Bumping threads

[Blinger]

o hi guys.
curious why you can't bump threads like this http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=744827 ?

I think you should be allowed to bump a thread if the thread serves a purpose like mine one actually did. Notice how before I bumped it ONE person replied and as soon as I bumped it it got 10 replies or something?

forgot what else i wanted to say.

[Grig]

I think that should be allowed as long as it's not too old, which it is not. Like up to 3-4 months there, because after that the replies wouldn't be current.

[Blinger]

Yeah and it was a genuine question not something like "hey wotz da time?" Or "what channel is the news on" or some ********

[Charlie]

I think that should be allowed, you were asking a genuine question and you didn't bump it after like a month of not having replies to it.

[Samantha]

It's because you didn't add anything constructive rather than 'bump'. If you were to say what your ex jobs pay was or reply to someone else then it probably would have stood. Not saying I agree that this shouldn't be allowed but I remember my thread didn't get bumped yet it took a few days to a week to get a reply so I think time could be the reason as to why many didn't reply.

I think the thread creator should be allowed to bump to an extent though.

[Richie]

If it servers a purpose then yeah it should be allowed but if its a thread from 2006 in spam about how runny someones milkshake is then i don't agree the thread should stay open, stop living in the past +*+

[Chris]

I think some people are misunderstanding the edit :P It wasn't edited because of the age of the thread but rather because the post itself is pointless, hence the "Do not pointlessly bump threads".

[Blinger]

Which is what I'm saying! Before I bumped it, the thread got ONE reply, after the bump (it was halfway down the list of threads) it actually got replies I was looking for.. and it was a legitimate topic!

[beth]

i think the thread creator should be allowed to bump regardless of their "bump" post personally.

[Chris]

It doesn't make your post any less pointless though :P It isn't a lot to ask that you add more to your post than just "Bump" is it? :P

[beth]

well, i don't understand yr point... so if i put "bump for more response" it would be better than just bump? does the same exact job and everyone knows why you've bumped anyway.

[Chris]

well, i don't understand yr point... so if i put "bump for more response" it would be better than just bump? does the same exact job and everyone knows why you've bumped anyway.

No because as you just said thats exactly the same thing lol. The post has to be relevant, so that could be done by adding new information or replying to someone else in the thread.

It may be something that scott; would change, so we'll see what he says. :)

[beth]

well to be fair chris i got pointless posting warned this weekend for something completely relevant to a thread so can't ever with the moderation team?

[Chris]

well to be fair chris i got pointless posting warned this weekend for something completely relevant to a thread so can't ever with the moderation team?

If theres an issue then you can PM me and I'll try to sort it for you. :P

[Stephen]

lol pming infectious to sort it out HAHAHHAA

you should pm scott instead

[Jordan]

Just saying 'bump' is pointless and has been for a while, so confusion over this seems a little odd! I don't see the need with bumping threads to get a response because if someone wanted to reply when the thread started, they would of. I don't see this rule being changed really as it isn't at all hard to add some more input in your thread to help aid discussion rather than a boring 'bump' reply.

[Blinger]

Just saying 'bump' is pointless and has been for a while, so confusion over this seems a little odd! I don't see the need with bumping threads to get a response because if someone wanted to reply when the thread started, they would of. I don't see this rule being changed really as it isn't at all hard to add some more input in your thread to help aid discussion rather than a boring 'bump' reply.

I'm not saying I'm confused by it, I'm saying it's stupid to an extent. If you have nothing to respond to in a previous post then i think you should be allowed to say "bump." or whatever, if it's the post count that annoys the staff then delete that post or remove that one post from the count. Also, the whole "I don't see the need with bumping threads to get a response because if someone wanted to reply when the thread started" is a bit stupid, if you look at the thread in question there has been a hellova lot more posts (17 to be exact) more posts AFTER I bumped it compared to one single post from before that.
Another one is in spam (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=735747) where I quoted someone a heap of other people started to reply too...?

[Chris]

I see where you are coming from, but simply posting "Bump" is pointless. You could easily have made your post relevant some way or another. :P