Lock inactive threads after a certain amount of time.

[zuperxtreme]

Recent discussion about infractions/bans caused by people purposely bumping old threads (necroing) brought the idea of automatically locking threads after a certain amount of time instead of letting kidiots bump them to annoy everyone. It sounds like a pretty good idea, IMO.

The hard part is going to be determining what that "amount of time" should be. A week? Month? When should a thread be considered dead? After page 2? 3?

What do you guys think? Should we implement a system to lock old threads automatically? I guess if you want to bump an old thread for legit reasons you could PM a mod to unlock it so you could bump it.

Thoughts?

[Agent 008]

Sometimes old threads getting bumped is fun.

Remember when Enter bumped every Toothlessjoe's thread in Suggestions? That was hilarious.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

Recent discussion about infractions/bans caused by people purposely bumping old threads

Wait, what? Have you seen how many times Greyfox has done that? He goes through all his old threads from January 2009 and bumps them whenever he feels like it. Fuckk.

Originally Posted by SHODAN

Sometimes old threads getting bumped is fun.

Remember when Enter bumped every Toothlessjoe's thread in Suggestions? That was hilarious.

But also this. I myself am guilty of a necro or two (usually in HB though). Anyway, have some fucking consistency either way.

[zuperxtreme]

Yeah, it's a pretty gray area. As it is now, it's not really bannable, but if its being disruptive mods can take action. *shrug*

[Agent 008]

I don't think this has been a big enough issue to warrant restricting user freedom. Not even on Totse, where there were tons of new users posting daily, and especially not on here where the community has been dwindling down since the great migration happened.

After all, Zoklet's "raison d'être" is giving its users maximum space... right?

So I think to take any action restricting user freedom, one needs a very strong, compelling argument.

[aquabania]

nah dats dum

[Daily]

Nah, I don't think that's a good idea. There have been numerous times when a thread is bumped with a quality contribution, which usually results in the revival of active discussion. I think it would be frustrating if you have a great point to make in a thread but you are unable to, especially for new users.

[zuperxtreme]

What about closing threads that have been inactive for more than a year?

[Daily]

What would that really change, though? I agree that thread bumps can be annoying, but what's the difference between bumping a 6 month old thread and bumping a one year old thread? It's still old, and it's still getting bumped.

[zuperxtreme]

It does seem futile.

Well, it's just an idea.

[zombo.com]

i can't remember a user ever getting into trouble for bumping a single thread.

someone going through and bumping half a dozen necro threads with zero content added is just spamming though.

fuck 'em.

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

fuck no! Is everyone on this site hell bent on destroying what little content is left?!

[Metafire]

See, this is what sort of has me confused. When someone makes a duplicate thread, people tell them to use the search function. But when people search and bump the old thread, people complain. Which is better?

[zombo.com]

<shrug> fuck if i know, if they do it in s2s, i'm just happy theres new content.

[ShadyLady]

NO WAY. Not a good idea for the specialist forums like Bad Ideas.

[King of the world]

Originally Posted by Daily

Nah, I don't think that's a good idea. There have been numerous times when a thread is bumped with a quality contribution, which usually results in the revival of active discussion. I think it would be frustrating if you have a great point to make in a thread but you are unable to, especially for new users.

This.

[zuperxtreme]

I think I can safely label this idea as rejected, huh?

[zombo.com]

yeah, locking up information is bad.
contentless necrobumping to make obscure political points..... also bad.