PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion: The Official Unofficial Redemption Thread


yahooeny
January 31st, 2010, 10:58 PM
When, I came here (only a few hours ago) I noticed PC had a strict rule on 30-day threads.
"Growing up" on the fangamer/starmen.net forums, we had a friendly and laid back rule on old threads. As long as you have a good reason to bump it, you're OK.
So I propose the "Redemption Thread"
A place where people can "post" in old threads.

Be sure you label the thread and sub-forum its from.

And remember, this is unofficial! This can get locked anytime.

*This is a suggestion working in real life and you should post as if this is an official feature*

Zet
February 1st, 2010, 12:36 AM
I can't think of any good reason as to why someone would bump a thread from 2003 just to put their input on the subject when a newer clean thread can be made.


Can you tell me a good reason as to why a Member of the Month results thread from 2005 should be bumped?

winseven4lyf
February 1st, 2010, 12:40 AM
I think the rule could possilby be moved back to the 60 day mark, not have to ask for it to be reopened.

King Goodra
February 1st, 2010, 12:48 AM
We aren't strict on the rule. Strict would be infracting someone for reviving a thread. Unless the post is blatant spam, generally staff doesn't' infract the member who bumped the thread, regardless of the reason for doing so. The most we do is lock the thread, ask you to make a new one, and move on with it. It's no big deal, really.

If a thread hasn't been replied to in 30 days, I really don't see the point in having someone reply to it considering it's been dead for a month already. There must have been a reason it died off for so long before someone comes along and bumps it, regardless of the reason.

Then again, one could say "So what if it wasn't replied to in thirty days? It's still there. Why make a new thread when there's one already there infront of me?!" :|

Edit: When I read your idea, I get the general idea of a thread being pinned to the top of the Q&F forum, where members would post a link to a thread and ask if it's okay to bump the thread? That seems like a hassle in general when you can just make a new thread and not have to worry if your "reason" for bumping the thread is a logical one.

Audacious D
February 1st, 2010, 12:51 AM
Honestly I've never liked the revival rule, I'd be fine with changing it to "reply if you think you have something to add, even if the thread is old." Under that, mods could just close the thread after a reply is made if it isn't constructive.

It's a sentiment generally not shared by the staff, as the above two moderator posts indicate. So unfortunately it probably won't be changing anytime soon. I suggest you just remake any thread that you feel the need to post in if it's older than 30 days.

Donnie Darko
February 1st, 2010, 12:32 PM
I can't think of any good reason as to why someone would bump a thread from 2003 just to put their input on the subject when a newer clean thread can be made.


Can you tell me a good reason as to why a Member of the Month results thread from 2005 should be bumped?

you're making assumptions. he didn't say he was gonna go gravedigging for the oldest topics on pc, nor did he specify motm as one of the threads. pretending that threads just over a month old, or even a few months old don't exist is pretty lame bro. if I saw a thread about donnie darko and it was a little over a month old I'd most likely want to post in it. what's the point of making an entirely new thread when there's a relatively recent one with a discussion already started and ready for you to partake in? don't give me the "well there will be nothing left to say it'll only be reiteration" argument, either. I've seen plenty of threads on forums be revived and before a mod could come along and close it for little to no reason, there was a good discussion going.

King Goodra
February 1st, 2010, 12:52 PM
you're making assumptions. he didn't say he was gonna go gravedigging for the oldest topics on pc, nor did he specify motm as one of the threads. pretending that threads just over a month old, or even a few months old don't exist is pretty lame bro. if I saw a thread about donnie darko and it was a little over a month old I'd most likely want to post in it. what's the point of making an entirely new thread when there's a relatively recent one with a discussion already started and ready for you to partake in? don't give me the "well there will be nothing left to say it'll only be reiteration" argument, either. I've seen plenty of threads on forums be revived and before a mod could come along and close it for little to no reason, there was a good discussion going.
That kind of argument can just go around in a circle and... never end. I'm on the fence with the revival rule. I can understand why there's one, and at the same time, I think it's kind of silly that there's a rule restricting posting in content that could prove to be very useful and contributing to a section.

"Threadsurrection" is something I can understand being against the rules, as that's basically completely ignoring every other post in a dead thread and posting blatant spam, which is what I believe encouraged the rule to begin with. Most of the threads posted in the majority of the sections of PC are based on opinions. With that said, it's always nice to share your opinion, but if you don't have anything important to say on the subject (which really only comes in discussion threads) then why bother replying to the thread in the first place? You know what I mean?

But you're right. There are some threads out there that are discussion threads, such as threads in Other Chat, that could have had a lot of discussion than suddenly died... and a new member comes around and really has something to offer to it, but can't because it was too old from the reply. So with that, I can understand why this suggestion comes around.

With all of this, its so much easier to just avoid a dispute and just make a new thread and the replies in this thread just goes to prove that.

Donnie Darko
February 1st, 2010, 01:13 PM
That kind of argument can just go around in a circle and... never end. I guess. but only because both sides are somewhat correct, though mine more so, I just didn't like his biased and somewhat defensive approach. citing only the negative examples rather than positives as well. I'm on the fence with the revival rule. I can understand why there's one, and at the same time, I think it's kind of silly that there's a rule restricting posting in content that could prove to be very useful and contributing to a section. So why don't you just propose to the higher staff that they extend the period of time in which a thread can be justifiably bumped? if it's deemed spam or whatnot then they can just lock it like they would have normally done. Threadsurrection is something I can understand being against the rules, as that's basically completely ignoring every other post in a dead thread and posting blatant spam, Are you trying to imply that this community is more apt to make stupid spam posts reviving old threads rather than adding something useful to it? I've looked around and it seems to me we have quite a few able posters. Most of the threads posted in the majority of the sections of PC are based on opinions. With that said, it's always nice to share your opinion, but if you don't have anything important to say on the subject (which really only comes in discussion threads) then why bother replying to the thread in the first place? ..to post your own opinion? I don't understand what you're trying to get at with this, opinion is something so much more abundant than actual discussion. at least, that's what you're post is implying. You know what I mean? can't say I do. But you're right. There are some threads out there that are discussion threads, such as threads in Other Chat, that could have had a lot of discussion than suddenly died... I'll happily agree with you hear. but I'm gonna have to ask again. what's so wrong with posting your opinion in an old thread versus posting your opinion in a new thread? does the number of hours ago the thread was created have some sort of magical effect therefore nullifying your opinion or..? and a new member comes around and really has something to offer to it, but can't because it was too old from the reply. So with that, I can understand why this suggestion comes around. yes exactly. you're spot on with this. With all of this, its so much easier to just avoid a dispute and just make a new thread and the replies in this thread just goes to prove that. or your staff could try and hear what the members are asking and maybe take it into consideration?

sasuneuchiha
February 1st, 2010, 01:40 PM
While I can't say I completly agree with the idea of having this kind of a thread, I do agree that moving back the marker would be a fair idea.

I run in the Pokemon Role Play section primarily. While I currently focus on a single RP, some of the ones I have been a member of have had themselves taken down due to the thirty day limit. I would like to see this moved back but understand completly why it wouldn't be. This argument could go either way but I'm personally more inclined to say no on the thread. It just doesn't seem like that great of an idea to me, as eventually someone would get their thread taken down, go there and whine, tick off the staff and end up just wasting everyone's time.

Hiidoran
February 1st, 2010, 02:07 PM
I can't help but feel an argument is being made just for the sake of an argument, but maybe it's just me?

I've never really seen much of a problem with the 30 day revival limit. I mean, the topic has to be inactive for a whole month before you can no longer post in it. That means numerous members have looked at the thread, and passed it up in that time span. Sometimes, topics just loose steam. Besides, when you recreate the thread, it gives every member a chance to repost their opinions, many of which might have changed in the span it was inactive. I know I typically don't post twice in discussion threads, even if they change pace. Just my two cents.

As for my own board, New Users / Welcome, I'd say this is a horrible idea. I would hope you would all agree with me that there's no real use in welcoming a person past the span of a month. Chances are if they're gonna stick around, they're by no means "new" at that point...

If this rule were to change, board-specific accommodations would probably have to be made.

King Goodra
February 1st, 2010, 02:09 PM
I think a good idea that could occur would be to remove it from the global rules, but require there to be a rule in each forum, set by the moderator's discretion, in relation to posting restrictions based on time of inactivity of the thread. After all, in some forums it could be appropriate to bump a thread, like the Art Gallery (so long as its your thread), and in other forums, such as Other Voting Polls, it wouldn't be. That seems like a good idea so that the rules are still there, but they aren't as so confusing. That way, you can talk to the moderator of that forum and ask them if you don't understand (like if they have certain limitations to bumping a thread). But that's a matter that would first need to be discussed by higher staff. But it certainly makes a good option, considering that this rule in itself is often debatable in the staff itself, as Audy has pointed out.

And apparently, as Larry posted, someone sees the same as I do, which is comforting.

Donnie Darko
February 1st, 2010, 02:24 PM
I can't help but feel an argument is being made just for the sake of an argument, but maybe it's just me? I'm almost 100% positive it's just you. arguing for the point of arguing is generally stupid, and I don't consider myself to be stupid. what made you come to this conclusion anyway? was I being to blunt..? I've never really seen much of a problem with the 30 day revival limit. I have. It's quite annoying to deal with in the majority of cases. (some places I see it being a hassle here are OC and OVP, from what I've seen) I mean, the topic has to be inactive for a whole month before you can no longer post in it. what's your point? I just joined yesterday. I've already seen a few threads past that limit in which I want to post, specifically responding to another user, but I can't because said threads are deemed not forum worthy because they've been in existence for too long without being posted in. That means numerous members have looked at the thread, and passed it up in that time span. Sometimes, topics just loose steam. or maybe the members who've passed up posting in the topic were just not interested in it? that's not to say somebody else won't come along and be interested in it. Besides, when you recreate the thread, it gives every member a chance to repost their opinions, many of which might have changed in the span it was inactive. what's stopping somebody who's already posted their opinion/two cents from posting again? I don't see the problem with starting your post with, "well now it's been some time.. my opinion's changed, etc...". please don't tell me you guys have a no more than one post in a thread rule? I know I typically don't post twice in discussion threads, even if they change pace. we don't all work on your ethics. but I find it hard to believe nobody has ever quoted one of your posts and you responded. I come on a forum to discuss things with people. not just drop in a thread, post, and never look back, that usually occurs in an *opinionative thread. (although this doesn't mean I don't question or wish for others to question my opinion, that adds to the fun) Just my two cents. here's mine as well; two cents. As for my own board, New Users / Welcome, I'd say this is a horrible idea. I would hope you would all agree with me that there's no real use in welcoming a person past the span of a month. Chances are if they're gonna stick around, they're by no means at that point... oh my god are people really that thick? of course you wouldn't revive a welcome thread, I hope people wouldn't be that thick. (but the world has shocked me before..) If this rule were to change, board-specific accommodations would have to be made. so be it.

King Goodra
February 1st, 2010, 02:42 PM
It's quite annoying to deal with in the majority of cases. (some places I see it being a hassle here are OC and OVP, from what I've seen) what's your point?
Other Voting Polls is where, in my opinion, the thread revival rule should be enforced no matter what. The purpose of Other Voting Polls is to post polls. Other Voting Polls isn't a place for discussion, so there shouldn't be a limitation of the replies in any matter. All you have to do is post your opinion and go. You really shouldn't have any need to really go to that thread again and post a reply unless you absolutely feel that its needed, as far as I'm concerned. I've always referred to OVP as the "post and go" forum, where you post in the thread you're interested in posting in, and go... and that's the end of that. If you run into a thread that hasn't been active in thirty days, chances are you found in through a search.

Considering most threads only end up in that situation when most of the regulars have already posted in that thread. They know that threads there serve only one purpose; to get to know situations. And... that's all there is to that. If there comes a time where forums dictate the time of replies, I know for sure that for Other Voting Polls I wouldn't be doing anything; neither extending the time to replies, or shortening it. I don't think there's any need for threads to be replied to in that forum within thirty days to be brought back up again due to the minimum discussion offered.

Thus, it isn't a hassle. But, lol, you sure know an awfully lot about the community to have joined just yesterday.

Donnie Darko
February 1st, 2010, 02:46 PM
Thus, it isn't a hassle. But, lol, you sure know an awfully lot about the community to have joined just yesterday. I'm far to lazy to keep responding like this so I'll just address this; when have I displayed superior knowledge than the average new user who's lurked for a day? what are you trying to imply? are you always this paranoid? do you like scaring away the new members because it's such a huge community and an alt. is just a natural occurence that scares you?

Honest
February 1st, 2010, 03:44 PM
Sorta pointless to have a thread not anwsered to in like 5 years, some one bump it for there own use, and let it rot for another 5 years, dont you think?

And what would you do about a MoTM bump from years ago, like Zet said?

Donnie Darko
February 1st, 2010, 03:50 PM
Sorta pointless to have a thread not anwsered to in like 5 years, some one bump it for there own use, and let it rot for another 5 years, dont you think? And what would you do about a MoTM bump from years ago, like Zet said? it's obvious you haven't read the thread so I'll give you this quote; you're making assumptions. he didn't say he was gonna go gravedigging for the oldest topics on pc, nor did he specify motm as one of the threads. pretending that threads just over a month old, or even a few months old don't exist is pretty lame bro. if I saw a thread about donnie darko and it was a little over a month old I'd most likely want to post in it. what's the point of making an entirely new thread when there's a relatively recent one with a discussion already started and ready for you to partake in? don't give me the "well there will be nothing left to say it'll only be reiteration" argument, either. I've seen plenty of threads on forums be revived and before a mod could come along and close it for little to no reason, there was a good discussion going.

King Goodra
February 1st, 2010, 03:56 PM
I'm far to lazy to keep responding like this so I'll just address this; when have I displayed superior knowledge than the average new user who's lurked for a day? what are you trying to imply? are you always this paranoid? do you like scaring away the new members because it's such a huge community and an alt. is just a natural occurence that scares you?
This isn't the time or place to be drifting to a conversation like that. I'm not trying to avoid your post, but its very off topic from what is supposed to be being discussed here. I was merely stating an observation is all. Consider it a compliment if you are indeed new. But if you want to discuss that with me, I would suggest sending me a visitor message or something. :/

Sorta pointless to have a thread not anwsered to in like 5 years, some one bump it for there own use, and let it rot for another 5 years, dont you think?

And what would you do about a MoTM bump from years ago, like Zet said?
Five years is kind of excessive for this idea. I'm pretty sure the suggestion is mainly geared towards the recent months (maybe three at most). Also, Member of the Month threads could always be locked at the end of the month, as well. That way there isn't a way to reply to them in the first place. Not like there's a need to, though.

Donnie Darko
February 1st, 2010, 03:58 PM
This isn't the time or place to be drifting to a conversation like that. I'm not trying to avoid your post, but its very off topic from what is supposed to be being discussed here. I was merely stating an observation is all. Consider it a compliment if you are indeed new. But if you want to discuss that with me, I would suggest sending me a visitor message or something. :/ certainly, just don't make it out as if I wasn't responding to your off topic comment in the first place.

Arcanine
February 1st, 2010, 09:33 PM
We have the revival rule because we don't want members to go around and pushing old dead topics to the top of the page, and pushing down newer active topics. Could this old thread get active? Yes it might, but it died for a reason.
And this is the main reason why we have the rule. If we didn't have it people could go around to really old dead threads, and push around 20 of them up to page 1. Where if they made a new thread it might breath new life into that topic.

Do we get threads from back 5 years ago? Yea, we do, this is a thread (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=11844) I locked yesterday, and here's another one (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=37192). And as much as I'd love to talk about "HOT SKITTY ON WAILORD ACTION!!!", I just don't think a thread like that would have went anywhere. Both of these threads went nowhere.
Some of them are like this one (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=5509677#post5509677), it got going before it was locked. Would it have been ok to let it go? If we didn't have the 30 day rule, who knows how far it would have went (maybe would have gotten 2 more posts, maybe 20).


I can see both sides of all of this. On one hand what would it hurt to post in an old thread to see if other people share the same thoughts, or to get the thread itself going again.
On the other hand, you're posting in a thread that died for a reason (3 months or 3 years, it makes no difference), that reason being everyone at that point in time didn't care for that topic. So starting a new thread could get the newer members into that topic.

Anti-Hero
February 1st, 2010, 09:43 PM
Also, if threads never died, they would get huuuuge. And, huge threads are rather annoying. That is why they remake TCTI and DLTMSA, the DCC, and etc.

Lie Ren
February 1st, 2010, 10:17 PM
I've always liked the revival rule, since it really does cut down on spam in it's own way. At the same time, if someone necro's a dead thread with a REALLY GOOD POST, LYK OMG.. I think letting it slip in some areas would be just fine.

BUT..

A month is quite a long time for a thread to have gotten no posts. Within that amount of time if nothing happens in it, I think it makes perfect sense to let it die. If a few weeks later someone comes along and wants to post their opinion about the same subject.. then I think it's a good idea for them to make a new, fresh thread for it. >w> I also agree with Larry, if the revival rule was lifted on most of PC, I would have to PM a few admins to try to keep it valid in New Users / Welcome. Because that place would be madness if people could get away with posting in dead threads. >_>;