Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
BobTheMonkey

Contributing to old threads.

Recommended Posts

So before this all gets out of hand I guess u should "start my own thread" rather then contribute to old ones. What is the deal? Why are you closing old threads I contribute to. Why is it such a problem for you all to use the "search" function and contribute to a thread rather then create 27 threads on the same topic?

 

All I can think of right now is that we are dealing with goldfish, oh look new thread Nom Nom Nom .. Oh look new thread Nom Nom Nom..

 

Do you really gave such a problem with people contributing to threads not on the front page? And what is acceptable ? Week, month, year, decade?

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't...........................................................................

.........Poke......................................................The...........

...........................................................Bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use common sense, or ask a moderator first.

 

If it's been 3 months without a reply, and you decide to add something trivial, then you probably shouldn't bump it. Six months, you better have something pretty darn compelling to add, otherwise start a new thread. Older than that and unless it's a sticky or other reference thread, it's highly unlikely that it should be bumped at all.

 

It's not hard to start a new thread and then link to the old one.

 

The reason we ask this is because:

 

a) Many contributors of the older thread may not visit the forum any more, or they're unavailable to comment. This doesn't facilitate good discussion, and is akin to talking to a brick wall.

b) People's opinions change, so it's difficult to have a good discussion when much of the thread's content no longer applies.

c) New facts, figures, world events etc. occur that may completely invalidate the original discussion

 

I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons that I've glossed over. In the end, it's pretty darn easy to avoid the drama and start a new thread.

Edited by .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this is a rule why is it not part of the FAQ?

 

It's not like I dig up old threads just for shits and giggles, I just don't see any point in have 27 threads about should I wax or shave?

 

But if it means that much to the mods that we don't bring up old threads older then 3 months then make it a rule simple.

Edited by BobTheMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my PMs again. We don't set hard and fast rules because they leave no room for exception. There are times where bumping a thread may be warranted. It's an 'unwritten law' that's enforced widely online, and a factor of common sense.

 

The main issue here isn't the fact that you bumped the thread, but the way you reacted when asked not to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this is a rule why is it not part of the FAQ?

 

It's not like I dig up old threads just for shits and giggles, I just don't see any point in have 27 threads about should I wax or shave?

 

But if it means that much to the mods that we don't bring up old threads older then 3 months then make it a rule simple.

Right. So why react so stupidly when asked not to. I even gave you a reason for it when asked.

 

Seriously Bob, the ego and the door please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this is a rule why is it not part of the FAQ?

 

It's not like I dig up old threads just for shits and giggles, I just don't see any point in have 27 threads about should I wax or shave?

 

But if it means that much to the mods that we don't bring up old threads older then 3 months then make it a rule simple.

Right. So why react so stupidly when asked not to. I even gave you a reason for it when asked.

 

Seriously Bob, the ego and the door please.

 

It's your opinion that I reacated stupidly and I respect that. In my opinion I replied to threads with relivent context and got shut down with no explanation of "you should know better" ... No where is this un written law written. How can one resonantly expect to know what your rules are ifall you do is close a thread with no explanation.

 

All you needed to say is this thread is 3+ months old don't bump it. If that is your rules.

 

If your going to enforce rules and laws only the mods know about how about you make it clear when and what your enforcin, and to whomever your enforcing it on.

 

Also maybe keep the personal attacks out of it.

Edited by BobTheMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's your opinion that I reacated stupidly and I respect that. In my opinion I replied to threads with relivent context and got shut down with no explanation of "you should know better" ... No where is this un written law written. How can one resonantly expect to know what your rules are ifall you do is close a thread with no explanation.

You asked me via PM, I gave it to you. You didn't like it apparently.

 

All you needed to say is this thread is 3+ months old don't bump it. If that is your rules.

Why, when you have been told now a few times that there isn't an exact time frame for old threads. Sheesh - the one I locked had at least two people who were posting in it who aren't around any more. Like I said, start a new thread and put some effort into the OP as opposed to just an opinion which may get a discussion going. Instead, you posted it like a petulant child.

 

I am not sure who you are trying to convince here Bob. Quite honestly, I have every right to shut down this thread too due to you getting your nose out of joint over a moderator's decision.

 

If your going to enforce rules and laws only the mods know about how about you make it clear when and what your enforcin, and to whomever your enforcing it on.

 

Also maybe keep the personal attacks out of it.

You are right - I'll raise it with the rest of the team about getting it written in stone that it's better to start a new thread than to bump an old one as you have clearly demonstrated that while it's never been needed before, there will be people who can't simply take it at face value at the request of a moderator.

 

It's difficult not to call actions as childish when they seem to appear so Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since our reasoning will never satisfy you, I'll ask a question. What do you expect to achieve by arguing?

Forever lol'ing at the fact that you think this is some kind of argument.

 

- discussion [closed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't know what went on in PMs - and I don't know which threads are in question here (or the content of them) - but I would like to answer a couple of the posts and respond to the content of the OP.

 

... It's an 'unwritten law' that's enforced widely online, and a factor of common sense.

 

...

Yeah, and it's also one of the dumbest 'laws' on line. Thread "necromancy".

And yet how often do you see new posters being berated for 'beating a dead horse', bringing up a discussion that has been discussed 1000 times already, etc etc.

"If you had bothered to do a search..." they say... I even have a STEAM forum flash vid telling people to do a search and add to an old thread! And how often do people even post links to old threads? (I do - lots)

Yet somewhere, someone decided this was "necromancy'. I have even seen people get Mod warnings for it... ironically... often on the same forums that routinely issue warnings and bans for spam...

 

 

a) Many contributors of the older thread may not visit the forum any more, or they're unavailable to comment. This doesn't facilitate good discussion, and is akin to talking to a brick wall.

b) People's opinions change, so it's difficult to have a good discussion when much of the thread's content no longer applies.

c) New facts, figures, world events etc. occur that may completely invalidate the original discussion

 

I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons that I've glossed over. In the end, it's pretty darn easy to avoid the drama and start a new thread.

It's forum snobbery... at least if you look around the internet that's what 99% of it really is if you look closely.

 

"How DARE YOU stick you nose into OUR discussion? You weren't here! We were here before you!

And don't you dare point out that we have changed our point of view...

...because were WRONG maybe? Or perhaps we are being hypocrites now?. You snooty little noobie upstart! Banz him! BANZ HIM I SAYZ!"

 

Not talking about Atomic here... that's the jist of it mostly.

And it's backed up by this 'culture' and 'laws' we seem to be creating to govern our 'online society'.

It's not a good thing if you think about it.

And next up cue the poster who tells me "the internet is not a nice place... it doesn't have to be... if you don't like it STFU and go do something else..."

Which again is part of the culture of the place.

 

So, what do you do?

Go with it?

If you do, doesn't that make you part of the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forever lol'ing at the fact that you think this is some kind of argument.

 

- discussion [closed]

I'll rephrase:

 

What do you expect to achieve?

Edited by .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a recollection that there is a number of cases where this has occurred before. Can't name them specifically, and none had this level of ...tempter tantrum... that resulted. Subsequently, I've previously wondered why its not included in the FAQ. Most people get the idea, sure, and would pick it up after Ticks fairly straightforward lock, but for such a simple addition to the FAQ, it seems illogical not to add it and remove all doubt.

 

The 'leaves no room for exception' line is crap. If you've left no room for exception when you wanted it, then you have written it wrong. You can start by adding it to the housekeeping items and not the bad or very bad things. For example:

 

A few housekeeping items

 

Bumping old threads

While we don't have a rule regarding the bumping of old threads (>3 months), we ask that you only do so if you have something to add that requires the previous discussion in order to make sense. Bumping an old thread to simply add your opinion or ask a question can cause confusion amongst current forum members, be time consuming for new people to read through and may not elicit a response given some members may no longer be active on the forums. You are welcome and encouraged to start a new thread, linking to and/or quoting from the old one if you wish to continue discussing specific aspects of the topic. If in doubt about bumping, you can always ask one of the friendly forum moderators.

 

Probably a bit long winded, but that's the level of detail I personally work at. We have some quirky ways of running the forums that can seem strange to newcomers and result in additional work for moderators. 10 minutes of work and chances are you'd never have had to deal with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't know what went on in PMs - and I don't know which threads are in question here (or the content of them) - but I would like to answer a couple of the posts and respond to the content of the OP.

 

... It's an 'unwritten law' that's enforced widely online, and a factor of common sense.

 

...

Yeah, and it's also one of the dumbest 'laws' on line. Thread "necromancy".

And yet how often do you see new posters being berated for 'beating a dead horse', bringing up a discussion that has been discussed 1000 times already, etc etc.

 

You know why moderators and users say that? Because their question has already been extensively discussed and solved. They expect the user to search for existing threads and read them because the solution has already been documented. A problem thread is different to a discussion thread.

 

"If you had bothered to do a search..." they say... I even have a STEAM forum flash vid telling people to do a search and add to an old thread! And how often do people even post links to old threads? (I do - lots)

Yet somewhere, someone decided this was "necromancy'. I have even seen people get Mod warnings for it... ironically... often on the same forums that routinely issue warnings and bans for spam...

Steam is a high traffic site where you get reposts within hours, not months or years. A larger focus on tackling these duplicate discussions is placed because it's crucial for them to balance the signal/noise ratio.

 

a) Many contributors of the older thread may not visit the forum any more, or they're unavailable to comment. This doesn't facilitate good discussion, and is akin to talking to a brick wall.

b) People's opinions change, so it's difficult to have a good discussion when much of the thread's content no longer applies.

c) New facts, figures, world events etc. occur that may completely invalidate the original discussion

 

I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons that I've glossed over. In the end, it's pretty darn easy to avoid the drama and start a new thread.

It's forum snobbery... at least if you look around the internet that's what 99% of it really is if you look closely.

 

"How DARE YOU stick you nose into OUR discussion? You weren't here! We were here before you!

And don't you dare point out that we have changed our point of view...

...because were WRONG maybe? Or perhaps we are being hypocrites now?. You snooty little noobie upstart! Banz him! BANZ HIM I SAYZ!"

 

I think you misinterpreted my points. It's not about snobbing those who were not originally part of the discussion at all. Heck, in this case, the person bumping it was part of the original discussion.

 

I'd argue that bumping the old thread does more to harm the introduction of 'fresh blood' into the discussion, because they feel obliged to sift through the older posts before commenting, which is off-putting enough without the realisation that you're reading dated posts.

 

Not talking about Atomic here... that's the jist of it mostly.

And it's backed up by this 'culture' and 'laws' we seem to be creating to govern our 'online society'.

It's not a good thing if you think about it.

And next up cue the poster who tells me "the internet is not a nice place... it doesn't have to be... if you don't like it STFU and go do something else..."

Which again is part of the culture of the place.

 

So, what do you do?

Go with it?

If you do, doesn't that make you part of the problem?

Your argument is based on the opinion that the culture is flawed. I personally don't see the flaw, thus I cannot agree that there's a problem to fix. It comes down to whether starting a new thread is too much effort. If it is, then you probably don't have anything noteworthy to say - there's always Twitter if you need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't wear pants ;)

 

That's a contribution worthy of bumping an old thread?

 

I call troll.

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying "starting a thread is to much effort" there is more effort involved in searching for a topic, reading the threads and posting a reply. You also say that people who reply to an old thread makes it to much effort for others to read the thread! I think posting new threads is far less effort for everyone and it's created a lazy repetitive boring culture.

 

Also if the rules change does it mean I nolonger get banned? I mean I started this revolution and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a recollection that there is a number of cases where this has occurred before. Can't name them specifically, and none had this level of ...tempter tantrum... that resulted. Subsequently, I've previously wondered why its not included in the FAQ. Most people get the idea, sure, and would pick it up after Ticks fairly straightforward lock, but for such a simple addition to the FAQ, it seems illogical not to add it and remove all doubt.

 

The 'leaves no room for exception' line is crap. If you've left no room for exception when you wanted it, then you have written it wrong. You can start by adding it to the housekeeping items and not the bad or very bad things. For example:

 

A few housekeeping items

 

Bumping old threads

While we don't have a rule regarding the bumping of old threads (>3 months), we ask that you only do so if you have something to add that requires the previous discussion in order to make sense. Bumping an old thread to simply add your opinion or ask a question can cause confusion amongst current forum members, be time consuming for new people to read through and may not elicit a response given some members may no longer be active on the forums. You are welcome and encouraged to start a new thread, linking to and/or quoting from the old one if you wish to continue discussing specific aspects of the topic. If in doubt about bumping, you can always ask one of the friendly forum moderators.

 

Probably a bit long winded, but that's the level of detail I personally work at. We have some quirky ways of running the forums that can seem strange to newcomers and result in additional work for moderators. 10 minutes of work and chances are you'd never have had to deal with this.

I have to agree with Cummings on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that IPB have a timer you can set on threads, so they get locked after 'x' amount of time with no replies?

 

 

Sure, there is 'no set time', but i've never seen a thread get bumped and the bumpee not get raped over it.

 

 

 

Just man the fuck up and put on a 3 or 6 month time limit on threads. Don't reply in that time, can't reply after that time. It removes ANY grey area, which is the ONLY thing that really gets people worked up around here. IF there are hard and fast rules then there is no grey area for people to bitch about with a certain mod(and by certain mod, i don't mean any particular mod :P) decides to come down on the bumpee with an iron fist.

 

 

 

It really isn't rocket science guys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*In no way am i agreeing with, or disagreeing with the OP, i am simply (re)stating my opinion that has already been said on this topic by other posts in the past, who have had exactly the same issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bollocks.

 

It should only be locked* if it's spam/trolling/derailing/people looking for obvious +1s to up their postcount.

 

I thought we got over this drama when we moved to v3 and did away with the 'bumped' tag that got people so upset.

 

 

*if after deleting a post or two, it keeps up.

Edited by Nich...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying "starting a thread is to much effort" there is more effort involved in searching for a topic, reading the threads and posting a reply. You also say that people who reply to an old thread makes it to much effort for others to read the thread! I think posting new threads is far less effort for everyone and it's created a lazy repetitive boring culture.

 

Also if the rules change does it mean I nolonger get banned? I mean I started this revolution and all.

Well that's kinda the whole point. You went to the effort to look for and read the existing discussion, but then the effort of an extra couple of clicks to produce a new thread warrants a backlash?

 

My point wasn't that posting to older threads makes it hard for others to read it, it's that it gives them less of an incentive to contribute. Wading through dated posts trying to get a sense of who's actually actively contributing, who's still available on the forum at all, and whether the thread is still relevant is hardly enticing. I don't believe producing new threads has created a "lazy repetitive boring culture" at all. Threads are like real life conversations - they happen in the moment. The advantage here is that we have a permanent record that can be referred to if need be.

 

I'm also amused that you've been going around mentioning the prospect of 'banning'. The moderators haven't even so much as mentioned it, so I'm not sure why you've gone and built yourself a cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that IPB have a timer you can set on threads, so they get locked after 'x' amount of time with no replies?

 

Sure, there is 'no set time', but i've never seen a thread get bumped and the bumpee not get raped over it.

 

Just man the fuck up and put on a 3 or 6 month time limit on threads. Don't reply in that time, can't reply after that time. It removes ANY grey area, which is the ONLY thing that really gets people worked up around here. IF there are hard and fast rules then there is no grey area for people to bitch about with a certain mod(and by certain mod, i don't mean any particular mod :P) decides to come down on the bumpee with an iron fist.

 

It really isn't rocket science guys.

 

*In no way am i agreeing with, or disagreeing with the OP, i am simply (re)stating my opinion that has already been said on this topic by other posts in the past, who have had exactly the same issue.

It's not that clear cut. What happens to the sticky threads are open indefinitely? What about threads that aren't discussions in nature like "What are you listening to?" Bumping that would normally be perfectly fine.

 

I think that adding a general note in the FAQ would be enough. The whole kerfuffle here was a product of the retaliation rather than the rule. I personally don't think it warrants an automatic locking mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×