Old threads

Christian Taylor3 said:My blood pressure is spiking again, but no fucking way—not on entertainment. 🙂 This is pure destruction. By that logic, should every user wanting to talk about 'movie xy' have to start a brand new thread just because the old one hasn't been active for six months? 😵 Where does this even end? 🤷 Some divine automatic locking system... as if we're actually going to watch that movie.

🤦

Of course there will be only one thread per movie on the movie subforum. Go back and read what I wrote.

So, for aggregate threads (those where there’s just one main topic instead of 100 tiny ones), there's no locking; for everything else, they get locked. That’s decided when a new thread is posted (or a moderator changes it whenever).

Naturally, aggregate threads are more common on some subforums (like movies or video games) while they aren't on others (like IT Help, Ljes, or PŽK...). That's why auto-locking is disabled by default on the first group, but enabled on the others.

Jacob Foster11 said:We really ought to just automate this whole thing, kind of like how they handle it on those other big international forums. You could just whitelist certain massive megathreads or evergreen topics, and then set everything else to auto-lock after, say, three or six months of total silence.

Terrible idea.

I’d much rather have actual moderators who actually use their brains than some mindless automation script that just ends up screwing over the users. 🙂

feraltrucker5 said:Lose.

I’d much rather deal with moderators who actually use their brains instead of just mindless automation screwing over the users. 🙂

That kind of mindless automation would certainly make life easier for everyone. Users could actually feel confident replying to any thread without being punished for "necroposting."

Right now, a user spots an interesting topic and decides to chime in. Suddenly, they get flagged for "bumping an old thread." My question is simple... if you aren't allowed to reply to a topic, why is it even open for replies? Why isn't it locked?

Jacob Foster11 said:So, a user spots an interesting thread and decides to jump in, only to get hit with a penalty for "necroing" an old topic. It makes zero sense... If replying to a thread is against the rules, why is the thread even open for replies in the first place? Why not just lock it?

I'm 100% with you on this. Honestly, just lock those threads. If someone actually has something constructive to add to the conversation later on, they can just reach out to a mod to get it reopened.

It’d cut down on the unnecessary penalties, and I bet people would be way happier with that setup...

Brenda Palmer7 said:I am in total agreement here. Maybe you should just lock those threads entirely; if a user actually has a valid reason to continue a discussion, they can just reach out to a moderator to have it reopened.

Reducing penalty points would also make the users happy, I assume.

Just to be clear. My point wasn't an attack on the moderators (as I'd be criticizing myself too 😁). There are thousands upon thousands of threads like this. You can't expect moderators to manually monitor and close them all. An automated system should handle that. I'll say it again: we're talking about threads with zero replies for months or even years.

And yes. If someone wants to discuss a topic again, the thread gets reopened or a new one starts (which is even better). That's how it works on the US forums I mentioned. When the system automatically locks a thread, it posts a notice at the bottom stating the topic is outdated and closed, then asks users to start a new one if they want to talk.

Jacob Foster11 said:Implementing that kind of automation would actually make life a hell of a lot easier for everyone involved. It gives users the peace of mind knowing they can jump into any discussion without suddenly getting slapped with a penalty just because they decided to breathe life into an old thread.

Right now, the workflow is totally backwards. A user spots a topic that looks genuinely interesting, decides to weigh in, and then—BAM—they get hit with a strike for "necroposting." It makes zero sense. My question is simple: if you aren't allowed to respond to a thread, why is the thread even open for replies in the first place? Why not just lock it?

Honestly, people just need to use their heads before they start typing. 🙂

Take that one instance in the US, for example, where some folks kept reviving a four-year-old thread about suicide. They were basically feeding into the original poster's death wish by keeping the whole thing active. 🤦 It was a mess. 🤣

So, yeah, handing out strikes for sheer stupidity? I say go for it. Totally fine by me. 😁

Christian Taylor3 said:God, there’s just so much noise here that people are going to miss the point. Let's try not to confuse everyone. If you've already handed out a warning or a penalty to someone, please at least specify which subforum you're talking about (you mentioned trolling and then brought up apples and oranges—what does a justified penalty for trolling have to do with reviving old threads?). For instance, over on the Movie Discussion board, rules against digging up ancient threads (regardless of how many years old they are) are worth their weight in gold.

I honestly assumed everyone here was aware of which moderator oversees which section of the site. 😁>

We're talking about the Politics subforum, where resurrecting an old thread just to post something vague like "I agree" or dropping a single smiley face is considered trolling.

While those kinds of posts are usually penalized anyway, if they are part of an attempt to revive an old discussion, I issue a custom penalty that carries more weight and typically lasts longer.

Is that a bit clearer now? 🙂>

Christian Taylor3 said:Seriously, my blood pressure is spiking again, but fucking no—not over Arts and Entertainment. 🙂 This is pure chaos. By that logic, should every single person who wants to talk about Movie XY have to start a brand-new thread just because the old one hasn't been touched in six months? 😵 Where does that even end? 🤷 Some divine automated lockout... as if we were actually going to go watch that movie anyway.

I’m with you on this one. I don't want to see fifty-eight different threads about Yosemite National Park and four hundred and thirty-two about the Appalachian Mountains. It’s pointless.

feraltrucker5 said:Maybe some people should try using their brains before replying to a thread. 🙂

Yeah, well, you can't expect much from certain people... 😁

feraltrucker5 said:For example, in the USA, people kept aggressively pushing a four-year-old thread about suicide. 🤦 They were actually telling the OP to go kill themselves. 🤣

It's because hardly anyone bothers to flip back to the first page to see what a thread is actually about (they just read the last post or the title). It's the same deal when you're scrolling through a PDF to find specific topics, especially when the subforum is sixteen pages deep.

Hey, mods—how about making a list of "top threads" that stay relevant but haven't seen any activity in a while?

(Not trying to give you guys extra work. And I'm probably overstepping too... Just ignore 🤣)

Brenda Palmer7 said:Well, I guess you just can't expect much from certain people. 😁

That’s really the whole point here—in my humble opinion—and if someone decides to revive some ancient, dead thread just to post something incredibly mindless like "I agree! 👍" without any actual reasoning, then maybe... I don't know... perhaps treating them like an ecological nuisance through immediate euthanasia is just a necessary step for the environment.