@Shadow: I'd be more than happy to edit any post you have made if ever needs be. All you have to do is message me what you want changed. And I will change it when I get a chance to. Hope this helps in some way.
Ask the Staff Anything
- Thread starter Keaton
- Start date
I agree that necroing threads from over a year ago to comment something that doesn't exactly add to the conversation is irritating, but do you really need to lock those threads rendering them redundant? You might as well consign ALL threads that are 1 year + old to a forum in which nobody can post if that's the case. Which would be somewhat restrictive and I daresay counterproductive in a forum like this.
What if there was a discussion about something relating to the games that was redundant while there was no information from CAPCOM, but was suddenly revived more than a year later when there was? This is pretty common when it comes to games. Or what if it was one of my threads with art in it, that I hadn't posted in for a while?
I find it kind of annoying in forums where if a thread slips off the first few front pages, posting in it again is a forum crime. I thought this was not one of those types of forums? Where I mod I would reprimand someone for digging up an old thread to contribute something inane but I would not lock it in case there was something someone did have to add at some point that was enlightening.
What if there was a discussion about something relating to the games that was redundant while there was no information from CAPCOM, but was suddenly revived more than a year later when there was? This is pretty common when it comes to games. Or what if it was one of my threads with art in it, that I hadn't posted in for a while?
I find it kind of annoying in forums where if a thread slips off the first few front pages, posting in it again is a forum crime. I thought this was not one of those types of forums? Where I mod I would reprimand someone for digging up an old thread to contribute something inane but I would not lock it in case there was something someone did have to add at some point that was enlightening.
I wouldn't go out of my way to lock threads that were 1 year old or more. However, when they are brought to my attention like this then I would make a decision. I made the decision based on what the thread was about. And I looked at whether the person that bumped it did have anything important to add, which they did not.
Also I would like to point out that they broke forum rules.
Double-posting or reviving 'dead' topics is only allowed under very specific conditions. Use common sense to determine whether or not you have a legitimate reason to engage in either. Also posts that add nothing to a thread (constant meme pics, posts of only 'LOL' or a smiley etc) can be considered spam.
This person not only revived a topic that was over three years old, but they themselves were the last person to even post within that thread three years ago. I did see it as pointless, and it really did add nothing to the thread whichever way you look at it.
When it concerns other such topics such as games, a good majority of people just create another thread to post recent news regarding said game/s. Either way if they were to update an old thread with more recent information that wouldn't be reviving it for a pointless reason. And also concerning locking threads that have artwork, stories, poetry etc that is nothing to worry about happening. Those types of threads are for those members to display their work, and if they create new parts to a story or new pieces of art they are free to post them even if that thread is old. It comes down to the content.
If you are unhappy with my decision of locking your thread, as it seems that you are. You can ask another member of staff if they would be happy to unlock it for you. I appreciate your concern either way, and I can see where you might of been coming from. But I can only look at the rules, and take into consideration my own judgement and make my decisions based from that.
Thanks all the same.
Well, there are two reasons I brought it up. One, it was one of my threads that was locked, because of something someone else did that doesn't really have anything to do with their transgression. If a person double posts, I shouldn't see a reason to can the thread they double posted in, unless it was a spam thread. Let's say I found something related to those Sparda nuts that was interesting and not spam, and decided to add it to my old thread. It seems silly if this was not allowed, provided it was contributing something new. But since it's been locked because someone dug it up and double posted, now it is consigned to the dead.
I'm not losing sleep over my locked thread or want it unlocked, I just want to point out that the member who posted weird in it should get the slap, not the thread.
Some forums have staff that prefer people to re-post in old threads rather than make new, and some prefer people to make new ones because they don't like old ones re-appearing. Which is this one? The latter? Because we have some very old threads in here with thousands of pages that are still open because people are posting in them, albeit not always fascinating stuff but just like personal updates or whatever. The age of thread doesn't matter so much as the activity level in them I assume. If the policy now is to make new threads in preference to reviving older ones that are "dead", and we will not be reprimanded for making new ones even if an old one exists somewhere containing similar things, then I'll bear this in mind. But then I wouldn't expect be told to go post in some older thread because someone already made it 8 pages back. Which also does happen here sometimes.
So, how old is a thread to be before it is unacceptable to re-post in it?
I also think this would be a good time to point out if there's a timer on the edit function in this place, then double posting if you can no longer edit a post but wish to add something shouldn't necessarily be seen as "breaking the rules". I appreciate the case of the Sparda nuts thread as spam and that person posting in it not contributing much of interest. But if I do wish to say something extra, like say this last paragraph right now, if the edit function had expired, I would be breaking the rules to add it and would have to wait until somebody answered before posting again? I don't think double posting in that circumstance should be an issue, since after a short while I would be prevented from editing.
I'm not losing sleep over my locked thread or want it unlocked, I just want to point out that the member who posted weird in it should get the slap, not the thread.
Some forums have staff that prefer people to re-post in old threads rather than make new, and some prefer people to make new ones because they don't like old ones re-appearing. Which is this one? The latter? Because we have some very old threads in here with thousands of pages that are still open because people are posting in them, albeit not always fascinating stuff but just like personal updates or whatever. The age of thread doesn't matter so much as the activity level in them I assume. If the policy now is to make new threads in preference to reviving older ones that are "dead", and we will not be reprimanded for making new ones even if an old one exists somewhere containing similar things, then I'll bear this in mind. But then I wouldn't expect be told to go post in some older thread because someone already made it 8 pages back. Which also does happen here sometimes.
So, how old is a thread to be before it is unacceptable to re-post in it?
I also think this would be a good time to point out if there's a timer on the edit function in this place, then double posting if you can no longer edit a post but wish to add something shouldn't necessarily be seen as "breaking the rules". I appreciate the case of the Sparda nuts thread as spam and that person posting in it not contributing much of interest. But if I do wish to say something extra, like say this last paragraph right now, if the edit function had expired, I would be breaking the rules to add it and would have to wait until somebody answered before posting again? I don't think double posting in that circumstance should be an issue, since after a short while I would be prevented from editing.
Last edited:
Most sites I know of allow edits at any time, they seem to get on ok even if people can remove their flames? I heard from the admin of one site that they can see all the edits that take place anyway, so they would be aware of someone hiding something if it came to attention.
Editing is one of those things you really notice when you suddenly cannot do it. It's kind of debilitating to have that ability not available, even if it's just to correct typos or information mistakes or something. If it's okay to correct things with an extra post after the limit expires though, that would be just as good.
Editing is one of those things you really notice when you suddenly cannot do it. It's kind of debilitating to have that ability not available, even if it's just to correct typos or information mistakes or something. If it's okay to correct things with an extra post after the limit expires though, that would be just as good.
My question towards the staff is, can't you guys see the edit history anyways?
I know on forums I moderate that even if a trouble making member does edit his/her posts the staff can always view the edit history and see he is at fault.
So I agree that Its not a very good reason to have this lock feature because of something like that given that staff can view the edit history anyway to see who is abusing the edit button to mask trolling/flaming and is at fault.
I know this is your forum and all but in my opinion its just something that is odd given the fact that many other forums don't employ such measures on editing posts, especially when the staff themselves are able to see the edit history of posts.
I know on forums I moderate that even if a trouble making member does edit his/her posts the staff can always view the edit history and see he is at fault.
So I agree that Its not a very good reason to have this lock feature because of something like that given that staff can view the edit history anyway to see who is abusing the edit button to mask trolling/flaming and is at fault.
I know this is your forum and all but in my opinion its just something that is odd given the fact that many other forums don't employ such measures on editing posts, especially when the staff themselves are able to see the edit history of posts.
@VampireWicked: I have spoken to Ieyasu and resolved that issue. I have unlocked that thread. Go nuts 
@ToCool74: Yes we can see edit history. But there is no tab we can bring up to display all edited content, past/recent. Although I am speaking for myself as a Moderator. I am unaware what the full capabilities are for the Admins.
However the edit function hasn't been completely removed. There is just less time to edit posts. That means that instead of having to wade through who has/hasn't edited a post just to spot trouble makers. Instead we can limit down the possible chance of those types of comments being made in the first place. Those who may want to abuse the edit function will be more likely to think twice.
Anybody who would like to have anything edited may come and let me know. As I do not mind doing this for you.
@ToCool74: Yes we can see edit history. But there is no tab we can bring up to display all edited content, past/recent. Although I am speaking for myself as a Moderator. I am unaware what the full capabilities are for the Admins.
However the edit function hasn't been completely removed. There is just less time to edit posts. That means that instead of having to wade through who has/hasn't edited a post just to spot trouble makers. Instead we can limit down the possible chance of those types of comments being made in the first place. Those who may want to abuse the edit function will be more likely to think twice.
Anybody who would like to have anything edited may come and let me know. As I do not mind doing this for you.
Last edited:
Personally, I agree with ToCool, VW, and Ieyasu. The reason the editing function was disabled was because of something that happened about two years ago. Maybe more. At the time, people were posting then deleting offensive crap all the time and it just got too much for the staff to shift through.
I always found the 10 minute time limit to be really annoying. I totally get and support why it happened in the first place. But I don't see the point in continuing to punish everyone because of what members were doing two years ago. A lot of those members have since left or been banned anyway. I think the forums should be given another chance. And if we blow it, then the freedom to edit after ten minutes should get taken away again. But we can cross that bridge once we get there.
I always found the 10 minute time limit to be really annoying. I totally get and support why it happened in the first place. But I don't see the point in continuing to punish everyone because of what members were doing two years ago. A lot of those members have since left or been banned anyway. I think the forums should be given another chance. And if we blow it, then the freedom to edit after ten minutes should get taken away again. But we can cross that bridge once we get there.
@LordOfDarkness is it possible to implement a system similar to Facebook where anyone can click a button to see exactly what the person edited out, instead of just giving a small note that the post has been edited? Just wondering if it's a legit suggestion since the forum makeup seems very much aligned to that of FB.
@Meg The edit/delete function was completely pulled for a few months, if I remember correctly, and thank goodness we got it back, even though limited to what it originally was, since the DmC boards would have been absolute hell if everyone had free use of the edit function. I think that maybe it's an idea to keep it strict in certain boards *ahemwhichshallnotbenamed* but allow it for free use in other boards that are more mellow and hellfire doesn't erupt very often. Just an idea. I'd love to have it back the way it used to be, but at the same time, considering the heat that some members drag around with them, I don't want to see a recurrence of what happened back then. :nailbiting:
@Meg The edit/delete function was completely pulled for a few months, if I remember correctly, and thank goodness we got it back, even though limited to what it originally was, since the DmC boards would have been absolute hell if everyone had free use of the edit function. I think that maybe it's an idea to keep it strict in certain boards *ahemwhichshallnotbenamed* but allow it for free use in other boards that are more mellow and hellfire doesn't erupt very often. Just an idea. I'd love to have it back the way it used to be, but at the same time, considering the heat that some members drag around with them, I don't want to see a recurrence of what happened back then. :nailbiting:
@VampireWicked: Not too long. It just came to me when I was replying back to you lol
@Dante's Stalker: These suggestions are always welcome. However to implement a system like that it would have to work with the forum software. I couldn't tell you myself if it was possible.
@Meg: I'm in agreement with what you said. I think it's something we should have back.
I mean now there is more staff we can check up on things a lot easier. There's no harm in reinstating it and seeing how it goes. Not to me, anyway.
lol@Dante's Stalker: These suggestions are always welcome. However to implement a system like that it would have to work with the forum software. I couldn't tell you myself if it was possible.
@Meg: I'm in agreement with what you said. I think it's something we should have back.
I mean now there is more staff we can check up on things a lot easier. There's no harm in reinstating it and seeing how it goes. Not to me, anyway.
Last edited:
EXACTLY!:wink:
I could kinda understand back when staff was scarcely on that this measure was taken since staff was not on hours at a time to even check the edit history should a situation arise.
But now with you,Berto, and Meg on the team now and 1 of you is at least on most of the time during the day I see no reason to not to lift this restriction on editing posts.
Letting conversations wander a bit is fine, but when the off-topic discussion greatly outweighs and overshadows on topic posts it is a problem. A new thread can very easily be made for things like that. It is very confusing and off-putting for people entering a thread, because they want to talk about the actual thread topic, only to see post after post about something else entirely. It's also disrespectful to the member who made the topic.
First of all, your post comes off as condescending. I know tone in writing can be easy to misinterpret, so please watch that.
It is against forum rules to derail threads. This has always been enforced and will continue to be because otherwise the forums will become a disorganized mess with multiple topics being discussed in each thread. The very point of a thread is to direct the flow of discussion along a particular topic. Like I said, some side conversation is fine and can even be good. But when the thread gets derailed it makes it hard for people to jump in and talk about the actual topic because everyone else is discussing something else. Making new threads is how a forum stays healthy. When people look at a thread title, they expect the conversation to be about what the title says it is. Maybe someone isn't interested in the title topic, but they are interested in the derailed discussion. But they wouldn't know that's what's being discussed without clicking on the thread in the first place. But why would they click on that topic if the title doesn't interest them?
Does that make sense?
I believe I have done that twice (?) and in both instances I post a general, normal font post asking people to stop derailing first. The reason for the second post being in such large font is because of the possibility that not everyone saw my original post. The really big font makes it impossible for people to miss. I'm basically giving people the benefit of the doubt that they are not intentionally continuing something I just said to stop. But it is still a second warning. I have never seen a staff member warn the same people three times in a row in the same thread without any official warnings being added. That is why my second warning came with a threat to discipline members who continue to do the thing I'm telling them not to do.
I am sorry if my effort to uphold standard forum rules has made you hesitant to post at all, but so long as you stick to the thread topic (with the occasional off-topicness, which I said was fine) then there is really no reason to be worried.
Ok guys...
Christmas M&M's and other product placements for everyone.
Christmas M&M's and other product placements for everyone.
I think that something people should bare in mind is that when you look at threads you are reading somebody's point/opinion/idea/information.
There's a clear enough point to a topic. And a point that everybody should stick to. I've seen lots of threads having been overtaken by lots of posts to do with something else entirely. And it's just not needed. It ruins threads, makes them look messy and it makes everything confusing.
If you look at it this way. There's no harm in a bit of off the point banter. But when it becomes something to the point of a massive conversation/debate/argument. Then just no. It becomes too much.
After all. There's a reason why there are different sections to go create threads in.
As Meg already said there's no harm in making new topics. It's healthy to have more discussions. That's why we enforce that those discussions remain mostly separate to other discussions as not to confuse things or mess up those topics.
There's a clear enough point to a topic. And a point that everybody should stick to. I've seen lots of threads having been overtaken by lots of posts to do with something else entirely. And it's just not needed. It ruins threads, makes them look messy and it makes everything confusing.
If you look at it this way. There's no harm in a bit of off the point banter. But when it becomes something to the point of a massive conversation/debate/argument. Then just no. It becomes too much.
After all. There's a reason why there are different sections to go create threads in.
As Meg already said there's no harm in making new topics. It's healthy to have more discussions. That's why we enforce that those discussions remain mostly separate to other discussions as not to confuse things or mess up those topics.
Eheh... Umm, background image started turning completely white as soon as the page finishes loading. Sometimes clicking on smilies button on the toolbar takes me to a different site. It doesn't bother me as much so far, just doesn't look so nice. 
Hmm... I literally cannot think of a legitimate reason as to why the smiley problem would occur. Which site are you linked to when clicking them and when was the last time it occurred?Eheh... Umm, background image started turning completely white as soon as the page finishes loading. Sometimes clicking on smilies button on the toolbar takes me to a different site. It doesn't bother me as much so far, just doesn't look so nice.
I didn't pay much attention, I think it was some kind of hosting site. The last time was when I made that previous post in this thread, but it stopped for now, so I can't check.
Edit: It did it again, though this time I took note of the name and it was Alibaba premium marketplace, though I have a feeling the sites I end up on seem to change.