If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Square-Enix boards very small

FF ShinobiFF Shinobi MemberFull Members
edited January 2008 in Site & Forum Support
Ok, I haven?t been around, so this may have been explained already, but most of the old threads in the square enix boards are gone. Yes, I know how to set the topics shown. I find it a crime that I can search for ?Dragon Quest? and get no results outside of the updates forum though.
«1

Comments

  • FrozenbabylonFrozenbabylon POW! Full Members
    edited August 2007
    <div>
    (FF Shinobi @ Aug. 05 2007,01:08)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">Ok, I haven?t been around, so this may have been explained already, but most of the old threads in the square enix boards are gone. Yes, I know how to set the topics shown. I find it a crime that I can search for ?Dragon Quest? and get no results outside of the updates forum though.</div>
    Out of curiosity, Why do you want to look at old topics? Posting in them usually gets people in trouble.

    I believe that they just trim the boards once in awhile. Not a big deal, Happens on nearly every board.
  • FF ShinobiFF Shinobi Member Full Members
    edited August 2007
    Because I have fond memories of old times, and there are things in there worth reading. I don't post in 'em, but I read the archives of every forum i go to regularly.

    -edit- The other categories I checked went all the way back to talking about the transition from the "old boards" in 2002



  • MeoTwister5MeoTwister5 Member Full Members
    edited August 2007
    I guess I kinda fall in that same categories. There are some old threads here I'd like to read through again some time...
  • madhtrmadhtr Full Member Full Members
    edited August 2007
    The Square Enix board didn't exist until just recently anyway so many of the older threads are likely still in the Roleplaying game forum. I could be wrong, but I know I don't delete old threads.
    Facebook
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • maryadaviesmaryadavies She Shoots For The Stars Somewhere east of Atlanta, GAModerators
    edited August 2007
    If it helps, by default it only shows the last month or so.

    You might try setting it to the beginning of time and see if that helps.
    93a24222217c9c20a686db8be4676a84.jpg
    My personal page
    New to the boards? Confused? Find the answers here.
  • madhtrmadhtr Full Member Full Members
    edited August 2007
    <div>
    (maryadavies @ Aug. 12 2007,12:59)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">If it helps, by default it only shows the last month or so.

    You might try setting it to the beginning of time and see if that helps.</div>
    I doublechecked that before I posted and that's all of the threads.
    Facebook
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FF ShinobiFF Shinobi Member Full Members
    edited August 2007
    The Squeenix board isn't THAT new, and even so, I specifically remember posting in there. There were more than the 7 threads that are there, as recently as a year ago if I recall.
  • madhtrmadhtr Full Member Full Members
    edited August 2007
    <div>
    (FF Shinobi @ Aug. 13 2007,00:38)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">The Squeenix board isn't THAT new, and even so, I specifically remember posting in there. There were more than the 7 threads that are there, as recently as a year ago if I recall.</div>
    Yeah, I know, cause I created it back when I was really an admin. In any case, threads could have been moved elsewhere if the moderator felt it didn't fit in that forum. Honestly, though, I couldn't say what happened to be sure.
    Facebook
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited August 2007
    Something is wrong then. According to the board index there are supposed to be over 1,100 threads and yet only seven threads show.
    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • JeffreyJeffrey Member Full Members
    edited August 2007
    Hmmm. Yeah, not sure what's up with that. I know there were more threads there a couple of months ago.

    I'll look into it, but I'm not sure how much success I'm going to have...
    [url=\"http://evilpandapirate.tumblr.com/\"]Tumblr[/url] | [url=\"http://twitter.com/EvilPandaPirate\"]Twitter[/url]
    \"FFXII doesn't really have a story to tell, and so it doesn't. FFXIII doesn't really have a story to tell, but has hours of cutscenes anyway.\" -SiliconNooB
  • Anna Marie PrivitereAnna Marie Privitere Purr RPGamer Staff
    edited August 2007
    I suspect some threads bit the dust when the boards were seperated and later merged.
  • FF ShinobiFF Shinobi Member Full Members
    edited August 2007
    Thank you Jeffrey.
  • RIPtoadRIPtoad Member Full Members
    edited December 2007
    This is indeed a crippling event. Pertinent today (for me) due to the fact I am playing through Dragon Quest VIII once again, and I recalled a lot of really great advice in the DQVIII thread that had been established here. But, much to my chagrin, I searched for it and found only--this. The souls of the great DQVIII masters of yore cry out at this injustice.

    Um... so, I assume when you "looked into it" you found ... nothing? A black letter day for this board, indeed... confused.gif
  • MartyrMartyr Member Full Members
    edited December 2007
    These boards have an auto-pruning feature. Which is to say, threads are deleted when they aren't posted in for a set amount of time. In this case, it seems to be 6 months. Those threads have been lost to the ether.

    Seems pretty much all the old, old boards that have been around forever don't have this feature turned on, but the ones that are less than a few years old do. Except for the RP forum for some reason. I might've just renamed an old board when I made that one. I don't know. I don't remember. I was probably drunk.

    Edit: Looks like I made that board around the time I was reviewing Tales of Legendia, so I was indeed drunk.

    You should just nuke the Square Enix board and move the threads over to RPG discussion anyway. Pretty pointless having it around anymore.



  • generatorgenerator Member Full Members
    edited December 2007
    <div>
    (Martyr @ Dec. 22 2007,07:00)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">These boards have an auto-pruning feature. Which is to say, threads are deleted when they aren't posted in for a set amount of time. In this case, it seems to be 6 months. Those threads have been lost to the ether.</div>
    I'm not sure if that's entirely true...I've been able to find threads back from 2002, as recently as a minute ago. Here is a good one:

    http://board.rpgamer.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=506;

    That is a great thread. It's just one example of how the forums used to be. Fun arguments GALORE.

    Kinda brings me to a point that I wanted to make, and I'm glad there was a thread like this already that sort of danced around the topic. Since this forum is open to "suggestions", I'm guessing that includes constructive criticism...because there is a rule around here now that I don't totally understand why it's even a rule. If it's been explained elsewhere, my apologies...but...why is it verbotten to post in threads over a month old? Aside from the Updates forum and Miscellaneous/Games/"Say whatever" forum, there isn't much activity on the boards. It's not like there are a ton of threads in each forum, where bringing back an "old" thread ("old" being used very loosely) is cluttering up the joint. Some of these forums could use a little clutter. The mods must be bored to tears with no threads to patrol. tounge2.gif

    I could understand not bringing back a thread that is years and years old (such as above), but a month? I would think there is still some relevant discussion happening in month-old threads. Just something I wanted to throw out there...not trying to ruffle any feathers.

    Cheers folks!

    Gen
  • MartyrMartyr Member Full Members
    edited December 2007
    <div></div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">I'm not sure if that's entirely true...I've been able to find threads back from 2002, as recently as a minute ago. Here is a good one:</div>

    Did you read my post? tounge2.gif

    I know for certain that the boards have this feature, and like I said, the old boards that have been around since the beginning don't have this feature turned on. I imagine that the pruning thing is set by default when a new board is created and people didn't notice. The new boards seem to have the same general cut-off point when I know they've been around for longer than their oldest threads would imply.
  • generatorgenerator Member Full Members
    edited December 2007
    <div>
    (Martyr @ Dec. 22 2007,20:41)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE"> <div></div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">I'm not sure if that's entirely true...I've been able to find threads back from 2002, as recently as a minute ago. ? Here is a good one:</div>

    Did you read my post? tounge2.gif

    I know for certain that the boards have this feature, and like I said, the old boards that have been around since the beginning don't have this feature turned on. I imagine that the pruning thing is set by default when a new board is created and people didn't notice. The new boards seem to have the same general cut-off point when I know they've been around for longer than their oldest threads would imply.</div>
    To be honest, I clicked "quote" after reading the first paragraph. So no - I did not read the entire post. biggrin.gif Free pass this time?
  • RIPtoadRIPtoad Member Full Members
    edited December 2007
    Don't back down--it's a load of rubbish! The Square Enix topic isn't exactly new. There were threads there far older than six months, before the entire section was destroyed. Sorry, but auto pruning doesn't seem to answer the query. Now, aside from that, I'm onboard with generator's impertinent rejoinder--WTF makes older threads unworthy to be revisited? What if I were to take up a game of, say, Dragon Quest VIII today? Should a new topic be created, or should an already established thread be revisited, as there has already been some good insights posted there, regardless how far back it might have been? Personally, I like to go back to older games, and as a consequence, I also like to go back to older, pertinent threads. The "month old" "rule" is ridiculous in many applications. Hell, sometimes it's fun just to revive old threads to see what people were thinking at the time and how it compares with today's boardie. To kill that avenue of interaction is simply antithetical to open discussion, by my way of thinking.



  • generatorgenerator Member Full Members
    edited December 2007
    <div>
    (RIPtoad @ Dec. 26 2007,18:50)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">Don't back down--it's a load of rubbish! The Square Enix topic isn't exactly new. There were threads there far older than six months, before the entire section was destroyed. Sorry, but auto pruning doesn't seem to answer the query. Now, aside from that, I'm onboard with generator's impertinent rejoinder--WTF makes older threads unworthy to be revisited? What if I were to take up a game of, say, Dragon Quest VIII today? Should a new topic be created, or should an already established thread be revisited, as there has already been some good insights posted there, regardless how far back it might have been? Personally, I like to go back to older games, and as a consequence, I also like to go back to older, pertinent threads. The "month old" "rule" is ridiculous in many applications. Hell, sometimes it's fun just to revive old threads to see what people were thinking at the time and how it compares with today's boardie. To kill that avenue of interaction is simply antithetical to open discussion, by my way of thinking.</div>
    Well I'm glad someone agrees with me. Either that or just no one else is willing to speak up.
  • FrozenbabylonFrozenbabylon POW! Full Members
    edited December 2007
    Or no one else actually cares. Either or.
  • FF ShinobiFF Shinobi Member Full Members
    edited December 2007
    Except, of course, Myself, MeoTwister5, RIPtoad, generator, and anyone just lurking. I have no problem with anti-bumb rules though, I could go either way, and with the diminishing forum population around here, I can see the Squeenix board needing to get merged.

    That auto-purge function seems weird though, leaving the ?number of threads? counter untouched.
  • FrozenbabylonFrozenbabylon POW! Full Members
    edited December 2007
    I didn't mean you. I meant staff, since no one (except EX-staff lol) has looked into it.



  • madhtrmadhtr Full Member Full Members
    edited January 2008
    <div>
    (Frozenbabylon @ Dec. 30 2007,23:00)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">I didn't mean you. I meant staff, since no one (except EX-staff lol) has looked into it.</div>
    Yeah, I'm sure no one has at all.... at ALL
    Facebook
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FrozenbabylonFrozenbabylon POW! Full Members
    edited January 2008
    Where's the proof otherwise? No one ever came in after Jeffery said `I'll look into it` and said `Yeah, I looked into it more throughly and I didn't find anything, I have no idea what's going on.`

    Not knowing what's going on and telling everyone that is pretty acceptable, Not telling anyone that you don't know what's happening and leaving people hanging, however, really isn't.



  • madhtrmadhtr Full Member Full Members
    edited January 2008
    <div>
    (Frozenbabylon @ Jan. 01 2008,11:58)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">Where's the proof otherwise? No one ever came in after Jeffery said `I'll look into it` and said `Yeah, I looked into it more throughly and I didn't find anything, I have no idea what's going on.`

    Not knowing what's going on and telling everyone that is pretty acceptable, Not telling anyone that you don't know what's happening and leaving people hanging, however, really isn't.</div>
    We have to take screenshots to prove something was done?

    In any case, the auto-prune feature was set to prune after inactivity of 999999999 days.
    Facebook
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FrozenbabylonFrozenbabylon POW! Full Members
    edited January 2008
    Does it kill you to drop an update on the problem once in awhile?
  • FF ShinobiFF Shinobi Member Full Members
    edited January 2008
    So that's not the problem then. Theres no way those topics were 739,726 years old.



  • flamethrowerflamethrower Member Full Members
    edited January 2008
    <div>
    (FF Shinobi @ Dec. 30 2007,19:55)</div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">Except, of course, Myself, MeoTwister5, RIPtoad, generator, and anyone just lurking. I have no problem with anti-bumb rules though, I could go either way, and with the diminishing forum population around here, I can see the Squeenix board needing to get merged.</div>
    You're of course referring to the "No posting in old topics rule."

    Well, you can add me to the list of people who do not like this rule. I do not like it, Sam I am. Supposedly the reason for the rule is that people generally do not want to discuss old topics. I could make a post in a 2001, 02, 03, 04, 05, and 06 thread, and those would be the first 6 topics listed on the board index - all old. I think the problem the admins keep having is that people DO want to discuss old topics, which is why they need to keep locking topics. New users have this problem because they don't read the rules (That's their fault-they SHOULD read the rules) but also because they want to discuss old topics. As a veteran user (I'm not "The old guard" but I've had an account in good standing for 6 months), I have no problem discussing an old topic with new users IF they read the stuff already posted in a topic and have something genuinely new to add to the discussion. I'm sure at least some of the other users feel the same way. I could make a poll about it, but moderators do not generally like "Do you agree with rule X" topics because they represent a challenge to their authority.

    Another problem that arises from amending the rule - it becomes more difficult to check every post. It's necessary to check every single post to ensure that the forum is well moderated, order is maintained, problem users are disciplined/banned, and illegal or offensive content (i.e. swear words, warez, etc...) are kept off the forum.

    Now I wasn't around when the no posting in old topics rule was instated. It probably was instituted for a reason OTHER than "People don't want to discuss old topics." Please, could any moderator post here what the real reason is? Thanks.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Member Full Members
    edited January 2008
    1. If I'd found anything out at all, I would have said something. I hadn't then, and I still haven't, determined why threads disappeared but continue to show up in the counter.

    2. Thread necromancy is, in general, considered a breach of protocol, not just on this forum but nearly universally. Click here.

    <div></div><div class="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div class="QUOTE">The acceptable practice is usually to start a new thread and link to the old thread so that readers can become familiar with the background information.</div>

    So in essence, if a thread is that dead, there's little to no continuing interest in it. Starting a new thread and linking the old might revive interest, or it might just prove that the thread has run its course. Either way, I think the rule against thread resurrection will stand.
    [url=\"http://evilpandapirate.tumblr.com/\"]Tumblr[/url] | [url=\"http://twitter.com/EvilPandaPirate\"]Twitter[/url]
    \"FFXII doesn't really have a story to tell, and so it doesn't. FFXIII doesn't really have a story to tell, but has hours of cutscenes anyway.\" -SiliconNooB
  • Anna Marie PrivitereAnna Marie Privitere Purr RPGamer Staff
    edited January 2008
    On an additional point to the necromancy rule:
    Invariably, when a topic is dragged from the depths there are three things to remember;
    1. It has happened someone's spamming (we get a lot of 'dig up old thread to link petition/advertise/sic anyone who clicks with a virus/yourmom' sort of problems).
    2. Some new (or old) poster walzes in who repeats verbatim something already discussed and picked over without expounding on why they believe as such or bringing anything new to ponder (Even Jeffrey never had to deal with three dozen new people posting "FF<number here> just isn't as good as the rest of the series" in a six month dead thread. Okay, great, but who gives a flip without the WHY?
    This creates a two prong problem: regulars and those who participated in the original thread don't have much to say beyond "why the heck did you post this?" and it essentially becomes post padding - see point one.
    3. The alternative has been tried and there is a reason it was abandoned - forcing everyone to go back and post in the old topic instead of the new topic generally crushed discussion rather than encouraged it, especially when new posters were trying to break into the boards. It was intimidating a lot of people away and in fact, it often led to the problems discussed in points one and two...it's crazy like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.