Can we PLEASE implement a rule against bumping old threads?

[Princeton]

I'm just still a tad hurt that Princeton would suggest I was trying to be hurtful to others when my intentions were to help others

I apologize for my first reply. I was upset about something else that happened earlier that day and I should have waited a little longer to reply. Now I realize your true intentions. My goal with my second reply was an attempt for a 'teachable moment' when maybe it wasn't called for. I'm not upset with you and I hope there's no hard feelings.

 

[Hubert]

I honestly don't think such a guideline is possible because where do you draw the line on what is contributing and what isn't? If this kind of thing happens I just ignore it and carry on, no big deal.

Yeah, though a small guideline would be nice, you're right, I'm not sure it's possible. There are just too many different circumstances. It would be like, you shouldn't bump a thread in which you're answering a question that is common knowledge that the person probably already figured out, but you can if you're answering a question no one ever figured out. But how would you determine the difference?

That's the problem of print. So many times people read what someone wrote but they can't read the spirit in which it was wrote.

Yeah, it kind of makes you want to add a link to a sound file after each sentence so the spirit can come across.

I don't think there are too many "mean" people on a muppet discussion board. At least I hope not!

Agreed. I kind of think it's impossible for someone who loves the Muppets to be very mean.

Anyway, I think the problem may have stopped... or at least I haven't noticed it so far today.

I haven't noticed it today, either. Maybe everyone read this thread and realized that if people filled up two pages about it, it must be pretty important to some people.

But anyway, I think the most that we can do about the unnecessary bumping of threads would be to encourage people to look at the date of the thread their posting in, and make sure that they are in some way contributing to the conversation.

 

[frogboy4]

I believe it is still in the rules to be thoughtful of others. Reviving old threads with nothing new to say or misleading other members would go against that so it's kind of covered. I think the issue really is one of enforcement since such things are usually done by the same offenders. Don't be afraid to report posts, but the moderators do work hard so also be mindful of them.

 

[CountFan1998]

No its not you...

I'm just still a tad hurt that Princeton would suggest I was trying to be hurtful to others when my intentions were to help others

It is me! I'm sure of it!

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I apologize for my first reply. I was upset about something else that happened earlier that day and I should have waited a little longer to reply. Now I realize your true intentions. My goal with my second reply was an attempt for a 'teachable moment' when maybe it wasn't called for. I'm not upset with you and I hope there's no hard feelings.

Its ok. No hard feelings

 

[Drtooth]

I believe it is still in the rules to be thoughtful of others. Reviving old threads with nothing new to say or misleading other members would go against that so it's kind of covered. I think the issue really is one of enforcement since such things are usually done by the same offenders. Don't be afraid to report posts, but the moderators do work hard so also be mindful of them.

The funny thing is, it IS an unwritten rule of forum conduct. Some just refuse to follow it, so it isn't so much of an implementable act, but rather something that is to be gently discouraged. If you can gently pull someone aside in a conversation and say, "can you please be careful of that next time" and said member agrees to those conditions, there's nothing to deal with. Like you said, it is the actions of those who continuously do that that that is the real problem.

It is first and foremost an issue of politeness and thoughtfulness, especially if it's about a long abandoned project. Especially if we're particularly cheesed off the project didn't happen.

Let's say a noob posts something about the Muppet Reality Show pitch from a few years back. We'd immediately assume... NEW POST?!?! Gasp! That can only mean that A) something's come out of it, B) someone has details or even better C) someone has footage that was leaked... only to click on the link to see an entire quoted text for a whole screen, and a typo filled "i lieks da ice creems" message.

Wouldn't you feel the need to throw the keyboard at the computer screen?

However, I've come to a realization... maybe it's other message boards to blame. Some have a VERY strict policy about multiple threads, causing new threads on the same topic deleted or blockedby moderators, sometimes who link them to other threads. I've been on one forum that did that, and it's apparently a huge pain for their mods... so in a way, maybe these guys are conditioned to actually do something like that with old topics. So maybe it isn't quite their fault after all.

Again, we come to the question of which is more acceptable... bring back an old thread or creating multiple ones? Now, I think if there's anything older than a couple years, that means the conversation has long since ended, and no one has added anything to say. In that case, there's nothing wrong with starting a new topic. We've probably forgot we even had that thread in the first place.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Let's say a noob posts something about the Muppet Reality Show pitch from a few years back. We'd immediately assume... NEW POST?!?! Gasp! That can only mean that A) something's come out of it, B) someone has details or even better C) someone has footage that was leaked... only to click on the link to see an entire quoted text for a whole screen, and a typo filled "i lieks da ice creems" message.

Wouldn't you feel the need to throw the keyboard at the computer screen?

Honestly, that's not usually my first thought, lol. I just assume someone wants to talk about the topic. If it really was some big new development, it would have been mentioned elsewhere on the forum already as well. So I guess the bumping old threads thing just doesn't bother me that much.

 

[Drtooth]

Honestly, that's not usually my first thought, lol. I just assume someone wants to talk about the topic. If it really was some big new development, it would have been mentioned elsewhere on the forum already as well. So I guess the bumping old threads thing just doesn't bother me that much.

"Okay" or "Yeah" isn't talking about a subject. Like I said, the key to internet conversation IS conversation. If someone were to bump it up and say... "OH man! How come this didn't happen?" or "Is this thing actually happening, because this is the first I'm hearing of it." That leads to conversations, insights, opinions... "Yeah" and "I agree" don't.

And like I said, from time to time we'll have an insider or someone that just so happens to leak footage or anyone that has information that even us seasoned Muppet fans aren't prithee to. It is a tad misleading... some find it a small inconvenience, others find it quite disappointing and annoying.

But then there are the topics that should ALWAYS be in play and somehow aren't "sticky-ed" to the top of the boards... stuff like "what Sesame Street sketches scared you as a kid" or "what's your favorite Muppet" or "What's your favorite episode?" Those always have conversations, even if one word ones. Though, trust me, I know of a forum that won't let you list anything unless you have a reason and opinion for it. Not as a rule, but it's frowned upon, and none of the members let you forget it.

Again, the key is conversation, insight, and thought filled passion. That's what makes conversation interesting... "um" "Yeah" "Yay" and that's it are just interjections that add nothing. It's... it's kinda like sitting next to someone and talking to them and having them nod their head like they're barely paying attention. It's almost rude.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I don't know...I know everyone here means well. But all this reminds me of when I was in school and a kid would go up to the teacher and say, "Could you tell Jason to stop laughing when nothing funny is happening?" Maybe that kid didn't see anything funny but that doesn't mean he should ask the teacher to order "Jason" to stop laughing. Most teachers would just say "just ignore him and move on" and rightfully so.

 

[Drtooth]

Ignoring's probably the best option, as the guy's doing it again...