[mothered]

Greetings everyone,

This Is a simple suggestion and the thread's title says It all. From my understanding, Grave digging Is classed as such when the final post In a given thread Is passed 3 months of age as per below:



https://sinister.li/Thread-Post-Etiq...ve-Digging

The rules state the following:

Double-posting, cross-posting, and gravedigging aren't okay either.

Clearly, there's no duration that states what Is considered grave digging. Can the 3 month rule be defined In the forum rules?

[Skullmeat]

Oh right. I will ask oni to fix that.

[DarkMuse]

Good talk guys. Well done. Quickie fix

[mothered]

Oh right. I will ask oni to fix that.

Thank you.

When the rule on grave digging Is updated and defined with It's duration, It'll give members a clear understanding, thus no excuse to perform such actions.

I appreciate your consideration and action on this.

[Bish0pQ]

I think it actually depends on the category you're in. I mean if you reply on a thread where someone sells something or like the news category, it's not relevant anymore after 3 months. But if someone release a tool, tutorial, or a code snippit or something, I don't think you can consider it as "old" after just 3 months that someone wrote the code, you know what I mean?

[mothered]

I think it actually depends on the category you're in. I mean if you reply on a thread where someone sells something or like the news category, it's not relevant anymore after 3 months. But if someone release a tool, tutorial, or a code snippit or something, I don't think you can consider it as "old" after just 3 months that someone wrote the code, you know what I mean?

I certainly understand what you're saying, and whilst I do agree, neither you or I have set the 3 month rule on Grave digging.

If staff wish to alter It based on all or part of what you've documented here, then be It as It may. I'm a firm believer that grave digging should be based on It's merits, but that just my opinion.

[meow]

See now thats just fucking stupid.

Feel like walking us through the logic that suggests this is the best procedure to practice on a forum??? Cause thats horribly fucking disorganised... It puts the discussion in 2 different places and theres only a 1 way connection. Anyone who finds the old thread wont find the information relevant in the new thread/discussion. So say for example, a download link expires. new information arises, etc. theres no reason to increase the clutter just because the discussion reached a certain age.

Add to that - it's completely fucking arbitrary. A thread is considered 'alive' just because someone has posted to it in the last 3 months? so a thread that people have been posting to regularly for the last 2 years is somehow relevant, even if all the responses are "thanks for the share" while a post from 4 months ago is not??

[The Real Slim Shady]

This is a perfect fucking example:

https://sinister.li/Thread-Complete-...-Fi-Router

The content of that thread is as accurate today as it was 4 years ago when it was first posted. There is nothing about it that is outdated. Someone wanted clarification on the instructions/procedure/whatever.

The recommended practice by the staff seems to be that that person should have created a new thread with a link to that old thread for clarification?? WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT LOGIC?? Why separate it? What happens next time someone else has the same question?? We end up with multiple posts responding to an old thread by creating new topics. What the fuck is the point?? It's illogical and dumb as fuck. I seriously don't understand the stupidity being displayed here.

[roger_smith]

@The Real Slim Shady what would you suggest instead?

[The Real Slim Shady]

@The Real Slim Shady what would you suggest instead?

Why does there need to be an 'instead'??

Why did the age of that thread have any relevance to its relevance?

If you had said it was a shit thread, being a shit tutorial - I would have agreed.

Saying it was 4 years old is completely fucking irrelevant though.