Statute of limitations on threads?

[Statistikhengst]

cereal_killer - I have a question.

Is there a statute of limitations on responding to older threads?

I responded to a very old thread from somewhere in USMB and it was then closed, with a message from a mod that he could not understand why anyone would re-open a thread that old.

Ok, fine. Alrighty then...

So, that begs the question: is there a statute of limitations on threads in USMB? Like, are we not allowed to reply to a thread that is older than, say, 3 years? And if so, could you please place it in the USMB rules?

This is a serious question. An answer from you would be very helpful.

Thanks,

Stat

 

[Grandma]

Sometimes necro-ing a thread is actually relevant.

Like when one digs up old threads with political predictions.

 

[Grandma]

There are a lot of threads around with no posts in them. Why not delete those threads?

They're creepy, like old abandoned houses.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Sometimes necro-ing a thread is actually relevant.

Like when one digs up old threads with political predictions.

Yepp.

 

[Geaux4it]

At times we need to go back to obtain the factual data on ones position on a topic. Some like to act as if there is no history here relative to past discussions. We can catch folks who 'waffle' on a topic.

Its been used against me and I have used it against others.

We need to be held accountable in our debates and our positions should not normally change due to time.

-Geaux

 

[Statistikhengst]

At times we need to go back to obtain the factual data on ones position on a topic. Some like to act as if there is no history here relative to past discussions. We can catch folks who 'waffle' on a topic.

Its been used against me and I have used it against others.

We need to be held accountable in our debates and our positions should not normally change due to time.

-Geaux

Yepp.



Yepp.

 

[Geaux4it]

Does this count

Someone bumped a thread started in 2012

-Geaux

**** You Guns US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We should be able to bump all of the St. Hillary the Inevitable threads

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Stat, bumping old threads on a consistent bases is tantamount to 'spamming the board.' On most websites, bumping ancient threads, particularly for reasons of being antagonistic or without merit, is frowned upon considerably by the elder gods (read mean, nasty, internet crossing guards of yore).

After a considerable amount of time, a better idea would be to begin a NEW thread and start fresh. Keep in mind that I (me/The Mad Cabbie/Sir BANNED from all threads pertaining to SEX) am almost as low on the USMB totem poll as J.R..

Hope this helps.

 

[Nutz]

If you can't bump old threads, why no delete them...clean up the USMB server and perhaps makes this hate site run a littler faster and smoother.

 

[Mr. H.]

What the heck difference does it make? When you click on "New Posts", it's limited to 7 (count 'em, seven) pages.

Why is this place so stingy with bandwidth of late?

 

[Yurt]

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I guess Stat just does whatever he feels like, as long as it's not technically against the rules, even if he ruins an entire forum to do it?

 

[saveliberty]

It is like playing with dead mice...

...no fun in that.

 

[Pogo]

Stat, bumping old threads on a consistent bases is tantamount to 'spamming the board.' On most websites, bumping ancient threads, particularly for reasons of being antagonistic or without merit, is frowned upon considerably by the elder gods (read mean, nasty, internet crossing guards of yore).

After a considerable amount of time, a better idea would be to begin a NEW thread and start fresh. Keep in mind that I (me/The Mad Cabbie/Sir BANNED from all threads pertaining to SEX) am almost as low on the USMB totem poll as J.R..

Hope this helps.

No, the question is absolutely legitimate. Some topic may be a repository of pertinent info for an issue that's just had a recurrence, for instance. Or some developing situation may have taken a long time to evolve. Starting new threads arguably reinvents the wheel and clutters up the thread population with a lot of redundancies -- which the site already (correctly IMO) addresses by merging multiple threads on the same issue. The fact that a thread hasn't had input for two months or two years doesn't mean it's not still (or anew) an issue.

Meanwhile we have troll threads that obviously nobody's interested in except a narcissistic OP who comes back every couple of months to bump it up again for no good reason, and it just goes on.

A previous site I was on had a rule that you don't bump a thread over two months old. I didn't agree with it but at least they spelled out a time limit.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Stat, bumping old threads on a consistent bases is tantamount to 'spamming the board.' On most websites, bumping ancient threads, particularly for reasons of being antagonistic or without merit, is frowned upon considerably by the elder gods (read mean, nasty, internet crossing guards of yore).

After a considerable amount of time, a better idea would be to begin a NEW thread and start fresh. Keep in mind that I (me/The Mad Cabbie/Sir BANNED from all threads pertaining to SEX) am almost as low on the USMB totem poll as J.R..

Hope this helps.

No, the question is absolutely legitimate. Some topic may be a repository of pertinent info for an issue that's just had a recurrence, for instance. Or some developing situation may have taken a long time to evolve. Starting new threads arguably reinvents the wheel and clutters up the thread population with a lot of redundancies -- which the site already (correctly IMO) addresses by merging multiple threads on the same issue. The fact that a thread hasn't had input for two months or two years doesn't mean it's not still (or anew) an issue.

Meanwhile we have troll threads that obviously nobody's interested in except a narcissistic OP who comes back every couple of months to bump it up again for no good reason, and it just goes on.

A previous site I was on had a rule that you don't bump a thread over two months old. I didn't agree with it but at least they spelled out a time limit.

Why do you need a rule to tell you that there is no earthly reason to bump an ancient thread?

 

[Yurt]

isn't stat's question really is:

how many ancient threads in one forum can i bump of one particular poster when all i'm doing is trying to flame that person.

 

[Pogo]

Stat, bumping old threads on a consistent bases is tantamount to 'spamming the board.' On most websites, bumping ancient threads, particularly for reasons of being antagonistic or without merit, is frowned upon considerably by the elder gods (read mean, nasty, internet crossing guards of yore).

After a considerable amount of time, a better idea would be to begin a NEW thread and start fresh. Keep in mind that I (me/The Mad Cabbie/Sir BANNED from all threads pertaining to SEX) am almost as low on the USMB totem poll as J.R..

Hope this helps.

No, the question is absolutely legitimate. Some topic may be a repository of pertinent info for an issue that's just had a recurrence, for instance. Or some developing situation may have taken a long time to evolve. Starting new threads arguably reinvents the wheel and clutters up the thread population with a lot of redundancies -- which the site already (correctly IMO) addresses by merging multiple threads on the same issue. The fact that a thread hasn't had input for two months or two years doesn't mean it's not still (or anew) an issue.

Meanwhile we have troll threads that obviously nobody's interested in except a narcissistic OP who comes back every couple of months to bump it up again for no good reason, and it just goes on.

A previous site I was on had a rule that you don't bump a thread over two months old. I didn't agree with it but at least they spelled out a time limit.

Why do you need a rule to tell you that there is no earthly reason to bump an ancient thread?

"When a thread dates from" isn't exactly relevant. "What it's about" is.

Take f'rinstance that guy in Montana who shot into his garage and killed a kid. The forum buzzed with opinions about what the outcome should be, but several months went by before a resolution came in the form of a jury verdict. Perfectly good reason to post an epilogue -- in its context. If you have to start a whole new thread, you lose all that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Stat, bumping old threads on a consistent bases is tantamount to 'spamming the board.' On most websites, bumping ancient threads, particularly for reasons of being antagonistic or without merit, is frowned upon considerably by the elder gods (read mean, nasty, internet crossing guards of yore).

After a considerable amount of time, a better idea would be to begin a NEW thread and start fresh. Keep in mind that I (me/The Mad Cabbie/Sir BANNED from all threads pertaining to SEX) am almost as low on the USMB totem poll as J.R..

Hope this helps.

No, the question is absolutely legitimate. Some topic may be a repository of pertinent info for an issue that's just had a recurrence, for instance. Or some developing situation may have taken a long time to evolve. Starting new threads arguably reinvents the wheel and clutters up the thread population with a lot of redundancies -- which the site already (correctly IMO) addresses by merging multiple threads on the same issue. The fact that a thread hasn't had input for two months or two years doesn't mean it's not still (or anew) an issue.

Meanwhile we have troll threads that obviously nobody's interested in except a narcissistic OP who comes back every couple of months to bump it up again for no good reason, and it just goes on.

A previous site I was on had a rule that you don't bump a thread over two months old. I didn't agree with it but at least they spelled out a time limit.

Why do you need a rule to tell you that there is no earthly reason to bump an ancient thread?

"When a thread dates from" isn't exactly relevant. "What it's about" is.

Take f'rinstance that guy in Montana who shot into his garage and killed a kid. The forum buzzed with opinions about what the outcome should be, but several months went by before a resolution came in the form of a jury verdict. Perfectly good reason to post an epilogue -- in its context. If you have to start a whole new thread, you lose all that.

Also, it's a good idea to remind everyone that we're not going to die from the Ebola President Obama was spreading.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Coyote]

There's no statute of limitations on a thread unless the thread being necromanced is really disruptive like full of violations etc so it no longer fits in the forum, then we'll sometimes close it.