Really enlightening comment. This site needs more people like you.Originally Posted by sinisterboy9
Really enlightening comment. This site needs more people like you.
A necro post should be classified as something that is 3 years old, not 3 weeks. 3 weeks is hardly any time at all.
I'm in the " I absolutely detest the 3 week cutoff" limit for replying to threads.
Yet you were absolutely fine with the one week original limit and the subsequent two week limit?
How exactly does giving you more time, what you profess to desire, make it worse?
Being unaware I was unable to do something does not mean I was "absolutely fine with it". It became an issue once I was denied when I tried to post in a thread and became aware of the extremely limiting timeframe to post in threads.
And which is worse, receiving an infraction for something you didn't know was wrong, or simply being unable to do it?
What thread were you trying to post to and what is so life alteringly vital that it needs to be said 21+ days later?
Dont make it an infractionable action then.
So you'd rather people make a whole new thread to clog up the board than post in an old thread? I'm fine with that if you are.
It's been an infractionable action since day 1, on this and almost every forum in existence. There are legitimate reasons why threads need to stay dead past a certain point.
Posting new threads isn't "clogging up" anything. That's what the built in cut off days filter is for - so the old threads don't clog up the forum for anyone who doesn't explicitly want to see them. There's no need to recycle the same thread over and over and over to add one retarded lolcat to it every six weeks, which is about what you're wanting. The simple truth is the majority of time if a thread hasn't been touched in a week it's dead and there's little to nothing that will ever be contributed to it again. I've tripled the time to make that assumption and we've got work-arounds and exemptions to cover the exceptions.
I'm fine with this as long as the guides are set to stay, seeing as they are.
The old threads still take up bandwidth/memory/space/whatever dont they? Why make someone make a new thread which just adds to this when one already exits?
I've never understood why it is "bad" to post in an "old" thread. If I was running a board I'd encourage people to post in old existing threads rather than start a new one.
If you are going to make them inaccessible to post in you may as well just have them deleted...
Because the average forumer, on any forum, is a tardbagel who isn't capable of reading 70+ pages of a post and adding coherent thoughts at the end and instead insists on replying to things still present in the first five pages that have been dead for days weeks or months, already hashed over and repeated ad infinitum and therefore are providing nothing but spam and/or reviving drama.
They remain readable for those few who actually want to see what happened, but closed so the same crappy two cents no one cares about doesn't get added to them yet again and bump the entire thread back into rehashing a subject that noone has cared about for the past three weeks but suddenly matters because someone pissed on the flames and brought it back from a well deserved death.
Yeah, I can't gather thoughts on a 70+ page thread unless I read it all already. And more often then not I don't have much to say by then unless it's still active, and most of the time a 70+ page thread is NOT active. So what's the point? It's a lot easier to post in new threads for the people who want to know something then have a huge cluster in one page. It's very exhausting.
We can't post in Monster Bookworms then. That thread should be stickied.
The thread was closed. That has nothing to do with this.
Oh, I thought you guys closed it because it was old.
Posting Permissions
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks