Resurrecting old threads

ha!


returning to the thread topic, i would prefer it if the mods were more restrained and, when they did feel it necessary to act, threads were simply closed instead of killed.
seems a shame to lose all record of them forever.

what do others think?

Obama says: "[The RHP forum mods'] power grows through its prudent use [...and] emanates from the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."

Originally posted by murrow
ha!


returning to the thread topic, i would prefer it if the mods were more restrained and, when they did feel it necessary to act, threads were simply closed instead of killed.
seems a shame to lose all record of them forever.

what do others think?

Obama says: "[The RHP forum mods'] power grows through its prudent use [...and] emanates from the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."

I totally agree with Obama and you. I don't think resurrection is a good reason for deletion. I don't even think it should necessarily be closed. If it's a rather meaningless thread that was only resurrected for the lulz, closing it (or even deleting it) won't do any harm, but if people start discussing the topic of the thread again, I don't know why it should be seen as any different than any other active thread.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I totally agree with Obama and you. I don't think resurrection is a good reason for deletion. I don't even think it should necessarily be closed. If it's a rather meaningless thread that was only resurrected for the lulz, closing it (or even deleting it) won't do any harm, but if people start discussing the topic of the thread again, I don't know why it should be seen as any different than any other active thread.

And why should 1 idiot, alerting without a valid reason, be allowed to spoil other people's fun on here?

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
And why should 1 idiot, alerting without a valid reason, be allowed to spoil other people's fun on here?

D

Surely if the idiot had been warned not to do it, then making a complaint about others who do so, is a valid reason to alert?

I don't understand...

An interesting thread then is not interesting now? Who decides if a thread is interesting or not? We can all see if it is out of date or not, the information is all there.

As an examle - I'm about to bump one of my own old threads in the Side Ideas forum soon, because the idea deserves to be actualized now and then (approx once a year). Is it better to open a brand new thread? And if so, with or without link to the old ones? Is it in any hazard to be deleted only because some member finds the idea bad?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't understand...

An interesting thread then is not interesting now? Who decides if a thread is interesting or not? We can all see if it is out of date or not, the information is all there.

As an examle - I'm about to bump one of my own old threads in the Side Ideas forum soon, because the idea deserves to be actualized now and then (approx once ...[text shortened]... o the old ones? Is it in any hazard to be deleted only because some member finds the idea bad?

Your bump wouldn't be erased OR alerted I would hope if you have a valid reason for bumping it.

The thread in question was about a user who was rather rude in a winning game and wondering why the other guy didn't think he was COOL.

It turned into the normal, YOU ARE THE GERK thread.

It looked like it was bumped to pick old scabs, but turns out it was bumped because someone was reading old threads.

I don't like the idea of alerts based on "you alerted MY post". There are instances of threads being bumped with no harm. I prefer a better reason to alert than "Take That!"

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Your bump wouldn't be erased OR alerted I would hope if you have a valid reason for bumping it.

The thread in question was about a user who was rather rude in a winning game and wondering why the other guy didn't think he was COOL.

It turned into the normal, YOU ARE THE GERK thread.

It looked like it was bumped to pick old scabs, but turns out it ...[text shortened]... ads being bumped with no harm. I prefer a better reason to alert than "Take That!"

P-

Ah...

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Yes, the thread is dumped. Too bad it was only alerted by a user because THEY were warned not to do this. I don't much care for alerts based only on "you did this to me, why not now?"


P-

Sounds like a logical alert to me! If you are going to warn one user about it, why should another user be able to do it without warning?

Many of the old threads are really interesting, it's a shame not to be able to use them to make the current forums more readable. The forums all go through boring periods where nothing much is being posted. Just posting a link to an ancient thread doesn't get the same effect.

Originally posted by MissOleum
Many of the old threads are really interesting, it's a shame not to be able to use them to make the current forums more readable. The forums all go through boring periods where nothing much is being posted. Just posting a link to an ancient thread doesn't get the same effect.

I agree. So if a mod sees a resurrected thread and doesn't approve, surely they should just close the thread so it will naturally sink back into obscurity, or even remove the post as well -- either way we can still link to the old thread -- rather than wipe it out forever.