So just locking the thread is a no-op?
I'm not sure what you mean by a no-op, but locking the thread doesn't combat the signature spam in any way. It is essentially telling people 'if you spam fast enough, you can spam and nothing will happen'.
If so, what about those non-spammy posts in it?
Tough luck? The chances of there being a non-spammy post on a thread like 'if bitcoin went to $1 what would you do!!!' are incredibly low anyway.
These will get deleted too, as far as I can see?
Yes.
Did you ever wonder that it is a moderator's job to delete spam posts as fast as possible so that it never comes to deleting the whole thread (provided it wasn't a spam thread right from the start)?
I've been critical of the moderation team in the past for this, however if you are expecting that to happen here after all this time you are being too idealistic. If we're living in the real world, deleting the spam
eventually is better than accepting it simply because it is 'old', and is much more likely to happen.
Also, entire threads aren't deleted unless they are majority spam. I haven't got a clue where you get the idea that anything else happens from.
In the OP I meant specifically the threads that are no longer posted in, i.e. necrothreads (I thought it was evident from the context).
You gave no context. Learn to structure your writing better if this is the case.
The threads that are still active and old at that cannot be spammy by definition (as a whole, apart from individual posts)
Wrong. Just because something isn't punished doesn't then change the definition of it.
If I throw litter on the street and it is not moved, does that then mean that I wasn't littering?
(it's no use trying to concoct impossible combinations here as it better suits your point)
Every example of a thread I have used has existed previously. You should probably pay more attention to reading rather than posting if you don't think this is the case.
while deleting them would raise a lot of noise on their own.
I'm struggling to follow what you are saying, but I'm guessing that you mean deleting threads would cause people to do what you are doing currently. In this scenario, just like you have, they will be told to deal with it.
In short, I mean non-spammy abandoned threads created months if not years ago. Why should they ever get deleted and not locked (if necroraising is disallowed)?
They shouldn't, and therefore they aren't. Spam threads, regardless of their age, should be deleted along with all spam posts in them.
Wow, now it's no longer "they thought it would be more appropriate". I guess you are already past the point of back-pedaling this issue. But you may still ask hilarious (if you are really curious)
I think that our different uses of language has made us both confused about what we are talking about. Let me summarize what I understood from the last few points relating to this so that we can possibly understand each other better.
- You said that necroposts were deleted when you felt they shouldn't have been.
- I said that if the staff saw it as appropriate, the posts should have been deleted.
- You then tried to relate said posts to a theoretical situation you came up with previously.
- I gave you a number of questions to try and clear up whether these deleted posts fit within said theoretical situation. I also reaffirmed that, regardless of what you and I think or propose, the staff's decision would be final.
- Instead of answering the questions, you now say that I am back peddling.
Please correct me if I was wrong at any part here, though to me it just seems that you're just avoiding the point.
EDIT: a closing remark to be precise.
I see, my apologies.