Ancient threads

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Delta

mrbiggs,

I was addressing the OP. How I spend my time on the internet is my business and not reading the thread deviations does saves me time. How does bringing up a (new) idea despite its age offend you? It's when people put to rest ideas as something is thoroughly discussed when it really isn't that bothers me. There is always room for a new perspective, especially in something that's so fluid and dynamic like gender roles in sports. People come and go, learn and leave.

And for some reason, I think saw this thread on the first page or perhaps off someone's profile. Either way, time is relative and considering how many people still view women's sports as boring, this issue is quite current.

You don't know if it was a new idea, because you haven't read the post.

You saw it in another thread. It was referenced in the Coaching Corner. In a new thread. In which the original poster of this thread suggests that in the intervening years, he has changed his opinion.

On this message board, it is in the cultural norms that for completely dead threads, you either start a new thread if it's a fairly broad topic, or you read the entire thread you're about to respond to, if it's a pretty specific topic (a rare medical complication, for example....). Occasionally people will pull a thread back to the top to specifically look at how much things have changed if it's time sensitive, and even then, link in a new thread.

It is considered a faux pas at best, and rude at worst. Sometimes it happens accidentally. Then it's more okay. It's still a faux pas. To not bother reading the thread? That's considered rude here. We assume you don't know that, and that's why Biggs mentioned it, and I explained it.


Biggs, I need to spread rep around.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Delta

I was addressing the OP. How I spend my time on the internet is my business and not reading the thread deviations does saves me time.

But that's rude. How can you expect to contribute something worthwhile if you don't know what was already said?

Originally Posted by Delta

How does bringing up a (new) idea despite its age offend you? It's when people put to rest ideas as something is thoroughly discussed when it really isn't that bothers me. There is always room for a new perspective, especially in something that's so fluid and dynamic like gender roles in sports. People come and go, learn and leave.

How do you know if it was thoroughly discussed? You didn't read the thread.

Reviving old threads is fine if someone has something new or worthwhile to contribute. If everyone just revived random threads with redundant opinions, the forum would be much more chaotic.

Originally Posted by Delta

And for some reason, I think saw this thread on the first page or perhaps off someone's profile. Either way, time is relative and considering how many people still view women's sports as boring, this issue is quite current.

This thread was largely Mr. Epee trolling, so I'd say that it didn't have much worth in the first place.

I should clarify that you shouldn't take what I said as being angry or as assaulting your character. It just helps the forum run smoother if you read threads you post in, and that you try to avoid reviving old threads unless there is something new and important you're adding.

[telkanuru]

Necro threads are bad form regardless of fora.

[dberke]

As we've seen recently, occasionally someone replies to a thread that hasn't seen activity in 2+ years. Would it be possible to have some kind of "auto-locking" feature that automatically locks threads that haven't had activity in some period of time (say, 6 months?)

Dan

[Gav]

We could look at something like that.

However I also think that there is nothing inherently wrong with reactivating older threads. There have been cases where people have facetiously reactivated some threads and in those circumstances it might be a good idea for a mod to lock the thread down.

[VorpalCat]

Or instead of locking the thread, a warning could be given that the last post in the thread is x months/weeks old, 'are you sure you want to post?' The user would still be able to post to the thread but now they know they're resurrecting an old thread. I'm thinking this would at least weed out the people cruising old threads and posting responses without realizing that the thread's been dead for a while.

[Gav]

I think it's happening more because threads get tagged in people's profiles. Not necessarily a bad thing. It might combat people asking the same questions over and over.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I'm nearly as offended at your internet rudeness as I am at the concept of the thread.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I should clarify that you shouldn't take what I said as being angry or as assaulting your character.

Dear me, how will you sound when you are angry? Or, God forbid, feel the need to express haughtiness?

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It just helps the forum run smoother if you read threads you post in, and that you try to avoid reviving old threads unless there is something new and important you're adding.

You might want to run for the new forum moderator, since one of the present ones seems to have been asleep at duty since he posted in the thread after the offending restart, without taking the offender to task. Or he might have noticed it, but considered it not worthy of a public reprimand. Would be interesting to see how many who value your opinion over Gav´s in this case.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

This thread was largely Mr. Epee trolling, so I'd say that it didn't have much worth in the first place.

He pointed out that in women´s sports, the favorite tends to win over the underdog more often than in the corresponding men´s events. Many people think that sports where a lot of the games go according to prediction are less interesting. You are obviously entitled to your opinion if you disagree.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Fencergrl]

What's the big deal? So occasionally somebody posts in an old thread. Does this really mess up your f-net enjoyment so very much?

[noodle]

its hard to simultaneously tell people to search for topics in the past and not bump old topics they've searched for.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

He pointed out that in women´s sports, the favorite tends to win over the underdog more often than in the corresponding men´s events. Many people think that sports where a lot of the games go according to prediction are less interesting. You are obviously entitled to your opinion if you disagree.

It wasn't the opinion that edged upon trolling, it was the way it was presented.

I don't really care what individuals find entertaining. But to put in in a thread titled the way it is is inflammatory. This isn't always a bad thing... it gets more people interested in posting at the least.

[mrbiggs]

Hi!

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Dear me, how will you sound when you are angry? Or, God forbid, feel the need to express haughtiness?

I was just saying that his post violated internet etiquette. It's not really a big deal, and it's common knowledge that you a. don't revive old threads without something new to contribute and b. read threads before you post. I don't know how you got anger out of this, or why you care, but OK.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

You might want to run for the new forum moderator, since one of the present ones seems to have been asleep at duty since he posted in the thread after the offending restart, without taking the offender to task. Or he might have noticed it, but considered it not worthy of a public reprimand. Would be interesting to see how many who value your opinion over Gav´s in this case.

First, that's not how moderators work in terms of becoming one. Second, that's not how good moderators work in terms of moderating the forum. The fact that no one banned him doesn't mean he did everything correctly; a good moderator, especially on a very civil forum like this one, almost never has to actually delete/modify/lock posts. Third, I was talking about general internet etiquette, which I'm sure many people on the forum are familiar with. I'd be surprised if there were many people on the forum who are for ancient thread revival. In fact, I'm fairly shocked that you are.

For example, if I came up to you on the street, listened to the last sentence of a conversation you were having, and started yelling at you without regard for whether or not I know you or what you'd already said, I don't think I would be arrested. However, it was not a polite thing to do, and I'm sure you would let me know that, in the same way you let me know whenever I post something that's not up to your standards whether or not you have a stake in the outcome or were actually participating in the thread beforehand.

I'd say any thread titled "Women's Sports = BORING", an opinion backed up with "I was watching tennis the other day and women's tennis was boring", is trolling. But that's for you to decide.

Have a nice time!

mrbiggs

[MyrddinsPrecint]

On one hand, we don't really need to have 7 threads about screaming on the front page. We don't need to have a new thread on "how do i buy shoes" every other week.

On the other hand, if we only ever had one thread about shoes, if someone wanted to know about one specific shoe, they would have to skim several thousand posts to get that information.....

We do want to get people to look to see if their question is answered already, but if it's not, wouldn't it be better (ideal world and all) if they posted a new thread with a really clear question and a great thread title that makes it clear what the thread is about?

We don't need to promote finding a three year old thread, and then responding to the first post without having read anything else in the thread, since that doesn't really add anything to the thread.......



I like the idea of reminding someone that the thread is old. There are situations when posting to an old thread is fine, but there are times when people really do do it by accident......

[Delta]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

We don't need to promote finding a three year old thread, and then responding to the first post without having read anything else in the thread, since that doesn't really add anything to the thread.......

I've considered this idea in other forums, but I believe every person's opinion is significant and contributes the community. Often these opinions may flavor differently and are lumped together into one category. Whether that is essentially right, wrong, or efficient is relevant, but I just wanted to add that to say "it doesn't really add anything to the thread" means that just because one person encapsulated the opinion of several posters does not mean there cannot be room for support for this opinion. If a topic does turn into double digit-long discussions (usually that's a bit much for me to wade through), an efficient thing to ask of the posters is to poll. I think a sincere opinion is always important, despite seeming redundant, ancient and expired.
It may seem rude to you, but I always like to know what other people think, even if they might not be the first to agree or disagree with the idea.
While I did revive an ancient thread, to say my opinion didn't add anything to a thread because I did not read five pages of one-lining banter, is not fair.
Bantering is, of course, a part of internet posting, but I didn't have to read all five pages of it to post a sincere and relevant response.
What is so wrong about posting in a thread that while older, was never really addressed (at least in my mind) in the way a poster wanted to respond to it?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

You might want to run for the new forum moderator, since one of the present ones seems to have been asleep at duty since he posted in the thread after the offending restart, without taking the offender to task. Or he might have noticed it, but considered it not worthy of a public reprimand. Would be interesting to see how many who value your opinion over Gav´s in this case.

Oi. Don't drag me into this. In this instance I didn't see a big problem with reviving the thread. It will die off again pretty quick when people no longer have an interest in making a contribution.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

What's the big deal? So occasionally somebody posts in an old thread. Does this really mess up your f-net enjoyment so very much?

I agree. To think one revived thread would cause this much comment!

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I was just saying that his post violated internet etiquette. It's not really a big deal, and it's common knowledge that you a. don't revive old threads without something new to contribute and b. read threads before you post. I don't know how you got anger out of this, or why you care, but OK.

I totally agree. However people break general etiquette rules all the time. In this case I didn't think it was a big deal so I left the thread alone. I think that old threads tend to die off pretty quickly.

I think a little of the outrage stems from a brief period a while back when someone was maliciously restarting old threads. I don't think it was Delta's intent to cause offence. Nor do I think that Mr Biggs is OTT in his statements either. In fact I am pretty neutral in this whole debate.

First, that's not how moderators work in terms of becoming one. Second, that's not how good moderators work in terms of moderating the forum. The fact that no one banned him doesn't mean he did everything correctly; a good moderator, especially on a very civil forum like this one, almost never has to actually delete/modify/lock posts. Third, I was talking about general internet etiquette, which I'm sure many people on the forum are familiar with. I'd be surprised if there were many people on the forum who are for ancient thread revival. In fact, I'm fairly shocked that you are.

This is actually one of the best behaved forums I've come across. There's lively debate (generally civil) and atmosphere is [mostly] grown-up. Consequently there's little need for a mod to intervene day-to-day. I wouldn't hang out here otherwise.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Delta

What is so wrong about posting in a thread that while older, was never really addressed (at least in my mind) in the way a poster wanted to respond to it?

In this case, the fact that there was already a new post with new information and many of the same players already re-addressing the topic in a context that was less inflammatory.

Again, I don't think that all threads ought not to be revived. But there are probably 100 threads I never got around to reading over the years, that my opinion was never heard from on. If I went through and over the course of the day found all of them and posted in them all, would you seriously think that was okay??? I don't really think so.

There's a line somewhere. I think you should have read at least most of the thread you posted in, and done a quick check to make sure there wasn't something newer and similar to post in, but I also don't think you're evil for doing it. I just hope you'll think about doing those things in the FUTURE before you post in a 3 year old thread.

[mrbiggs]

It's not a big deal, and if I'd known it would cause this much discussion I'd never had said anything. I thought it would be helpful if I reminded someone that it's generally good form to read a thread before posting in it, especially if the thread is old, but the amount of effort that's gone into this topic is way out of proportion, and for that I apologize.