MTG Salvation

I don't know if it is just me, but I seem to have been seeing a lot of old threads being necro-ed recently, more than usual it seems. So I was wondering if it would be at all possible to set up a way to automatically archive threads that haven't had posts after a given amount of time? I don't know if this would be something on curse's end or something the mods/admin could do, but it seems like it would help out the mods not having to keep archiving these things manually. If there was additional relevant information that came up after that given time, the mods could unlock it or merge any potential new threads about the topic. Granted, I'm not a mod and don't know if this would create more work for them in the long run or not.
Either that or possibly updating the rules with a definite time frame to not make posts after. Right now the rule regarding necro-ing is not specific at all; "reviving a long since dead and irrelevant thread" is all it says. Granted that wouldn't stop necro-ing altogether, but could help slow it down if users had certain time frame to avoid. With this, new relevant info could still be posted without bothering the mods.
Sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but I did a search and didn't see anything.

Oddly enough, another member posed this same question overnight as well. I'll copy my response as it should largely answer yours.

We would have to get input from Feyd on the technical aspects and feasibility, but from a logistical standpoint locking necroed threads is very much at the judgement of the staff and differs from forum to forum. Take for example:

Magic Rulings forum, where in just a couple of months a thread will get archived (essentially locked)
Vintage forum, where there is no format changes to make an old thread suddenly useless
Commander forum, where a user might come back after two years and want to update their decklist


I know that I personally will take context into necroed thread. If the thread is something topical, or the OP is asking a question which has either already been answered or the OP is no longer active on the forums, I will lock it. However, if the thread is one which could have easily been created recently and none of the posts feel dated, I'll probably leave it open. This also doesn't take into account official threads, which we want to funnel certain discussions into, even if they are not ones which come up regularly.

As for the why is it happening? We're the largest Magic forum on the internet, so when a player Googles some Magic-related question one of our threads is usually the first to pop up. They make an account (or now actually have one preexisting from the Curse network), ask their question or respond to a post, and from our end it just looks like random necro. If you watch over time, you'll find that the necroed threads are most often by brand new members and/or ones with single digit post counts.

Sorry, this is an old post but I just wanted to say I'd really love to see some kind of tech that automatically locks threads after no replies/activity when a certain amount of time is passed. I figure a post of support is worth it?

For Magic General, I think the cases Cyrogen posted in regards to new members finding posts on Google are the case. Personally, I find it very irritating to see threads continuing discussion in the Rumor Mill about cards or information that is months old and new longer relevant; all of that discussion can be moved to other areas of the forum as they usually pertain to a card in some format. In those cases, I think people just like to argue/debate even if the discussion lost it's relevance months ago. Very rarely those threads get closed. As a current example, there was a post 6 hours ago in the Eldrazi Displacer thread, bringing it up to the front page. We're in the full swing of preview season with tons of threads discussing different handfuls of cards, so the Rumor Mill is already extremely cluttered without threads about the last preview season's cards popping up. I'm about to put a report in to suggest closing it, but this is a very common thing.

But again, how do you write a script which covers this when each forum has different standards of what constitutes necro?

(<- Not a tech guy)

One could have the forum as an input parameter for the script.
A default amount of time for necro-ing would already cover +80% of the use cases, I assume.

Quote from Xenphire »

Sorry, this is an old post but I just wanted to say I'd really love to see some kind of tech that automatically locks threads after no replies/activity when a certain amount of time is passed. I figure a post of support is worth it?

For Magic General, I think the cases Cyrogen posted in regards to new members finding posts on Google are the case. Personally, I find it very irritating to see threads continuing discussion in the Rumor Mill about cards or information that is months old and new longer relevant; all of that discussion can be moved to other areas of the forum as they usually pertain to a card in some format. In those cases, I think people just like to argue/debate even if the discussion lost it's relevance months ago. Very rarely those threads get closed. As a current example, there was a post 6 hours ago in the Eldrazi Displacer thread, bringing it up to the front page. We're in the full swing of preview season with tons of threads discussing different handfuls of cards, so the Rumor Mill is already extremely cluttered without threads about the last preview season's cards popping up. I'm about to put a report in to suggest closing it, but this is a very common thing.

One problem with this is that currently locked threads can not only no longer be replied to, but also can no longer be quoted. I would be extremely irritated if I could no longer refer to my old posts just because they get swept up in an automated lock - but that might just be a general problem with disabling quote options for locked threads since right now the assumption seems to be that every thread is locked by a moderator and every post in such a locked thread should be unquotable.