Bumping Rule

[departuresong]

Do not revive threads whose last posts are over three months old. If no one's posted in it for that long, there's a good chance no one really wants to continue talking about it. (However, you're welcome to try to see if there's any new interest in it by posting a new thread.)
Exceptions:
You may revive older threads if:
1. They're stickies. (As in, you're allowed to post in stickies, no matter how long ago the last post was made.)
2. It's an art thread that you've created, and you're posting new work.
3. It's a fic thread that you've started, and you're posting new installments.
4. It's an RPG thread that you've started, and you want to revive your own game.
5. You're staff posting a new announcement.
6. You're reviewing complete art projects or fanfics, and the author or artist has posted within the past month.
7. You have special permission.

I'm not sure how keen I am on this rule in general. It's always kind of irked me to see it on small forums—it makes sense on, for example, SerebiiForums or other forums of similar size where constant thread necromancy would be annoying, but it makes very little sense on small forums like this one. Frankly, I just don't think this rule is necessary.

What is the worst case scenario? Let's say there is a poll thread about one's favorite ice cream. Polls threads are inherently doomed to not contain much in the way of actual discussion; one would vote in a poll and perhaps post their answers, maybe sparking a quick conversation about ice cream or two, but in general these threads become quite monotonous.

So all of the members post and vote in the poll. Three months later, a newer member sees the thread (which is entirely possible, considering the recent decline in forum activity). Are they really going to be hindering the forum in any way if they vote in the poll and post that their favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate? Can such a thread ever die? The rules imply that said member should just go ahead and make a new thread entirely; I can't see how this is in any way intuitive whatsoever. You would then have multiple threads about the same thing, all of which involve little to no conversation whatsoever. Hmm.

But then we should take into account threads that actually have discussion in them, right? Take Metal for example. Once again, is it really hindering the forum experience whatsoever if somebody posts three months after the last poster to talk about their favorite metal music? They may have something insightful to add about a band or recommendation that had previously been given, and they may be interested in adding their own unique taste in metal music to The BBS' large spectrum of metal fans. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I doubt anybody—metal fans and especially those with zero interest in metal music—would enjoy having multiple topics about the same thing multiple times.

This rule feels extraneous. It also feels a bit draconian. I realize that there are some times when thread necromancy should be frowned upon, like in the case of questions that have already been answered, but those should be the exceptions rather than the, uh, rule.

I really like The Cave of Dragonflies' approach here. (Why, yes, I did steal the ice cream example from Butterfree.) Bumping is discouraged, but not against the rules; it is taken on a case-by-case basis.

Naturally, this thread is open to all thoughts and opinions. Let's hear what you have to say.

[processr]

To be honest, the staff haven't taken this rule seriously in ever. I do like the idea of discouragement rather than outright forbiddance, though. Three months is very, very lenient in terms of thread revival rules, and I'm sure it's been mentioned before that anything on the first page of a forum is fair game for posting, even if three months are up. I'd support some version of this to be added to the rules: e.g. "Thread revival is discouraged, but as a rough guide topics older than three months are generally dead, unless they are on the first page of the forum" etc., but worded coherently.

[An-chan]

Actually, as I recall, that rule is currently not in action because the forum is not all that big or active yet. Or, well, at least no-one is really enforcing said rule. I do think that we could completely take it away from the rules for the while being and then add it back in case it ever becomes necessary. Most of the threads here aren't inane polls anyway - well, yet - so I think it would be perfectly okay to not have a "no bumping" rule as it is. Or maybe if the thread is terribly, terribly old or something. I don't know.

[departuresong]

Perhaps the definition of "spam" could be extended to include posting in threads that are no longer relevant?

I'm glad my original post had a warm reception. I was quite worried. :)

[Jax]

The reason why it exists in the first place is actually within the rule: because it'd be rather pointless to revive a thread, only to have no one want to continue discussion about it. (Additionally, like processr mentioned, all threads on the first post are still fair game.) It's actually a rule of courtesy to avoid encouraging individual people to revive bunches of threads just to see if there's still anyone who wants to discuss it, rather than a rule for the sake of keeping order.

Just keep this in mind while continuing the discussion.

[Jax]

As a note, you guys can still definitely discuss whether or not we should keep it after the forum picks up. ._. I mean, either way, we're just sort of hand-waving it now, but.

[Camisado]

...I find Jax bumping a conversation about the bumping rule quite funny. xD

I personally think it really depends how busy we get. *useless comment* Obviously the most busy part of the forum is currently ASBN, and I'm sure the bumping rule doesn't really apply much to it, so we can't gather much information from it.

On the whole, I'd say our members are intelligent boys and girls (you're welcome), and we don't really need one. It could be re-assessed in the future though, if problems arise.