Necro-Thread Questions

Mburn7

Maybe this doesn't need to be a discussion, but with the (seemingly) rising number of old threads getting closed and getting posters pinged I figure there should be some sort of clarification.  So here goes.

1.  What counts as a "too old" thread to post in?  I know its 30 days, but 30 days from what?  Its creation, or its last post?

2.  Why is this rule a thing?  I feel like its more confusing to create a new post on a topic than it is to just keep an old one going.

3.  If it is so wrong to post in an old thread, why are they left open?  It shouldn't be too hard to have a program that automatically closes a thread after 30 days (Just have something that checks whatever qualifying date is the answer to question 1 and if its over 30 days it closes the thread.).

4.  Are there exceptions?  For example, my DOM Balancing Ideas thread is getting pretty old, but I do like to bump it from time to time to spur more discussion (and to keep it visible for Brigby and the Devs).  Making a new thread of the same thing but without the discussions that prompted it seems counterintuitive.

DumasAG

I agree with this. I didn't realize it was a rule, so I got rightfully pinged for violating said rule, but I feel like reviving a post when something new/relevant happens in line with that post is better than starting a new post and linking to the old one. Why have two threads when you can have one?

bk1234

I can only answer #1 and #4, @Brigby will have to answer the rest. 

The rule itself answers #1. It is very clear.  

11. Please don’t restart discussions that already exist. Before starting a new thread, search our forums to see if a similar topic already exists. If you find one, contribute your content to the thread that is already established.

• This rule only applies if the already-created discussion's most recent post was within the last month. If over a month has passed since the last comment, then please start another thread.

You can brush up on this and all of the forum rules here: https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/4/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting

In the case of #4, if the last post is more than 30 days old, please start a new thread. You are welcome to link to the old thread and offer any relevant information. 

Unknown

This content has been removed.

DumasAG

Could you explain though the purpose of the rule? It simply seems inane.

DBJones

I believe the reason mods have given for this rule is the chance of there being outdated information in old posts. I suspect it also exists in case someone necros a bunch of threads to spam the front page so they have a rule to point to while getting this theoretical person in trouble. As to the time, it's since the last post. The lesser used forums don't get pinged on this as much though. The relevant rule is # 11:
https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/4/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting

DumasAG

DBJones said:

I believe the reason mods have given for this rule is the chance of there being outdated information in old posts. I suspect it also exists in case someone necros a bunch of threads to spam the front page so they have a rule to point to while getting this theoretical person in trouble. As to the time, it's since the last post. The lesser used forums don't get pinged on this as much though. The relevant rule is # 11:
https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/4/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting

Hmm, I suppose a way to "lawfully" punish a spammer is maybe valid.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

FindingHeart8

I'm glad some attention is being brought to this.

Some of the rules, as they are (this rule included) are excessively strict, to the point where they suffocate constructive conversation, and can push players away who want to contribute.

What's wrong with commenting on old threads?  There shouldn't be anything wrong.  Old topics become relevant again.

Okay yeah, starting a new thread on the topic can rule out clutter from old commenters who aren't active on here anymore, but what if a thread already exists on the topic?  That's also a violation.  So we're supposed to look through every thread that's been made in the last 30 days (and there can be a lot of them) before starting a conversation?  What if the title of the related conversation doesn't directly describe this previous thread?  Mtgpq changes, yes but not so quickly that content a month old should always be deemed outdated and irrelevant.

This rule (along with other rules like the "No words can be in all capitalization" rule) should be more relaxed, and only enforced when there is a clear example of unquestionable abuse, that is actually harmful to the overall community.  We need order, yes, but this is excessive.

We're all adults here, and we deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect that we are asked to treat others with.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Furks

If a user isn't allowed to do something, why let them do it? It should be trivial to auto-close threads that have been inactive for a month. 

khurram

bken1234 said:

I can only answer #1 and #4, @Brigby will have to answer the rest. 

The rule itself answers #1. It is very clear.  

11. Please don’t restart discussions that already exist. Before starting a new thread, search our forums to see if a similar topic already exists. If you find one, contribute your content to the thread that is already established.

• This rule only applies if the already-created discussion's most recent post was within the last month. If over a month has passed since the last comment, then please start another thread.

You can brush up on this and all of the forum rules here: https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/4/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting

In the case of #4, if the last post is more than 30 days old, please start a new thread. You are welcome to link to the old thread and offer any relevant information. 

Okay after reading the rule it seems like it's purpose is to avoid having a number of threads regarding the same topic, because that can create confusion. But they are adding an exception if the already existing thread hasn't had an activity for 30 days. Then you are allowed to create another thread. But the rule itself doesn't seem to imply that you are not allowed to keep posting in the old thread and you absolutely must start a new thread and close the old thread and let it just fade away with any constructive discussions that people might have had. That just makes people have the same conversations over and over again which seems extremely counter productive to be honest.


To summarize: the rule appears to be about whether you can get away with creating a new thread about an already existing topic and not really about killing the old thread because someone wanted to pick up the conversation.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Brigby

Mburn7 said:

-snip / already answered-

2.  Why is this rule a thing?  I feel like its more confusing to create a new post on a topic than it is to just keep an old one going.

Some have already answered this, but we have this rule for a couple of reasons:

1. Avoiding Information That's No Longer Relevant/True - Since MtGPQ is a live game, it's no surprise that things may change. For example, discussions talking about event rewards or objectives may no longer be accurate anymore, considering the changes to some of them in 2.7.1. We want to avoid confusing situations where a player, especially one new to the game,is in our forum and starts reading a bumped post that contains incorrect or misleading information.
2. Preventing Spam - Sometimes a discussion just doesn't seem to gain much traction or interest, and that's ok! What isn't ok though is continuously bumping your old thread to the front, just to try and get more people to look at it and comment. This is unfair to other forum contributors that want an equal and fair amount of time in the spotlight.
   

Mburn7 said:

3.  If it is so wrong to post in an old thread, why are they left open?  It shouldn't be too hard to have a program that automatically closes a thread after 30 days (Just have something that checks whatever qualifying date is the answer to question 1 and if its over 30 days it closes the thread.).

-snip / already answered-

That's unfortunately not a built-in function we have currently available to us, however that concept makes 100% sense and I would love to have that feature available. I'll be sure to inquire with the web developers we work with about seeing if there is a way to automatically close a discussion thread, if there aren't any new comments posted within the last 30 days.

FindingHeart8

Brigby said:

Mburn7 said:

-snip / already answered-

2.  Why is this rule a thing?  I feel like its more confusing to create a new post on a topic than it is to just keep an old one going.

Some have already answered this, but we have this rule for a couple of reasons:

1. Avoiding Information That's No Longer Relevant/True - Since MtGPQ is a live game, it's no surprise that things may change. For example, discussions talking about event rewards or objectives may no longer be accurate anymore, considering the changes to some of them in 2.7.1. We want to avoid confusing situations where a player, especially one new to the game,is in our forum and starts reading a bumped post that contains incorrect or misleading information.
2. Preventing Spam - Sometimes a discussion just doesn't seem to gain much traction or interest, and that's ok! What isn't ok though is continuously bumping your old thread to the front, just to try and get more people to look at it and comment. This is unfair to other forum contributors that want an equal and fair amount of time in the spotlight.
   

Mburn7 said:

3.  If it is so wrong to post in an old thread, why are they left open?  It shouldn't be too hard to have a program that automatically closes a thread after 30 days (Just have something that checks whatever qualifying date is the answer to question 1 and if its over 30 days it closes the thread.).

-snip / already answered-

That's unfortunately not a built-in function we have currently available to us, however that concept makes 100% sense and I would love to have that feature available. I'll be sure to inquire with the web developers we work with about seeing if there is a way to automatically close a discussion thread, if there aren't any new comments posted within the last 30 days.

I get what you're saying Brigby, and those sound like good reasons for circumstantial situations where it would be understandable to shut down a thread.  However, as is, we have an inflexible rule that applies to all threads, where it's more of a barrier to conversation than a positive addition.

Loosening the reins on this rule (and other rules I would argue) would have a greater positive effect on the community overall, than keeping them as strict as they are to contend with these fringe situations.

bk1234

FindingHeart8 said:

Brigby said:

Mburn7 said:

-snip / already answered-

2.  Why is this rule a thing?  I feel like its more confusing to create a new post on a topic than it is to just keep an old one going.

Some have already answered this, but we have this rule for a couple of reasons:

1. Avoiding Information That's No Longer Relevant/True - Since MtGPQ is a live game, it's no surprise that things may change. For example, discussions talking about event rewards or objectives may no longer be accurate anymore, considering the changes to some of them in 2.7.1. We want to avoid confusing situations where a player, especially one new to the game,is in our forum and starts reading a bumped post that contains incorrect or misleading information.
2. Preventing Spam - Sometimes a discussion just doesn't seem to gain much traction or interest, and that's ok! What isn't ok though is continuously bumping your old thread to the front, just to try and get more people to look at it and comment. This is unfair to other forum contributors that want an equal and fair amount of time in the spotlight.
   

Mburn7 said:

3.  If it is so wrong to post in an old thread, why are they left open?  It shouldn't be too hard to have a program that automatically closes a thread after 30 days (Just have something that checks whatever qualifying date is the answer to question 1 and if its over 30 days it closes the thread.).

-snip / already answered-

That's unfortunately not a built-in function we have currently available to us, however that concept makes 100% sense and I would love to have that feature available. I'll be sure to inquire with the web developers we work with about seeing if there is a way to automatically close a discussion thread, if there aren't any new comments posted within the last 30 days.

I get what you're saying Brigby, and those sound like good reasons for circumstantial situations where it would be understandable to shut down a thread.  However, as is, we have an inflexible rule that applies to all threads, where it's more of a barrier to conversation than a positive addition.

Loosening the reins on this rule (and other rules I would argue) would have a greater positive effect on the community overall, than keeping them as strict as they are to contend with these fringe situations.

Where do you draw the line though? Why is it ok to follow some rules and break others?

I'm honestly wondering. I could see as a mod, warning someone for an insult (rule 7) and getting pushback because I didn't uphold rule 11 a few days before, so I'm wondering how you would see this working. 

Brakkis

When the discussion topic is in regards to a card or situation that is relevant to the most current set. As in, the two just topics that were just closed for being "too old".

One is in regards to an MP that is in the most current set so we shouldn't need multiple topics on it during DOM's run to discuss how bad it is and possible alterations. The other is about doing something with TG to make it more enticing while we experience a dearth of events; because, we complained about event burnout with 2 coalition events a week and they went to the complete opposite end of the spectrum instead of a balanced middle ground.

FindingHeart8

bken1234 said:

FindingHeart8 said:

Brigby said:

Mburn7 said:

-snip / already answered-

2.  Why is this rule a thing?  I feel like its more confusing to create a new post on a topic than it is to just keep an old one going.

Some have already answered this, but we have this rule for a couple of reasons:

1. Avoiding Information That's No Longer Relevant/True - Since MtGPQ is a live game, it's no surprise that things may change. For example, discussions talking about event rewards or objectives may no longer be accurate anymore, considering the changes to some of them in 2.7.1. We want to avoid confusing situations where a player, especially one new to the game,is in our forum and starts reading a bumped post that contains incorrect or misleading information.
2. Preventing Spam - Sometimes a discussion just doesn't seem to gain much traction or interest, and that's ok! What isn't ok though is continuously bumping your old thread to the front, just to try and get more people to look at it and comment. This is unfair to other forum contributors that want an equal and fair amount of time in the spotlight.
   

Mburn7 said:

3.  If it is so wrong to post in an old thread, why are they left open?  It shouldn't be too hard to have a program that automatically closes a thread after 30 days (Just have something that checks whatever qualifying date is the answer to question 1 and if its over 30 days it closes the thread.).

-snip / already answered-

That's unfortunately not a built-in function we have currently available to us, however that concept makes 100% sense and I would love to have that feature available. I'll be sure to inquire with the web developers we work with about seeing if there is a way to automatically close a discussion thread, if there aren't any new comments posted within the last 30 days.

I get what you're saying Brigby, and those sound like good reasons for circumstantial situations where it would be understandable to shut down a thread.  However, as is, we have an inflexible rule that applies to all threads, where it's more of a barrier to conversation than a positive addition.

Loosening the reins on this rule (and other rules I would argue) would have a greater positive effect on the community overall, than keeping them as strict as they are to contend with these fringe situations.

Where do you draw the line though? Why is it ok to follow some rules and break others?

Like I said above: "This rule (along with other rules like the "No words can be in all capitalization" rule) should be more relaxed, and only enforced when there is a clear example of unquestionable abuse, that is actually harmful to the overall community."

Since you mentioned rules in general, I'll use the "all caps" rule as an example of this for where to draw a line.  If a player uses capitalization in a thread as a form of emphasis (like single words), or to make a humerus non-threatening expression (single sentence), that could be something that is permitted.  Capitalizing entire paragraphs, or using it as an expression of yelling in an offensive manner (imagine something you'd see on an angry facebook or yahoo thread) would be registered as harmful.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Froggy

bken1234 said:

• This rule only applies if the already-created discussion's most recent post was within the last month. If over a month has passed since the last comment, then please start another thread.

What if the comment was posted in February?... Does that go ild in 28 days instead? 😜