Qoute: "i think this thread has lasted waaaay more than what it should...."

[Oligarf]

Whether I agree with the closing of two threads recently, I would like to know what are the rules for threads to operate in. Too I would like to know what the community is thinking about this. In my opinion closing threads might be a good thing to keep the forum clean, but I can too imagine that threads closed by force will re-open with a new thread soon enough, so I lose to a certain extent the idea that this actually works. But as said before, how does the community think about this?

BTW:
These are threads that were closed recently, you can't post there anymore, reading them could be of some use though:
Stop the America-bashing!
America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[Provost Harrison]

Ming seems to be in one of those overzealous moods today. For my theory behind it, check the thread I have just posted

[Dauphin]

There is a post limit of 500. If permitted they will can sometimes go-on longer. Those threads were just getting repetitive anywho.

Also, it was MarkG who closed them.

[Dauphin]

but I can too imagine that threads closed by force will re-open with a new thread soon enough,

If there is stuff still to discuss, then it is permissable, and mods/admins actively suggest opening a new thread because the previous one was too long.

[MarkG]

practice has proven has shown that endless threads with dead discussions that actually go nowhere keep going simply because the thread is left open

[Tuberski]

Like this one?

[Skanky Burns]

(Tuber, you've got your avatar now, you can stop spamming )


Yes, like this one.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
(Tuber, you've got your avatar now, you can stop spamming )

I am Building a PCR Buffer!



EDIT: Better Skanky?

[Skanky Burns]

Yes, like this one.

Erm, I was referring to this thread being a "dead discussion" that "kept going simply because it was left open"...

Re-reading my post, it looked as though I was referring to my own post, as though it were spam.

[Oligarf]

MarkG I suppose you have far more practice than I have, but I must note that for a reasonable part a thread depends on what is posted there. And true, long threads have a risk that people who don't want to read what has been said before just post not knowing the just repeat what someone else already said. Consequently such discussions go nowhere. Is there some way to prevent this useless posting, take the work of Tuberski and Skanky Burns right here. Might it be interesting to make summaries of a thread on a regular base and post a new thread with the summary at the heading?

[H Tower]

you mean like bumping?

*bump* (+1)

[MarkG]

10% pcr to H Tower