. It's not worth it though because eventually you'll have 10 Post a Pic of Your Car threads and people would have to click through 10 different threads to reference people's cars.
Also, threads only die when they're locked. Bumping is just waking them up.

[TheRapingDragon]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

The way I see it, threads die for a reason. Bumping a three- or four-week old thread to get in what you neglected to do three or four weeks ago would keep a gazillion relatively dead threads on the front page of CC.

Perhaps the person was not here three or four weeks ago, has stumbled upon the thread, and would like to add something to the discussion. Perhaps someones' opinion has changed and they would like to post something different. Perhaps the thread relates to their life and now their life is changed. Multiple reasons to bump a thread legitimately.

I would MUCH rather see a thread recreated than see an old one bumped. That way, the original thread can be linked for reference to anyone who wants to see the responses of those who don't want to repost the same thing

So wait, any time someone wants to post a response to a thread, they should make a new thread about the same thing, then reference the old thread, then post their "reply" to that thread in a new thread. That doesn't make sense. If the post is a "reply" then it should be in the thread, not a completely new thread.

Also, if people referenced to the old thread then you would have people going "then why didn't you post it in there!".

but it doesn't have any of the "nice bump" posts.

This is just something people need to stop doing. For retarded bumps that you know are going to get locked it seems fine, but people are getting far too hung up on bumps, if it's a good bump and the thread is back on track then they should get back on topic, in fact the "nice bump" posts should be the ones getting the attention of the moderators. I know I have done this myself, but I am looking to the future now, these are my views now.

Another issue is the type of thread that's bumped. The problem with the thread you linked is that the bump doesn't stimulate discussion in the slightest. It gives no reason for the people who have already posted to go and post again.

Again I would ask you to look at my previous point, people change, that thread is a prime example. "Interesting things about yourself". I might have developed an interesting personality trait in the last 6 months and want to post it now in that thread, would you condemn me for bumping a thread to change what I wanted.

Posting the same thing would be stupid yes, but just look at the "First Names" thread to see that it doesn't just happen in bumped threads, sometimes you can't stop stupid people doing that.

This is why bumped threads in CT are more likely to live. Also because it's not the liveliest forum and almost any discussion is valuable. The very purpose of CT is to have threads that stimulate discussion.

That just seems bias on your part. A thread does not have to be "stimulating" in order to be bumped, it could be informational, interesting, relevant, it doesn't matter, it's still on topic and that person has every right to bump it so long as it isn't an obvious retarded bump.

When I consider the thread I locked, I think of a thread titled "Post a picture of your car". People post all their cars and then the thread dies. Three weeks later, somebody comes and posts their car. Whoopee. Does it further the point of the thread? Yes. Was the bump at all useful to anyone else? No,

With that thinking you are invalidating the thread as soon as it began, if you hav a problem with people bumping a thread to post their car, then you obviously had a problem with people originally posting a picture of their car, because it's the same thread. It's like the desktop thread, I have bumped that to post a new desktop, or whatnot, is that wrong? No, it isn't, it's perfectly fine. For you to say "oh you are saying "look at me" and this does not further the thread" is your opinion, but it does further the original point of the thread, which is to post your desktop.

If you don't like those threads you don't have to post in them, but try to be neutral in how you look at it.

Dead threads die for a reason, and that's because nobody wants to talk about them anymore. If you just missed the thread, tough beans. Just wait a while then recreate another one

I'm just repeating myself here, when people do that some people (myself included) go "why didn't you use the search function, it's there for a reason, this thread was already made". The thread should be bumped, not recreated.

But if an old one is bumped, everyone is reminded of it and how the thread was over, but this one guy just had to get his post in.

You are looking at it wrong Andy, you're seeing it as someone having to post whereas I see it as someone wanting to continue the discussion, as that is what it could do if the thread was left open. By all means if the thread does end up going off-track then lock it, but give it a chance.

It's already in the rules that it's okay to bump a thread if you have something worthwhile to contribute. Updates to news stories or historical accounts or a new way to look at a debate or something like that. Those are worthwhile.

No, the general rule seems to be "if you bump an old thread it will be locked", and you can't deny that. 9/10 times a bumped thread is locked, on topic or not.

But that was a list thread. No discussion involved, just post a list of something. Those threads are even banned at CAD because of how empty they are.

Actually I enjoyed the thread, as did others, even Tass unlocked it because he saw it as fine. Look Andy, not everyone at this forum is here for the same thing. Some people want discussions, some want stupid games, and others like threads like the one you locked, they find them interesting and they like seeing what others post. It is not in your judgement to decide what everyone must like.

Perfectly acceptable here. but by virtue of the type of thread that it was there's pretty much no way that it could legitimately be bumped.

It was bumped fine, you locked it out of the bias you have shown in this post.

I just have a stricter interpretation of what a worthwhile bump is.

Yes, and you force it on others it would seem. Which is not right.




Long post heh.

[wickedawesomeful]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

I completely agree with TRD. Worthwhile bumps should be allowed, instead of just being immediately locked for being bumps.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

Whoa, hang on, here. What you're asking for is a significant change to the rules themselves. As such, you really don't have any justification for complaining about my moderating, which is completely within the rules. Allow me to quote:

Bumping topics. If a topic has not been posted in for over 2 weeks, OR it is no longer on page 1 of whatever forum it's in, OR both, it is considered a "dead topic." Posting in it unnecessarily brings it to the top of the topic list and is forbidden.

And this isn't the U.S. Constitution so don't try to engage the staff in word battles about what means what. In the end, it's the decision of the staff how to interpret these rules.

You don't like the rule we have in place, so you attack my style of moderating? Thanks, I really appreciate that.

It's good that you bring this up when you do, though, as it can be something the staff discusses with regard to some new rules.

So wait, any time someone wants to post a response to a thread, they should make a new thread about the same thing, then reference the old thread, then post their "reply" to that thread in a new thread.

No, the thread should continue like any normal thread. If someone wants to point out that a similar thread existed, though, they (not the OP) could post the link for reference. Also note that I would expect a significant time gap (say, a month or so) between similar threads. Anyone can wait that long.

Also, if people referenced to the old thread then you would have people going "then why didn't you post it in there!".

That's practically postwhoring and would be regarded as such.

This is just something people need to stop doing. For retarded bumps that you know are going to get locked it seems fine, but people are getting far too hung up on bumps, if it's a good bump and the thread is back on track then they should get back on topic, in fact the "nice bump" posts should be the ones getting the attention of the moderators. I know I have done this myself, but I am looking to the future now, these are my views now.

QFT. I've had to post in a couple of threads lately about this. Talk about counterproductive.

No, the general rule seems to be "if you bump an old thread it will be locked", and you can't deny that. 9/10 times a bumped thread is locked, on topic or not.

See above-quoted rule. Also, I do realize that I was mistaken on my part with what I said earlier. Got my forums confused.

Yes, and you force it on others it would seem. Which is not right.

And that quote right there shows that you didn't read the rule on bumping threads. Again with attacking me and not the rule.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[TheRapingDragon]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

Whoa, hang on, here. What you're asking for is a significant change to the rules themselves.

Not really, I'm asking the staff in general (but this appears to have become about you somehow) to just think before locking a thread, no need to rush in and lock it. You showed a lot of bias in your last post concerning what you see as a good thread, and as such anything that doesn't pass your quality is locked. Such as seeing a thread about interesting things about yourself as not "stimulating". That is your own opinion, your own bias.

As such, you really don't have any justification for complaining about my moderating

I'm complaing about threads getting locked when they are still on-topic, you just happen to be the one locking the thread which I have highlighted.

Allow me to quote: *rules*

Posting in it unnecessarily brings it to the top of the topic list and is forbidden.

Key word is bolded. If the thread is bumped "unnecessarily" then yes, that is a stupid bump and is forbidden, but come on, show a hint of leniency, if the thread is bumped properly and discussion continues then that is not an unnecessary bump. It should not be forbidden to bump a topic necessarily.

You don't like the rule we have in place, so you attack my style of moderating? Thanks, I really appreciate that.

Again, relax man, I didn't attack you, I just said that you showed bias in your last post and it may have been the reason you locked threads or "are stricter" as you put it yourself. My main concern is the locking of threads when they are bumped properly and are still on-topic. Wouldn't matter if this was you, tass, ld, jason, whomever, I still would be bringing this up. I don't feel that I am doing anything wrong in discussing this?

If you feel I am attacking then apologies, I am not, so try not to take it that way.

It's good that you bring this up when you do, though, as it can be something the staff discusses with regard to some new rules.

That's at least something.

No, the thread should continue like any normal thread.

As in what? Take the thread we keep referencing (the interesting things one). If I made a new thread instead of bumping it I would have to call it "RE: interesting things" or something, and then in that thread I would post interesting things about myself. But why should I do that when the thread already exists, I should be able to bump it and put my reply in there, it makes more sense.

Also note that I would expect a significant time gap (say, a month or so) between similar threads.

Yet within that month you can't post in the "dead thread" or it will be locked, making no sense again, as I might forget about what I wanted to post if I am forced not only to not post in the relevent topic, but to wait a week (or however long to a month) and then post the same thread again anyway.

That's practically postwhoring and would be regarded as such.

We all do it at times purely because, as some people see it, you should be posting in the proper thread instead of making duplicates. Not speaking for everyone, just have a memory of seeing others saying the same thing as myself.

See above-quoted rule.

See above point regarding the rule.

Also, I do realize that I was mistaken on my part with what I said earlier. Got my forums confused.

No worries.

And that quote right there shows that you didn't read the rule on bumping threads. Again with attacking me and not the rule.

Again you take this upon yourself, you are not the only moderator on this site, I used that latest thread as an example. Seriously, calm down. You aren't the only one who has locked a thread on sight of it being bumped.

Again, I have read the rules, I have explained how I see the rule as put out.


Shorter this time, that's good.

[MixMasterLar]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

This may be a little off of what you two are saying, but maybe a good start is compleatly deleting threads over a year old unless it's 1) a sticky or 2) A legendary thread. Also, the rules that were quoted need changing/re-wording. I think a thread that is 5 weeks old should be a dead one, not just 2.

[TheRapingDragon]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

This may be a little off of what you two are saying, but maybe a good start is compleatly deleting threads over a year old unless it's 1) a sticky or 2) A legendary thread.

That sounds like a horrible idea if you ask me. I like the history FFR has, I like reading it even if it doesn't get bumped, I like finding things. I like knowing how former members posted (like Boris).

EDIT: Oh and again, referencing the thread in my original post. Look at it go, look at Jewp's post. That alone was worth the bump if you ask me, stuff like that. It's fun, and I see no wrong in it.

[Tasselfoot]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

old threads will never be deleted. synth dies every time even a POST is hard deleted.


all those awfully retarded posts/threads that get people permabanned are still visible to staff. NONE of them are hard deleted. all soft deleted and viewable if you have access.

like that thread where arch destroyed jurs and got himself banned for a year but was revoked after 3 weeks... that thread is awesome, and still viewable.

[TheRapingDragon]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

like that thread where arch destroyed jurs and got himself banned for a year but was revoked after 3 weeks... that thread is awesome, and still viewable.

You should be nice and PM me that entire thread =[.

Anyway, I would say I should get back on topic but I guess I need Guido to respond to my points before I can say anything more.

[MixMasterLar]

Re: Locking "old" threads (aimed at Moderators)

Very good point.

Still, if you locked year old threads then that get's what I was talking about done, and we can still read them. Just a thought, that's all. I agree mostly with Dragon, so this is my only idea that's not been said.