Quote from: nc50lc on April 18, 2018, 02:52:46 AM

I said "that" means that I'm talking about the quoted part from TheQuin's post (above the paragraph) which is the "lock after x number of days without post".
And you quoted only a part of my post which broken the whole statement.

Did you even read my whole post, including the quoted message?

I know exactly what you were talking about. I have no idea what you're attempting to get at with this post, though. I was simply pointing out that fixing a portion of the necro-posting problem will solve a portion of the spam problem. I'm unsure what part of what I said was hard to grasp, because I kept it short, sweet and explained it multiple different ways.

A lot of the spam is made possible by someone reviving a thread that has already fizzled out and regular spammers avoid. I only quoted a portion of your message, because your premise and conclusion were incorrect. It was the heart of your message, the main point and the only portion compelling a response from me.

Which part of my post indicated that I don't understand what you're saying?

All you said was "Auto-Lock won't solve Spam" and then proceeded to give what you believe to be improvements to the Auto-Lock suggestions. So you've made your position abundantly unclear and without substance.

Quote from: nc50lc on March 31, 2018, 07:45:15 AM

Including the Author's Rank, Last Active Date and new Poster's Rank to the basis might lessen the harm on thread locking automation.

Another bad idea, because all this would do is require the spammer to acquire a higher ranking account to begin threads and allow them to create an entire family tree of spam-threads. It would make higher ranking accounts even more valuable to spammers.