Dragging up a nine year old thread

Kazuma

"Dragging up a nine year old thread" - Admittedly mostly pointless, but exactly what's wrong with this?

seamus

Everything.

You don't drag up old threads. It's just not done. If the last post was more than a year ago, then you start a new thread. Otherwise you've got a tonne of content which is probably out of date, and everyone who originally posted in it has forgotten what they've said and will have to start again anyway.

You definitely don't drag up a thread to make a comment on something that someone said nine years ago.

Imagine one of your school teachers coming along and wanting to have a chat with you about the Irish test you took before the Halloween break in 1996?

Stark

Because I would gawk at posts made by my 17 year old self...

Kazuma

So mods don't like being reminded about their younger selves?

tallaght01

seamus wrote: »

Everything.

You don't drag up old threads. It's just not done. If the last post was more than a year ago, then you start a new thread. Otherwise you've got a tonne of content which is probably out of date, and everyone who originally posted in it has forgotten what they've said and will have to start again anyway.

You definitely don't drag up a thread to make a comment on something that someone said nine years ago.

Imagine one of your school teachers coming along and wanting to have a chat with you about the Irish test you took before the Halloween break in 1996?

It's a discussion board. That's what it is. If someone wants to comment on an old topic, why can't they? If no-one else wants to engage, the topic will die. "Just the way it is" thinking is very backward looking.

We should leave a lot more things alone, and let the dynamic of the message board take it's course, IMHO.

whiskeyman

I propose we drag up some lolkitten pics for this thread...

Boston

Why does tallaght1 always have to fight the established order? discuss.

Kazuma

If they involve digging up nine year olds, fire ahead =P

tallaght01

Boston wrote: »

Why does tallaght1 always have to fight the established order? discuss.

Coz it pisses you off. End of discussion.

seamus

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's a discussion board. That's what it is. If someone wants to comment on an old topic, why can't they? If no-one else wants to engage, the topic will die. "Just the way it is" thinking is very backward looking.

I'd ordinarily agree, but not on this one. It creates spam. That's it. The topic serves no purpose except to gather crap posts.

Some threads don't just die on their own, in particular threads which have been dragged up. Instead, they have twenty posts of people going, "OMG, old thread", another twenty not realising that it's an old thread and trying to argue with the OP when the OP is either long gone or long dead, and then another fifty random lol's and FFS's and "IBFL" and such.

Dragging up old posts wastes a monumental amount of time.

Will

I will get back to this in nine years, because it will prove a point.

Kazuma

seamus wrote: »

I'd ordinarily agree, but not on this one. It creates spam. That's it. The topic serves no purpose except to gather crap posts.

Some threads don't just die on their own, in particular threads which have been dragged up. Instead, they have twenty posts of people going, "OMG, old thread", another twenty not realising that it's an old thread and trying to argue with the OP when the OP is either long gone or long dead, and then another fifty random lol's and FFS's and "IBFL" and such.

Dragging up old posts wastes a monumental amount of time.

Whose time are you talking about?
If people want to post on it, it's their time to waste?
And if people are enjoying the thread, I don't think it's appropriate for you to call them crap.

Epic Tissue

seamus wrote: »

Some threads don't just die on their own, in particular threads which have been dragged up. Instead, they have twenty posts of people going, "OMG, old thread", another twenty not realising that it's an old thread and trying to argue with the OP when the OP is either long gone or long dead, and then another fifty random lol's and FFS's and "IBFL" and such.

Sounds awesome! and fits into AH nicely:pac:

Kazuma

Will wrote: »

I will get back to this in nine years, because it will prove a point.

Well I shall see you in 9 years then, Will, but I'm hoping my ban will have been lifted by then.

seamus

Kazuma wrote: »

Whose time are you talking about?
If people want to post on it, it's their time to waste?
And if people are enjoying the thread, I don't think it's appropriate for you to call them crap.

It wastes moderator's time, it wastes other people's time because they'll go in and read it and then realise it's crap.

People will enjoy the most mundane of things. Just because people are posting smiley faces and LOL's, doesn't exempt a thread from the "crap" label.

If it serves no purpose and has no discussion, it's crap and it's spam. There's only one forum where that's allowed on this site, and it's not AH.

Will

It's a 1 week ban, I'm sure you will survive.
Will reply again on the 29th of August 2017.

Kazuma

seamus wrote: »

It wastes moderator's time, it wastes other people's time because they'll go in and read it and then realise it's crap.

People will enjoy the most mundane of things. Just because people are posting smiley faces and LOL's, doesn't exempt a thread from the "crap" label.

If it serves no purpose and has no discussion, it's crap and it's spam. There's only one forum where that's allowed on this site, and it's not AH.

Can you tell me which it is? I'm...getting...urges.....

Sully

Didnt DeV already say that dragging up old topics with nothing constructive to add is pointless, and to start a new thread instead? I remember some of the deise folk complaining about that. I think.

tallaght01

I do see your point Seamus. I disagree with it. But I see where you're coming from. But, I think things should be let roll, and that if people want to discuss it, they should be allowed do it. I think we can disagree on that point civilly.

But I think banning someone for it is really dumb. Bannings should be for troublemakers. I don't know kazuma's history on here, but if that's all he/she has done, then a banning is a power trip, IMO.

Daithi McGee

Boston wrote: »

Why does tallaght1 always have to fight the established order? discuss.

To create the established order?

[pb]Say no to drugs kids. [/pb]

Kazuma

It is my first ban on boards, I don't even post that much, usually stay around the Nocturnal Forum.
A ban from After Hours doesn't bother me all that greatly, it would just be the fact that I received no warning, as I was under the impression that AH was a more passive forum.

Sully

tallaght01 wrote: »

I do see your point Seamus. I disagree with it. But I see where you're coming from. But, I think things should be let roll, and that if people want to discuss it, they should be allowed do it. I think we can disagree on that point civilly.

I absolutely hate it when someone drags up an old thread with absolutely nothing decent to add. Seriously. Its like replying to a new thread with absolute rubbish.

But I think banning someone for it is really dumb. Bannings should be for troublemakers. I don't know kazuma's history on here, but if that's all he/she has done, then a banning is a power trip, IMO.

Ya well I don't agree with issuing a ban over it - infraction fair enough. Ban was OTT. Unless Kaz is a general nuisance in AH.

As for the "power trip" comment - christ, that's just an immature accusation to make.

Daithi McGee

Kazuma wrote: »

I was under the impression that AH was a more passive aggressive forum.

FYP

tallaght01

Sully wrote: »

I absolutely hate it when someone drags up an old thread with absolutely nothing decent to add. Seriously. Its like replying to a new thread with absolute rubbish.

A case in point.

Whether you like old posts being dragged up is pretty irrelevant.

But you probably wouldn't see your above post as being irrelevant.

One man's bollix thread is another man's interesting thread.

seamus

tallaght01 wrote: »

I do see your point Seamus. I disagree with it. But I see where you're coming from. But, I think things should be let roll, and that if people want to discuss it, they should be allowed do it. I think we can disagree on that point civilly.

NO!

Will wrote: »

It's a 1 week ban, I'm sure you will survive.
Will reply again on the 29th of August 2017.

I've marked it in my work calendar. Conveniently, the next day has an appointment marked, "If you're still working here, please kill youself".

Dudess

Boston wrote: »

Why does tallaght1 always have to fight the established order? discuss.

Why not?

Why do you consider the "established order" so sacred and why are you constantly defending it by pouncing on people who question things here in a civil, reasonable manner?

Seamus, what about considering the actual thread though? Obviously the thread in question here was an exceptionally inane one and deserves closure/deletion, but what about, for example, a decent thread - one which might even have very useful information? For example, one about those scam marketing/sales companies in Work & Jobs?
To me, it would make more sense to resurrect one of those (even if it's two years old) rather than start a new one when there could be some very valuable comments in the old one.

Boston

I had a date marked in my calender which said "If you're still posting on boards, you suck". That day came and went.

Sully

tallaght01 wrote: »

A case in point.

Whether you like old posts being dragged up is pretty irrelevant.

I disagree. If most people on this site didn't like something, it would usually be fixed/changed.

But you probably wouldn't see your above post as being irrelevant.

Unless I am mistaken, you were trying to justify allowing old threads to be dragged up by making your opinion on the matter. I did one, but didn't agree with yours. If my post is irrelevant then we can safely assume yours is to

One man's bollix thread is another man's interesting thread.

Christ, if we let that attitude be taken Boards.ie would be ****e. Imagine AH then! :O

Boston

Dudess wrote: »

Why not?

Why do you consider the "established order" so sacred and why are you constantly defending it by pouncing on people who question things here in a civil, reasonable manner?

That's the second time you've brought up me pouncing on people. Is there some point you'd like to make or is it that you feel the need to add me to the ever growing circle of people who take a dig at you when ever you post on a topic?

Sully

Dudess wrote: »

Seamus, what about considering the actual thread though? Obviously the thread in question here was an exceptionally inane one and deserves closure/deletion, but what about, for example, a decent thread - one which might even have very useful information? For example, one about those scam marketing/sales companies in Work & Jobs?
To me, it would make more sense to resurrect one of those (even if it's two years old) rather than start a new one when there could be some very valuable comments in the old one.

Ah yes, I think that's exactly what DeV's point was. Allow if useful, scrap if not (or something to that affect).

tallaght01

Sully wrote: »

I disagree. If most people on this site didn't like something, it would usually be fixed/changed.



Unless I am mistaken, you were trying to justify allowing old threads to be dragged up by making your opinion on the matter. I did one, but didn't agree with yours. If my post is irrelevant then we can safely assume yours is to



Christ, if we let that attitude be taken Boards.ie would be ****e. Imagine AH then! :O

I think my post is as irrelevant as yours. I'm sure feck all ppl want to read about my views on 9 year old threads, but I posted anyway. Similarly, if some people want to post on 9 year old threads, then who are we to say our feedback posts are more important than their thread contributions??