Best Ever Albums

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:53:05 GMT

Author: Eggman/Walrus/Taxman

Posted: 04/12/2012 07:53

If that's what's happening, let's bring back all the good topics from the dead today so at least they won't get auto-locked.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

albummaster — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:49:59 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 04/12/2012 07:49

I'd say the final verdict looks like a yes, so something will happen fairly shortly to implement this onto the site.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

ShaneSpear — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:23:40 GMT

Author: ShaneSpear

Posted: 04/12/2012 01:23

So what was the final verdict on this subject?

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:53:28 GMT

Author: Eggman/Walrus/Taxman

Posted: 03/31/2012 02:53

RFNAPLES wrote:

How does an auto-lock tidy up the site? It only forces users to search and cut & paste to a new redundant topic while perhaps starting the topic from square one again.

Let old charts continue to sink to the bottom of the chronological list where they are not in the way (you might even say archived). Then when a member wants to bump the topic they can without creating a duplicate or redundant topic.

At last, some sensible stuff from you.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

RFNAPLES — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:43:04 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/31/2012 02:43

harkan wrote:

We are not stealing a chart. A user can come back and access it when they want. It is up to the individual if there digital reputation and footprint remains. It is not censorship. If we call this censorship then albumaster should allow us to have as many albums we want, insult whoever and get away with it.

This whole conversation s about a small adjustment to the format of the site.

Let's all grow up, think logically and accept that something's in our digital lives change sometimes.

ARGH!

I don't think my quote mentioned censorship.

Grow up! How does an auto-lock tidy up the site? It only forces users to search and cut & paste to a new redundant topic while perhaps starting the topic from square one again.

Let old charts continue to sink to the bottom of the chronological list where they are not in the way (you might even say archived). Then when a member wants to bump the topic they can without creating a duplicate or redundant topic.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

harkan — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:50:45 GMT

Author: harkan

Posted: 03/31/2012 00:50

RFNAPLES wrote:

Well it has been suggested that certain charts will be ignored/deleted/uncounted if not current. While many users may not frequent the site on a regular basis, many are often hidden or guests. Is it fair to steal something from somebody just because they were unaware you were doing it and failed to protest?

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

HigherThanTheSun — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:27:20 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 03/31/2012 00:27

Having an argument with Naples:

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

RFNAPLES — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:08:13 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/30/2012 23:08

Romanelli wrote:

changed the situation.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

Romanelli — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:23:26 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/30/2012 21:23

RFNAPLES wrote:

Romanelli, your question is farcical and doesn't deserve an answer or the bandwidth.

I don't see why you'd say that. I'm simply saying what YOU said. I just changed the situation a little is all.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

RFNAPLES — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:14:14 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/30/2012 02:14

Romanelli, your question is farcical and doesn't deserve an answer or the bandwidth.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

Romanelli — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:31:51 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/30/2012 01:31

RFNAPLES wrote:

No, that happens when the vocal plurality rules and don't consider the silent majority. It is wrong.

So, you'd be for taking all the non-voters and considering them votes for Obama in November?

I'll assume by your silence that it's a yes. Because that's how I want the silent vote to be counted. I want it my way!

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

RFNAPLES — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:22:41 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/29/2012 22:22

No, that happens when the vocal plurality rules and don't consider the silent majority. It is wrong.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

itsit — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:55:46 GMT

Author: itsit

Posted: 03/29/2012 21:55

Huh, so archiving threads equals this now, does it?

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

Romanelli — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:12:49 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/29/2012 21:12

RFNAPLES wrote:

Only Democrats forget to vote or vote multiple times. And since IDs aren't required they hire the unemployed and illegal aliens to vote. Unions force members to contribute to the party too in exchange for a release from the onerous ObamaCare and other graft.

That was SO not anywhere near the point you just completely deflected away from. And you know it. Although I'd love to see where you dug up those "facts".

Please try again. All of the people who did not vote PERIOD are considered as a no for the Republican, thus a yes for Obama.

Is that fair?

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

RFNAPLES — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:46:57 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/29/2012 20:46

Only Democrats forget to vote or vote multiple times. And since IDs aren't required they hire the unemployed and illegal aliens to vote. Unions force members to contribute to the party too in exchange for a release from the onerous ObamaCare and other graft.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

Romanelli — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:02:55 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/29/2012 20:02

RFNAPLES wrote:

What if we do this?

At the upcoming US Presidential election, let's say that every American over the age of 18 who does not vote for the Republican candidate shall be considered as a no vote for the Republican, and thus a yes vote for Obama.

Four more years, right?

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

RFNAPLES — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:26:02 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/29/2012 16:26

Well it has been suggested that certain charts will be ignored/deleted/uncounted if not current. While many users may not frequent the site on a regular basis, many are often hidden or guests. Is it fair to steal something from somebody just because they were unaware you were doing it and failed to protest?

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

Romanelli — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:46:52 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/29/2012 15:46

RFNAPLES wrote:

Obviously, I voted no because the site is already easy to use since topics are in chronological order by last reply. Archiving will only censor "irrelevant" information and stop easy commenting on same. Archiving will force redundant topics. There are currently only 12 people with a problem with the status quo. That's less than 1% of our approximately 12800 members (.09%).

Remember that scene in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest where McMurphy got a group vote on whether or not to watch the World Series? He got the majority vote from those who were sitting in the group and paying attention, but Nurse Rachet denied the vote because the people in the back who were drooling and paying no attention (and who were incapable of voting) didn't raise their hands for the Series. But because they were part of the group, their votes (or non-votes) counted.

I remember that scene.

By the logic you hinted at above, a site wide vote would defeat this (if put up for an actual counting vote), based on the fact that most people who are members of the site either don't care, don't read the boards, or haven't even been on the site for an extended period of time.

We could use the same logic to determine if, say, someones chart should be erased every 15 days, making that person start over twice a month. We could easily get a vote supporting that of about 12,788 to 12. Right?

Nobody wants that.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:48:06 GMT

Author: Eggman/Walrus/Taxman

Posted: 03/29/2012 13:48

RFNAPLES wrote:

OK little guy, believe what you want.

Haha, good try.

It's not just me, if you noticed.

Hey, so let's say it together:

OK BEA members except for the Nape guy, believe what you want.

Re: Auto-locking and archiving old threads (part 3!)

RFNAPLES — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:43:43 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/29/2012 13:43

OK little guy, believe what you want.