I'm all for using threads that haven't expired.

but sometimes people need an answer more quickly than it takes to wait for the lounge admin to get online, find the thread, and then bttt it.

Can we made the deal that if the thread has expired, we can make a new fresh thread?

10/22/2008 10:16:54 AM

omar is fast as shit at bumping thread really from what i've seen. i think this is a bad idea.

10/22/2008 10:23:14 AM

i too think this is a bad idea.

if its that big of a deal make a new thread and have omar bump the old and lock the new when he sees it.

10/22/2008 10:24:57 AM

no examples? this practice has been going on for a while and seems to work

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 10:25 AM. Reason : p.s. this was moved from the lounge for anyone that didn't see it beforehand]

10/22/2008 10:25:01 AM

unlikely.

the preferred method is to search yourself, them pm the lounge mod with the thread you'd like to btt.

granted this does seem to necessitate a second active lounge mod, but that's an entirely different discussion.

If you need a quick response, CC has more traffic anyways.

Or you could just make a new post, link to the old thread, and expect the new one to get locked when the mod gets on, but prior to that you'd receive a few responses.

seems kinda akward but barring a means for the common user to btt old threads its just the way it's going to be

10/22/2008 10:26:04 AM

Quote :

"but sometimes people need an answer more quickly than it takes to wait for the lounge admin to get online, find the thread, and then bttt it."

i often try asking in the chatterbox, but i guess if you're not premium that wouldn't be an option

10/22/2008 10:32:58 AM

personally i don't see what the point is of having threads expire in the first place. or archiving posts either. in the meantime though i agree with

Quote :

"Or you could just make a new post, link to the old thread, and expect the new one to get locked when the mod gets on, but prior to that you'd receive a few responses."

and just fyi for anybody who didn't know, i can bttt threads even outside of PP, so feel free to pm me if the other mods aren't around to bttt a thread

10/22/2008 10:35:10 AM

Quote :

"no examples? this practice has been going on for a while and seems to work"

the interview question thread... people were all like OMFG search, but all of the previous threads on the topic appeared to be expired.
No human being is going to be on TWW 24/7 to bump an old thread when you need to ask a question then.

I understand trying to keep things in order, and even asking the question in an old thread for the most part, but getting pissed when someone posts a new thread about a topic isn't cool.


furthermore, sometimes an old thread does not have the scope or direction that a newer thread might have.

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 10:40 AM. Reason : ]

10/22/2008 10:40:37 AM

Quote :

"personally i don't see what the point is of having threads expire in the first place. or archiving posts either. in the meantime though i agree with"

can you speak to nael about this. i think it would be a cool move to disable this.

10/22/2008 10:51:55 AM

don't let RD know if it does get disabled

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 11:05 AM. Reason : although generally speaking, I agree]

10/22/2008 11:05:06 AM

hey, with great power comes great responsibility. if anybody repeatedly abuses the ability to bump threads, i imagine they would just get suspended.

10/22/2008 11:20:29 AM

then i make a motion to disable thread expiration on the sole purpose that it gives certain users another opportunity to get themselves suspended.

10/22/2008 11:25:27 AM

I agree with the above statement and hereby nominate RD for termination

10/22/2008 11:30:55 AM

haha seconded

10/22/2008 11:32:52 AM

haha firstded

I'm walls1441 and i approved this message.

10/22/2008 12:40:31 PM

if not no expiration, at least more than 90 days

10/22/2008 12:43:56 PM

i agree with it being bumped up to 180-270 days but not removed

10/22/2008 1:16:35 PM

just curious, why 6-9 months ok but not removed? i don't see the difference between 3 mo and 6 or 9 mo. i just can't think of why there should be a constraint in the first place

10/22/2008 1:25:42 PM

there isn't much of a difference - just a little more time - i'd agree with it being removed if

1) idiot users wouldn't bttt a whole bunch of shit topics (at that point might as well remove 1 thread per hour...)
2) there was not a way to bttt a thread that's needed - i think every section has topics bttt by mods currently but it's by no means common

10/22/2008 1:33:40 PM

Quote :

"(at that point might as well remove 1 thread per hour...)"

Ha, that'll never happen with the total douches like RD and the like on here. If this board collectively had even an ounce of maturity this stuff wouldn't be a problem.

How often do they purge threads? Is there a guideline? It seems like it differs by section...

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 1:37 PM. Reason : x]

10/22/2008 1:36:37 PM

I think it'd be good to keep holding chit chat to the to current system but disabling it for the other forums

but i feel pretty damn confindent that that would never happen

the serious forums have more of a need to btt old threads

10/22/2008 1:36:43 PM

I don't think we need 90day flood control.

The mods can suspend anyone who is just btt'ing to be a douche. This would be easier than them having to bttt a thread everytime someone wants to use it.

Even more logical would be if flood control allowed a user only to bttt one old thread in a 24 hour period. That way if I wanted to use a thread from last Halloween I could use it but could not get drunk and bump all of the threads on page 635.

10/22/2008 4:13:33 PM

Questions:

1. Are "archived" threads actually archived or are they just nuked?

2. How much does this server suck that 30GB of images is "filling the hard drive" anyway?

Both leading up to:

3. Why not put the archived content back online, perhaps as another premium service?

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 6:17 PM. Reason : *]

10/23/2008 6:16:13 PM