Dawn of the Dead...Threads

[Tourbeau]

In light of the "Poor Ozzy" thread that has been hauled out of the grave and back into the boxing ring, I am wondering if it would be possible to revise Bhuz policy to do what many computer forums do, namely, put an age notice on their older threads. For example, a lot of those forums use something along the lines of this:

This thread is more than three months old
No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.

Three months might be short for our life cycle, since many of our troublesome threads don't really have an end date on them when some problem was cleanly resolved.

I hate the idea of purging the archive whenever something regrettable resurfaces. Often those contentious threads have useful content, too. I don't think we want to establish a precedent of censorship in hindsight, either. If it wasn't offensive enough to get it pulled at the time when emotions were running high, it feels weird and wrong to pull it months or years later. Would a zombie warning help?

[Lauren_]

Maybe.

I've been on some boards where threads seem to be automatically locked down after a certain period of inactivity has passed.

I like that solution, but if it's not possible and a warning is more technically feasible, I'd be for that as well.

[caroline_afifi]

In light of the "Poor Ozzy" thread that has been hauled out of the grave and back into the boxing ring, I am wondering if it would be possible to revise Bhuz policy to do what many computer forums do, namely, put an age notice on their older threads. For example, a lot of those forums use something along the lines of this:

This thread is more than three months old
No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.

Three months might be short for our life cycle, since many of our troublesome threads don't really have an end date on them when some problem was cleanly resolved.

I hate the idea of purging the archive whenever something regrettable resurfaces. Often those contentious threads have useful content, too. I don't think we want to establish a precedent of censorship in hindsight, either. If it wasn't offensive enough to get it pulled at the time when emotions were running high, it feels weird and wrong to pull it months or years later. Would a zombie warning help?

Threads do have dates on them, so in some ways it is the responsibilty of the person reading to make those decisions. It is then up to people if they wish to respond and open it up again.

The 'poor Ozzy' thread was opened up again because people decided it was worth responding. Even the intial response could not have continued without others responding to it.. so in my opinion, it is really upto those who see value in this.

People do not have to participate if they dont want to, and people dont have to read it either.

[anala]

It would seem to be an indication of my slipping memory to read for 15 minutes only to find my own posts...

BTW...that Ozzy thread is now twice out of the grave. I think the original was in '07

[Ainsley]

If "Poor Ozzy" is the problem, an age notice isn't the solution. Controversial threads are bound to resurface occasionally since readers who believe that their view hasn't been adequately represented will feel compelled to reply.

The problem with bumping the "Poor Ozzy" thread, some members would argue, is that it does a disservice to the dancers criticized by bringing the criticism to the attention of current board members. The bumper, on the other hand, sees value in recording her counterpoint to the criticism in case other people stumble on the thread in future (e.g. though a Google search). I'm sympathetic to both perspectives, and I don't think there's an easy way to mediate between them.

An age notice might, however, prevent new Bhuz users from bumping ancient threads with a "me, too" post. Those are the zombie threads that drive me the craziest.

I really appreciate that Bhuz is minimally moderated, and I, too, would hate to see threads locked or deleted for contentious content or due to age. I'm even sorry that troll threads have been getting summarily deleted in recent years because I have always admired the way that Bhuz as a community has dealt with trolling and because sometimes even threads begun by a troll have developed into valuable discussions. Spam posts are the only ones I would like to see deleted.

[NisreenBrooklyn]

On the flip side, though, there are some topics that don't really expire. Do we really need a new thread every time someone has a question or idea about, say, what type of candles to use for shamadan, even if the last time someone else brought it up was a year ago? I wonder if a zombie warning might also discourage productive, appropriate use of the archives.

[lylagus]

I would love to "ignore" certain selected threads so the don't show up for me. Is that possible with Bhuz?

[Rosette]

And as I'm looking at this I'm noticing the list of (in no way) "similar" threads below, which have titles containing the word "dawn" . . . or the word "dead," and go back as far as last post in 2007.
No suggestions here serious or otherwise, just a guffaw.
Rosette

[Rosey]

I'm not sure which is the best solution, there are good points to be made on either side. So, for now, when in doubt, do nothing.