Bumped Threads

[JackBuddy]

Why do 'bumped threads' get closed, even if the new post is relevant? Surely it's better than a new thread?

Just a little something that annoys me.

This is a good example:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=349066&page=7

[today]

I know it would be better to bump old ones within reason.

[Nain]

as kl!! said, i think its OK to bump AS LONG AS its within reason, not to say,

oh thats cool, good for you no names, sorry :p

[Baby]

I know its silly and loads of people will disagree but i think certain types of old threads should be allowed to be bumped.
Like not alts or graphics but just general things :)

[GommeInc]

I know its silly and loads of people will disagree but i think certain types of old threads should be allowed to be bumped.
Like not alts or graphics but just general things :)
Indeed, there's nothing wrong with it. Alts and graphics are a bit of puzzle though, because some people maybe doing it to get their alts noticed again, so I guess you're right in saying alt and graphics bumping shouldn't be allowed.

[Con]

It annoys me to especially when you get an infraction :rolleyes:

I bumped a 2 year old thread

BUT i didnt notice as it was on a list of threads which only had about 5/6 in.

So it wasn't obvious. :)

[Baby]

It annoys me to especially when you get an infraction :rolleyes:

I bumped a 2 year old thread

BUT i didnt notice as it was on a list of threads which only had about 5/6 in.

So it wasn't obvious. :)
Yeah it should 2 bumps=1 infraction.
Sometimes i bump a thread and only notice after my post :P

[JackBuddy]

I don't see why there should be a problem with bumping a graphics thread. As long as the comment is relevant then no thread should be closed really.

[GommeInc]

I don't see why there should be a problem with bumping a graphics thread. As long as the comment is relevant then no thread should be closed really.
It gives that members alt/thread an unfair advantage at being looked, but it's such a little issue you're probably right :P

[The Professor]

Personally if there's a valid reason for bumping I wouldn't give an infraction, but if its just something like bumping your thread in the trading forum to get it noticed, you can have a one way trip to infraction city.

[JackBuddy]

Personally if there's a valid reason for bumping I wouldn't give an infraction, but if its just something like bumping your thread in the trading forum to get it noticed, you can have a one way trip to infraction city.
It's not the infracting that bothers me, it's when mods close the threads.

[samsaBEAR]

Personally if there's a valid reason for bumping I wouldn't give an infraction, but if its just something like bumping your thread in the trading forum to get it noticed, you can have a one way trip to infraction city.
agreed.
i think if you are bumping to contribute it should be allowed, but if you are bumping to gain something, like more looks at your alt/trade/whatever than it should be closed

[shizzle]

I'd make a new thread to avoid the hassle.

[today]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=4709702#post4709702

perfect example.

Exactly same post, cant bump as its over a month old ect. But it really doesnt deserve a new thread.

[Hitman]

Hm, I do see what you mean, I personally never give an infraction if somebody bumps a thread, I just close it... of course, if they bump many then they'll be warned, either by PM or an infraction.

[JackBuddy]

Hm, I do see what you mean, I personally never give an infraction if somebody bumps a thread, I just close it... of course, if they bump many then they'll be warned, either by PM or an infraction.
But why does it need to be closed?

[nvrspk4]

Erm well the idea is that if its been posted and you're posting to bring it back to the top you're bumping down other valid threads. As for old threads, there have been people who have gone through others' old threads, like the first ones they posted and bumped them just to be smartalecks, bumping down legitimate threads. Although they made a point, the post was made to bring the user's newbie post (often filled with l33tspeak that the user no longer uses :P) into the public eye.

[GommeInc]

Erm well the idea is that if its been posted and you're posting to bring it back to the top you're bumping down other valid threads. As for old threads, there have been people who have gone through others' old threads, like the first ones they posted and bumped them just to be smartalecks, bumping down legitimate threads. Although they made a point, the post was made to bring the user's newbie post (often filled with l33tspeak that the user no longer uses :P) into the public eye.
Isn't that the point of a forum? If someone created a new thread in most instances they'll be told to close it because another thread already exists, or the thread will be closed at a later date because some members have felt the undying need to flame the creator of the thread for making a subject which is "dead and buried" to them. Unless a new ruling comes in for moderators to keep an eye on threads incase issues arise. An old thread could remain open, because in most instances they just die down after a while :P And if that member posts again it's double posting and/or bumping, unless they play the new information card, which won't be proven useless unless other members and moderators feel it is.

Tricky situation really :P

[Catzsy]

Isn't that the point of a forum? If someone created a new thread in most instances they'll be told to close it because another thread already exists, or the thread will be closed at a later date because some members have felt the undying need to flame the creator of the thread for making a subject which is "dead and buried" to them. Unless a new ruling comes in for moderators to keep an eye on threads incase issues arise. An old thread could remain open, because in most instances they just die down after a while :P And if that member posts again it's double posting and/or bumping, unless they play the new information card, which won't be proven useless unless other members and moderators feel it is.

Tricky situation really :P

Yes it is. As Nvr points out most time it's just somebody having fun by bumping really old threads with no constructive comment to add. If somebody who may not have been on for awhile or is new is genuninely interested in the thread topic has made a valid comment what's the problem? Why close it? It just all comes down to common sense really. I really don't think it takes a brain scientist to work this out.

[today]

We are talking about Habbox M'dear.

"I really don't think it takes a brain scientist to work this out."
It takes more then a scientist to work out how Habbox works.

[nvrspk4]

Isn't that the point of a forum? If someone created a new thread in most instances they'll be told to close it because another thread already exists, or the thread will be closed at a later date because some members have felt the undying need to flame the creator of the thread for making a subject which is "dead and buried" to them. Unless a new ruling comes in for moderators to keep an eye on threads incase issues arise. An old thread could remain open, because in most instances they just die down after a while :P And if that member posts again it's double posting and/or bumping, unless they play the new information card, which won't be proven useless unless other members and moderators feel it is.

Tricky situation really :P

The first wouldn't happen, if there's been a thread within the bumping period (where they can post without getting in trouble) then it would be the multiple threads rule. If that's not the case the moderator wouldn't do anything.

And honestly if the thread is that old then people shouldn't start flaming the thread starter, if they do then that might be a problem I suppose but that's one of those cases where the thread is shut but the thread starter is encouraged to start a new thread and the people who flamed are informed that they will be dealt with severely if they do it again.


Catzsy > Yes but technically they could be "making a point" by the word of the law if not in the spirit.