Community
I find forums that lock threads and delete posts mercilessly are much better places to be than forums that have spamming (not by bots) problems. The reason is that the deletion of posts and the locking of threads keeps discussion alive and useful.
A statement of common-sense rules is a very good thing.
A picture of a bad forum is pictured in this joke.
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lite_b.htm. Far the most common experience from this joke is that of "33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." and is a pet peeve of mine.
A statement of common-sense rules is a very good thing.
A picture of a bad forum is pictured in this joke.
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lite_b.htm. Far the most common experience from this joke is that of "33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." and is a pet peeve of mine.
-
Ttech
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:03 am
- Location: Traveling in the TARDIS
- Contact:
heh... A bit more moderated would be nice. Esesially for anchient posts.F50 wrote:I find forums that lock threads and delete posts mercilessly are much better places to be than forums that have spamming (not by bots) problems. The reason is that the deletion of posts and the locking of threads keeps discussion alive and useful.
A statement of common-sense rules is a very good thing.
A picture of a bad forum is pictured in this joke.
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lite_b.htm. Far the most common experience from this joke is that of "33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." and is a pet peeve of mine.
On my forums we have a policy delete and lock posts that are older then two months, I ahve a bot that does it. 
SMF ftw
Please, please do not lock posts simply because of age. I do not understand the stigma of necromancy. I would not frequent any forum that automatically locks threads, that is horrible.
I see the reasoning for deletion of fluff posts but again, you can get around ANY rule against fluff with simple statements of opinion plus some random comment or just playing dumb and asking a lot of clarifying questions (or many other ways).
Locking a thread for going "off topic" I can see absolutely no reason in. The original topic is clearly not being discussed because otherwise you wouldn't lock the thread so why not let the new discussion (which is most likely related to the old one) continue?
In other words the removal of discussion and the ending of discussion keep discussion alive? I don't understand.The reason is that the deletion of posts and the locking of threads keeps discussion alive and useful.
I see the reasoning for deletion of fluff posts but again, you can get around ANY rule against fluff with simple statements of opinion plus some random comment or just playing dumb and asking a lot of clarifying questions (or many other ways).
Locking a thread for going "off topic" I can see absolutely no reason in. The original topic is clearly not being discussed because otherwise you wouldn't lock the thread so why not let the new discussion (which is most likely related to the old one) continue?
While I do not dislike necromancy in most cases, there have been times when people (not on this forum) have posted in an old thread when the material in the old thread did not further the new discussion. I, and apparently many others, do not like reading through 5 pages of old material just to get to a suggestion that, while it may be related, is really completely separate from the previous 5 pages and really deserves a new thread.OddBob wrote:Please, please do not lock posts simply because of age. I do not understand the stigma of necromancy. I would not frequent any forum that automatically locks threads, that is horrible.
If the discussion isn't going anywhere useful, it is taking other reader's time to read the useless posts. Locking a thread allows discussion to continue in a more useful manner elsewhere.In other words the removal of discussion and the ending of discussion keep discussion alive? I don't understand.
Fluff posts are only problems because they hinder discussion. Posts that obviously have no place in the discussion or otherwise hinder the discussion are what should be removed.I see the reasoning for deletion of fluff posts but again, you can get around ANY rule against fluff with simple statements of opinion plus some random comment or just playing dumb and asking a lot of clarifying questions (or many other ways).
In case it is not going anywhere useful. If it is going somewhere useful, it is better to start a new thread (because if it was really related it wouldn't be off topic), or have a moderator split the thread so that the discussion is easier to follow (for all involved, not just those new to the discussion) and not a mere thread lock.Locking a thread for going "off topic" I can see absolutely no reason in. The original topic is clearly not being discussed because otherwise you wouldn't lock the thread so why not let the new discussion (which is most likely related to the old one) continue?
I am not saying that merciless thread locking and post deletion is a good thing, I am saying that given a choice between that and reading through mountains of useless material, I would choose thread locking and post deletion any day.