Just annotations of little "how to's", so I know I can find how to do something I've already done when I need to do it again, in case I don't remember anymore, which is not unlikely. Hopefully they can be useful to others, but I can't guarantee that it will work, or that it won't even make things worse.
Got banned from the ubuntu forums
Tags anti-bump nazi, banned, insulting, ubuntu forums
First time I got banned from any forum, that's a historical moment! 
I started a thread questioning whether the common forum practice of closing old threads when they're bumped, soliciting the users to create new ones, is really a good idea. I think it's not, that by not doing it the threads will be richer, containing more information, instead of being scattered around many topics all over the years.
Anyway, I referred to moderators who do that (not anyone in specific or even ubuntu's forum staff in particular) as "anti-bump nazis" with a strikeout line, followed by "moderators"... I guess this (rather than merely questioning the practice) was considered an insult to the staff, and for this reason the thread was blocked from further discussion, after two or three replies.
Wanting clear things out, I opened another thread, saying, "no insults intended", apologizing and expressing my surprise to the notion that such use of the term "anti-bump nazi" would really be offensive, and asking whether I could re-post the same point about bumping-or-not, with "anti-bump nazi" removed. The answer apparently is "no, you can't", since this second topic got deleted and I got banned forever, with no prior advertence or further communication...
My recommendation to anyone who may be reading it and posts over there every once in a while... write as formally as you can, with no jokes or anything, someone might get offended even if you never imagined it was even possible.
I started a thread questioning whether the common forum practice of closing old threads when they're bumped, soliciting the users to create new ones, is really a good idea. I think it's not, that by not doing it the threads will be richer, containing more information, instead of being scattered around many topics all over the years.
Anyway, I referred to moderators who do that (not anyone in specific or even ubuntu's forum staff in particular) as "anti-bump nazis" with a strikeout line, followed by "moderators"... I guess this (rather than merely questioning the practice) was considered an insult to the staff, and for this reason the thread was blocked from further discussion, after two or three replies.
Wanting clear things out, I opened another thread, saying, "no insults intended", apologizing and expressing my surprise to the notion that such use of the term "anti-bump nazi" would really be offensive, and asking whether I could re-post the same point about bumping-or-not, with "anti-bump nazi" removed. The answer apparently is "no, you can't", since this second topic got deleted and I got banned forever, with no prior advertence or further communication...
My recommendation to anyone who may be reading it and posts over there every once in a while... write as formally as you can, with no jokes or anything, someone might get offended even if you never imagined it was even possible.
Total Comments 7
Comments
-
in my opinion, for example, in lq, you should not post replies to "solved" threads, otherwise, non-resolved threads should be filled up with relevant replies.
however, i guess you're also in wrongs here, since that is not really a word you should mention casually. you never know what association it may have for certain users.Posted 04-12-2012 at 11:54 PM by Web31337 
Updated 04-12-2012 at 11:56 PM by Web31337 -
My understanding of "bumping" a thread is when the original poster adds another post just to get it back at the top in the hopes of finding an answer. As long as this is not done too much, I don't have an issue with it. I'd rather they bump an old thread than create yet another. But it's not my say in either LQ or UF ... just my opinion.
But that doesn't seem to fit your explanation about threads being richer. It's more about leaving old unanswered threads around. Only one needs to have the answer.
I wonder if what you mean by "bumping" is the practice of asking a similar, but not identical, question as a followup post on an existing thread, even if you started the thread. IMHO, this kind of "enrichment" does not make it easier, and likely makes it harder, for people to find existing answers. I'd rather see a different question in a different thread. But, again, it's not my say in either of the forums ... just my opinion.
Whenever a zero reply thread is hijacked, that kicks the thread out of the "Zero Reply Threads" search that I (and many others) periodically do the search for to see what questions haven't gotten an answer. That unfair to the poster who asked, unless you are providing at least some quantity of answer, or asking them for more details when the question isn't answerable as it stands. Posting "I have the same problem" followups is of no help ... just subscribe to the thread or manually check it periodically for an answer. If your question varies enough to need to ask the variation, then start your own thread. Again, this is an IMHO.Posted 04-13-2012 at 05:03 AM by Skaperen
-
By "bumping" I don't mean "hey guys, c'mon, no one knows the answer?" (even though that's indeed the most common use of the term really), or "me too", but adding more content to a years-old thread, regardless of posting further questions on the same subject ("hey, the step 3 didn't work for me, whereas the previous steps have worked. What's going on?") or adding more information on the subject ("Hey guys, with the command user XYZ gave you'll indeed have an audio file with the same content, but you're not actually extracting the track, rather you're reencoding just the audio track").
It's very common that, whenever I'm searching for something, I'll find pieces of relevant information all over different forums and threads, which is partly caused by some threads being closed just for the sake of being "old" and users being forced to create new ones for the same subject. Sometimes I also find, in the middle of a topic, unanswered questions whose answers I may know. When the topic isn't closed, I can add the answer and the thread would be "richer", more helpful, perhaps not to the same person who originally asked them, but for other people who eventually stumble on the same topic when they're having some related issue. If the thread is closed, I'll probably not post it anywere (however this is part of the intention behind my blog here), and it would be harder for someone else to find the answer in the future.
Closing these topics seems completely irrational, or at least unjustified by the reasonings I've heard or imagined so far. It seems it's more a matter of people for some reason "feeling weird" that the topic is old, and moderators with nothing better to do who feel powerful by closing threads and saying, "alright, move on, there's nothing to see here, thread closed. Create a new thread if you want to make your lame-ass point/question, punk".Posted 04-13-2012 at 05:25 PM by the dsc
Updated 04-13-2012 at 05:27 PM by the dsc -
Quit going there as at least for me I found better answers elsewhere. Also too, it may have changed but they liked to be demeaning. That is no way to grow users and customers. We have since dumped ubuntu from a lot of systems.
Posted 04-13-2012 at 07:13 PM by peonuser
-
Sometimes I just happen to found something I'm looking for over there. If the answer may be there I won't "blacklist" ubuntu forums from my searches. However I will not be able to eventually help someone if I know the answer from now on. Unless I create another account just for that, and use just to PM people, but I won't have all that trouble, I'd rather just post a note here for self-reference and for anyone who eventually stumbles around here spontaneously. Once, over there, I actually had to PM the creator of a script to give him a bug-report/fix because a topic was either blocked or my "ranking" didn't allow me for post there for some reason.
Here's an actual example of the sort of bump I was describing:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=608593
Not the first bump, which is really the more traditional kind, but later on, about 4 years later, someone posted something relevant. In this particular case no one felt the need to close the thread for some reason. I think it's completely arbitrary. If this policy had any logic, and this particular case came to their attention, the coherent thing to do would be to split the thread in two, one dated 2008 (and this one gets locked immediatelly), and one for 2011, even if it has just two posts.
Some forums even have a close-automatically-after-N-days-without answers functionality, which I also find ridiculous, but that would at least be more coherent as well.Posted 04-18-2012 at 02:18 PM by the dsc
Updated 04-18-2012 at 02:26 PM by the dsc -
LF has the same policy. I stopped participating on that forum after a thread was locked. Someone posted an answer to an unanswered question. A moderator stated, "Since this thread is more than two years old, locking it down." Locking a thread, because someone posts an answer is not very logical. The moderator then added an invitation to the OP to feel free to start a new thread if he was still having trouble?
If administrators do not want new posts in old threads, then inactive threads should be automatically locked after a specified time period. Waiting until an old thread receives a new post and locking it is rather stupid.
I am against locking, again because of my LF experience. There, threads are locked when declared solved. If someone has another answer, and possibly a better one, that answer cannot be added to the thread. The same is true of old threads. Why start a new thread, if existing ones can be up-dated?
That is my opinion.Posted 04-24-2012 at 07:54 AM by Randicus Draco Albus
-
If there exists another solution or the new solution is evenQuote:Originally Posted by Web31337
in my opinion, for example, in lq, you should not post replies to "solved" threads,
better, IMO then it "is" better to post the replies to solved
and/or old threads.
and fortunately LQ doesn't have problems with this kind of
necroposting. ;-)Posted 04-25-2012 at 02:11 AM by Aquarius_Girl
