So what's the policy on bumping trade threads?

[alienated_one]

With Bumping of threads no longer occurring, as it appears the issue has been fixed, if you update a thread, the thread is still locked? I thought the purpose of locking the thread was to keep the person from bumping it to the top of the forum.

[MagickalMemories]

Bumping, as defined in our rules, is still against the rules. Even if it doesn't push your ad to the top of the heap, it still bumps you back on the radar. Members can have their preferences set to only show "new" posts, so a bumped thread would reappear for that person.

So, if you violate the rule, you're still subject to a lock.

Eric

[alienated_one]

Ah, I didnt know that.

Thanks for the info.

[YoungWolf777]

Now that the forum is no longer moving threads back to the top when a new post appears in them, is the temporary locking policy still needed? I ask, as the forum's been working properly for nearly a week and I still see threads locked for new posts by the OP, some as recent as yesterday.

[MagickalMemories]

Yes. It is.
In actuality, the rule has always been against those "bump-type" updates. It's just that nothing had really been done about them in the past when, admittedly, it should have. When we decided on a plan of action for them during The Dark Days (lol), we also decided that the policy would remain in effect once we had gotten the anti-bump MOD reinstalled.

Hope that clarifies.

Eric

P.S. THANK YOU ALL for taking interest -and part- in discussions about policies, etc. We do appreciate that.

[YoungWolf777]

Interesting What was the logic behind the decision? It seems to me that it places an undue burden upon the mods & BT Watch that wasn't there before.

I'm not arguing either way, just seeking to understand why the change was made. (Or the decision to enforce something that wasn't before.)

[MagickalMemories]

Interesting What was the logic behind the decision? It seems to me that it places an undue burden upon the mods & BT Watch that wasn't there before.

I'm not arguing either way, just seeking to understand why the change was made. (Or the decision to enforce something that wasn't before.)

Don't worry. I took it as you meant it. : ) You've gotta be pretty straight-forward belligerent with me online before I presume you're being negative. It's too hard to misunderstand, otherwise. You know?

I presume you mean the decision to continue enforcing it.

The logic is that it's considered a bump by BT's usage definition. Bumping as against the rules and, as such, something we SHOULD enforce. We're human; we do make mistakes and exceptions from time to time, but we endeavor to enforce our rules as written.

It's really not much of a burden. We have what I'd call a passively active policy. We don't police every single thread posted for violations. We are aware of certain indicators that a message might contain a bump, so we'll look at those. Otherwise, it's only really a concern if we happen across it or someone hits the "report" button on the post. Everyone here is a volunteer. If we were getting paid, we might expect a more active policing. The site's so well self-policed, though (we get a lot of reports/PM's about all kinds of stuff - you'd be surprised), that we don't need to.

I hope that clarifies.

Eric

[YoungWolf777]

It does.

Here's my concern. I post a trade thread. An interested party posts a question in that thread. I then respond to that post. Does this constitute a "bump"?

I'm a pretty literal/linear thinker so sometimes I need to get things spelled out for me. In the scenario above I've had no issues in the past 5 years. Just looking to make sure I won't have any going forward.

[imp522]

It does.

Here's my concern. I post a trade thread. An interested party posts a question in that thread. I then respond to that post. Does this constitute a "bump"?

I'm a pretty literal/linear thinker so sometimes I need to get things spelled out for me. In the scenario above I've had no issues in the past 5 years. Just looking to make sure I won't have any going forward.

No answering a question is not considered a bump by the site rules.

[MagickalMemories]

It does.

Here's my concern. I post a trade thread. An interested party posts a question in that thread. I then respond to that post. Does this constitute a "bump"?

I'm a pretty literal/linear thinker so sometimes I need to get things spelled out for me. In the scenario above I've had no issues in the past 5 years. Just looking to make sure I won't have any going forward.

No answering a question is not considered a bump by the site rules.

That is correct.
What it does do, however, is count as an update. So, it extends your week for that thread.
So, if you post an ad on the 2nd, then you could normally post a reply to that thread on the 9th, provided it was an update o substance, and not a "bump."
However, if I ask a question in-thread and you respond, both on the 3rd, you cannot add any updates to your thread (as a post) until the 10th - where it would've been the 9th, had you not responded in-thread.

Does that clarify better?

Thanks.

Eric

[YoungWolf777]

It does.

Here's my concern. I post a trade thread. An interested party posts a question in that thread. I then respond to that post. Does this constitute a "bump"?

I'm a pretty literal/linear thinker so sometimes I need to get things spelled out for me. In the scenario above I've had no issues in the past 5 years. Just looking to make sure I won't have any going forward.

No answering a question is not considered a bump by the site rules.

That is correct.
What it does do, however, is count as an update. So, it extends your week for that thread.
So, if you post an ad on the 2nd, then you could normally post a reply to that thread on the 9th, provided it was an update o substance, and not a "bump."
However, if I ask a question in-thread and you respond, both on the 3rd, you cannot add any updates to your thread (as a post) until the 10th - where it would've been the 9th, had you not responded in-thread.

Does that clarify better?

Thanks.

Eric

Yes and no.

Yes in that it doesn't count as a bump.

No in that posting in the thread no longer "bumps" it to the top. I guess what I'm failing to see is why it matters with the anti-bump mod installed. In a week, a trade thread is 3+ pages back in the 40K forum. Posting to it will not really get it seen by more than a handful of folks who look at the most recent posts rather than those who go straight to the appropriate forum and look at the first page of most recent threads. (I do both, but tend to ignore anything older than a week.)

Hopefully that explains my confusion. After 7 days, I'm better off to post a new thread rather than update an old one if I want it to be noticed. That's my general experience, YMMV. The mod doesn't prevent you from posting in existing threads, only creating new ones. That keeps the timer, not how long it's been since you posted inside a thread.

I can see scenarios where posting inside your own threads to try and get more traffic before the 7 days is up could become rampant if left unchecked. However, it wasn't before the blackout and is only a recent phenomenon due to the loss of the mod. I don't foresee it continuing that way now that the mod throttle is back in place.

Maybe this is all much ado about nothing on my part. I just see it as unnecessary and a bit more restrictive than BT used to be pre-blackout.

[MagickalMemories]

Hopefully that explains my confusion. After 7 days, I'm better off to post a new thread rather than update an old one if I want it to be noticed. That's my general experience, YMMV. The mod doesn't prevent you from posting in existing threads, only creating new ones. That keeps the timer, not how long it's been since you posted inside a thread.

You're right. That is 100% true. You're better off with a new thread than posting in the old one. The timer does not have anything to do with that.

I can see scenarios where posting inside your own threads to try and get more traffic before the 7 days is up could become rampant if left unchecked. However, it wasn't before the blackout and is only a recent phenomenon due to the loss of the mod. I don't foresee it continuing that way now that the mod throttle is back in place.

Maybe this is all much ado about nothing on my part. I just see it as unnecessary and a bit more restrictive than BT used to be pre-blackout.

If you think about it, though, the blackout showed that it still is rampant. As soon as the auto-limits stop, there are people abusing the system, either ignorant or in defiance of the rules. It was an eye opener for us.
When we started seeing just how much bumping was going on, we realized that it was, by our standards, becoming rampant.
Was it as bad as it was prior to having bumping turned off? Nope. Not really. Granted, on that.
Still, though... it was not happening a small amount, either. It's obvious that people aren't paying attention to the rules. If they're ignoring or unaware of that, what else don't they see? So, by locking the thread & PMing them, we're (hopefully) getting some to actually go READ the rules. That will help cut down on other, more important rule breakers.

It probably is a fair assessment to call it more restrictive. In that same way, though, it's also a fairer Bartertown now, too. With those who are breaking the rules being curbed, those who are following them, if nothing else, at least know that they're not being unfairly pushed aside by the rule-breakers.

That's what we want, in the end. We want a fun, fair place for people to come trade and hang out. If some few people have to be restricted for breaking the rules that keep the place fair, then they've probably earned it.

Eric

[YoungWolf777]

Fair enough.

[AJCarrington]

That is correct.
What it does do, however, is count as an update. So, it extends your week for that thread.
So, if you post an ad on the 2nd, then you could normally post a reply to that thread on the 9th, provided it was an update o substance, and not a "bump."
However, if I ask a question in-thread and you respond, both on the 3rd, you cannot add any updates to your thread (as a post) until the 10th - where it would've been the 9th, had you not responded in-thread.

Eric:

Not sure I understand the logic here. I don't get why responding to another's question in the thread constitutes an "update" that resets the 7-day limit...one is providing information related to someone else's inquiry. I guess one could always As an aside, if you respond to the question (thereby shifting the 7-day limit), would it be against the rules to post another thread in the same forum? Using the example above, say I reply on the 3rd, could I post a separate thread/topic on the 9th (ie 7 days following the original post)?

I have to admit that I have been guilty of replying to my threads with updates, something I got called on last month (and fairly so). It had never been an issue (I didn't think) in the past as the threads didn't bump. I tend to do pretty much all my negotiations via PM these days, but am curious more than anything.

Regards,

AJC

[MagickalMemories]

Because you don't have to respond in the thread. You could respond via PM.
By responding in-thread, you're choosing to put it back on the radar, so-to-speak.

You could respond to one thread and open a second one later and still stay within the rules. If it looks like you're trying to keep both of them alive simultaneously, though, a staff member will just lock the older one.
Much of what we enforce here depends on intent. If it looks like you're trying to do something against the rules, you'll find a lot less leniency than if you're doing it and it just happens to be against the rules.

So, replying to ad #1 on the 3rd, then starting a new one on the 9th is fine. Heck, you could even start it earlier, if it's after your 7 day wait. On the other hand, if you follow that up with some sort of status update on the older one, it's getting locked. The former is not obviously an attempt at shenanigans, where the latter certainly appears as such.

Eric