This is not a complaint of Czarcasm’s decision to close down the Swappington’s thread. I was just wondering why it was…
Well, posting to a thread with the sole porpose to move it up the line and on the first page of that forum is generally frowned upon, twice as much if you’re the op and four times as much if the sole content of your post is “bump”. This is also known as terminal stupidity.
I thought that might be the reason, but I wasn’t sure 
Which part of
left that in doubt?
I understood that. But was that worthy of closing the thread?
Obviously.
Seems to me I’ve read that a SINGLE bump by the OP is OK if the thread gets no responses, or perhaps to get the attention of folks in another hemisphere, or at a time more likely to get responses. True?
(Even if that’s true, I don’t think it applies here, because the thread DID get a few responses and THEN petered out.)
Well, according to this post in the FAQ, bumping your own thread is discouraged but not explicitly forbidden. Has this guideline changed?
No.
Here’s why :
A thread either lives or dies of it’s own volition.
That statement is patently false. Of course, the merit of the OP and the ensuing discussion can play a part in it’s meaningful lifespan but those aren’t the only factors and not necessarily the dominant factors depending on the topic.
Time of posting and competing threads at the time of posting also play a part. A thread posted late night and eclipsed by other existing threads might disappear of the first two pages by morning never to be revived by potentially interested contributors.
That said, bump posts should be considered on a case to case basis. In this case, the OP bumped the thread after 90 hours of inactivity. That should have been overlooked. But a second bump despite no further activity should have prompted a refrain.
I would like to know, too. I posted a GQ on a Saturday morning, about a science issue. It died, so I bumped it on Monday, figuring some non weekend Dopers would see it at work. I got the replies I was looking for. What is wrong with that? Especially considering what is said in the FAQs.
Is “it’s own volition” a contraction of “it is own volition” or “it was own volition” or perhaps what was meant was “its own volition”?
I unlocked the thread.
I meant “its”. Thank you for the correction, Fyodor.
IMHO Mods sometimes just get into nasty moods and take it out on us, I would guess that sometimes we are responsible for those moods.
I like your (note I didn’t say “you’re”) location, Czarcasm
Where did you get your (see above) time machine?
Czarcasm: thanks Not that I really wanted to respond to the thread… it was just an “out of curiosity” thing… but that’s cause I’m a curious kind of guy
Despite whatever differences you and I might have, I have enormous respect for you as a moderator, and this is just one more reason why.
Well, no matter WHY it was close, surely Broomstick will be along presently to explain why the OP of the closed thread is a slimy, toilet-licking, pothead scumbag. And I speak from personal experience.
:eek:
Jeez, jane_says, just gotta spread it all over the forum, don’tcha?
Why is it the only BBQ Pit threads I get are polite puddles of treacle? It makes me look like a nice guy, and nice guys never get an Aministrators position. Lib, was that the best you could do in a Pit thread? Connie, where are you when I really need you?
I swear to ghod that if I threatened to get medieval on your asses, you’d send me patterns for codpieces and recipes for mead.