The rule of thumb seems to be: If no one's posted in a topic for a week or more, don't post it - start a new thread if you've really got something to say, but try to make sure you're not repeating the same arguements all over again.
(Exception: It's a single topic thread where sometime will happen every week to add new discussion into it - that's my explanation for the 24 thread.)
What Cubs said. I think anything over a few days is pushing it, but a week is definitely too long. Two weeks is DEFINITELY DEFINITELY too long. If you want to be a contributing member of the community, I'd hope you can at least log in once a week so you know what's current and what's deadwood.
In a perfect world, I wouldn't have to consider hardcoding in an statute of limitations on thread replying, but I've been repeatedly reminded this isn't a perfect world. It might go on the list for when I come back to Cali.
I used to share the Maniacal One's opinion about this, but I can see where Zed Squared is coming from. Maybe threaten with temp bans after people do it more than once. If it gets out of hand, maybe some Moderators (like Cubs maybe) could be used to help clean out old threads.
Of course, if the whole threads can auto lock themselves after a week thing can be done, that'd solve everything =)
I'm Catholic plus I'm a redneck. I ain't afraid to admit it, and I ain't going to hide it.
It's not as much my opinion as much as it's just something that's worked for me on almost every message board I've been to so I've gotten in the habit of using that as a basis for whether or not to post. Then again, this is probably the one board I frequent that has the need to be strict on the issue so it's not like I've had all that much experience with various administrations opinions on the issue.
I like this board because there's a limit I think of 100 posts to a thread. When new members come to this board, they revise threads that have been inactive for weeks, even months. It's frustrating when once in a while new members post 20 times in a day to and add nothing to the subject. I think after 2 weeks of inactivity, the thread should be closed. The Nirvana thread should have been closed a long time ago.
"Catching Hitler was neato!" "Next stop, Hirohito!" Bart Simpson
I would think the criteria involving a time limit on replying to threads would be the timeliness of the topic and it's place in the folder. If you've dug all the way to the third page of headers and found something you have a reply to and it's been dormant for a week or two, you should have something important to say, like pointing out something that no one else noticed and was essential to the discussion.
For example, I don't get to read this board as often as I used to and I wasn't reading the board regularly as the Nirvana thread progressed. Yesterday, when checking out the board for the first time in a couple of weeks, I read some additional comments in the thread that I wanted to reply to, but the thread had been dormant for about a week. However, the thread was still near the top of the music folder, which means that it was recent to the music folder and it didn't seem like it was too old to reply to. Similarly, I wasn't around the board much when the nWo debuted in the WWF, but if I went into the wrestling folder and dug out an old thread about that and replied to it, I'd feel like I was beating a dead horse, especially since there's not much I could say about it that countless others already have (unless everyone on this board felt that bringing the nWo back was doubtlessly great idea).
Maybe the folders could be subdivided into Current Events and Historical discussions. Current Events would obvious and Historical discussions is where debates about all-time favorite wrestlers, PPVs, bands, etc. could rage.
While I was busy putting off the RAW report, I put an auto-lock into the threading. Three lines of code - we'll see if it passes the "gee whiz Chris is clever!" test with Guru or not ;-)
I settled on a week, but may modify this amount later - and may use different values for different boards as rockstar has said - but we'll see how it goes for now.
You know, if you want to pick up an old discussion, I think I'd almost rather have the new thread than a bump on a moldy old thread, just so it would feel "fresher." As long as you aren't one of those people who starts a million threads for no apparent reason (and you know who you are), you shouldn't be afraid to start up a discussion if you're not seeing the discussion you want to have. Just, you know, don't be a blooming idiot about it. Or Travis. (Or both.)
I've never been one for starting new threads. (I've started a grand total of ZERO here)
Mostly because I never have anything particularly important to say.
I will predict a slight modification of the times on some of the forums. After all, every forum is different, in speed, users, and content so one uniform time won't work for everywhere. I know I, for one, sometimes forget to visit certain boards here because, after reading the Wreslting folder, the others tend to slip from my mind. I wonder if others have that problem and if it contributes to the slowishness of some of the boards? Just a thought I was considering.
Californians work in mysterious ways.... I think CRZ was telling us not to engage in rampant speculation about him or his intentions, and not to pay attention to anyone writing about it, or threads about it for that matter .