[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/qa/ - Question & Answer


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1506598077180.jpg (226 KB, 1902x1628)
226 KB
226 KB JPG
Is it inherently wrong to keep threads alive for a period of more than 24 hours on fast boards? I often this phenomenon occur on /a/; threads about specific female characters being bumped endlessly, sometimes lasting 3 or 4 days, and in rare cases, even a week without any interesting content that might spark a discussion being brought to the table.
Does it pollute the board? Should something be done about it? What do you think?
>>
>>1619457
You are asking this on a board where people run bump bot scripts to keep threads alive for months; probably not the best place to ask.
>>
I'll allow it.
>>
>>1619460
It is technically the best place to ask when you don't want to make it a mod issue.
>>
>>1619466
You're right, of course. Carry on. I think it's horrible btw.
>>
It pollutes the board no matter what thread is being bumped, it's against the nature of 4chan.
>>
If you're allowed to create infinite threads, you should be allowed to extend the life of a thread to infinity.
>>
>>1619538
You're not though, there's a restriction of 5 threads.
>>
>>1619540
Who cares about some red text and a warning?
>>
>>1619540
It's not in the rules, therefore it's not forbidden.
>>
File: marked for deletion.jpg (59 KB, 600x418)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
Time to bring it back!
>>
>>1619541
I suppose I should interpret this as a hint that I should treat some text –your post– that lacks any kind of colour with even less care then. I like colours you see.
>>1619546
Does the 6th rule not say that users are encouraged to provide informative comments? The posts OP are talking about seem to hardly fit that category.
>>
>>1619457
Yes.
>>
>>1619541
Why did they put the warning there in the first place then?
>>
>>1619457
they want the functions of a forum but won't fuck off to one because they'd rather shit up 4chan



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.