After going over a post, for god knows whatever reason, something popped into my head; "Auto Bump". Sort of acts like the "Permasage" function, that once every week it bumps the "deemed" worthy important topics up to the top of the page, and only mods/the admin can call for a topic to have "Auto Bump" turned on.

I just think that if there is at least a sort of better CLEANING system on the BBS, this place would stay cleaned a tad bit easier. Mod/Admin "turns on" the function, it stays on. Once a week it'll bump all those with it turned on, up.

Sort of like sage, but only the mods and Reltair can see it, to use it.

That, and possibility of "If a permasaged thread stays on the top page for more than an hour, it also turns on Auto-Bump to move it off the page." Now that possibly won't get used much for main. This normally just counts for the boards that aren't used as much, yet still get permasaged threads on it.

Let's get some feed back on this idea. If it's liked enough, I'll see if it's possible, via asking Reltair about it.

lol then this wouldn't be much different from a sticky tbh

As said in >>2, it really wouldn't be that different from a sticky when concerning auto-bumping certain threads.
(more on stickies can be read here):
http://dollars-bbs.org/suggestions/res/1326086616.html

But while on topic, the entire point of having a "Auto bump" would be like a slower sticky, allowing for people to have threads above it every so often.
The only problem with this is the "important threads" bit.
Since there are very few things people would deem important enough to be Auto-bumped, it would be available for very few boards and threads. I believe everyone can agree on the F.A.Q. on Main and the Countries Index (that one's a maybe) on being relatively important, but that's just a rough estimate.
On the other hand, if it were allowed for Animation, Music, ext. than it would be a clusterfuck of people saying "no, my thread's more important because ____ is better than ____!" so we can mainly rule out any of those boards.

Now, since the idea of an "Auto bump" doesn't take up space on any given board 24/7 (contrary to a sticky), it allows for other threads, such as those more discussion based, to have a chance in the spotlight. The idea of allowing people to change a board with some level of control will stay consistent, so it really doesn't seem all that bad.

However, since the term "important" is entirely subjective, it would more than likely lead to a sort of democratic vote as to which threads are "important" enough to be auto-bumped. Imagine a swarm of users rambling against each other with the intention to each fight to get a thread auto bumped, it would be chaos. Again, the most likely thread that would get through is the F.A.Q., but not much else. Therefore, when a permasaged thread is still on Main (or another board) for over an hour, it would be bumped down 1 (maybe at most 3) spot(s).
Not much of a difference there.

People already relentlessly bump the F.A.Q., and one more bump per week wouldn't really make any noticeable difference. For the most part, members are already efficient enough to bump threads over saged ones on their own, considering how little permasaged threads actually manage to stay on boards for any considerable length of time. There's always an outlier in these sorts of cases, but they often get bumped down regardless.

Well regarding the part about the cluster fuck of fights going on, if it was silently implemented, and this topic deleted soon after, to hide the fact it happens from the newbies and people who don't pay attention, no one would be any wiser if nothing was said on the matter, and anything regarding it is sent to Reltair via Email.
Mainly because those who care, who WANT stuff like the FAQ and such bumped up, wouldn't complain, and those who don't know would just see it as being normally bumped without a second thought in their heads. More times than not, that is.

>>4
So in other words it will become completely anti-democratic in deciding what's important (considering only a small portion of members would choose the threads) and all of the oldfags will form a sort of secret coalition, somehow hoping that no one else will see this thread in however long it would take to implement it?

Apologies, but as said in that post, it seems more like some "super secret clubhouse" than anything, and while I could rant about ignoring 95% of the userbase here, I think that part's pretty obvious.

It really seems like something that doesn't allow for for new topics of discussion to be had. I mean, when I do a clean house bump of main, I tend to choose the same things each time. Where others would maybe bump up a buttload of new discussion topics, I would only bump up 2, maybe 3. Though yes it would keep important stuff, such as the desc&faq, thread about intros & advertising, etc, on the main page, it wouldnt allow anything new to get the attention it may really need to stick.

In other words, I dont think this should be implemented.

>>5 Where did I say anything about the members having a choice in the matter? I stated above it only being up to the mods/admin of the site. Thus really, if done correctly, it should alternate based on the activity of 'said' topic at hand. Not counting the FAQ which needs to always be bumped. Basically the few SUPER needed topics (FAQ) will always have it, and the rest just being the one's with the most activity and worthwhile discussions.

So with the idea of this topic being deleted soon after, no one is going to know one way or another (and thus less fights going on) about this until the mods do it, and they change it based on activity.

Basically it'd be the mod's choice on which one's to keep on the auto list.

Plus probably a limit to less important topics being on the bump list, being, say, a month. Once a week (or once every two weeks), they (the picked ones) bump up to fill the page. Then once the month is over, they have to pick (other than the FAQ as it stays bumped with this), they pick more active topics to replace the ones they had a month before.

This way it alternates based on over all activity.

I could get behind this. I would think there should be a setting, where if P post falls below n number in the VAT archives, it will Auto-Bump.

Like for the FAQ, if it falls below 9: it bumps.

For a less important thread on another board, say, DOLLARS 2013 on Missions, if it sinks below 25, Auto-Bump.

This would give the mods and admin the ability to determine the priority of some threads over others. If a thread caps, then the Auto-Bump for it would cease, and the settings for the other posts would adjust to fill the empty priority slot.

>>7
Apologies, it seems that I assumed that a Suggestion meant to better the site would in some function involve the users of said site, but I suppose not, apparently.

Well, that solves the whole matter of what would be quantified as 'important', I assume. Still, now we're ignoring 99% of the users.
Why would threads deemed important on a site propagated by its users leave out the users when it comes to making a decision that will change the board's format every so often?
Shouldn't the people the site is meant for decide which threads they wouldn't mind seeing more often? While making it so that only the mods deem what would be important would solve the issue of debating by bringing it to a smaller scale, it nullifies of having this as a suggestion itself.

If this idea only involves the mods auto-bumping threads (which they can already bump threads just like anyone else at whatever time they wish), then why is it even on Suggestions? The fact that this is on this board leaves it open for discussion from the users, but you're saying that the users will have no say in which threads would be bumped, so why bother?
Why not just send Reltair an email over this, instead of posting it here, where we can't even have a say in what threads we're going to be forced to see more often?

Considering we (apparently) can't have a say in what threads get bumped, then the only purpose of this thread is to ask if people are ok with some threads (not knowing which threads those are) being bumped more often, and they might not even know that there is an extra bump going on, considering you've even said that you would be deleting the thread shortly after!

If no one's going to know which threads bump, or have even a remote say in which threads they are, then you might as well just email Reltair about it and be done with it, really.

Really don't think we should have a auto-bump for threads while completely disregarding its users in the process of deciding which threads auto-bump.

Well let me put it this way. They will have a say, though indirectly. The idea is it's just based on the total activity of the thread. I didn't mean they have no say whatsoever, but leave it up to the mods to determine it based on how active there is via posts from differing people.

If a post on main is super active, and say, has 500+ posts, then I feel it should be marked for Auto Bump. But you do have a bigger point than I do, and it just hit me.

An "Auto-Bump" Que of sorts. Just like the Sage function, for people, but to limit fights on the matter, it should only be possible to click it based on the OP. Even after it's been posted, a button at the top of the page for the OP to click, to submit it to the Que.

Then, yeah, people will have a say, when they MAKE their topics, and everyone else will have a say when they get it active, to better help the mods choose to turn it on.

That way, even if it's an old topic, and if the mods didn't happen to apply Auto-Bump due to activity, and the OP really wishes for it to be seen, they can click their AB option and, say it sends an email to all mods and the admin, and makes the background color of one post (the OP) a color. Like red. Where ONLY the mod and admin see the red. So then they know it was sent to the AB Que.

>>11
A quick note about the "if it's over 500 posts then it should be marked for auto bump"
http://dollars-bbs.org/missions/res/1322617727.html
Yeah, with spam and all that, there would still be incorrectly marked threads. Still, mods would be able to see that, and deny it, hopefully.

And now we're on to an idea of a Que.
Now, anyone who has little to no sense of modesty will *probably* click the submission button, but it would be likely that many of those would be filtered out.
Still, that leaves it to the mods to determine what threads are "important", still leaving out the userbase for a large portion of it. (Also, how would one even determine which Anime thread would be more important than another, for instance?)
Whatever is left over would be bumped so and so often, which (in my opinion) would become incredibly repetitive. I don't know about you, but I'd really rather not see the same threads every week or so, it's why people are encouraged to make new, original threads.

Although if we did have some sort of democracy, people could simply use proxies and names, breaking that system.
It just seems like too much work for such a small thing as to replace the action of typing in "Bump" in a thread and hitting reply. The site's slow enough so that it's not a big deal, really. Integrating an entirely new system not only seems problematic, but overkill.

>>13 In the anime board, the likeliness of a thread being selected for ABS would be slim. Unless, of course, it were something like an index, or a mini-FAQ for that thread. As for the Mission board, relevant threads would be temporarily selected for ABS. For instance, the holidays often spark charity threads. So, most charity threads would be selected for ABS in order to keep them up until after the holidays.

On the Main board, the FAQ would be high priority, and things like "Do not post your introduction here" would be farther down the list.

There would be no such need for it on boards like Random, the media boards, or even this one. (This is just my opinion)

The bumps wouldn't leave behind a post, taking up more user post space, and I think that's a good idea. It would simply drag a thread from a certain place back to the top, and it would be allowed to fall again.

Around this time last year, there was so much spam that this idea would have been really useful. Forcing permasaged and spam threads down as they piled up, and preventing a huge "Bump" overload on the FAQ, which was bumped hourly some days.

From my perspective, it would be a luxury, but it would still be a site improvement. Therefore, if the code seems simple enough for Reltair to implement without too much hassle, I'd suggest we request it's integration.

>>14
You know, that kind of made me wonder. Why doesn't other threads of a mini index/mini-faq, then? I know why main has one. But other boards might need their own, as well.

Plus, yes, the Atuo-Bump wouldn't post anything. Just bump up topics. Thus leaving more room left open so people can actually post, rather than waste room bumping it up so much.

Auto*

+Bump+

Fuck you bitch

Thanks for the threadbump, rootkat.

+Babump+

I'm gunna completely ignore all discussion because I'm lazy, but I like this idea. I support the idea of a sticky system of some kind, and this looks to be a nice multi-purpose method of doing it.

+1?

>completely ignore all discussion

YOUR VOTE IS INVALID REILYX

Bump.

Bumping good shit up, and the stupid shit down.

Bumping a good thread up.

Auto Bump ?

Then the topic would stay there forever..

Hmmmm.. I prefered a sticky function
So the topic will always stay on top.

>>27
I don't think you truly understand my topic. A sticky would make it stay there forever. Mine allows differing topics to be able to be applied for Auto Bump.

Hmmmm.. Then maybe an auto bump for every thread

Like, for the first time any thread disappears from the top 5 then it'll get an auto-bump and reappear, if it disappears again then it'll just be gone into oblivion xP

>>29
We already came up with a good way for it to work. It won't be for 'every thread' as that is just retarded.

Well, do as you like.

Lets wait for the admin's oppinion

>>31
Or we could continue discussing it like people with individual opinions instead of just relying on one person to tell us if it should be done or not.

The thread's for discussing the topic at hand, and whether it can be applicable to the site, not for putting out an idea and simply waiting for an admin to say yes/no.

But he is the only one that can change the site's layout and what not..

>33
Let me explain.
-How to get the site edited/ changed in some way:
1) Make a thread on Suggestions
2) People discuss/ determine if they like it/ if it would be good (or bad) for the site
3) Enough people support it after lengthy discussion
4) Emails to admin
5) Implementation

The admin's not going to give an opinion on the matter, only implement it if enough people support it with ample reason.
Feel free to look through some other suggestion threads, he rarely posts on them unless it's to announce that they're finally implemented.

If you're going to post on a thread in suggestions, you're more than encouraged to give your own opinion, not simply follow what others are saying.

>>34 Speaking of which, there really hasn't been a lot of activity on this board. I find the lack of discussion about potentially site-changing topics like this to be irritating.

In any case, I haven't seen any valid arguments against the implementation of this concept, and the support for it appears to be sound. I am of the opinion that perhaps it's time we talked to Reltair about implementing it. Thoughts?

>35
I think it's a great idea, but still with a kinks to be worked out:

pros:
1) Less annoying than a sticky
2) Saves space in a thread (as pointed out in >>16), therefore allowing more space for actual content rather than just hundreds of posts of bumps.
3) Doesn't require people to bump a thread every so often, replacing the need to do so.

Cons:
1) Limited effectiveness compared to a sticky (this depends on how often it's bumped, but depending on that factor determines it's effectiveness)
For instance, perhaps someone new goes on Main, and at that time, the F.A.Q. isn't yet bumped up for them to see. Instead they find it bumped on day 2, after they've already made a few duplicate threads, and then (as many people I imagine do) go about to skim it, not bothering to read the wall of text. (although this second part doesn't have to do with the bump itself, merely the attention span of users, it follows the scenario)
If it were bumped more often, it would be leaning more towards a sticky, at which point (if it were bumped enough) it would equivalently [almost] become a sticky. Less, and it would lose effectiveness.

2) Undecided as to how to determine which threads will be auto bumped
To summarize all the TL;DR's:
>>3 "A slower sticky"
>>4 Silent implementation
>>5 "Secret Clubhouse"/ ignoring most of userbase
>>6 Few new discussion topics
>>7 Mods decide what gets bumped, users have little to no say
>>8 Alternating bumps based on activity of threads, except the FAQ, ext.
>>9 Bump based on position, mods decide threads
>>10 Site for the users, doesn't allow users to have a say in what threads get bumped
>>11, >>12 Function (like the sage) to report a thread to the que to be determined to be auto bumped, final decision left to mods, only OP can send thread to que. Over 500 posts sends to que
>>13 Still leaves mods to determine what's important, almost everyone will send to que to "get their thread noticed", if the system was democratic, proxies would break it anyways, circular problem
>>14 Would only have to apply to boards such as Main, Countries, Missions, ext. and not subjective boards such as Animation, Films, Random, ext.

Thiamor, if you could clear up how the threads would be chosen that would be great. The idea's gone from a older member pick, to a mod pick, to a que, and I can't remember exactly which part we left off on, or what part needs to be re-examined.

BTW I didn't know that this site has modorators, i thought it only had an admin

hmmm... bump, because auto bump hasn't been implemented yet I guess :P

This is what we need.

Hmmm.. So no news about this ?

I am not bringing this up to Reltair until we get more feed back.

Great idea. With all the useless threads lately, this will probably be necessary.

Keeping the important threads to everyone's attention should not be neglected, therefore a feature such as an "auto-bump" is not at all a bad idea.

The more organized this site becomes, the better.

+Bump+

If this feature were in effect, I wouldn't need to bump this thread over the saged spam. Again, I thoroughly support this concept.

Bump.

>>44 This.

So no news on this ?

If you would read the comments, Thiamor is waiting for some more feedback before he presents this to Reltair. In other words, the best way to make this happen is for more people to give their opinions on the subject.

Changes to the websites functionality need to have some substantial evidence, proof that it would be a welcome and useful change, before Reltair sees it so that he has good reason to implement it.

So guys, if you're reading this, throw your opinion in here. Believe it or not, your opinion does matter. If nearly nobody bothers to stand up for an idea, even if they agree with it, if they don't voice their thoughts then it's not going to go anywhere. This goes for all the site improvement suggestions.

Since I'm posting this long-winded comment, I suppose I'll restate my opinion of this idea: The Auto-Bump feature really appeals to me as useful. It saves space on threads, slowing the need to re-create them because they do have a post cap. This allows for more important commentary and eliminates the need to bump spam off the page.

would love to this implemented

>>47 Dude I know that, and I was asking if there were any news.
I read that it needed more feedback so I just asked if he got any, because it could've been in another thread

>>50 I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Most of that thread was directed generally towards anyone reading the post, but I did have the impression that you just didn't read the updates on the thread. I'm not sure why there would be any news on the completion of the idea on any other threads, so that's how I came to that belief. Again, I apologize.

Now, back on topic. Guys, this idea needs more feedback if we want to make it happen. Anyone who comes across the thread is encouraged to read the comments, and voice their opinions.

>>51 No need to apologize.

Anyways it's kinda weird that no one's posting anything and just bumping, maybe it's because there's nothing to add and all we can say is that we agree.

Well I agree

Well I do want to add to my original point.
I think it should have an 'auto' bump button right next to sage. This will just be used as a VOTING tool, that is sent to Reltair.

After say, so many votes per 1 topic, it sends him an email with how many votes happened (and the IP of each as well as only allowing 1 vote per IP-PER NAME-PER TRIPCODE and if possible, per router IP only allowing 1 vote per household.

Then it'll be more accurate based on what the people wish to be auto bumped.

>>53 Sounds good. Between that voting system suggestion, or that of leaving the task to the mods, I think those are possibly the best two options for deciding what threads get Auto-Bumped.

On another note, I guess it's about time to make a compilation post of the suggestions so far:

Reltair and Mods can use the feature, and will be made to work sort of like the sage function.

Threads would have a trigger place, if a thread sank below a certain number (Say 25), it would be bumped back to the top without taking any comment space.

The determination of what threads are important enough to be assigned an Auto-Bump would be made by a voting button next to each thread, IP based, that notifies Reltair (And mods- my additional suggestion to >>53) once the vote hits a certain count. This allows for all users to have the opportunity to have a say in what deserves to be continually bumped.
__________________________________________________________

In regards to the voting system, I think it's important to take into consideration the use of proxies. While limiting decisions to be strictly made by the mods is less democratic, it also makes it impossible for proxysamefags to vote several dozen times for their own thread. Thoughts on this comment? What do we think is more important for the success of this new feature?

We just need proxy protection when voting.

There is a function that when it detects a proxy, whatever the person tried to do becomes null and void, and they are redirected to a page that mentions the proxy situation.

But in our situation I feel it should just not count that vote, rather than tell them anything. This way they THINK their votes are being cast, but in reality it isn't and thus they won't try to find proxies that truly work.

Okay, I'm on board with the voting concept then.

We also have to think about a way to get autobumps disabled, they can't be on forever.

Well we should have it where it works for even CLOSED posts, but where it can also be voted to be turned off.

First post of every topic can look like the image. Once a specific number of votes are reached (which will not be stated) it'll take the button away.

Once it is either decided to be turned on, or turned down, a button is put back in the same place that either allows for more voting (if turned down) or a button that says Off for people to vote for it to be turned off of Auto Bump and it works the same way as the above way.

Closed topics*

Maybe this would be more like the way to go, you check the box if you want to vote for it to get autobumped and uncheck it to remove the vote, the only problem is for closed topics, it's just that the check box doesn't fit in the site's layout, it's kinda to white.

We could also build some kind of algorithm for the voting system, like if every people that posted on the topic check the autobump button the thead would get autobumped, bu if only 5 of 10 people vote for it to get autobumped it would not get autobumped. More like if 7 out of the 10 people that posted checked the box the thread would be auto bumped.

And BTW what do you think instead of "Auto Bump" something like "Permabumped" like "Permasaged" but with bump.

>>61
But you'd not be able to do it if it's locked. It'll follow the style because the sage button wasn't always there, and it fits now. Same thing would happen if one was added to the top.

While I like this idea, >>61, I think something more like this.

That way when important threads are being made, such as FAQ, Are you new? Click me, and important thread index, are being made the creator can have the choice to auto-bump it. Then the mods or someone can have the choice to approve or disapprove the auto-bump.

I feel like >>61 method would cause some problems if 4chan or a troll came in and started autobumping random crap that doesn't need it. Maybe they'll make an inappropriate thread then autobump it so we can't bump it down? I hate to admit it, but the mods aren't here 24/7, so that means it'd stay up until the mods get on.

My method gives the mods more work though, and me don't want that :(. I think that there should be something in FAQ to determine if a thread is auto-bump worthy so that way only few threads are actually auto-bumped. Think about it, how many threads that we have these days actually deserve it? 3 maybe 4?

>>62 Hmmmm... Yeah now that I look at it it isn't so bad after all.

>>63 Well as you said your idea would give more work to the mods and I don't want that either.
Maybe a the voting system combined with instant turn on/off by mod.

>>63

I think you missed the part where I said it'd have to be voted on for it to be sent in an email to Reltair (and mods) with the total vote number, IP and so forth.


Then they can approve it, or disapprove it. No Auto-Bump is put into action until Reltair or a mod turns it on.

>>64

You're already suggesting what I already said as if it were a new idea being mentioned.

The voting system I was talking about would work automatically without notifying mod or the admin, so they wont have such a pain to turn on this function for so many thread and section on this bbs.
They basicly would get lots of mail just from thread to get autbumped.

What I was saying was a voting sys with some kind of code that disides for itself to turn the feature on or not, also the admin and mods would get the power to turn the autobump without any kind of voting. I was using all the ideas provided so far and combining 'em all into one, calm your tits sir.

I'm going to come out and say this. >>67 For Reltair to create an algorithm to determine if the thread should be autobumped after so many votes would be a pain in the ass. It would be easier to have mods do it.

I feel that if x% of the posts vote to auto-bump, then it gets sent to the mods to do. The info in FAQ should be able to help people decide whether or not to auto-bump it, and then a majority of the people posting are people that should know better. Chances are the mods won't get their inboxes flooded unless a troll comes in.

Plus with it being IP based (and Router IP based), name based and Tripcode based, 1 vote can only be added until they come back with a new computer, changed IP, or a proxy, and if the idea of my proxy blocker is added, then it'd not be spammed even with trolls.

>>68 Well, if the percentage system was implemented, the percentages in threads would go from 50% to 80% in just 3 replies (3 diferent users), so the percentage goes down and up real quickly. Also if it goes to the acceptable % to send a mail to the mods, it is possible that it will go down and up again, and so the mods would recieve another mail and so on.
This said, the mods' inbox would get flooded.

Also if a troll comes in he/she'd only get one vote because these are, as Thiamor said, IP based, name based and Tripcode based

>>70 How about after one email it won't email the mods again?

Should only email them again, say, a few days after it gets declined.

Yeah, one email per thread or one week break between mails for the same thread.

>>73 three weeks. I don't think that a thread is capable of getting any more autobump worthy in 1 week.

IS that a go on the autobump? We're talking about it like it's a thing now. Perhaps Permabump instead of autobump for really important shit like FAQ...?

>>74 3 weeks sound good.

Thiamor since it was you who created this thread please summarize all the content that you got up until now.

We've talked about stickies, and really it shouldn't be left up to anyone to have the power to determine what is more important to be permabumped over others.

This idea will allow threads to alternate between their respected level of importance's, and more times than not, will consist of topics like the F.A.Q.

Secondly, it's only a few 'regular' people discussing it. Thus that doesn't equal over to the mass majority voting on it (no matter even if the site is relatively small.)

So in short, we still need a proper amount of 'differing' feed back.

So until then I request that we keep discussing it in a more further, variety-type of fashion amongst the rest of the community; ourselves included.

One last thing is that I will summarize it in the end, rather than keep on doing it every time a few people get on a brainstorming spree.

Le Bump

Here's something interesting

I suggest summarizing everything too, just to see what has been said already

asfasdgsdfgh

THIS

So you are not gonna summarize this ?

>>84
I know this is a crazy idea, but you could read through the thread.

>>85 Yep, that's crazy

It has very little information on it, thus I'm not going to cater to the lazy asses on here and summarize it when they can easily scroll through the topic itself.

bump

BUMP!!!!

bump

bump

Bump

To initiate a MANUAL BUMP: click 'Reply'

This probably wouldn't have been 29 if Auto-Bump had been implemented.

I don't think there are any threads that warrant this auto-bump and don't warrant a sticky. They only threads that need auto-bump would be the FAQ, 'Read this before posting anything', Countries Index, stuff like that. Auto-bump also seems like a little more work for the admin, and regular bumping takes that work and gives it to the community. Maybe I am just being stupid but I don't see the difference in need between sticky and auto-bump.

>>96

You're new then. We used to have loads of people making stupid posts that would need to be manually bumped back down. This in turn causes 'bump' posts to fill up posts that could have been saved for actual topics of discussion. Rather than a sticky that TAKES up a post spot, this will cause any and all topics marked for Auto, to bump itself up by itself without taking up a post spot, and a topic spot and can actually change based on it's popularity and it's OP.

>>97 I guess it's no secret, I am new. I also admit I don't really understand what auto-bump entirely entails based on your last post.

Would auto bump essentially be the same thing as one person going on each week and posting, 'Bump'? If so, that still takes up a spot, right? And couldn't stickied threads be separate from other threads and not take up a spot?

I do see how an automatic bump system for any thread that has been permasaged and still on the front page should be bumped out of existence. I don't know how easy that would be to set up, though.

I still like to thin this community can survive with simple self-moderation. It isn't always perfect, but I think it's better.

>>98 This community has survived for 3 years based on self-moderation lol. The member's are probably just exhausted from the years is all. Not a lot of new members come on and stay to self moderate.

The admin turn on a bump option for each post they deem as important, in turn it is decided by the people.

Once it's turned on, each week the topics will be bumped to the top (or every 3 or 4 days) and bump all other topics down to the archive (second page). This will also save post spots so topics don't get locked due to reaching 1337 posts.

On important topics we have to bump them back up manually each time a wrong topic is posted, or people spam shit on purpose, or a wrong topic is POSTED back up. This in turn takes up room out of the 1337 posts.

Once it reaches 1337, it auto locks itself and then cannot be bumped manually back up anymore and we'll then have to remake the topic for a 'version 2, 3, 4 and so on' or bump other important topics up.

In turn we begin to run out of room or spam topics that should have remained on one topic for a longer period of time than it was.

Also not to be rude but you're new. You come on and expect (which isn't wrongful to think, but annoying) that we all should work as a community and LIKE to manually bump topics back up. As a community.

While it's fun to work as a community, we need to lessen the load of mishaps.

Coupled with the Sage function for members, and the Auto bump, we should be able to have this run smoother from there on out.

Run out of room means run out of topics to bump or create.

>>100 Ah, so auto-bumping wouldn't even be taking up a post spot. I see how being able to bump threads with 1337 posts could be useful. Although if no one needs to bump anything, threads reaching 1337 posts might be rarer.

As for your comment about wanting to be community moderating, yes I am new, and in fact am entirely new to forum-type sites in general (yay newb). When I said do things as a community, I was more coming from the angle that having the work spread out would be better than one person doing all of it. I realize now however that with autobump the work isn't all on one person, it can be automated, meaning it is on the system itself. This is more efficient and less work over-all.

And, we still have self moderation anyway. A mod doesn't have to tell someone when they have posted something in the wrong spot, or tell someone to look at the FAQ before posting. This kind of stuff regular users can do.

As for the auto-bump itself, I think it's better also because if you have a news or Main thread that has the last three posts as 'Bump', there is less likely to be more conversation other than 'Bump'.


If there is such a thing, you have my vote!

Also thank you for being understanding with a newbie.

Anyone on here want to be the person to sum it all up when done and send it to Reltair?

Give me a week and I'll do it. Would I need to do it in a week Tmore?

Nah.

If it hasn't already been done, I can do it. I have some time to spare tonight.

Since I never got a reply, I went ahead and wrote to Reltair. Here's hoping.

>>107 Cool, don't forget to post his reply here once he has replied

>>108 paraphrasing would be a much better idea

"Thanks for bringing this up, I'll think about the idea and its possible implementation." - Reltair

Could be a while before any further feedback is given, but right now it looks like this idea is on the positive side of "Maybe".

A maybe, both on any side of maybe is still a lot better than where we were when just talking about it.

So hopefully he looks into this one and soon the member count one as well.

Both of the suggestions should make the boards over-all run smoother, you think?