I just don't understand

[Fire_Master]

I have a question about the "two weeks" rule. It says:

-One cannot post in a thread that has not been posted in for longer than 2-2 1/2 weeks.

Now, I've seen exceptions to this and also somewhat harsh referrals as well.

First example: Celadon Mart

Ok, so I want a signature. Perhaps a nice banner or something. So I go to the Mart Forums, where I have been told I can find one easily. But all of the "shops" are either "closed" or have been locked or not posted on for a few weeks now.

I almost feel afraid to even post something anymore because the only feedback I'll get is some guy called dmaster showing up and saying

"You cannot post in a thead that has been inactive for 2-2 1/2 weeks. *locked* dmaster out."

That really doesn't solve my problem of finding a signature, especially when I have seen the loophole to this rule, which is:

"You can break the aforementioned rule if you are posting something relevant to the subject matter"

Now this only confused me more. First, I see this obeyed, where someone has posted somethign relevant and nothing happens. Remember, this is still only within the Celadon Mart forum so far.

But then in the same kind of thread in the same kind of forum with the same kind of post that is relevant to the subject matter (guy asking for a signature with all the right requirements filled out), dmaster shows up and *locks* it because of the initial rule of "no posting after aforementioned time has passed".

How can the loophole work in one instance and not in another which has the same exact everything aside from the thread which it was posted in and the member posting it?

Also, in all other forums, there are only a certain number of threads open. Some forums don't even have ones "legally" postable on. So what does that mean? Every time a new member like me wants to post something that has already been talked about, I have to create a new thread like I am doing now? That seems as if it would clog the site server with a bunch of repeated topics and discussions that normally would not have to be so redundant.

If not for the rule.

Can someone please shed some light on this for me? I mean, it seems as if this rule is a little ridiculous, considering how it restricts the posting potential for newbies to very little.

Also, is there any way this two-week rule could be done away with? It seems so extraneous and annoying, and logically all it does is give more work for the mods like dmaster who have to go around and lock every thread and their mother because of it.

I love the way these forums are run, but there is always room for improvement.

 

[Shining Raikou]

We're actually reconsidering that rule and a few others at the moment. Does anyone else have something to say about the current rules? Lets hear some constructive feedback.

 

[Fire_Master]

I am glad to hear that changes are being considered. Sorry about the little rant, I was just very confused on the two-week rule.

I actually just thought of this, but it would be a nice feature: what if those in a forum group get to have a banner below/above their member banner on their profile to show what group they are in. The banner could be decided by the group leader and the current members, and those who just join would get the emblem on it, too. Merely a suggestion, although it would be a good idea.

Also, so as to prompt more people to join the groups, the little banners could also double as links to that group's main thread. So instead of having to go to the Index, if you happen upon someone who is in a group you are interested in, all you have to do is click on their banner and you are right where the requirements and everything are.

Thoughts?

 

[Krucifier]

We're actually reconsidering that rule and a few others at the moment. Does anyone else have something to say about the current rules? Lets hear some constructive feedback.

I declare a state of anarchy. Fight the power!

---

For the actual topic at hand, I think it should be a case-by-case basis. I mean, automatically locking a thread for being posted in after two weeks is silly. If it stops people creating a new thread for a topic that has been discussed previously - and already contains valuable information from said discussion, then it can only be a good thing.

In saying that, I guess it takes some sort of common sense. If something is a year or more old without a post, then just let it die, odds are the information contained within said thread is outdated.

But really, let's think about it. If there is a thread that had hundreds of posts discussing tips and strategies to a game, and this thread was left for a few months without posts... Would you rather someone revive that thread to renew discussion (consequently providing hundreds of posts worth of information)? Or would you rather someone create a new thread with no pre-existing information backbone?

I don't know if any of that made sense. But that's my two cents, anyways.

 

[raichupika33]

I tend to think the dead thread rule is a big problem for new members. Like me, I got quite a few warnings for breaking that rule when I was new because it could not understand it. Also, it limits a new member to encourage them to post, to not to be shy.

 

[King Arceus]

I never had the problem of reviving dead threads because I first read the rules before registering then always sort by newest reply first. You are referring to userbars Fire_Master. Your primary usergroup is what determines which of those you have. You could be in secondary usergroups and you will have any additional access and permissions that group provides while only showing up as your primary user group.

 

[Leafy101]

I feel that if the thread is 2-4 weeks old, but someone would like to post something productive to say, let the post it, but also, let's say there a thread that was about what is better: wii or Ps3? If someone posts something silly such as: I have a Wii, so Wii is so much better!!!

That would be a place to lock the thread. So, I feel that if it's something not totally off topic or weird, you should be able to revive a thread that's under, mabye... 3 about months old sounds like a good amount of time. To start putting in the old thread rule.

 

[Ice Arceus]

I think that posting time should be increased. I don't really like the rule that states no posting for 2 weeks. I think that it should be more than 2 weeks. I think it will increase the activity in the forums.

 

[Alakapimp]

Dead thread rule needs to just be common since, it can't have specific strict limits. People should be able to realize when they are posting in a thread is just bumping it for no reason, and when its something that is actually important.

If nothing else get rid of the relevancy exemption and maybe lengthen the time.

 

[dmaster]

Despite having examples of me locking threads for that rule, on the whole, I'm fairly lenient when it comes to the dead thread rule. If it's a Closed or Locked Shop, you obviously don't post in that. If it's three/four years old, it's generally not good to post in it. Then the issue comes if it's more than two weeks. If the said poster actually contributed to the topic, I'll usually leave it open. Usually it's the other case where the reviver posted spam and it's been more than two weeks. That's the time I'll lock it. It's pretty much to the Moderator's discretion when it comes to that rule at the moment.

dmaster out.