auto thread lock for threads older than 6 months?

[Castle of Glass]

Implement a thing so that threads that have been inactive for more than 6 months or more get auto locked? it would save a lot of bumping threads. because i have seen more than once that a thread gets bumped and then minions of replies come onto it.

[britishboy]

I suggested this a while ago with 2 months so mods dont have to lock it when it gets bumped up. it received very negative feedback as the OP can bump it themselves

[WickedWeekend]

I know in places like the White Padded Room the OP can resurrect the thread if needed, and I've seen it done in the Art Room. E.g, if an artist posted consistently in a popular thread of his work, he'd possibly want to bring it back later since he might've took a break. And signature shops have been brought back, too.

It sounds like a good idea, but with the way our rules are set up, it just won't work. Props to you for taking the time think about this and suggest it!

[Trace]

I wonder if the option's even available in vBulletin :o. Seems like a good idea, given that the OP can revive his/her own thread.

[Castle of Glass]

Well, i originally though of it for P101, maybe RotW.

[xXl0sth0peXx]

I'm not sure if we could have it for one section and not for others. Here's (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=178778) an earlier suggestion about it. I still stand by what myself and ImCoolBeans said in those.

I've seen OP bumps on threads even a year after the last post, and we don't want to deprive anyone of being able to revive their thread.

[Castle of Glass]

Ok. didn't see that earlier suggestion.

[Oath]

It's a nice idea that hopefully one day they will implement since everyone is always bitching about bumped threads and whatnot.

[1_21Guns]

This has been a suggestion that I remember seeing a lot since I joined a fair few years ago, it sounds like a good idea but it's not viable with regards to allowing people to bump their own threads like everyone's said unfortunately :c

[Donkey]

Why can't the OP just report it and request an unlock? I'm pretty sure that would actually reduce moderator workload considerable, since it's far less likely to happen than someone else wanting to bump it

[GigglyAbby]

First and foremost -- if you don't have an auto-lock of dormant threads -- I think the Mods should be more friendly when they lock a Bumped thread saying something like "Per **** [name of forum] Forum Rules - threads can't be bumped after 60 [or whatever the limit is in that forum] days. Thanks!" Second - I find the current way some mods handle the situation to be NASTY and even being done in error. Thus if it were my call - I'd be in favor of an auto-lock IF the OP can have it reopened if they want to re-open it with a relevant reply.

[Magenta]

First and foremost -- if you don't have an auto-lock of dormant threads -- I think the Mods should be more friendly when they lock a Bumped thread saying something like "Per **** [name of forum] Forum Rules - threads can't be bumped after 60 [or whatever the limit is in that forum] days. Thanks!" Second - I find the current way some mods handle the situation to be NASTY and even being done in error. Thus if it were my call - I'd be in favor of an auto-lock IF the OP can have it reopened if they want to re-open it with a relevant reply.

How is "please don't bump old threads" unfriendly? First, no, you probably won't see a mod writing all that because there's a lot the mods have to do and it's just a lot faster to go with what they use now. They also don't need to restate the rules every time. Most users should have read the rules or, if they didn't ('cause a thread got bumped in the first place), they catch on pretty quickly. If they don't, they get a PM about it.

If you think a mod is being unfair or nasty to someone, you can PM a global moderator or an admin. Also, mods do make mistakes -- they're just like the rest of us. If you think a mistake has been made, just report the post or talk to a senior staff member again.

[Harry Smith]

First and foremost -- if you don't have an auto-lock of dormant threads -- I think the Mods should be more friendly when they lock a Bumped thread saying something like "Per **** [name of forum] Forum Rules - threads can't be bumped after 60 [or whatever the limit is in that forum] days. Thanks!" Second - I find the current way some mods handle the situation to be NASTY and even being done in error. Thus if it were my call - I'd be in favor of an auto-lock IF the OP can have it reopened if they want to re-open it with a relevant reply.

I don't really see why we have to gloss it over, it's just so that people know why the thread is locked, we shouldn't have to quote the rules every time because we don't always have the time. I don't think I've ever seen a mod be nasty when closing a bumped thread but as said if you have an issue simply PM a global mod or report the post.

[GigglyAbby]

I understand both of the replies I got in this thread and I totally agree with what you're saying. Maybe what I want is a glossy look -- but after the mod errantly called me out on the 2 threads -- I sent a PM to that mod and someone over them and it's as if no one cares. One thread was dormant like 55 days and the other maybe 85 when that forum has the 90 day dormant rule. If 2 threads got locked when they weren't illegally bumped -- I'm curious how many others have been mishandled.
Within mod protocol -- are you allowed to quote the alleged violator when you lock a bumped thread? Or are you only allowed to say "Please don't bump old threads?"

[Emerald Dream]

I understand both of the replies I got in this thread and I totally agree with what you're saying. Maybe what I want is a glossy look -- but after the mod errantly called me out on the 2 threads -- I sent a PM to that mod and someone over them and it's as if no one cares. One thread was dormant like 55 days and the other maybe 85 when that forum has the 90 day dormant rule. If 2 threads got locked when they weren't illegally bumped -- I'm curious how many others have been mishandled.
Within mod protocol -- are you allowed to quote the alleged violator when you lock a bumped thread? Or are you only allowed to say "Please don't bump old threads?"

Seriously, the whole thing is ridiculous.

1. It literally takes about 10 seconds to lock a thread. It's NOT a big deal. Personally, I have no problems doing it. People think that suggesting this is going to make it easier for moderators, but either way - not much time is spent on locking threads or not locking them.

2. Bumping threads is not really a huge offense, unless you are doing it a lot. It's a lot like double posting.

3. "Quote the alleged violator?" I don't understand why. The thread is locked. That also goes back to number 2. It's not that much of a big deal. If it gets to be, then the member will be sent a PM.

4. As others have said, threads are allowed to be bumped by the OP. If the OP has to request to unlock the thread, it may be just as much of a "waste" of a couple of seconds for the staff member to find and unlock it. So why change it?

5. Also, to a lesser extent - there have been cases where threads (especially in the GD area) have been allowed to be bumped by way of moderator discretion. Threads about television shows or sports are good examples of this. Why have a need to start a new thread for something that is ongoing or comes back (such as a new season of "The Walking Dead" or a MLB baseball thread)?

[GigglyAbby]

Seriously, the whole thing is ridiculous.

I agree it is absurd when mods don't know the bumping policy and they call you out in the forum on it and I did nothing wrong in the first place. Then when you contact them - they didn't look at the issue and correct it.

[xXl0sth0peXx]

I think this debate has gone on far enough. If you have issues with a thread that was locked or issues with a thread in general, please don't hesitate to contact myself or another (senior) staff member. If you'd like to continue this thread, feel free to PM me and I'll be happy to assist you, however I don't think it will help any party for this thread to continue on this argument.

Keep this on topic please, or it'll get locked.

[DerBear]

I think an auto-lock for say 6 months is reasonable as it would cut down on bumping. However I don't think it would make too much of a difference because I'd say around 75% of bumped content isn't 6 months old plus --It's more around 2-6 months old-- so for the large part it would prove ineffective.