Concerns about the mass locking of threads for length in Message Board Games.

[Slii Arhem]

Just today a plethora of threads in Message Board Games were locked for length by moderator Mark Hall, despite many of them being several pages under the 50 page limit. (See: Seaside (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291836-Nexus-Seaside)as an example.

My main concerns with this sudden activity is that for quite a long time, threads in Freeform Roleplaying (I can't speak for the rest of MBG) haven't needed to be locked, as a new thread has been made on page 50 of the old one with regularity in almost every case, and locking the threads many pages before the limit is reached seems rather excessive. In addition, the people making and maintaining these threads can't access their original posts in order to copy them and remake the thread, and people who need to quote another person's old post in the thread for use in the new one are unable to.

I'm sorry if this riles any feathers, but I have concerns about this making it unnecessarily difficult to maintain a freeform play-by-post or a message board game if this is going to be the new policy from now on.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Recaiden]

I've asked Mark Hall about it, and he implied that locking of threads near the length limit is practice, just one that they have not had time to apply. :smallconfused:
I guess some open-but-long threads have been caught along with dead threads.

I remain concerned about it. I hope this is not some attempt to get us to make shorter threads without simply saying so.

[happyturtle]

Should we just plan on restarting threads at page 45 to avoid this?

Usually the person who makes the new thread will post the link in the old thread, but that can't be done once the thread is locked.

[LibraryOgre]

I've asked Mark Hall about it, and he implied that locking of threads near the length limit is practice, just one that they have not had time to apply. :smallconfused:

I remain concerned about it. I hope this is not some attempt to get us to make shorter threads without simply saying so.

Not what I said, Recaiden; rather, the staff has had little time as of late, and I was being proactive to avoid issues with overlong threads (such as one that was 163 pages without being restarted) while I had an abundance of time.

If you have specific threads you would like reopened, PM me and I will get to it ASAP.

[Recaiden]

I misunderstood, apologies.

[Seerow]

Honestly threads get stopped at 50 pages so reliably, I thought it was handled automatically with special exceptions made from time to time.

I guess what I'm saying is, good job Mod team.

[Roland St. Jude]

Not what I said, Recaiden; rather, the staff has had little time as of late, and I was being proactive to avoid issues with overlong threads (such as one that was 163 pages without being restarted) while I had an abundance of time.

If you have specific threads you would like reopened, PM me and I will get to it ASAP.Sheriff: Great.

As a general reminder to posters, if you have a problem with a specific act of moderation, please PM the moderator who took that action. If you still have concerns after speaking with that moderator, please PM me.

[Rawhide]

Should we just plan on restarting threads at page 45 to avoid this?

Most definitely not.

In general, threads will not be closed until after the new thread has been created. If you are in the middle of something where breaking for a new thread is not a good idea, or the person who needs to restart the thread is not available (if applicable in certain sub-forums), then it is even perfectly OK for it to go a few pages over, but should be restarted as close to 50 pages (but not before) as possible.