Ask a mod

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Which thread are you talking about?

    It was the winter Nogojev thread. I was asking about a serious bug in it. I was curious if Kegety was considering an update or if some one knew a fix.  It is older than four monthes though so I'm sorry I brought it up.

    Just an idea, but why not just lock or delete all threads that haven't been posted in for more than four monthes?

They probobably don't lock them because someone may have something significan to add, as dictated in the rules. And deletion would render the search option quite useless at time.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Which thread are you talking about?

    It was the winter Nogojev thread. I was asking about a serious bug in it. I was curious if Kegety was considering an update or if some one knew a fix.  It is older than four monthes though so I'm sorry I brought it up.

    Just an idea, but why not just lock or delete all threads that haven't been posted in for more than four monthes?

They probobably don't lock them because someone may have something significan to add, as dictated in the rules.  And deletion would render the search option quite useless at time.

Sputnik did as something significant.

[ralphwiggum 6]

however, check the dates. 2002! On top of that even Sputnik himself wrote that there were several others that mentioned the bug. of course Sputnik was interested in progress, but digging up nearly 2 year old thread is something that is better consulted before doing so.

[theavonlady 2]

however, check the dates. 2002! On top of that even Sputnik himself wrote that there were several others that mentioned the bug. of course Sputnik was interested in progress, but digging up nearly 2 year old thread is something that is better consulted before doing so.

And what would you have advised him to do? Open up a new thread? What for? The thread is right on the mark for the question asked.

It's not as if he asked "so, do you think I should download this island" or "I found a download link, if you're interested".

[Tim Pink 0]

Im going to speak my mind here and hope i dont get in trouble but frankly, i think the "dont dig up threads more than 4 months old" rule is stupid.

As far as ive seen you guys do a great job at moderating and the rules are fair, but that one is stupid.

I mean, say someone finds a bug in an addon that hasnt been discovered yet so he goes to the forum and finds the topic is quite old and the author of the addon cant be reached via IM, he wants to post the bug to see if anyone else has had it and thus possibly find a solution but alas he cant because A, if he posts a reply the topic will be locked by you guys for being "dug up" or B, if he starts a new thread on this bug, you guys will probably lock it for being "Unnecessary" or in the wrong place, it is a lose lose situation and i really think that rule requires being revised.

Tim

[ralphwiggum 6]

the 4 month rule was enacted since some people revive old thread for no good reason, such as bumping.

in your hypothetical situation, the newly discovered bug could be an useful info. however, the user can use email, not just PM. either way, rule is there and we are not locking for fun.

there's nothing wrong with PMing us to make sure.(avon don't bother making smart*** comments about this)

And what would you have advised him to do? Open up a new thread? What for? The thread is right on the mark for the question asked.

I'd have spread some word to other mods about it, and should sputnik's post be significant, it would have been accepted.

[theavonlady 2]

the 4 month rule was enacted since some people revive old thread for no good reason, such as bumping.

What do you do when anyone posts on any thread for no good reason?

Tim Pink's got it right.

Almost forgot:

/bump

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

the 4 month rule was enacted since some people revive old thread for no good reason, such as bumping.

What do you do when anyone posts on any thread for no good reason?

Tim Pink's got it right.

Almost forgot:

/bump

He's partially right.

But in this case the guy opened up an old thread because of a bug which was already known two years ago!

And even if it wasn't known, than it's very unlikeley some update would be made.

The best thing you could do is open a thread in A&M:D (not A&M:C) with a request to fix the bug in the old addon. In the first post link to the topic of the addon in A&M:C so people know what you are talking about. Posting as a request this would be like asking for a new addon. THey can't lock such threads (I hope).

But indeed the first thing someone should do is to try to get in touch with the addonmaker.

They could change the rule so that when you post relevant info it's allowed to dig up old threads, but than the next question will be what is relevant? It will only cause much confusion and people digging up old threads without a real reason.

@ralph;

Wouldn't calling someone a "smart***" be considered flaming  

[theavonlady 2]

@ralph;

Wouldn't calling someone a "smart***" be considered flaming  

That's what he called my not-as-of-yet remarks - not me personally.

Nevertheless, it's indeed flaming.

Placebo, you know what to do.

I say "Duck Season" and I say "Fire"!

[Placebo 28]

Digging up old threads is treated case by case, in this case as Kegetys hadn't informed anyone of an update in the 27 months since the last post I was pretty sure that there was no point digging up the thread so I closed it, should Kegetys decide to update the addon I will open it again

They could change the rule so that when you post relevant info it's allowed to dig up old threads, but than the next question will be what is relevant? It will only cause much confusion and people digging up old threads without a real reason.

That is the rule If in doubt PM one of us and ask, we'll give you an answer, many people do that

[ralphwiggum 6]

the 4 month rule was enacted since some people revive old thread for no good reason, such as bumping.

What do you do when anyone posts on any thread for no good reason?

Tim Pink's got it right.

Almost forgot:

/bump

without written rule, it's hard to enforce the law. hence we wrote it down. just because we wrote it down doesn't mean that it is automatically followed by all members.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

@avon;

thats' sometimes called spamming (posting shit without a reason). There's a rule against this aswell

Without written rules you can't moderate a forum. It will turn into chaos. I think this forum has good rules and is moderated very well.

Let's also not forget that, like in real life, there is a difference between following the exect words of the written rule and following the idea behind the rule. Sometimes rules can be 'bend' a little if it doesn't conflict with the idea behind the rule. Like already said by the mods; asking permission for this using PM is a way to make sure.

[Colossus 2]

Would be fun it the threads would close it self after 4 months, there would be no reason to post in old threads then.

Hmm, maybe I should e-mail the makers of Ikonboard about this

[Silent N Deadly 0]

What does the star in "*TROUBLESHOOTING FAQ" mean? I noticed this and I was curious. I mean, I looked for a "note" but there is none.

[ralphwiggum 6]

as far as i know? nothing.

[shadow 6]

Probably that its a read-only forum

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

or just to get your attention and make it a 'read-me-first'-topic. Anyway, it's quite silly discussing this

[Silent N Deadly 0]

OK, thanks!

My curiousity is satisfied.

[blackdog~ 0]

Is it just me or have the quality of posts on this forum gone way down the shitter in the past couple of months?

As graphically shown in this fantastically graphed graph (and those that follow), posts on this board really suck now adays.

http://www.tacticalblunder.com/Image1.gif

(dramatization)

Below is a graph showing what kinds of posts are generally posted on the forums now. I have denoted moronic topics of conversation with an aestrick.

http://www.tacticalblunder.com/Image2.gif

(dramatization)

I don't want to name any names but some people have been bugging me by posting like 20202032929302392035178107518097598127492371 posts a day with stupid one-liners (in a non-comedic way). Has anything been done about this?

[Placebo 28]

Hmm I think it's 99% just you, still feels like a pretty good mix to me

[raedor 8]

some very intresting ppl, who discussed here in the past, are not very often or not at all here, that's true

[sanctuary 19]

Sometime you read some posts that will have your interest and all will be good, sometime you will read another serie of posts that does not have your interest and all will be not good.

There are days with "it" , and days without "it", that's all.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

agree with the last post.

Back than it wasn't all perfect either. I also remember a certain person posting pictures of Peter Pan

[theavonlady 2]

Back than it wasn't all perfect either. I also remember a certain person posting pictures of Peter Pan  

Ouch!

Yuk! Yuk! Yuk! @ BlackDog

[blackdog~ 0]

The graph is a little bit skewed in a few ways for example I think that half the topics in late 2001 till early 2002 were locked or deleted by moderators.

I generally define threads like ex-ronin's babe thread as quality postings.

Posts like the

And posts like peter pan fall under the "pure comedy" category which is why there is 1% pure comedy in 2003.

And things like this one:

"HAS ANYONE seen my jacket? I need some insights here, any help u offer is well appreciated, my jacked it out there somewhere...all alone, wet, cold, and shivering. Help a guy out and find my jacket!!!!!"

"I know who stole your jacket, its the same mofo who took mine and I know cuz I saw him running from my house with my jacket and hubcaps from my El Camino. This is what he looks like

If anybody see this man he goes by the alias "Washington, Denzel" and he is wanted for petty theft. As far as we know he has stole my jacket and Brent's. WE CAN NOT ALLOW THIS MADNESS TO GO ON ANY LONGER"

Maybe I just look at things differently. All I know is that 90% of the posts on this forum can be accounted for on the political threads... heh, or at least it seems that way. Can't believe you people can stand arguing for so long.