After how long time should we be allowed to bump old content revision and versus threads?

[OneBleachHurricane]

What is the expected time duration of an inactive Versus Thread before it is decided to be closed due to being a Necro?

The only thing the Versus Thread Rules says for a time duration is "inactive for a long time"

Antvasima gave the following reply in another thread:

"I do not think that we have an exact timeframe for them. Perhaps a staff forum thread should be made for clarifications?

Anyway, I think that we need some case-by-case flexibility for both them and content revisions threads, depending on if the former are still valid matchups and the latter are important to finish."

 

[Antvasima]

To clarify, we wonder if we should expand a bit on our rules for after how long time we should respectively be allowed to bump content revision and versus threads, and if so, in what manner?

Helpful input would be very appreciated.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions

Input here would be appreciated.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It is fairly inconsistent, but it should be less about how long it's been inactive and more about what has changed in the profiles since it was first created. Such as a thread that used to be evenly matched is now a stomp due to some recent revisions that took place since the thread was last active. That should be our actual policy on old Vs thread bumps.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, and sometimes unfinished content revision threads that are a year old can be genuinely important, and deserve a second chance.

 

[Damage3245]

Normally if a thread is over two or three months old without a new response, I'd consider that a solid "Necro". If a thread can go that long without new discussion, might as well make a fresh one.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I think time duration is a case by case thing, where you'll likely just do a "continuation thread" anyway.

So I'm sharing DarkDragonMedeus' view about it depending of how much change the subject had and if they impact what was discussed.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Normally if a thread is over two or three months old without a new response, I'd consider that a solid "Necro". If a thread can go that long without new discussion, might as well make a fresh one.

Pretty much this.

Most people after a few months probably won't remember what the arguments were and you would have to go through everything again, so a new thread is much better. And if it's a vsthread, considering how often things change around here, a few month old match is likely even outdated at that point.

 

[AKM sama]

What is the expected time duration of an inactive Versus Thread before it is decided to be closed due to being a Necro?

There is no time for this. It depends on whether the match is outdated. If it's not, there is no need to close it.

As for the CRTs, what Damage said.

This isn't really that important to be put in some rules or guidelines. This is common sense.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so do the rest of you agree that no further guidelines than currently are necessary then?

 

[Elizhaa]

Here are rules from discussion rules from a past accepted thread, the timeframe is technically unlimited within reasons like said above:

• Please do not bump topics that have been inactive for over 3 months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded. However, we make exceptions for versus threads.

I think those changes could be made.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

So would the above wording be acceptable to the rest of you?

 

[Antvasima]

Also, should we specify a length of time for versus threads as well?

 

[Ogbunabali]

Looks good to me.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Also, should we specify a length of time for versus threads as well?

I think the consensus was this, from previous discussions as well.

There is no time for this. It depends on whether the match is outdated. If it's not, there is no need to close it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Understood.

 

[Antvasima]

So is somebody willing to apply the new wording then?

 

[Ogbunabali]

Please do not bump topics that have been inactive for over 3 months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded. However, we make exceptions for versus threads. There is no exact time limit as long as the characters in question are not outdated.

Something like this?

 

[Antvasima]

That is fine for me at least.

 

[AKM sama]

Yes, seems fine.

 

[Damage3245]

Looks fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Is somebody willing to apply Ogbunabali's suggestion then?

 

[Elizhaa]

I made the changes.

 

[AKM sama]

Thanks. I will close the thread.