Can you get banned for necroing old threads?

Matthew Chavez MemberOP

15 messages
joined Mar 2012

#1 · Sep 4, 2013

Let's say I stumble upon a thread in some subforum that’s still really relevant, and honestly, it was started with a pretty solid, high-quality intro. It's just a general discussion topic. 😉

Then I decide to jump in. I write a post that's completely off-topic, but it isn't offensive or out of line with the overall vibe of the forum. Is there any chance I could get hit with a warning or a ban for that?

🤷

Brandon Lopez6 Regular

656 messages
joined Feb 2010

#2 · Sep 4, 2013

Yeah.
I've run into a few people like that before. 🙂

graniteridge6 Active Member

53 messages
joined Apr 2013

#3 · Sep 5, 2013

Why 🤔

Matthew Chavez MemberOP

15 messages
joined Mar 2012

#4 · Sep 5, 2013

Elizabeth Davis said:Yeah.
I've seen a few cases like that happen. 🙂

Hmm...
That isn't really how things work on Lonely Hearts. 🤔
It seems like certain threads get bumped easily, while others just don't. 😕

graniteridge6 said:Why 🤔

Exactly. I'm asking so nobody can claim they "didn't know."
☕

Brandon Lopez6 Regular

656 messages
joined Feb 2010

#5 · Sep 5, 2013

Usually, those "help me out" threads don't really gain any traction. I mean, if someone was asking for advice back in 2010, they probably aren't looking for the exact same thing today. But if the thread is more about sharing experiences or "what's your take on this," then it might actually work.

I remember some users (like nutella22) used to dig up old threads from like 2006 just to drop a five-word comment or give advice to someone who hasn't even logged on in years. Depending on which moderator was on duty, they’d get slapped with warnings or even a ban, and the whole thread would just get buried anyway.

graniteridge6 Active Member

53 messages
joined Apr 2013

#6 · Sep 5, 2013

Sophia Smith29 said:So, there it is. I’m putting it out there—asking the question now—just so nobody can pull that "we had no idea" routine later on. ☕

I’m not even asking about the reasoning behind the topic itself—I’m asking why on earth they’re using cardboard for this.

Matthew Chavez MemberOP

15 messages
joined Mar 2012

#7 · Sep 5, 2013

Elizabeth Davis said:A "help me" thread usually doesn't gain much traction. Someone asking for advice back in 2010 probably isn't looking for that same fix today. However, if the post is more about sharing "your experience," then it can actually work.

I know some users (like nutella22) used to dig up old threads from 2006 just to drop a five-word comment or give advice to someone who probably isn't even active anymore. Depending on which moderator was on duty, they'd end up getting warnings or bans, and the whole thread would just get locked down.

I shared an example scenario in my opening post. It was a genuinely solid topic that current visitors to that subforum could actually get some value from. Now I'm curious—what are the actual criteria or unwritten rules for theoretically earning a "necrophilia" card like that?

Or maybe they just delete the whole thread because it was buried on page 16 of some subforum. What’s the actual rule for deciding a topic is too "old" or redundant, besides the obvious reason you already mentioned? 🤷

graniteridge6 said:I'm not asking about the topic itself; I'm just wondering why they need those cardboard boxes for it.

I'm not really sure. I've been on several other forums where bringing up old threads was treated like some huge crime, but those places weren't quite as intense as this one. Let's just wait until an official moderator weighs in. 🙂

And how many points would a card like that actually carry?

loneraven25 Active Member

77 messages
joined Jul 2013

#8 · Sep 5, 2013

I’ll speak for myself here on the MIT forums.
It really all boils down to what’s laid out in the Rules—whether something is actually permitted or not.
Then again, you have to consider if you're replying to a thread that’s just lost its relevance because it's become totally outdated.
Personally, I wouldn't dream of handing out a ban; instead, I usually look to merge a brand-new thread with an older, existing one,
since people often end up asking questions that were already answered ages ago.
We archive those older, useless threads just to clear some headspace for fresh discussions,
and it helps us avoid cluttering things up with duplicate topics, making the search function way easier to navigate.

rustydrifter10 Regular

693 messages
joined Apr 2011

#9 · Sep 5, 2013

Look, if someone drops a really solid, relevant post, I don't think they should be penalized for it. That feels wrong. However, depending on what the topic is or just how old the thread itself has become, it might actually be a better move to just start a fresh discussion. Sometimes, it’s way more productive to kick off a brand-new conversation rather than trying to drag an old debate along from five years ago.

Sophia Thomas7 Active Member

183 messages
joined Aug 2015

#10 · Sep 5, 2013

graniteridge6 said:I’m not questioning why there's a thread; I’m asking why someone’s getting a ban for it.

The site rules state:
"- do not "bump" old threads regarding anyone's specific, personal issues."

In most cases, the post just gets deleted so the thread sinks back down. If someone keeps bumping it, they get a strike.

Chloe Booth72 Member

14 messages
joined Dec 2010

#11 · Sep 5, 2013

Sophia Smith29 said:Hmm...
That isn't how things work here on Lonely Hearts. 🤔
And...

The US rules state the following:

3. Do not bump old threads just to post something irrelevant. Generally, bumping old threads is only permitted if they are general and meaningful. If you have a specific issue, start your own thread.

And no, there aren't formal penalties, but if we decide a thread lacks purpose, we will lock it or delete the new posts.

melloworca6 Regular

551 messages
joined May 2010

#12 · Sep 5, 2013

And why don't you just lock the threads that people shouldn't be starting in the first place? 🤷 Over on the Health forum, we were constantly seeing junk float to the top, so we just ended up locking most of it down. It’s honestly easier than handing out penalties every time someone brings up some ancient, pointless topic or posts a duplicate.

rustydrifter10 Regular

693 messages
joined Apr 2011

#13 · Sep 5, 2013

That’s how I usually handle things; if a thread gets bumped by a post that really shouldn't have revived it, I'll go ahead and do what needs to be done—whether that's deleting it or just moving it elsewhere—and then I’ll lock the thread if it’s truly ancient and there's zero point in bringing it back to life now or ever. But, if I feel like there might actually be a valid reason for someone to dig it up, I’ll just leave it be.

Chloe Booth72 Member

14 messages
joined Dec 2010

#14 · Sep 5, 2013

melloworca6 said:Why don't you just lock the topics people aren't supposed to be reviving? 🤷 On our health forums, stuff would constantly bubble up to the top, so we just locked most of it down. It’s way easier than punishing people for bringing up some ancient, pointless thread or a duplicate topic.

So, what, I should just go through and lock every single old thread one by one? 😲

There are 7,444 of them in the US.
If each one takes me 20 seconds...
7,444 x 20 = 148,880 seconds = about 41 hours. 😬

I don't see why there's an issue with me locking a thread when someone decides to revive it for no reason. 🤷

melloworca6 Regular

551 messages
joined May 2010

#15 · Sep 5, 2013

Look, you aren't the only moderator in the US, and there isn't some strict deadline you have to hit to get this sorted out. 🤷

Man, back when we were working at Mayo Clinic, things took us months to fix, but at least nothing was sticking out like a sore thumb like it was before. We tried using warnings, but honestly, we just got pissed because they make zero sense in situations like this. In the end, we decided the best move is to just lock down anything that shouldn't be popping up or anything that doesn't fit our PDF guidelines—especially since nobody else wants to deal with it anyway. It keeps people from dragging stuff up.

edit: Locking a thread isn't the issue when someone bumps it; the issue is that from what I can tell, people are getting official warnings for stuff like this.

Matthew Chavez MemberOP

15 messages
joined Mar 2012

#16 · Sep 5, 2013

Robert Nelson63 said:The US regulations state the following:

Don't revive old threads just to post something irrelevant. Generally, you should only bump an old topic if it’s broad and actually makes sense to revisit. If you've got a specific issue, just start your own thread.

No, you won't get penalized. But if we decide a thread doesn't make sense anymore, we might lock it or just clear out the recent posts.

Alright, let's bring back one of those meaningful, broad discussions from the old days.
The darkness just swallowed everything up. Both her and all those new posts are gone.
She really had so much potential, and there were at least five people on the forum who were genuinely eager to jump into such a worthy discussion.
Let's get to the point. State your position, give some actual advice, and stay on topic. Why is this thread just becoming a void of disappearing content? 🤷

At the same time, this old thread—which was pointless from day one—is still hanging around with the moderator's blessing. It’s basically just a private chat room where four people are intensely talking nonsense. I honestly don't get what's happening here.

northerncyclist2 Active Member

89 messages
joined Jan 2016

#17 · Sep 5, 2013

Robert Nelson63 said:So you want me to just go through and lock every single old thread one by one? 😲

There are 7,444 of them in the US.
If I spend, say, 20 seconds on each one...
7,444 x 20 = 148,880 seconds, which is about 41.36 hours. 😬

I don't really see why it’s an issue to lock a thread whenever someone decides to bump it for no reason. 🤷

Twenty seconds per thread? 🤣

I guess you've never heard of multiselection? I bet I could knock that whole thing out in maybe 3 minutes—I used to be a moderator over at vBulletin, so I'm not just talking here.

rustydrifter10 Regular

693 messages
joined Apr 2011

#18 · Sep 5, 2013

Sophia Smith29 said:Alright, so we go through all the effort to revive a meaningful, broad-reaching old thread, right?
And then, poof—it just vanishes into thin air. Both the original discussion and all those fresh posts we just wrote.
It had so much potential, too! We had at least five different members who were genuinely stoked to jump in and contribute to that specific topic.
I mean, people actually wanted to write, share their perspectives, offer advice, and stay on track. But the whole thread just disappears. Why on earth does that happen? 🤷

Meanwhile, you’ve got one of those totally pointless old threads that was useless from day one, yet it stays up with a moderator's blessing, acting like some private lounge where four people just hang out and chat about absolute nonsense. So, what exactly is going on here?

Look, if you have a specific grievance, please just lay it out for us. Post some links, tell us which PDF you're talking about, and which exact threads are involved. Trying to debate this when it's half-vague and half-specific without us knowing what you're actually referring to is just a waste of everyone's time.

Matthew Chavez MemberOP

15 messages
joined Mar 2012

#19 · Sep 5, 2013

rustydrifter10 said:If you have a specific grievance, post some links. Tell me which PDF we're talking about and what the topics are. Being this vague makes it impossible to have a real discussion.

The PDF is Lonely Hearts. And the subject matter that shouldn't be touched is this one. 🤷 A few people on the forum started posting about it, and their posts were just deleted for no reason at all. 🤷

I started this thread about the censorship because I got worried we might lose more content, especially after the moderator jumped in and wiped everything out immediately. No explanation given. 🤷

I'm not going to link the other thread because I don't want to get targeted by the wrong people. ☕ Besides, the moderator basically gave them the green light to keep up the mindless chatter, so there's no point in making waves over the details... 🙂

rustydrifter10 Regular

693 messages
joined Apr 2011

#20 · Sep 5, 2013

Someone basically revived this thread just to spam, and then a few other people jumped in to turn it into some half-baked chat about bourbon. Honestly, I think the mods were right to wipe those posts. Your specific post isn't even bad on its own, but it really doesn't belong in an active thread like this—especially since this whole thing was brought back up for the wrong reasons in the first place.

Can you get banned for necroing old threads?

🔗 Similar threads