13 replies to this topic

[Noxid]

In the modding/hacking showcase, we are surrounded by dead mod threads. The general rule is "Don't bump dead threads" and so these more or less become a "Beginner's trap" where anybody who posts in one of these threads gets yelled at almost invariably. So, I propose the following changes:

1) Dead mod threads will be locked. The moderator's own discretion will be used to determine whether a mod is 'dead'. As a general guideline, probably 6-12 months without any signs of activity.
2) If the creator of a mod that was considered "dead" should return, they can request unlocking of their thread which should be granted as soon as possible, barring exceptional circumstance.
3) There would be a sticky posted in the Mod/Hack showcase somewhere along the lines of "I am stuck in mod ____ help!", similar to the Quick Hacking/Modding answers thread. I can't think of any other reason someone could legitimately bump an old mod.

If anybody has questions/concerns, I guess you should probably speak up now.

[WoodenRat]

I think people are more willing to answer questions that are in the original thread of the mod, rather than a topic made for all mods.

Mostly because of curiosity after seeing a new post in that thread, and antisipating that perhaps the person didn't post a question but posted a comment or an update or anything. But by checking they still see the question, and think "meh, might as well answer it now that I'm here".

[sexplosive]

Is there also a thread for fixing links to dead mods and a compendium of some sorts? I'm pretty sure we had something like that. Anyway yeah that would be useful as well.

Besides that, yeah, go for it. I can't see people coming up with a reason not to do this. Hell, implement it yourself, you have the technology.

[Noxid]

I think people are more willing to answer questions that are in the original thread of the mod, rather than a topic made for all mods.

Mostly because of curiosity after seeing a new post in that thread, and antisipating that perhaps the person didn't post a question but posted a comment or an update or anything. But by checking they still see the question, and think "meh, might as well answer it now that I'm here".

I can't relate to this sentiment at all.

Is there also a thread for fixing links to dead mods and a compendium of some sorts? I'm pretty sure we had something like that. Anyway yeah that would be useful as well.

Besides that, yeah, go for it. I can't see people coming up with a reason not to do this. Hell, implement it yourself, you have the technology.

We have DT's "Guide to the Mod Section" which lists all the mods, but I'm not sure it is updated to mention which ones are dead. Usually if someone's looking for a mod where the link's broken, DT is the best person to ask since if he doesn't have it, probably nobody does.

The main things that I want to avoid are
-People bumping dead mods to make some comment on it that the creator will never see and everyone berating them for necrobumping
-People making new, single-purpose threads to ask a single question like "The link to this mod is dead" or "How do I get past those teleporter dogs in Jenka's Nightmare"

[MetaSeraphim]

This could be good and it could be bad.

It can be good since it makes it where people can no longer bump old threads.

But it could be bad since it might, potentially, cover up older mods making it where other people won't find them. It could also end any possible future discussion about a mod even if it might be dead.


A second option could be to just change the rule where bumping old threads is only allowed in Hack/Mod Showcase since it is a small section in the first place bumping should be allowed there.

[Carrotlord]

If you're going to do this, you should gather a list of "mod creators" who do not want their threads locked. For example, I have not updated my latest mod (The Witching Hour) in a long time, but now that I have come back to the forums, I'm still working on it technically.

Most active mods do not have blogs, so declaring a thread unworthy of new posts is unreliable. You'd be suprised at how many mods that "look dead" actually have creators ironing out their ever-so-slow updates.

You must make it infinitely clear to any forum newcomers that locked threads are not 'bad mods', because that's the impression they will get. You must clearly state that the lock is for anti-necroing purposes only.

[As a suggestion, I would say that before locking a mod thread, check to see if the user (the mod creator) has logged in in the past two months. If so, then don't lock it! If no, then assume that person is inactive and go ahead.]

[Cave Story]

I like your proposals and think they would benefit the forums.

[Noxid]

This could be good and it could be bad.

It can be good since it makes it where people can no longer bump old threads.

But it could be bad since it might, potentially, cover up older mods making it where other people won't find them. It could also end any possible future discussion about a mod even if it might be dead.


A second option could be to just change the rule where bumping old threads is only allowed in Hack/Mod Showcase since it is a small section in the first place bumping should be allowed there.

That's a fair point. I just went over the top 20 mod threads (mostly looking at those I'd consider "inactive") and most of the bumps seem to be one of 3 types:
"Technical issue/complaint/ICant'DoThisPart"
"I like this mod"
"The link is dead"
And then there are a bunch of reactionary posts to the act of necroing. In my experience, I don't really see that much discussion of the mod itself, but maybe I'm just not paying attention.

The issue of a mod getting "Buried" as time goes on is possibly an issue. I suppose the Mod List is the only insurance I can imagine against that.. As for changing the rule rather than making it unbreakable, I'm not sure. Whatever is best.

If you're going to do this, you should gather a list of "mod creators" who do not want their threads locked. For example, I have not updated my latest mod (The Witching Hour) in a long time, but now that I have come back to the forums, I'm still working on it technically.

Most active mods do not have blogs, so declaring a thread unworthy of new posts is unreliable. You'd be suprised at how many mods that "look dead" actually have creators ironing out their ever-so-slow updates.

You must make it infinitely clear to any forum newcomers that locked threads are not 'bad mods', because that's the impression they will get. You must clearly state that the lock is for anti-necroing purposes only.

[As a suggestion, I would say that before locking a mod thread, check to see if the user (the mod creator) has logged in in the past two months. If so, then don't lock it! If no, then assume that person is inactive and go ahead.]

I'd be careful of what to say is inactive and what isn't. If the idea goes through, it'll probably be me who handles most of it and I think I spend enough time in and around this forum to have a sense of who's still working and who's probably moved on. One of the primary tenents was that the lock is easily reversible by the OP as well, should they show up. I figure if the mod creator is still around to see and respond to it, then there's not a whole lot of sense in locking the thread.

And yeah. There would definitely have to be something clear and noticeable that explains the whole "Inactive threads are locked to prevent necroposting" idea.

The main problems I find myself running into, conceptually, are "How do people (properly) report that a mod's link is dead", and "How should they ask for help with a mod". I'm not entirely convinced that anyone actually ever discusses the mod itself otherwise.

[sexplosive]

That's a fair point. I just went over the top 20 mod threads (mostly looking at those I'd consider "inactive") and most of the bumps seem to be one of 3 types...

maybe just have an actual warning to not bump mods without promoting discussion, as opposed to the arbitrary warning in DT's sig which is the extent of what we have right now

[Carrotlord]

maybe just have an actual warning to not bump mods without promoting discussion, as opposed to the arbitrary warning in DT's sig which is the extent of what we have right now

I sort of agree. And also, the fact that no newcomer ever reads the Forum Rules is not helpful.

During registration (I just clicked the "register" link while logged off; I did not go any further than that), it says this:

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed here and below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Cave Story Tribute Site Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Cave Story Tribute Site Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Cave Story Tribute Site Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

Notice that 1 of the paragraphs is repeated, and that nothing is mentioned about necro-bumping. Is it possible to edit the registration-text so that it does give some sort of necro-bump warning?