Before I begin, let me apologize in the event that this is not the right area for such a thread. I looked, and found no general area or area for discussion of Bethesda in general. Please, move this thread to the proper area if one exists.

I believe that threads should not be locked after 200 posts. Generally, a thread will die on its own with time. This is the case in other forums, it would with this one as well.

If threads are locked after 200 posts to facilitate catching up, then I say that's counter-intuitive. It can go one of two ways: one, a new thread is made, making newcomers having to navigate through multiple threads instead of a single one; two, an interesting discussion is needlessly shut down.

If threads are locked because the forum's software can't handle it, then I say get new software. Other forums can handle it fine, and I'm sure Bethesda's community team can spare the one hundred some dollars needed to acquire a license to use better forum software.

If threads are locked because longer discussions tend to be centered around criticism of the game, stop that. That's unreasonable censorship, even for a private company.

If threads are locked because forum goers' computers can't handle the load, then forget them. This is 2011. If you can afford to play a Bethesda game you can afford decent bandwidth and some processing speed to boot. Skyrim may as well be made with 8-bit graphics if we're going to be accommodating people with poor browsers, sluggish internet, or seriously dated hardware. I doubt that this is a problem, though. It seems silly to me that a computer would have trouble with these forums.

If threads are locked after 200 posts because it is feared they may stray off-topic, then I say
1) Threads evolve. Often a thread that started out about, say, the inclusion of firearms in Skyrim would expand to discuss crossbows as well. Perhaps even spears. There is nothing wrong with that, and starting a new thread for such a similar topic would make it more difficult to refer to previous posts in the other thread that were quite relevant to the point being made.
2) There is no physical law affirming that a thread will irredeemably off-topic after a certain amount of posts (okay, actually, the Second Law of Thermodynamics might just be relevant here, but you know what I mean, right?). Shutting a thread down automatically because of the fear it may lose focus is anologous to imprisoning people at birth because they might commit a crime later on in life.


Please cease the shutting down of legitimate and interesting discussions for such a paltry reason as "too many posts." Believe it or not, there can be more to say after 200 posts. Really. When there's nothing left to say, the thread will die on its own. It's possible that someone may repeatedly bump the thread despite lack of interest in it, but that's easy to spot and then I believe it would be entirely appropriate for moderators to intervene and lock the thread.
Thanks for hearing me out, whoever's in charge of this.

PS- if you're going to continue locking threads after 200 posts, at least use a bot to do it automatically. Sheesh,

after a while, you will get used to it.

There's a technical reason for it. What? Bandwith? I'm sure a mod will come along and explain it.

It's to prevent spam, and it's in the FAQ and forum rules.

it keeps the thread length readable. I could read up to 10 pages. 50+ pages? I wouldn't bother to read the contents, so there's a high likelihood that whatever I post is just more of the same, and not creating a discussion at all.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/page__view__findpost__p__10470780

Threads were originally locked at 200 posts due to the limited forum software of that time. Of course these forums are running much more powerful software today and there is no need to lock threads at 200.

Well, no technical reason, but the mods do it anyway for a couple of reasons:

1. To prevent threads going off topic. Which happens when threads get too long and people stop reading the entire thread before they post.
2. To keep things fresh. When a second topic is created it's more likely that new users will join the discussion and post.

I've never encountered a rule like this on any other forums i've frequented in the past. It does seem kind've silly to me. Whatever though... i'm used to it now, just like some of the other rules that seem a bit silly and excessive.

Its because at one point these forums ran on ancient software powered by 1200 hamsters constantly running. The software has evolved but the way the forum is run hasn't.

There are a lot of threads on the forums longer than 200 posts

Yeah, Rohugh, I answered all those points. Sorry about not finding the community discussion though. That's all me.


Unfortunately, I've seen many interesting discussions brazenly and crudely shut down because of this needless rule.

So whats wrong with making a new thread for the discussion? You can cross-thread quote, and Id probably read a 1 page topic rather than a 15.

Name one discussion that died because of this "needless rule"

When a discussion has enough interest, people generally start another thread. That is completely allowed. That's why you see topics with "Thread #3" and the like. The discussions aren't being completely stopped.

How is having to go through multiple threads to follow a discussion any better?

Which is why people should use the OP to summarize the discussion of the previous thread

What, you think I just started this at random?

Here's the one:
http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1211615-1-fear-for-skyrim/page__pid__18139137__st__200#entry18139137

This is the only forum I've frequented that had the rule and it seems a bit pointless but whatever I've dealt with it.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1211870-1-fear-for-skyrim/

:rofl:

I'd be lying if I said I didn't see that coming.

I can go through up to a hundred pages of a thread (though I rarely have the time to do so, but I start where I left off on some other day) if the subject interests me. Similarly, there are people that aren't willing to read so much as a single page even when the thread cap is at 200 posts.
When a discussion is particularly heated (like in the Skyrim forum), it can be a bit annoying to have to switch threads, or come back at a later time and have to search for the old thread etc.
But I got used to it.

That said, just because a rule is explained does not mean it should never be challenged. :shrug:

So, summarize the first thread and make a "Thread #2". The original OP doesn't even need to do it.

Topics are closed at 200 posts, if that thread has gone far of topic, or there has been excess flaming or other posts contravening forum rules then it will be closed with a request not to start another one, otherwise there is nothing to stop another thread on the same subject being started.

Perhaps you could now link me to these topics that have been "brazenly and crudely" shut down.


How is having to go through 800+ posts in one thread any different?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, and now you have to go to the previous thread and look through that just to keep up.

What is it with people here and blindly following Bethesda's every decision?
Having threads longer than 200 posts would be a good thing. I have established that. If you think I'm wrong, then please refute my points.

whaaat? Would you look at that? People are actually quoting posts from the previous topic? but...but.. that means that people actually read the old thread.. they didn't immediately forget it!

It almost looks like locking the old thread had absolutely no effect on the discussion.

pffft! What am I saying... that would be crazy, it's quite obvious that locking a thread at 200 posts is the forum equivalent of decapitating someone.

You know, I would actually....BLHALJHG.,fnhma.........

*brain imploded due to sarcasm overload*