Suggestion: Auto-locking threads over a month old

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

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:

 

[Perriechu]

But some of the forums on here allow thread revival after 30 days. IIRC. It maybe hard to implement to certain forums. Idk. Sounds like a pretty good idea, though.

 

[Kevin]

Well... I dunno. It shouldn't work in the ROM hacking section since the owner can revive their hack within a one year period, so...

But I did thought about it before. If it is possible it could be useful a feature.

 

[Melody]

I don't see why this isn't possible to code up something to auto-lock ALL threads over a month old except in certain forum. Why certainly our regular PHP coder can come up with something for that.

But it would be useful even if it were only implemented in forums like Emulation where n00bs regularly ignore the rules.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

You have a really good point...
Why didn't I think of that?
Anyway, I'm all for this idea.
Because it gets tiring for a Mod to keep on locking a thread that gets revived XD
Oh well, I hope this gets implemented...

 

[Sydian]

Wouldn't mind seeing this in effect, especially in my forums where people revive things from 2004. lol

But it would be useful even if it were only implemented in forums like Emulation where n00bs regularly ignore the rules.

People ignore the rules everywhere. :<

 

[Vrai]

I think it's one of those extra things that just take time out of the admin's hands to go out of their way and work on something that really probably doesn't need to be changed. Mind you, it sounds like a good idea (except for in those places that the OP can revive the thread, etc) but I think even if it is implemented there are more important things to do first. It's fine the way it is now, anyway. ;;

 

[lloebet]

id say its a bad idea because ppl might not be able to go on because of school and stuff they come back and wounder where it went.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

I think it's one of those extra things that just take time out of the admin's hands to go out of their way and work on something that really probably doesn't need to be changed. Mind you, it sounds like a good idea (except for in those places that the OP can revive the thread, etc) but I think even if it is implemented there are more important things to do first. It's fine the way it is now, anyway. ;;

I kinda agree with Vrai here but the Mods can't focus on the "more important things" if people revive things from the year 2004 like Sydian here says, right?

Wouldn't mind seeing this in effect, especially in my forums where people revive things from 2004.

 

[Oryx]

id say its a bad idea because ppl might not be able to go on because of school and stuff they come back and wounder where it went.

Locked, not deleted. Since it's not allowed to be posted in anyway, it'll be available to view, just locked.

Tbh I think it looks pretty messy to have page after page of randomly locked threads when you go too far back, but I wouldn't mind if this were implemented to make the mods' jobs a bit easier.

I kinda agree with Vrai here but the Mods can't focus on the "more important things" if people revive things from the year 2004 like Sydian here says, right?

Mods aren't admins. Admins are the ones that code these things and implement them, mods are the ones that moderate the forums.

 

[Sydian]

id say its a bad idea because ppl might not be able to go on because of school and stuff they come back and wounder where it went.

It would get locked, not disappear from the forum entirely.

 

[lloebet]

Locked, not deleted. Since it's not allowed to be posted in anyway, it'll be available to view, just locked.

Tbh I think it looks pretty messy to have page after page of randomly locked threads when you go too far back, but I wouldn't mind if this were implemented to make the mods' jobs a bit easier.

[/COLOR]

Mods aren't admins. Admins are the ones that code these things and implement them, mods are the ones that moderate the forums.

oh ok then thts fine lolzz

 

[Gymnotide]

I vote a definite no, simply because you can't retrieve post coding from locked threads. I've had to bother smods a few times to retrieve locked CSS :(

 

[Melody]

Why not then make sure you BACK UP said post CSS to an external source or something?

Seriously, that's not really a sufficient reason to vote no...especially if you can bug a staff member to retrieve it for you.

 

[Steven]

I vote no for two reason.

1. Some places allow revival.
2. Like Gymnotide pointed out, it's hard to retrieve the coding.

Why not then make sure you BACK UP said post CSS to an external source or something?

Seriously, that's not really a sufficient reason to vote no...especially if you can bug a staff member to retrieve it for you.

What an unnecessary hassle.

 

[Hybrid Trainer]

I think it should be done in certain sections.

2. Like Gymnotide pointed out, it's hard to retrieve the coding.


What an unnecessary hassle.

You could just recreate it, or if your having trouble remembering what you did or you need specific details you could use firebug or google chromes inspect feature to get them.

 

[Melody]

I vote no for two reason.

1. Some places allow revival.
2. Like Gymnotide pointed out, it's hard to retrieve the coding.


What an unnecessary hassle.

That's not unnecessary hassle when it's BEST PRACTICE to do so because the server occasionally derps and steps into the Stunfisk.

Seriously, if you MUST reference your own coding to achieve the same effect it should also be best practice to SAVE your masterpieces elsewhere so you CAN use them as reference.

tl;dr vr:
Lern2CSS moar.

1. This reason is SO WEAK! Seriously. The implementation of this would be to AVOID doing this in forums that ALLOW revival.
2. I've already addressed this one. As Hybrid Trainer said, you could also recreate it. There's a certain learning curve to that...and who knows? You just might innovate further on your previous design than you expected.

 

[Sydian]

Ever consider this? Maybe someone else coded it for him or it was someone else's coding and he got permission to use it. This thread has turned into "learn to do CSS" more than the original reason it was made. If all it does is make people ramble and argue over pointless things, then I say just leave the system the way it is. Don't fix what ain't broken.

 

[Ivysaur]

Closing revived threads isn't that hard to do, and you actually need to go actively searching for old threads in most boards, since threads over a month old are hidden by default. It prevents people from quoting and/or retrieving codes, and looking at a forum flooded with locked threads is not pretty- a demonstration: https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=184

New people would actually wonder whether we are strangely strict or so full of spammers that we need to lock all those threads as soon as possible. I'd rather only lock all these threads that actually need it- and, if you know me, you'll notice that most times I just delete the revival post if it's the only one and (usually) is also pointless, rather than closing the thread.

 

[Spherical Ice]

I find closing revived threads almost a childish thing to do "OMG YOU POSTED. WELP, TIME TO CLOSE NOW." I know for some sections there's no justification but hack threads for example should just have the post deleted as the owner may want to revive it sometime. I dunno, it seems like it saves time. Also, not closing the thread would allow CSS retreival etc. possible.