"Dead post" system needs a reboot

[Emmad]

First of all I didn't even know that was a rule, perhaps I should have read the rules better. However I find it interesting that you want more usage of forums..but when there are older topics of interest if you post in them you get warned. While I understand certain topics may have no one interested in them, in this case it actually caused more discussion in it...which according to you is what you want. Seems to me that this rule of yours is counterproductive to to what you say you want. And if you really want things to "remain dead" as the Mod said, then maybe you should set up something to automatically remove or lock them. I mean it was actually not far down on my list of posts, last thing I'm going to look at is the last post date. And of course if I read it and like it I'm going to respond regardless of the date. All this does is make me question why I take the time to get on the forum to help promote chat. That said, I think the warnings for this are unjust

Edited November 10, 2014 by Emmad

[Fox Fire]

Edit: Didnt realize this was in ban appeals. Srry.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Fox Fire

[Fizban]

Topic moved to Moderation Support, where questions of moderation rules should be posted. Fox Fire, feel free to either re-edit your post or post it again here.

[Fox Fire]

I was going to say:

If you see a topic you like, you can always start a new thread about said topic.

[Fizban]

Just as a note, this is the rule as written:

 

Gravedigging
Replying to, or “bumpingâ€, old topics which have been inactive for at least a week (5-7 days). Threads in the Recruitment Threads forum are immune to this rule.

 

This is the text of the warning that was given:

 

If there have been no posts in a thread for a month or more, leave them be.

[Shellhound]

Yes, obviously Sheepy, the mods, and the community want forum activity. It's a must for a healthy game, but there are people who will go back to a weeks old post and post in it. I've seen people in other games do this with posts that were a few months, even a few years old. It's one of the most annoying things you can do and there's a reason why there's a rule against it. It's not counter-productive, posting in a DoW or DoE that's a month old isn't productive to the community in any way. If you want to discuss the reasons behind said war or the long term outcome or something like that then obviously you can create a new thread about it, but digging up a post that no one's touched in forever is kind of unnecessary. As for why they don't lock it after a week of no discussion, the mods do have lives and aren't robots (I'm only assuming this, sorry to any mods who might be robots) it's much easier to hand out a warn to a person every now and then who digs up an old thread than to go through and lock each and every one where no one's said anything in a week.

[Emmad]

Perhaps to you there is no point but that's not true for everyone. And that's why I say they need an AUTOMATIC way to do it. And as far as lives, of course but being a Mod also has responsibilities, an automatic way would also take care of that as well. Also going off your point on not using one that hasn't been touched in forever, then why keep it on the forum?

Edited November 10, 2014 by Emmad

[Shellhound]

What point is there in posting in a topic no one has touched in over a week? It's not difficult to make a new topic discussing the issue if you feel like there should be more discussion on the topic, as for making it automatic, that's not a bad idea; I'm not entirely sure if there's an option for that on the forums however, if there is I'm all for it. As for simply deleting ones that haven't been touched in forever, it's still good to have around. In other games myself and plenty of other people will reference posts made years ago, it's a part of the history of the game and it's useful to keep around to view.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Shellhound

[Emmad]

I see your point but my issue is if you are going to get into trouble for it then there needs to be a better system. It's silly to leave something open if you don't want someone to use it, which is why they need to be closed!

[Fizban]

Just because an action is prohibited does not mean that the forum staff has an obligation to prevent that action before it happens. This isn't Minority Report.

 

We have rules in place, and they are posted all over the place. The rules exist to be followed, and each member is expected to follow them. Although this may not have been the original purpose, one good reason to leave the threads open is because it encourages posters to exercise restraint on their own. More importantly, though, it allows moderators to apply the rules with some flexibility, so that valuable discussion can continue if it is happening.

 

With that being said, your point is well-taken that I locked the wrong thread that you dug up from the grave. I should have locked one or more of the half dozen that you did. I chose that one because it had been dead the longest, though. I'll unlock the thread, but your warning point will stay.

[Reagan]

There are a couple of reasons this is a viable rule.  The first being that when you reply to an outdated topic, it bumps it to the top of the active topics list, where current and relevant information is being posted.  It can be confusing to some when they see it and assume it's a new topic, when in fact it's not.  It's like publishing an article from last week's news on the front page of today's paper.  Now that we have the forum posting bonus, people are especially eager to post where they can.  There is more incentive to begin replying to all topics, regardless of age.  With no rule in place, that's exactly what would happen.  Granted, 5 days isn't very long, especially when we're still a smaller community.  Perhaps the rule could be extended to a minimum 10 days.  Either way, it's the moderator's discretion and as Fizban pointed out, the occasional grave dig may not result in a warn, but when one member is bumping multiple outdated topics, it creates a problem for all of us.  The forum user has to assume some responsibility for knowing the rules and abiding by them.  There is plenty in place here to encourage posting and interaction.  The rules are flexible to a fault, but you have to own your actions.  That being said, yes, it is possible with IPB to archive threads once they reach a cutoff point determined by the staff, but the drawback is that if, for any reason, you ever wanted to move those threads (say where you're creating an archive forum and want to put them there, for example), you can't do it until you un-archive each one of them individually.  Trust me, I've used IPB a very long time and I can tell you it's not worth the hassle.

[Emmad]

With that being said, your point is well-taken that I locked the wrong thread that you dug up from the grave. I should have locked one or more of the half dozen that you did. I chose that one because it had been dead the longest, though. I'll unlock the thread, but your warning point will stay.

No no no. I'm saying I agree with the lock. I just think the "dead topic" time should be extended a little longer because a week just doesn't seem long enough for the thread to be considered completely dead.

[Ayayay]

I thought the grave digging rule was a month?

[Dwynn]

It's always been 1 week for as long as I've been here.

[Shellhound]

I thought the grave digging rule was a month?

I believe in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) it's a month, but they have quite a bit more activity due to the larger nation count.

[Tenages]

There are a couple of reasons this is a viable rule.  The first being that when you reply to an outdated topic, it bumps it to the top of the active topics list, where current and relevant information is being posted.  It can be confusing to some when they see it and assume it's a new topic, when in fact it's not.  It's like publishing an article from last week's news on the front page of today's paper.  Now that we have the forum posting bonus, people are especially eager to post where they can.  There is more incentive to begin replying to all topics, regardless of age.  With no rule in place, that's exactly what would happen.  Granted, 5 days isn't very long, especially when we're still a smaller community.  Perhaps the rule could be extended to a minimum 10 days.  Either way, it's the moderator's discretion and as Fizban pointed out, the occasional grave dig may not result in a warn, but when one member is bumping multiple outdated topics, it creates a problem for all of us.  The forum user has to assume some responsibility for knowing the rules and abiding by them.  There is plenty in place here to encourage posting and interaction.  The rules are flexible to a fault, but you have to own your actions.  That being said, yes, it is possible with IPB to archive threads once they reach a cutoff point determined by the staff, but the drawback is that if, for any reason, you ever wanted to move those threads (say where you're creating an archive forum and want to put them there, for example), you can't do it until you un-archive each one of them individually.  Trust me, I've used IPB a very long time and I can tell you it's not worth the hassle.

 

The IPB archive function is an abomination and an example of some of the worst forum design even conceived. It should never be used if at all avoidable. It makes it virtually impossible to ever do any sort of forum pruning, redesign or clean-up later, without an insane amount of work.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Tenages

[Hereno]

5-7 days as a rule doesn't even make sense

 

it really means 5 days

 

not even allowing a week before giving out warns is ridiculous

 

extend it to a straight up 10 day thing and watch as this rule is broken hardly ever again

[Aslan]

The rule has been extended to 10 days. All forum rule threads should now be reflecting the change (hopefully).

[Dwynn]

I know the days was changed to 10, but I meant to add this to the other thread and forgot.

 

I think an addendum needs to be added to the gravedig rule, excepting pinned threads.

 

For example the thread that was pinned in game discussion (and no longer is). It was dead for over a year and a forum member posted to it. Technically according to the rule, it was a gravedig.

[Mikhail Gorbachev]

Yeah, I was given a warning point for "gravediggig" becuse I commented on an old thread tht I didn't know was old. It was then locked AFTER I had recieved a "warning" for it. Wht the hell is the deal with this policy?

[Fizban]

The rules are posted at the top of every forum. The date and time of the last post is posted right on that post. Your post was 196 days after the most recent earlier post in that thread. Forum users are charged with knowledge of the rules, and the way their actions interact with those rules. The fact that you did not read the date of the last post does not absolve you from the rules. 

 

There is not an exception for "pinned" threads to the gravedig rule, however it may be worth considering such a policy. Even if such a policy is implemented, though, it will not be retroactive.

 

I believe this matter warrants further discussion, however, so I am merging this topic with the previous one and unlocking it.

[Dwynn]

Yeah, I was given a warning point for "gravediggig" becuse I commented on an old thread tht I didn't know was old. It was then locked AFTER I had recieved a "warning" for it. Wht the hell is the deal with this policy?

 

No, these are two different things. The policy is still in place, and has been in place all along. Because you didn't read the rules isn't an excuse.

 

I'm saying that pinned topics should be an exception, because they're at the top of the forum posted/pinned by the admin staff as being an important thread.

[Reagan]

Makes sense.  If there's a pinned thread in a particular forum that isn't locked, but still pinned, then it still holds importance and shouldn't be included in the gravedig rule.  I can't recall where threads like that are, though...power rankings maybe?  Alliance Recruitment doesn't count because that forum is exempt from gravedig rules.  Otherwise, I think 10 days is plenty of time for gravedig.  If a topic has died for that long, it's no longer relevant.  If a member can't bother to check the rules and pay attention to the last date a post was made, they deserve the warn.

 

Edit: what is gravedigging? it's bumping a topic that's moved down the list, and possibly no longer even on the front page with at least 10 days of inactivity, and bringing it back into the list of current topics, whereas the topic is no longer current.  Pinned threads don't fall to the bottom and remain relevant.  They can't be promoted to the top because they're already there.  Gravedigging doesn't apply by default.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Reagan

[Greatnate]

Agreed on pinned topics, they are already at the top and so cannot be bumped to the top. I definitely don't agree that all topics over 10 days need to be locked, people can be responsible and not necro a thread unless they have some super legitimate reason to do so.

[naTia]

As for the warn system, I'll just add the fact that ignorance is not an excuse.
 

As for changing the rule for pinned topics, I definitely agree. As far as gravedigging goes, old and irrelevant posts are what we should focus on. If something is pinned and old, it may still seem relevant regardless of the last post's date.