Suggestion: Auto-locking threads over a month old

[Anders]

Why do threads get locked after a month in the first place. No matter how many times somebody says the discussion is over, it's obviously not if more people begin posting in it which happens a lot when threads are bumped. If the only thing getting them locked is a date then it's pointless.

I know somebody is going to come in with other reasons a thread might be locked, but let's say in the case of an ovp thread, it's just getting locked for the sole reason of being over a month old. That's such an arbitrary thing to do and it happens with in all sections. I saw a thread in the entertainment section get locked for being old, and no other reason was given.

If it gets bumped when a new thread was made it's understandable to lock it, but locking it and then prompting for a new thread to be made is silly.

 

[Captain Fabio]

Why do threads get locked after a month in the first place. No matter how many times somebody says the discussion is over, it's obviously not if more people begin posting in it which happens a lot when threads are bumped. If the only thing getting them locked is a date then it's pointless.

I know somebody is going to come in with other reasons a thread might be locked, but let's say in the case of an ovp thread, it's just getting locked for the sole reason of being over a month old. That's such an arbitrary thing to do and it happens with in all sections. I saw a thread in the entertainment section get locked for being old, and no other reason was given.

If it gets bumped when a new thread was made it's understandable to lock it, but locking it and then prompting for a new thread to be made is silly.

Was it about 2-3 weeks ago this was discussed?

If you post in a topic that is over a month old, there is a good chance the reason for the thread has become obsolete. It is old news and there is a reason that it hasn't had a reply in a month. The chances are, that the member has found an alternate solution to their problem, if that was the original nature of the thread.

There was a big discussion in this thread here: https://www.pokecommunity.com/threads/257094

Anyway, back on topic. I would be against this idea really, because although it is annoying, it isn't hard to lock a thread. =]​

​

 

[Nick]

*didn't read any of the replies*

Title says it all. If members are not allowed to bump threads more than a month old, and mods close it if an old thread is bumped anyways, then why not just have threads auto-locked automatically after 30 days of inactivity and save the trouble? Or is it too complicated to implement? :surprised:

With my experience while being at a forum which locked threads after their expiration dates, it presented two factors:
a) an intimidation factor towards posting a thread the first place, given all of the threads will be eventually locked,
b) the forum lost a sense of openness.

When someone revives a thread, I'm someone who doesn't lock the revived thread. I'd much rather, if the reply has some content, move the post into a new thread altogether; if the post doesn't have much content, and doesn't really contribute anything to the thread (which many of them don't), I'll just delete the individual reply. That's to say that nobody else replied afterwards, of course.

I hate threads being locked unless it's an absolute must.

 

[Oryx]

Part of it is just how it looks, tbh. It's kind of hard to imagine what it looks like, but it is certainly scary to look back a month and just see everything locked. Newbies won't know it's automatic and they'll just think that the staff is super strict. :(

 

[Anders]

Was it about 2-3 weeks ago this was discussed?

No it's today in the auto locking thread.

There was a big discussion in this thread here: https://www.pokecommunity.com/threads/257094

I would be against this idea really, because although it is annoying, it isn't hard to lock a thread. =]

I feel like this post should have come before mine. I described situations where locking a thread is pointless and pointed out how. All you've done is quoted this post;

If you post in a topic that is over a month old, there is a good chance the reason for the thread has become obsolete. It is old news and there is a reason that it hasn't had a reply in a month. The chances are, that the member has found an alternate solution to their problem, if that was the original nature of the thread.

which sounds like it only applies to a specific secion like the feedback one. I can't remember the last ovp thread that was asking for a problem to be solved, or the last debate that couldn't be expounded on from new information available or a new opinion. It hardly argues anything.

Anyway, back on topic.

How is talking about thread locks in a thread suggesting auto locks off topic?

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

Seems like I haven't really emphasized WHY I'm proposing this. I'm proposing this rule not because locking threads isn't hard (I'm pretty sure moderators have a "lock thread" button or something), it still is very annoying to see a dead topic floating around with the other ones for good day or two. This proposition prevents the cluttering caused by dead topics in the first place. Plus it's another rule conveniently removed from the Official Pokecommunity Rules so new members that carelessly post don't accidentally get a 2 week infraction. (I almost made the same mistake with my very first account before this one in the ROM hacking sections)

With my experience while being at a forum which locked threads after their expiration dates, it presented two factors:
a) an intimidation factor towards posting a thread the first place, given all of the threads will be eventually locked,
b) the forum lost a sense of openness.

When someone revives a thread, I'm someone who doesn't lock the revived thread. I'd much rather, if the reply has some content, move the post into a new thread altogether; if the post doesn't have much content, and doesn't really contribute anything to the thread (which many of them don't), I'll just delete the individual reply. That's to say that nobody else replied afterwards, of course.

I hate threads being locked unless it's an absolute must.

I do see where you're coming from. However the administrators are who came up with the rule, so I can't be complaining about the rules :\... But while this rule is in place anyways, it'd be better to try unburden it. Similar topics can always be created after the "original" thread is over a moth old anyways.

 

[Nick]

Now that's a rather silly way to look at the rules, don't you think? We don't make the rules and then build a bunch of ways that you won't be able to break them and make mistakes. The reason we have the rules is to provide a safe, friendly environment for all our users. Where is the friendliness in having 400+ pages (in some forum's cases) of locked threads? Nobody learns from that, and that makes us seem very intimidating, strict, and unwelcoming - which is something that PokéCommunity seems to be built upon compared to other Pokémon forums. With the way you're suggesting it, it's as if we're dealing with toddlers trapped around these gates keeping them inside a room as they're learning to walk. Moderators would be out of work as staff members if we made rules impossible to break, and where's the fun in that? We have signature rules that people still manage to break, I suppose using the logic you're providing here, we should just disable signatures all together to avoid people breaking that rule and earning an infraction?

 

[Gymnotide]

Seems like I haven't really emphasized WHY I'm proposing this. I'm proposing this rule not because locking threads isn't hard (I'm pretty sure moderators have a "lock thread" button or something), it still is very annoying to see a dead topic floating around with the other ones for good day or two. This proposition prevents the cluttering caused by dead topics in the first place. Plus it's another rule conveniently removed from the Official Pokecommunity Rules so new members that carelessly post don't accidentally get a 2 week infraction. (I almost made the same mistake with my very first account before this one in the ROM hacking sections)

I do see where you're coming from. However the administrators are who came up with the rule, so I can't be complaining about the rules :\... But while this rule is in place anyways, it'd be better to try unburden it. Similar topics can always be created after the "original" thread is over a moth old anyways.

I have never, ever had a problem with "clutter". It's usually one to three old threads that are bumped from occasion to occasion, but never some ridiculous number you make it seem like it is. Even now, the forum body shows enough threads that most forums have threads in them that haven't been posted in for three days or more. Only a handful of threads are truly active, and just one mishap isn't enough to mess up the flow. Plus, if there are a lot of revived threads, it'll be most likely the result of one new poster (and then they can be discouraged from doing it again in the future).

 

[Yoshikkko]

It's a good idea, but I think that things are fine as they are right now. I think it would maybe make things unnecessary complex (even if it's just a little). Also, like Patchisou Yutohru said, if rules would be made impossible to break, then how are you going to learn from them? If you break a rule unknowingly, you'll learn from that mistake, that's why they are here as well. Well, that's how it is with me at least. And I would be intimidated if it would be introduced, a little.

Anyway yeah, I think things are fine as they are, I mean, I also don't really mind clutter, it's kind of welcoming, in a way.