• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Vs thread rule about bumping old threads (staff only)

Kaltias

Kaltias

VS Battles
Retired
19,123
6,335
"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It should be changed to something like "threads with outdated reasoning" or something along those lines.
 
Maybe we could change it to "inactive for over 3 months or have outdated reasoning"?
 
What I was trying to say is that it isn't important how much time passed, but only if it's outdated.

An old thread is more likely to be outdated, sure, but if it isn't, the amount of time that passed doesn't really change anything
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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).
 
What would be an appropriate time limit? 3 months? 4 months?
 
Okay. Would you be fine with that 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
 
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.
 
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.
 
I also don't think there should be a rule against bumping a month old vs thread.
 
Well, some sort of time limit would probably be best in order to avoid mass-bumping sprees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Planck69
  • Locked
Touhou Thread Rule Removal
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Planck69
Planck69
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Staff Discussion rule addition (very non-controversial)
Replies
18
Views
1K
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines
2
Replies
63
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
IdiosyncraticLawyer
A proposal to limit the number of ongoing Staff Discussions
Replies
33
Views
2K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Back
Top