• Please note that this section is for questions regarding the forum itself - it is not for fan game-related questions. If you have a question about a fan game, ask in the appropriate thread.

  • Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • It's time to vote for your favorite Pokémon Battle Revolution protagonist in our new weekly protagonist poll! Click here to cast your vote and let us know which PBR protagonist you like most.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Things you'd change?

Red's Hawt Chibi Pelippers said:
I just spotted some details in the forum index.

Some sections apply thread moderation. In the index, most of those have a line saying:
New threads in this forum are to be approved by a moderator before they are displayed.

But for the Roleplay Corner, one word is different:
New threads in this forum are to be validated by a moderator before they are displayed.

ermagerd, detaails 8D but just for the sake of consistency, maybe change it to match the others.


Also, Fan Clubs & Groups has thread moderation as well, doesn't it? But the index does not tell you so.
Click to expand...

Red's Hawt Chibi Pelippers said:
I don't think this would warrant a thread of its own, so I just hope that someone sees it here.


Pokémon Clubs
This forum is for those who wish to start a club within the community. This forum is for Pokémon clubs; Other Clubs is for everything else.

Pokémon Trivia
Make your own games and trivia, or play games made by other members. Non-Pokémon Trivia goes in the Other Trivia forum.


The bolded words should probably be replaced with the new forum names.
Click to expand...
Just brought these ahead for quick changes in the staff forum.

Kura said:
Reading up on this on the DCC..
I know that people on your ignore list get their posts collapsed and whatnot.
But are people on your ignore list not able to vm/pm you? That actually may be good to stop any harassment going on.
I know you can just set vms to friends-only.. but maybe it'd be nice, if we don't have it, to set it to "everyone but those on your ignore list" as an option under "everyone"?


Sorry if we already have this. I don't really know how I would test this haha.
Click to expand...
Something I'd like to see also, I'm sure it could be added to the to-do list that is ever growing if it doesn't already work this way. I don't have anyone on my ignore list, so I have no idea.

Spherical Ice said:
I think it's stupid that mods should post in revived threads, because that bumps it again. Just delete the post and lock the thread?
Click to expand...
It's a matter of preference whether you do it that way, or post. I would rather post as I can actually add a personal response and/or suggestion to both the OP and the person who has bumped the thread. Rather than just locking it and leaving a deletion reason on the prior post. It leaves us open to adding a bit more of a human touch, which is not a bad thing in a community. Both ways are just as efficient, however, by posting you give the users a bit more advice or reasoning as to what could be done next and why it had been closed. Does no harm to state so.
 
Twilight Sky said:
Nope. At the most, when you get a VM from a person on your ignore list, it will appear as a collapsed VM, if anything, saying that "x is on your ignore list" or something like that.
Click to expand...

Actually it does block PMs from them. Just not VMs, which are collapsed. But you're free to delete VMs anyways.
 
I understand those arguments but then why bother locking bumped threads in the first place? If it's going to stay in the index anyway and every thread is going to be like that, doesn't that defeat the purpose of closing those threads?

To be honest though, what harm does thread revival really do?
 
Spherical Ice said:
I understand those arguments but then why bother locking bumped threads in the first place? If it's going to stay in the index anyway and every thread is going to be like that, doesn't that defeat the purpose of closing those threads?
Click to expand...
To stop people thinking that it's a new thread just because it's had recent replies and continuing to post in it.

Spherical Ice said:
To be honest though, what harm does thread revival really do?
Click to expand...
It's just messier, really; and we don't want a load of active threads full of users who aren't going to reply to them anyway. Plus, if we removed the thread revival rule, then it'd be such a nightmare searching through old threads given how many of them we have for the same existing topic. It's just easier and more conductive to discussion to keep threads up-to-date with active users and it stops people from having to search too far back.
 
Razor Leaf said:
To stop people thinking that it's a new thread just because it's had recent replies and continuing to post in it.


It's just messier, really; and we don't want a load of active threads full of users who aren't going to reply to them anyway. Plus, if we removed the thread revival rule, then it'd be such a nightmare searching through old threads given how many of them we have for the same existing topic. It's just easier and more conductive to discussion to keep threads up-to-date with active users and it stops people from having to search too far back.
Click to expand...

But how is it any less messy with the threads now locked in the index with posts from the mods saying it's been locked? And what harm is done from people posting in old discussions, if it hasn't been entirely exhausted? I guess it makes sense for things like art threads or hack threads where the owner might be inactive, but even then, if so, it will eventually drop down naturally because of lack of interest.

I do concede that it makes sense for giving newer threads more exposure though (although if they are getting pushed down, maybe that says something about how interesting they are in the first place?) Idk, I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here but I am genuinely curious.
 
Many threads include out-dated information, dead links, and so on. This is most prominent in Creative Discussions, however the same can be said for news threads. We like to keep things up-to-date as possible, and relying on people to ensure that the threads they don't post in for over a month or two still have relevant information and live links would prove to be fruitless, and has done.

There's also the fact that a lot of discussions get exhausted, and need to be recycled. If someone sees the same discussion prop up over and over again with the same opening paragraph it may not actually appeal to them as much as if someone else had posted it with a different swing or phrasing on it. We're a land of equal opportunities here, there's absolutely no harm in seeing dead discussions see new light from another perspective in the future; nor is there any harm in ensuring that topics with obsolete information or links are prevented from being bumped over and over again.
 
Might I suggest that the revival cutoff for threads be raised to two or even three months?
Why was one month, specifically, settled on to begin with?
 
One the posting in and locking revived threads, I think it's more confusing to just delete the post and lock the thread. That member might come back to that thread to see if anyone else said anything and they'll wonder what the heck happened. It'd also be tedious to have to VM/PM a member every time they revive a thread and say, "Yo this is what happened."

Besides, even though posting in the thread to say "hey i'm locking this because x" bumps it back up, it'll fall eventually as long as people are posting in the active threads. So it's not a huge issue, in my book anyway.

That's just my stance on it though.
 
Ausaudriel said:
Also how about a dialogue that pops up to send a PM to the member automatically when their thread is locked? That way the thread doesn't get a modpost bump but the member is still informed about what happened to their thread.
Click to expand...

I actually think that'd be really cool.
 
It's not a bad idea, but I don't think the modbump post in of itself is really a big issue? After all, bumping a thread in the first place brings up a thread with no posts since a month, and usually from not the first page. Posting in it again doesn't have as much of an effect as the thread was already brought up to the front/top of the page. (And again, it may look weird to other members who don't notice dates to see the thread closed without a reason given).

Generally I'll either post in the bumped thread and close, but I have left it open before if it seems there's going to be good discussion in it again (and that it's relevant too, unlike a say 'please help with problem' thread; those are usually resolved at the time).
 
I think the thread revival rule is good, for reasons that have already been said. And like bobandbill says, the modbump isn't really that much of a bump, is it? Because the original bump already happened and pushed it up, so O.o Also, locking a bumped thread with a visible post might make other members see it and go "Oh right, I should remember not to do that".
 
They changed the name changing system. Ugh! Soooo annoying! Plus they should update JavaChat, terminal style is NOT in. It was in the late eighties and the early nineties, but seriously! THIS IS 2013! NOT THE EIGHTIES! That reminds me, update JavaChat, ASAP.

Aim for the skies!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top