A serial resurrectionist. Anyone told th’ mods, yet?
Second thought – they’re within the 3 month window. Is it really a problem, folks?
Not I, I just noticed it this morning. And I’m not sure that the serial-resurrection part is worth getting worked up about–it’s really annoying, but not necessarily breaking the rules. What did occur to me, though, is that maybe cletus is a sock for someone who got banned in early March, since he seems obsessed with threads that ended around that time.
Talking of rules and FAQs, isn’t calling another poster a sock also frowned upon? Just report your suspisions and let them that know deal with any problems.
What rule or FAQ are you referring to, Tapioca? There is a rule against calling someone a troll:
And there are rules against announcing who is on your “ignore” or “buddy” list:
But I don’t know of any rule against suggesting that someone is a sock. (If there is such a rule, then I am happy to follow it.) There is a rule that
But my question is not exactly about a banning or a banned user, it is about an active member whose behavior is strange. Again, if I am not following the rules here, I seek education, so I will ask for advice from a Moderator.
If I were to take a guess, brianmelendez, I’d say he’s jumped back a good number of pages in the thread listings and is reading his way through until the present day. Some people do that; I remember a newbie a year or so ago who brought up the Melin Incident by starting a new thread saying, “I noticed that on page 15,500 (don’t remember real number, obviously) of MPSIMS there was a reference to someone named Melin and a big fight…” and it turned out he was going through every single thread in the forum from the beginning.
You’re probably right. I did it myself when I joined, just to get a feel for the Board, without posting to the old threads. It occurred to me that cletus might be doing the same thing, but posting. I dismissed the idea, though, because I was thinking that the time increments for a backward search were fairly gross increments–like the regular Search feature, where the increments are yesterday/a week ago/2 weeks ago/a month ago/3 months ago. There wasn’t any increment that would get you from mid-April back to early March, about six weeks. But I just checked and the in-forum thread search uses different increments than the full-board search: last 10 days/last 20 days/last 30 days/last 45 days/last 60 days. So it looks like you may have hit it, Juniper200: maybe cletus is searching back 45 days, and posting to the threads that interest him.
No, no, you’re all wrong. Cletus is obviously some kind of time traveler.
Sometimes it’s a catch-22: Do I resurrect an old thread, or start a new thread on a topic already talked about?
This happened to me on a Final Fantasy board. I asked a question, which immediately got locked by a moderator with a note, “This topic was already discussed in such-and-such thread.” So I reposted my question to that thread (which was over six months old), and that thread got locked, with a warning, “Don’t resurrect old threads!” :smack:
P.S. Sorry for resurrecting this thread. 
I wanted to add something, but I will wait until August 16, 2005.
Will this thread ever die?
KGS: I believe the SDMB recommended method is to start a new thread saying “This thread [link] discussed [whatever], but I no-one mentioned [something else], on which I have the view that [post]” (and IMHO is the most sensible method)
This needs to be bumped, just to remind people that we find it annoying.
See, there is a benefit to bumping sometimes, I missed this one the first time around!
Sometimes I like it when a good thread gets resurrected, but I wish there was a way to tell from the beginning if it was an old one (everyone chime in now - check the date. Shut up. I don’t usually check the date right off unless I get deja vu or see a banned poster from yore in the thread, ok?). I wish there was a way to get the thread to show up in a different color after 3 months or something, that would be neat. Someone get working on that for me, ok?
Side note: The other day someone resurrected a thread that poohpah chalupa had posted in and it made me sad - I didn’t realize it was an old one until then. It was just a little shock to see him there without expecting it.
I don’t get it. Nobody here has explained exactly why you think there’s anything wrong with this. You just take it as given.
So, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Why bother writing anything here at all? Might as well forget the whole thing.
Gee, I guess I shouldn’t have bumped this thread even though it was new information which shed some light on the topic being discussed in the thread, and of little interest outside of that thread.
As for the latter example, I don’t have links to the threads in question, but I can see three possibilities:
-
The question had been answered in the old thread, but the poster failed to read it and simply reposted the question. Justified lockdown.
-
The question had not been answered, but the first mod thought it had been. The second mod didn’t know about the first mod’s advice and locked the second thread. Error on the part of the first mod.
-
The question had not been answered, but , the first mod didn’t think that several months was too old. The second mod didn’t know about the advice and locked the thread. Mods need to determine how old is too old for resurrections.
A primary problem with resurrecting old threads is when they bring up issues that are long past - the uproar over Melin, I think it was Ginger or someone who had an old relationship problem thread brought up to the alarm of many who thought she was in trouble, the occasional old “troublemaker” thread that comes back up (I’ve seen threads by Satan and Wildest Bill get brought back).
And then there’s just the stupid ones, like the one that got brought back yesterday where someone just had to post a one-sentence “go get em” response to a joke mod-bashing thread from 2000.
I was thinking to myself this morning that this thread would not be complete without a reference to you-know-what, but then I see it already here. Can I take it that name changes are retroactive?
this is where I think the problem lies, I do not think the last part I bolded is ever said though I can understand why newer folks may feel it is implied.
I think it is generally thrown to mean
this has been discussed before as you will see if you search the archives, please come back to this thread if you have anything substantially new to add to the topic that may interest us enough to get a new discussion going
Perhaps folks need to say something like that instead of the quoted example (without the bolded bit). Face it, some folks are eager to add their words to a topic no matter what so surely it is better to spell it out to start with rather than needing the pit threads the offenders likely never see or admonishing and embarrassing the newbies in the zombie threads themselves after the event.
this is where I think the problem lies, I do not think the last part I bolded is ever said though I can understand why newer folks may feel it is implied.
I think it is generally thrown to mean
this has been discussed before as you will see if you search the archives, please come back to this thread if you have anything substantially new to add to the topic that may interest us enough to get a new discussion going
Perhaps folks need to say something like that instead of the quoted example (without the bolded bit). Face it, some folks are eager to add their words to a topic no matter what so surely it is better to spell it out to start with rather than needing the pit threads the offenders likely never see or admonishing and embarrassing the newbies in the zombie threads themselves after the event.
Anyone else see the irony in the bumping of a nearly 5-month-old thread about people bumping old threads? :rolleyes: