Vs thread rule about bumping old threads (staff only)

[Kaltias]

"Please don't bump topics that have been inactive for over a month without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded."

Ok so, what's the issue with a thread being a month old?

A thread being a month old doesn't really mean anything, unless one of the characters was revised in the meantime.

It should be changed to something like "threads with outdated reasoning" or something along those lines.

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe we could change it to "inactive for over 3 months or have outdated reasoning"?

 

[Kaltias]

What I was trying to say is that it isn't important how much time passed, but only if it's outdated.

An old thread is more likely to be outdated, sure, but if it isn't, the amount of time that passed doesn't really change anything

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. However, very old discussions are extremely unlikely to be remembered by the participants, and if they are long, it is even more unlikely that they or others will read all of the preceding posts to catch up. It is better to start a new thread in that case.

 

[Kaltias]

I mean, if no one replies, I agree that you should remake it, but a thread being concluded after a long period of inactivity is far from impossible.

Plus it really doesn't take much more than simply asking someone "hey, could you comment here again?" if you want to revive it

 

[Antvasima]

Well, let's say that somebody bumps a 1 year old thread with 250 posts. It does not seem realistic to expect that to lead anywhere.

That said, I think that the "no bumping" period should extend further than 1 month.

 

[AKM sama]

I don't have a problem with a thread being bumped if it isn't outdated. But if it's very old, then as Ant said it's better to make a new one. Also people can't be making threads after each month so I agree with raising the limit of inactivity (I don't find 1 month to be very long).

 

[Antvasima]

What would be an appropriate time limit? 3 months? 4 months?

 

[AKM sama]

3 imho.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Would you be fine with that Kaltias?

 

[Kaltias]

I'd rather turn that part into a rule of thumb.

Something like "keep in mind that threads that have been inactive for a long period of time are more likely to be outdated and it's likely that people won't comment".

The example of a 1 year old thread with 250 posts seems a bit of an exaggeration, given that said thread would be likely outdated anyway, and that very few threads reach 250 posts with less than 7 votes.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't tell people that making new threads works better, but sometimes, "necroing" a thread simply leads to a new discussion, and in these cases it's fine

 

[Antvasima]

Oh, my apologies for misreading. I thought that this was about content revision threads, not versus threads. That explains why here was such a dissonance in our evaluations.

I am not experienced with versus discussions, so I am neutral in that case.

 

[AKM sama]

I also thought you were talking about all threads in general. My previous comments were made partly due to CRT being on my mind. I have no problem if someone bumps an unfinished vs thread if it's not outdated.

 

[Andytrenom]

I also don't think there should be a rule against bumping a month old vs thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, some sort of time limit would probably be best in order to avoid mass-bumping sprees.