Dead Threads Rule

[The Reaver]

It wouldn't have to be detailed. Moderator discretion is always used to determine contribution to a thread.
(http://www.pokebeach.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=66447&pid=1346482#pid1346482 )

 

[Gale]

It wouldn't have to be detailed. Moderator discretion is always used to determine contribution to a thread.
(http://www.pokebeach.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=66447&pid=1346482#pid1346482 )

It would help the poster know what would be considered good contribution. The rules aren't for the moderators anyway.

 

[The Reaver]

It would help the poster know what would be considered good contribution. The rules aren't for the moderators anyway.

...don't the mods reference the rules to determine if a person is breaking one? Aren't they a part of the mod's job lol?

The rule wouldn't have to be phrased like that. It could be something like this:

Do not post in or "revive" dead threads
Do 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, or you have a positive and informative contribution to the thread.

 

[Gale]

If the moderator is a moderator they should generally know the rules. I don't know if they necessarily reference them, but I assume they do. The rules are for the members to read and understand above all else.

But that's beside the point. Once again, many things can be considered "positive contribution" to a thread, but that doesn't necessarily mean the thread should still stay open. It all depends on what the thread's original purpose was, what the post contains, etc. That's where the detail in the rules comes in.

 

[Noobnerd]

I'm fine either way really, but a rewording of the rules will have to wait, the mods are busy.

But I still don't understand your first page concept. As I stated earlier, it's possible to use the User CP to change the number of threads that can be displayed on the first page. Therefore each member will have a different idea of what the first page revive rule is.

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.

I don't think the guys here don't remember the threads that are on the first page. Moreover, it would be too troublesome to assign individual mods to each forum so that they can keep track of what threads are "recent" and not unrecognisable. There are more important tasks for the mods to do than to check on what threads are new.

 

[xxashxx]

I'm fine either way really, but a rewording of the rules will have to wait, the mods are busy.

But I still don't understand your first page concept. As I stated earlier, it's possible to use the User CP to change the number of threads that can be displayed on the first page. Therefore each member will have a different idea of what the first page revive rule is.I don't think the guys here don't remember the threads that are on the first page. Moreover, it would be too troublesome to assign individual mods to each forum so that they can keep track of what threads are "recent" and not unrecognisable. There are more important tasks for the mods to do than to check on what threads are new.

Could you talk to the other mods to see what will work best? I don't see why we can leave the better threads for one month rather than 2 weeks and just locked the thread if someone spammed to bump it or revive it. As long as it has a decent discussion to t it should either be left alone for one month or just left alone period and just concentrate on locking spam threads instead. Do you guys have a thread check that scans thread and if it is an old thread then the scanner would just lock the thread by scanning through the thread? That would work if there is such thing as a thread scanner for admins and mods to use.

 

[ArmaldoEX]

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'll just repeat that. If you think you can post something in a locked, dead threads, and that post can spark some discussion, then just PM a Mod. It's pretty simple actually. Again, we don't have too many threads posted on average, therefore, the one page rule would be quite ineffective, in my opinion.

 

[xxashxx]

We have members posting here way to often to lock a thread that falls onto the 2nd page. Say you made a thread then it gets bumped down 60 minutes later to the next page and then it gets locked by a mod. Wouldn't you be upset because a mod locked it and it was just made 1 hour from the time it was posted? I would and If that happens then we would be PM'ing mods right and left to unlock threads that were basically made. Bad idea for the one page rule.

 

[bacon]

Note that if someone wants to talk about a topic that's in a dead thread, they can also simply make a new thread instead.

 

[xxashxx]

Note that if someone wants to talk about a topic that's in a dead thread, they can also simply make a new thread instead.

That would be a waste of forum space XD so we should lengthen the revival time for decent topics but leave the rest for 2 weeks. It would be much easier to maintain if it was done this way too.

 

[Zyflair]

2 weeks mean it's inactive, regardless of whether it's good or not.

 

[xxashxx]

2 weeks mean it's inactive, regardless of whether it's good or not.

Remember we have to give new members a chance to post also. What if a member joins and wants to post something worthwhile and they can't because it just died? We have to give some leeway at least so a month on those threads would be better than 2 weeks. I don't know if you were a member when it was one month for everything and for those threads that did help and we had decent discussions most of the time but we did have a higher number of spam back the. How about this? If a thread is more than 2 weeks old and it id revived then a mod can deem that post spam or worthwhile and if that post is indeed spam then they can go ahead and lock the thread. On the other hand if the post is worthwhile then go ahead and leave it for 2 more weeks. That would be much easier than locking everytime a thread is 2 weeks old or more.

 

[ArmaldoEX]

If a new member wants to post in that particular "dead" thread, all they have to do is simply either make a new thread, or PM a Mod to unlock it. It's that simple. But with unlocking the thread or making a new thread comes with a risk. If there is no discussion prior to the unlocking/creating a new thread, then that thread is confirmed going to be locked.

Remember, if there are no posts in 2 weeks, it simply means that there is nothing else to be added, unless new developments take place.

 

[xxashxx]

Remember though if a new thread is made it eats up uneccessary space that could have been added to the dea thread. The goal is to keep the least amount of thread without making new threads for something that can be added to the dead thread if it is worthwhile to add to the thread. The more threads means more bandwidth which is what WPM pays for out of his own pocket I might add and in this economy it is best to spend the least amont of money as possible unless you can afford it and right now most of us can't afford much at all. Just because you have it for what you want does not mean for you to go and get it. Remember the bills come before anything else and less threads is better so we have to derive a plan to make these forums better thread wise and to do that is to revive the same thread only if it is a good enough post to make the thread worthwhile to post in. That is how it should be. The less bandwidth right now is the best thing you can do and making a new thread for something that is already there would be pointless so reviving the old thread would be wiser than eating space up that could be used for something else of another topic. Get my point? I hope so because this is what should be done to make things better for everyone.

 

[ArmaldoEX]

Then it would break simple, common sense. I've explained everything I need on my previous post. Let me just give my final thoughts:

1) It's simple - If a thread doesn't gain any attention due to lack of things to discuss or that everything that's needed has been discussed, then it can be said that the thread is dead (of course, after 2 weeks). It means that nothing else is to be discussed in that particular thread.

2) If one needs to post something similar to the dead thread, just start a new thread and see how much discussion comes up from there. If not, just PM a Mod, and ask them if it's necessary to unlock a dead thread to try and promote discussion with his/her new post.

Anyway, you're obviously going off-topic. Although it still relates to dead threads, it just takes a few simple steps to get what a members wants, which in this case, is to post in a dead thread.

 

[xxashxx]

Then it would break simple, common sense. I've explained everything I need on my previous post. Let me just give my final thoughts:

1) It's simple - If a thread doesn't gain any attention due to lack of things to discuss or that everything that's needed has been discussed, then it can be said that the thread is dead (of course, after 2 weeks). It means that nothing else is to be discussed in that particular thread.

2) If one needs to post something similar to the dead thread, just start a new thread and see how much discussion comes up from there. If not, just PM a Mod, and ask them if it's necessary to unlock a dead thread to try and promote discussion with his/her new post.

Anyway, you're obviously going off-topic. Although it still relates to dead threads, it just takes a few simple steps to get what a members wants, which in this case, is to post in a dead thread.

I was only showing respect because WPM pays for this site and I was only showing consideration. If we combine our steps. Mine and yours everything will pan out like it should. You have good ideas. I just wanted to explain another method that may or may not work but we should at least try it out and see how it works though. I would like to see my idea tried out and yours also. Thanks.

 

[ArmaldoEX]

My "method" has been tried out for the past 3 years. Just to point it out. You're missing the point. I'm suggesting to keep the rule as it is, since it is the most efficient way of handling dead threads, as seen for the past 3 years.

 

[Brett]

Just in sense to the bandwidth thing, which is quite a pointless argument:

WPM is paying for a set bandwidth, and if it is in need of expansion which I doubt it will be for a couple years seeing as it doesn't fill up very fast considering threads hardly add anything.

Also when you make threads/posts it adds them to tables in the MySQL Databases, which in turn saves bandwidth because it's just info added, which explains the showthread.pgp?tid=66460&page=2 part we are seeing in this thread.

Adding into the regular discussion, the rules right now work just fine, and I am 100% agreeing with AEX on this case.

 

[dmaster]

But that's beside the point. Once again, many things can be considered "positive contribution" to a thread, but that doesn't necessarily mean the thread should still stay open. It all depends on what the thread's original purpose was, what the post contains, etc. That's where the detail in the rules comes in.

But I still don't understand your first page concept. As I stated earlier, it's possible to use the User CP to change the number of threads that can be displayed on the first page. Therefore each member will have a different idea of what the first page revive rule is.I don't think the guys here don't remember the threads that are on the first page. Moreover, it would be too troublesome to assign individual mods to each forum so that they can keep track of what threads are "recent" and not unrecognisable. There are more important tasks for the mods to do than to check on what threads are new.

2) If one needs to post something similar to the dead thread, just start a new thread and see how much discussion comes up from there. If not, just PM a Mod, and ask them if it's necessary to unlock a dead thread to try and promote discussion with his/her new post.

This this and this in that order.

Seriously guys. We don't need a First Page rule and the rule has been fine for ages. The change we have started to implement is that if a thread has some reasonable discussion in it, even if the thread hasn't had posts for two weeks and over, the thread can continue. If the thread was revived by spam, PM a Mod to make a new thread. This First Page nonsense is silly, especially when implementing it in a couple of Forums. The easiest way to make the rules is Forum wide.

dmaster out.

 

[xxashxx]

Yeah that makes sense dmaster. You can lock now as you wish.