Bumping threads

[Paulio]

I think that the rule about bumping threads should be tolerated a little more. You should be able to bump a thread if what you have to say is relevant to the thread. The reason I'm bringing this up is because a thread I replied in about Club Tropic got closed due to the fact it was bumped from a month ago. The information in thread was still relevent and people still have things to say about it.

[Meti]

I totally agree with this 100%!

New rule please :P

[today]

i missed u babe!!! :(

Yh i agree.

[Catzsy]

Well I have some sympathy with you here.

B10. Do not bump threads - It is not allowed to bump up a thread. Simply wait for someone to reply instead. If the thread is old, make a new thread instead.

I think essentially it applies to bumping your own thread without a good reason or after a long period of time. Replying to a thread is a bit different and members especially new ones may be interested in the topic and want to reply so I feel a time limit should be imposed in the rules so it is clear to the members.

The wording could be something like this:

B10.Please do not bump threads - It is not allowed for a thread starter to bump a thread. Simply wait for someone to reply instead. If the thread is more than two months old make a new thread instead. Threads where there has been no reply for two months are treated as 'dead'' and should not be replied to. The only exceptions to this are threads that have been stuck by management.

The two month time limit is just an example - this would have to be determind by the
senior management.

[Alkaz]

Thats good what you said Rosie, good idea :)

[jesus]

One month isn't that much, I'd class 'old' as at least 2-3 months so I don't think it should have been closed.

Just read Rosie's post and I think that's a great idea. :)

[today]

One month isn't that much, I'd class 'old' as at least 2-3 months so I don't think it should have been closed.

Just read Rosie's post and I think that's a great idea. :)
Yayy we finally agree on something!

A month is hardly ages =l

[Paulio]

Great idea Rosie. I think the time length you given is very good too.

[The Professor]

I allow a bump if it adds something to the thread and the conversation is still relevant, if people complain I just edit saying "Bump justified because xyz." Its more a common sense thing than setting a strict time limit.

[Slowpoke]

People who bump threads pointlessly should receive a warning in my opinion because it causes disruption (like double posting). And I agree with Rosie, that's a great idea!

[Catzsy]

I allow a bump if it adds something to the thread and the conversation is still relevant, if people complain I just edit saying "Bump justified because xyz." Its more a common sense thing than setting a strict time limit.

Why is it more of a common sense thing Alex?
I can only see benefits to the members and the mods of it being clarified
and a reasonable time limit set so everyone knows where they stand.
I have also never seen a direction in respect of 'justified bumps' :S Also if the thread has been left dormant for two months I can't really think of a good reason. If a member wanted to bump his thread after this time he could ask a mod for permission, maybe but I think that would be rare.

[GommeInc]

I know the thread you're talking about and it shouldn't of been closed. It's the only subject really available about ClubTropica, that it isn't open and it will be opening in the Summer. There should be exceptions to this sort of thread.

[Paulio]

I'm glad you all agree. If I was to make another thread on the subject now in the Club Tropica forum, people wouldn't be happy and I'd get accused of copying people's threads but I'd have to do that to give my opinion on the subject.


I know the thread you're talking about and it shouldn't of been closed. It's the only subject really available about ClubTropica, that it isn't open and it will be opening in the Summer. There should be exceptions to this sort of thread.

[The Professor]

Why is it more of a common sense thing Alex?
I can only see benefits to the members and the mods of it being clarified
and a reasonable time limit set so everyone knows where they stand.
I have also never seen a direction in respect of 'justified bumps' :S Also if the thread has been left dormant for two months I can't really think of a good reason. If a member wanted to bump his thread after this time he could ask a mod for permission, maybe but I think that would be rare.

I have come across situations where a dormant thread has been bumped with a new post which is completely relevant to the conversation, and the thread continue as if there had been no time gap at all. The example that stays in my head was in the runescape section where someone made a picture out of dropped ashes and suggested he might make more, than three weeks or so later posted a new one in the same thread. In that case, I see no harm in letting the thread continue.

But as you say, these situations are rare and common sense has to prevail when deciding whether it's justified or not.

[Mrs.McCall]

I think where people bump their threads saying "bump" just to get them read, then they should get closed but if the thread starter has posted something new (like I do with my Teenage Lives thread) then it should be allowed.

[The Professor]

I think where people bump their threads saying "bump" just to get them read, then they should get closed but if the thread starter has posted something new (like I do with my Teenage Lives thread) then it should be allowed.

Glad to know I'm not completely on my own on that one :P

[Catzsy]

I have come across situations where a dormant thread has been bumped with a new post which is completely relevant to the conversation, and the thread continue as if there had been no time gap at all. The example that stays in my head was in the runescape section where someone made a picture out of dropped ashes and suggested he might make more, than three weeks or so later posted a new one in the same thread. In that case, I see no harm in letting the thread continue.

But as you say, these situations are rare and common sense has to prevail when deciding whether it's justified or not.

How can a 3 week old thread be dormant, Alex? There is no Habbox definition of a dormant thread as far as I know. I am interested to know why you feel there shouldn't be a time limit. It would make it much clearer for both the mods and staff. I don't understand your objection to this. There would always be times when a mod could use their discretion, anyway. :)

[Mrs.McCall]

Glad to know I'm not completely on my own on that one :P

Yeah I don't see the need for a set time. It should come down the moderator's own discretion. If someone isn't happy that their thread got closed then they can always PM a Smod or Elkaa.

[The Professor]

How can a 3 week old thread be dormant, Alex? There is no Habbox definition of a dormant thread as far as I know. I am interested to know why you feel there shouldn't be a time limit. It would make it much clearer for both the mods and staff. I don't understand your objection to this. There would always be times when a mod could use their discretion, anyway. :)

In an active forum like runescape (at the time that thread was posted), a thread over a week old is dormant, a thread three weeks old is dead, buried and weed on by a dog. The definition of dormant varies from forum to forum as some are more active than others, generally I'd class something as dormant if it's off the first or second page; rarely are conversations continued after that.

I'm not especially against a time limit, it could work well, but I'm all for moderator discretion over strict guidelines. Considering there were a fair few people opposed to the automatic ban because it made moderators seem less human and more robotic, I thought that was the general concensus of the forum.

[Boonzeet]

Well I have some sympathy with you here.

B10. Do not bump threads - It is not allowed to bump up a thread. Simply wait for someone to reply instead. If the thread is old, make a new thread instead.

I think essentially it applies to bumping your own thread without a good reason or after a long period of time. Replying to a thread is a bit different and members especially new ones may be interested in the topic and want to reply so I feel a time limit should be imposed in the rules so it is clear to the members.

The wording could be something like this:

B10.Please do not bump threads - It is not allowed for a thread starter to bump a thread. Simply wait for someone to reply instead. If the thread is more than two months old make a new thread instead. Threads where there has been no reply for two months are treated as 'dead'' and should not be replied to. The only exceptions to this are threads that have been stuck by management.

The two month time limit is just an example - this would have to be determind by the
senior management.

Haha, I'm actually going to rep you for that as I posted that about a week before I got fired :3

I disagree with this thread.

Although bumping... is when a moderator intentionally moves it up. The proper word is necroposting, but oh well.

Anyway, I think it should be the same, or stricter.

[The Professor]

Haha, I'm actually going to rep you for that as I posted that about a week before I got fired :3

I disagree with this thread.

Although bumping... is when a moderator intentionally moves it up. The proper word is necroposting, but oh well.

Anyway, I think it should be the same, or stricter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_%28Internet%29

Obviously wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but I think it suffices here :P

[e5]

I have come across situations where a dormant thread has been bumped with a new post which is completely relevant to the conversation, and the thread continue as if there had been no time gap at all. The example that stays in my head was in the runescape section where someone made a picture out of dropped ashes and suggested he might make more, than three weeks or so later posted a new one in the same thread. In that case, I see no harm in letting the thread continue.

But as you say, these situations are rare and common sense has to prevail when deciding whether it's justified or not.
Some people just do it to be awkward though and would abuse this if given half the oppourtunity, also we don't really want o re-instate old news. Mainly speaking for the Habbo UK News and Rumours section.. If you added dicussion onto that, maybe bumping could be allowed.

[leah]

Yeah I agree.

[The Professor]

For anyone who's interested, the rule has now been reviewed and will be changed in the very near future. Thanks for everyone's input :)

[Catzsy]

Great work already, Alex. We could be the A team of my name wasn't Catzsy!:P

[Paulio]

Nice to see feedback being thought about :)

[The Professor]

Great work already, Alex. We could be the A team of my name wasn't Catzsy!:P

I suppose we could be AC/DC... without the DC part... :P

[Catzsy]

I suppose we could be AC/DC... without the DC part... :P

Sounds good to me :) So we just half rock but that's okay for now.

Posts merged by Hitman.