| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.
If they drop into Archives from lack of posts, that's fine. But please don't stop some threads from being resuscitated when someone new or a new product offers more to discuss.
I don't understand the problem some people have with long threads... just skim through it to the end. It isn't that hard and many times someone has already offered the solution. You can also pick up lots of new hooks and ideas that you might never have thought of.
It seems to me that with no activity for 6 months old threads should just "drop off" and not have someone post to it and bring it back alive.
thoughts?
But but but, then I would be unemployed ... are you some kind of animist or something?!?!?
Seriously though, if you went that route, you would see new threads of the same topic pop up when a new player or even a new messageboard visitor comes around with a question.
I'm with Ambrosia on this one. Archives, sure. Locked up, nope.
I agree with the Slaad that old threads are sometimes worth resurrecting. In particular, there are many interesting threads in the older Adventure Path subforums that are certainly worth expanding on whenever a new group starts playing that particular path, instead of requiring the poster to create a new thread with the exact same topic.
It seems to me that with no activity for 6 months old threads should just "drop off" and not have someone post to it and bring it back alive.
thoughts?
Not in agreement. I don't see any merit in the idea.
|
In agreement with everyone else on disagreeing with the idea. Auto-closing would just be problematic for reference threads that could always benefit from expansion later. GM Reference threads for example.
And like Thread Zombie said, if there was a close-out, the recent "is X evil" flood is a good model of what we could get.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On top of the excellent reasons already mentioned for not closing older threads, there are a few cases, whilst isolated, add to the reasons for not closing older threads.
There is one member of the Paizo community who had a sick child, he started a thread to let people know the situation, and would add an update every six months to a year or so as to how things were going. There is another old thread that someone started expressing their views of the language used in Paizo products, it ended up being quite an amusing and contentious thread. About once a year or so the original poster will give an update on how he is dealing with the same issue. I am playing in a pbp game on the boards that went on hiatus for over a year, but started up again with the same GM and same players, we were glad to be able to continue using the same thread.
Isolated incidents, but more good reasons not to close old threads.
And like Thread Zombie said, if there was a close-out, the recent "is X evil" flood is a good model of what we could get.
Yes ... but on serious topics ... hopefully ... c'mon, there's a small chance for them to be serious topics.
|
I have a campaign journal thread in the appropriate forum here. I post session summaries for my players there.
I'm also a military service member, deployed for 12 months or more at a time.
The proposed rule would require me to either repost every post from the previous thread to a new thread, or include a link to the old in a new thread. Either I waste database space with duplicate entries or have the records spread out in multiple threads.
Not a proponent of this idea.