Forum suggestion: Auto-close inactive threads (+ rule #11)

[Deleted User]
[Deleted User] Posts: 0 Just Dropped In
So we have a rule (number #11) not to post on threads that's been inactive for 30+ days. What I'm writing here is both a bit ironic but also serious. It is however not a troll discussion because I've been wanting to see a better definition of forum rule #11 for some time.
If there is a better place for this thread please relocate it. :)

People still revive old threads time to time with or without correction from the moderators. 
I often tell people, that they're breaking this rule when they post in an old, abandoned thread, since I 1. Don't understand why duplicates threads are preferred and 2. Think the rule is quite odd.
But since this rule obviously is strict enough for me to get a level 2 warning after posting in an abandoned thread then why not arrange so that inactive threads automatically lock / close after 30 days? Other forums have this and these forums often have very many duplicate threads on the same topic that makes the search for proper information hard and fragmented.

Further discussion around this forum rule #11:
When does it apply? After 30 days of inactivity. In General Discussion - sometimes, not always.
In Character Discussion? 
In Character Details? If I wanna discuss Mystique and her dedicated thread has been sleeping for months, should I make a new thread? What's the best practice?

Thoughts on my suggestion to autolock forbidden threads?
Thoughts on the forum rule #11?

Comments

  • GreenyBoy
    GreenyBoy Posts: 21 Just Dropped In
    Doesn't make sense imho.
    Anything about a character discussion I always search in the character official tread tbh.

    For any other tread mods should just lock a tread after 30 days of inactivity. Doesn't make much sense still, but... They could lock it and would avoid making nonsense warnings to regular members.

    My 2 cent's.
  • DeNappa
    DeNappa Posts: 1,368 Chairperson of the Boards
    To be honest, I think the rule not to necro is stupid. That said, I also think that you should only add to it if the new reply is relevant to the topic that was discussed.

    If the original thread has lost its relevance due to the passage of time, it can always still be locked by a moderator.

    (btw, if this was about that 2015 character animations thread, in my opiinion your necro was kinda unnecessary because it was just to post a bad joke / minor troll)
  • Quebbster
    Quebbster Posts: 8,070 Chairperson of the Boards
    It should be techincally possible to autolock threads that have been inactive for a certain amount of time. It should even be possible to make an exception for certain parts of the forum (the Character Discussion forum comes to mind).
    As for the rule against threadcromancy, sometimes old threads contain outdated information and posting in them can cause a lot of confusion when people assume it is a fresh thread. A blanket rule against threadcromancy cuts down on the confusion.
  • jamesh
    jamesh Posts: 1,600 Chairperson of the Boards
    Well, one technical difference is that you can't create new threads in the Character Details sub-forum.  So reusing the existing thread is the only way to have that discussion there.

    I suspect the behaviour the rule is trying to protect against is when an enthusiastic new user bumps 30 old threads and knocks all the current discussion off the front page.  That disrupts other peoples' use of the forum.  Since they don't want to impose post limits, and posting to the 30 newest threads is not as disruptive, the rule becomes "don't bump old threads".
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    The problem is over-zealous moderation.  Don't give them ideas to double down on it...
  • Quebbster
    Quebbster Posts: 8,070 Chairperson of the Boards
    Have you flagged them?