The Three Month Rule

The Three Month Rule (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

Three Month Rule Rules!!!

18% (6)

Throw it out completely. It sucks.

36% (12)

Make exceptions for "famous" and well-loved threads.

30% (10)

The time period should be longer.

9% (3)

The time period should be shorter

6% (2)

Total Votes : 33

(last vote on : 10/8/2012 7:15:09 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

xxblushesxx -> The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:39:38 AM)
I received a pretty gold letter a week or so ago because I bumped the "My Domme Thinks She is SuperWoman" thread. Basically I was told to cease and desist because it was over three months old. That's fine for most threads and I do understand the reasoning behind it...to a point. But then we're missing out on those incredible oldies but goodies like the one referenced above, Tap Tap Tap, and This is Elsewhere. So my question is: Is the three month rule a good thing across the board, not at all, or only in most circumstances with some exceptions being allowed?

kalikshama -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:44:13 AM)
I thought I read a Mod say that it is 6 months now, but perhaps this is forum-specific. I don't care one way or another, but do think if there is going to be a 3 (or 6) month rule, threads should automatically lock at this time. That will save everyone a lot of trouble. Tap Tap Tap has been unlocked on its anniversary.

nancygirl34652 -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:45:11 AM)
i voted to throw it out completely. one of the reasons i read threads is to learn and hear other ideas, opinions, etc. If for some reason, something strikes a chord in someone when reading an old thread or brings a question to mind, it is nice to have the opportunity to pick up the discussion where it left off. All that should really be necessary is for someone to, at least with the initial "re-thread", state it is an old thread and give their reason for resurrecting it.

xxblushesxx -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:45:18 AM)
Oh, I could have got the time wrong, definitely. Thanks!

xxblushesxx -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:47:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nancygirl34652 i voted to throw it out completely. one of the reasons i read threads is to learn and hear other ideas, opinions, etc. If for some reason, something strikes a chord in someone when reading an old thread or brings a question to mind, it is nice to have the opportunity to pick up the discussion where it left off. All that should really be necessary is for someone to, at least with the initial "re-thread", state it is an old thread and give their reason for resurrecting it. I'm leaning that way myself. If the community finds it adventageous to look at or discuss something, what difference does it make how old it is? Maybe a block on how many older threads one particular person can bring up per week/month/whatever would serve the site better?

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:49:45 AM)
I chose the make exceptions to the rule. The problem with throwing out the rule altogether is the number of idiots who try to start up a conversation with someone who probably isn't here any more. Threads like the tap tap thread are at least amusing.

nancygirl34652 -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:51:16 AM)
i don't have any idea what goes into monitoring threads so a limit may be too much work for the moderators on top of all they have to do with the site. Another good thing about resurrecting an old thread is there would be no complaints when a person starts a new thread being told...oh there was already a thread(s) about that...just a thought.

nancygirl34652 -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:54:42 AM)
but then who decides what is interesting, entertaining, educational, etc.? That could be a sticky wicket...lol

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:56:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nancygirl34652 i don't have any idea what goes into monitoring threads so a limit may be too much work for the moderators on top of all they have to do with the site. Another good thing about resurrecting an old thread is there would be no complaints when a person starts a new thread being told...oh there was already a thread(s) about that...just a thought. Of course there would because a lot of people who wake up old threads are responding to someone who is no longer a member. Do it enough times and it pushes live threads off the front page which is counter productive.

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 7:58:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nancygirl34652 but then who decides what is interesting, entertaining, educational, etc.? That could be a sticky wicket...lol Like I wrote, if it's so old the person who wrote the OP and most of the people who originally responded aren't here any more....... Okay amended: if the OP..etc AND the purpose is to ask for help.

xxblushesxx -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:02:55 AM)
I haven't voted yet because I'm unsure. I think I'll vote for throw it out altogether and make a rule of two per day per person. Not that many people care to, but it will stop the spammers.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:06:57 AM)
I would love it if threads automatically locked after three months. We have too many trolls who have the necro thread thing, and really, it's a pain.

mnottertail -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:08:25 AM)
Most of the time, they are idiotic threads that some fool pulls up to say, look idiot....... And they gotta go hunting to do that...........

LafayetteLady -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:08:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nancygirl34652 i voted to throw it out completely. one of the reasons i read threads is to learn and hear other ideas, opinions, etc. If for some reason, something strikes a chord in someone when reading an old thread or brings a question to mind, it is nice to have the opportunity to pick up the discussion where it left off. All that should really be necessary is for someone to, at least with the initial "re-thread", state it is an old thread and give their reason for resurrecting it. The problem is that people respond to a 6 month old OP like it is happening now. Whatever the OP was pondering is over. Better to start a new thread, maybe link the old one that brought up the question. I think they should be locked after they become "dead," a month or so past the last post. When the Mods lock it, they can even make a final comment, "if you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread." As for the "tap tap tap" I like that it is resurrected, but not that much that more posts go to it. Too many people don't realize it is an old thread and still respond as though it is happening right now.

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:10:48 AM)
quote: The problem is that people respond to a 6 month old OP like it is happening now. Whatever the OP was pondering is over. this is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Thank you LL

nancygirl34652 -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:14:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Better to start a new thread, maybe link the old one that brought up the question. I think they should be locked after they become "dead," a month or so past the last post. When the Mods lock it, they can even make a final comment, "if you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread." okay....this one is a great idea....seems to solve all the problems.....keeps current threads ahead of the rest and allows someone to bring up a discussion again with people who are here or still here, as the case may be. See, told you i read to learn!

mnottertail -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:15:28 AM)
Ja, look................... How old is THIS thread anyway?

xxblushesxx -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:17:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus I would love it if threads automatically locked after three months. We have too many trolls who have the necro thread thing, and really, it's a pain. But what if you haveta take something to Chrissy's Court? You'll get mod-spanked if you do it now. [:-][:(][>:]

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:26:07 AM)
I think threads should be auto locked after three months, though I don't know enough about the system CM uses to know how feasible that would be. I like the idea of bringing old favs back on occasion. There isn't another "tap tap" thread !!

barelynangel -> RE: The Three Month Rule (10/22/2011 8:27:32 AM)
I think it should be shorter.... i think once a thread has not been responded to for a month or 6 weeks it should be locked. I don't think there should be an exception for "famous" threads because the way this site goes, many of the famous threads are trainwreck threads. I don't think locking a thread after 6 weeks hinders people from reading the archives or old threads and learning from them. Nor do i think it hinders discusson OF the topics because the way mods ask you to handle it ---is start a new thread and reference the old thread so people can go read that thread if they'd like. The FAQ's at the top of i believe each forum states pretty clearly: "Often, your questions can be answered by doing a search of the archives. Please check the date of a thread and avoid commenting on anything more than 6 months old. If you would like to start a discussion based on a thread more than 6 months old, create a new post and include a link to the old thread. " I thought they recently changed it to 3 months rather than 6 months. It's really annoying to me anyway when someone pulls up an old thread and makes a sentence response or even a couple words, and you start reading a thread and responding to what other people in the thread said a couple YEARS ago lol Sometimes i wonder how they even came across the thread. angel

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.078125