Dead Threads Rule

[The Reaver]

I have a suggestion for this particular rule.

In less-active forums such as Pokemon World and Canalave Library, there are often threads on the first page that are older than two weeks. Consequently, whenever someone posts in them to hopefully start a discussion, they're locked, even though they're on the first page.

As a result, I propose the following rule change:

From

Do not post in or "revive" dead threads
You may not post in a thread older than two weeks old, unless it is a stickied thread, your own trading thread, your own "My Player" thread, your own fanfic or your own shop in Celadon Mart. If you wish to revive any other thread legally, including your own clan or club, approach a (preferably active) moderator by PM requesting for permission. Violators will receive a warning.

to

Do not post in or "revive" dead threads
You may not post in a thread that is both older than two weeks old and not on the first page, unless it is a stickied thread, your own trading thread, your own "My Player" thread, your own fanfic or your own shop in Celadon Mart. If you wish to revive any other thread legally, including your own clan or club, approach a (preferably active) moderator by PM requesting for permission. Violators will receive a warning.

As you can see, this rule change allows for a lot more active discussion while still allowing threads to die.

Thanks!

 

[HenryP]

Seems like a good idea to keep threads moving and if the topic just stops and someone wants to start a new one

 

[Seth1789110]

This-could work, but idk. I mean, that would make for more discussion, and prevent n00bs from going like 8 pages back just to revive a thread lol. I could see this working.

 

[Noobnerd]

You can change the number of threads on the first page.

Anyway, if we state the number of threads that are "supposed" to be on the first page, i.e. 10 threads, this would be disastrous for active forums such as the Trading Corner and the Game Corner (eww).

 

[Limitless]

If people are providing extra, useful information to a thread, even if the thread has gone two weeks without a post, then we just let the thread remain unlocked. However, if the user just posted spam, then we will most likely lock the thread.

 

[Juliacoolo]

It's rare that a thread that is older than 2 weeks still has discussion left in it. I doubt people have things to say that are so Important in forums like pokemon world. Maybe change it to you may only revive if you have something important to add to the discussion.

 

[xxashxx]

How about if it drops past the 50 posts per page range and after it has been out of range and it has been 2 weeks THEN to just lock the thread after 2 weeks. If the author wishes to have it remain open then they can PM a mod to re-open the thread. That will help cut down on the spam here too.

 

[ArmaldoEX]

I believe that the "Dead Threads" rule should remain the same. If your thread (or anyone else's for that matter) doesn't get any posts in two weeks, it's simply because there's nothing more to discuss about. If your thread is that good and promotes lots of discussions, insights or opinions, then you won't have to worry about this rule.

Your suggestion of having threads that are not on the first page of threads is not the best idea, in my opinion at least. Imagine a one-year old thread staying on the first page of threads. "Oh sure, it's on the first page".

To keep it short, just remember - if your thread does not contain new posts for at least two weeks, it simply means that there is nothing more to dicuss about.

 

[gamercal]

There's also the fact that after a post a thread goes to page one anyhow, and nobody can tell where it was beforehand.

 

[ArmaldoEX]

There's also the fact that after a post a thread goes to page one anyhow, and nobody can tell where it was beforehand.

...Unless the next poster is smart enough to look at the dates, then it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[dmaster]

I believe that the "Dead Threads" rule should remain the same. If your thread (or anyone else's for that matter) doesn't get any posts in two weeks, it's simply because there's nothing more to discuss about. If your thread is that good and promotes lots of discussions, insights or opinions, then you won't have to worry about this rule.

I agree with this more than the rule we're implementing now. It's too much opinion to say if it has "enough" discussion to leave it open and just creates too many problems.

dmaster out.

 

[Shining Raikou]

Here's the problem. Too often thread locking is used the wrong way in my opinion. Locking threads should not be used to kill a good/decent discussion topic. I've seen forums where topics are allowed to remain open as long as no rule breaking/spam is going on, there is no such "two weeks" rule. I think if a topic can still be contributed to (new developments, or something to add), then people should be allowed to do so. If they spam, it's spam, we warn them for it. As long as a discussion topic can added to, I think members should be allowed to do so. Some may argue that a discussion is already dead if no one has posted in two weeks. Well, not to the member who joined a couple days ago and just found the thread.

 

[MylesProwr]

I feel as if it would be better to just keep the flexibility. Keep the rule the same, but if it is a great topic and a great post that will keep the discussion going further, then let it live. The 'first page' thing will be a disaster. People have different threads per page, threads will move around, especially in the really active forums... That's just too technical. Bound for failure.

The rule itself doesn't need to change, but being flexible and sensible with the rule will fix it.

 

[gamercal]

...Unless the next poster is smart enough to look at the dates, then it wouldn't be a problem.

You misinterpret. If a thread is on page 2, and it is posted in, it is no longer on page 2. Who are we to say THEN whether or not it was on page 2 to start with?

 

[ArmaldoEX]

You misinterpret. If a thread is on page 2, and it is posted in, it is no longer on page 2. Who are we to say THEN whether or not it was on page 2 to start with?

I see what you mean now. Well, this contributes more to the "keep the rules the same" arguement.

Like I've mentioned, it's pretty simple, if there's nothing else to discuss, then the thread will be dead. Apart from new developments and if after the revival of the thread, the topic continues to be discussed, anyway.

 

[Gale]

You guys also know that you can request for a thread to be unlocked if you have something else to add to it. ...right?

As Cal said, we don't know what threads are on what page, and it's just too difficult to keep track of. This has been a very controversial rule for a while, but it's simple.

If the thread is deemed by a moderator to not provide suitable diffusional value, it will be locked.

If a member posts in a topic that has not been posted in for fourteen or more days without contributing to the discussion going on in the thread, it will be locked. Actually, scratch that. Even if they do contribute to the discussion, it will still be locked in cases depending on in what way they contribute, or if there's obviously nothing else to talk about.

If the original poster of the thread has their thread locked but wants it back because they might want to start it up again (this goes for Clans, Shops, whatever), it will most likely be reopened, depending on how the moderator feels about it and how strong of a case the original poster makes.

Not hard.

 

[xxashxx]

I feel as if it would be better to just keep the flexibility. Keep the rule the same, but if it is a great topic and a great post that will keep the discussion going further, then let it live. The 'first page' thing will be a disaster. People have different threads per page, threads will move around, especially in the really active forums... That's just too technical. Bound for failure.

The rule itself doesn't need to change, but being flexible and sensible with the rule will fix it.

I agree because there are so many posts in one day some threads get bumped down quickly. I also agree with SR's post too because I have found good thread that have been locked and I have wanted to post but I can't because the thread is lock. How about a month rule for these threads that way itwould give members more time to post?

 

[cApNhOwDy]

Definitely agree with OP

 

[The Reaver]

If the original poster of the thread has their thread locked but wants it back because they might want to start it up again (this goes for Clans, Shops, whatever), it will most likely be reopened, depending on how the moderator feels about it and how strong of a case the original poster makes.

Not hard.

Actually, I haven't had any of my threads locked or anything of the sort. The reason for my posting this was that this thread was locked after being two weeks old, even though it was one of the first threads on the first page. There wasn't much activity in this forum, so it seemed a bit weird that the mods would begin to lock threads in a forum where activity was actually needed.

I feel as if it would be better to just keep the flexibility. Keep the rule the same, but if it is a great topic and a great post that will keep the discussion going further, then let it live. The 'first page' thing will be a disaster. People have different threads per page, threads will move around, especially in the really active forums... That's just too technical. Bound for failure.

The first page rule is used on another forum that I frequent to success, actually. It's a lot easier to use than it sounds, especially when the forum in question is active. If an unrecognizable thread suddenly crops up with a large amount of posts, mods check the date and lock it if it was bumped. I dunno about you guys here, but I tend to remember, if only vaguely, which threads were on the first page in a forum that I visit often.

On the flip side, I do like this idea better. I just felt that it wasn't explained enough in the rules, which simply say that a thread WILL be locked if it was posted in without moderator permission. Why not just say that the thread will be locked if the new post doesn't contribute enough to the thread? =/

 

[Gale]

I didn't mean you specifically, I meant the original poster of the thread in question. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Also, if we change the rule to "the thread will be locked if the new post doesn't contribute enough to the thread", then it's completely opinionated. How much is "enough", really? It will have to go into way more detail than that, such as explain what would be "enough" and such.