Topic Decay question

[Serack]

I've seen it floating around, and I have no problem with, the fact that topics that haven't been active for 30 days get auto locked to prevent topic necromancy (good thing imo).  I have also seen mod's mention something about such locked topics being deleted 90 days later but I am not sure if that trait is specific to certian "boards" like the more social ones.

The reason why I am concerned about this, is that in the DF spoilers board, the ultimate interview compilation stickie has replies with links to additional in board topics that are our only record of certain JB interviews/Q&A sessons, and they have not been replied to since May 1st and it would be a crying shame if these were to "decay" and be deleted so I was hoping someone would clarify this policy for me in hopes that my concerns will be aleviated.

The one (link in sticky to a locked thread) that brought this to my attention is:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,7822.msg543639.html#msg543639

[Priscellie]

Thanks for the heads-up!  I've moved it to the "Word of Jim" board, which doesn't decay.  You can nominate threads for preservation in the Display Case Contenders sticky.

[Serack]

Thanks for the heads-up!  I've moved it to the "Word of Jim" board, which doesn't decay.  You can nominate threads for preservation in the Display Case Contenders sticky.

So would it have "decayed"?

Edit:  Btw I like how the old link in the ultimate interview colleciton thread goes to the new location.

[Shecky]

It belonged with WoJ regardless, don't you think?

[Serack]

It belonged with WoJ regardless, don't you think?

I've been quoting it as WoJ.  However it is a summary so I don't consider it 100% word for word cannon.

You've read my topic where the origional asker of one of the questions wrote:

I can answer to the veracity of the second quote, I asked him the question
The full question was if he had stated in the past, during an interview, that Elaine also was a candidate to have the potential to wield power over Outsiders.  His longer answer was yes, he had said that before, that Harry and Elaine are just a few months apart age wise so for all intensive purposes the same age.  He then told me that was one of the reasons that Justin had picked both of them to adopt, it wasn't just random kids with power.  The key word in my question and his answer was potential.

I mostly asked this to settle a debate around here.  A handful of us remembered reading the interview but none of us could find it anymore, so some other members wondered if it had ever been said or was just an example of people reading others saying it so often they thought they had really read it.  So I asked him to settle the debate once and for all.

With reguards to the "summarized" Q&A from the now WoJ'd thread:

Q:  Is Elaine another candidate to wield power over Outsiders (the way Harry supposedly is)?
A:  Yes.  There’s a reason Justin picked the two of them.

I may make use of Priscillie's display case contenders for that WoJ clarification though.  Although the sticky does say to nominate it after it's been locked.

[Shecky]

I've been quoting it as WoJ.  However it is a summary so I don't consider it 100% word for word cannon.

It's as close to canon as we're going to get unless we get one of those newfangled thought transcribers and hook Jim up to it for a couple of weeks straight.

You've read my topic where the origional asker of one of the questions wrote:

Not sure what this has to do with things in the WoJ board.

With reguards to the "summarized" Q&A from the now WoJ'd thread:
I may make use of Priscillie's display case contenders for that WoJ clarification though.  Although the sticky does say to nominate it after it's been locked.

Good plan. It's always nice to see people keeping the place clean.

[Serack]

Not sure what this has to do with things in the WoJ board.

The topic that Priscilla just added to WoJ was a summary of Q&A's.  The quote above is a more detailed version of a particular Q&A in that summary now in the WoJ board.

[Shecky]

The topic that Priscilla just added to WoJ was a summary of Q&A's.  The quote above is a more detailed version of a particular Q&A in that summary now in the WoJ board.

Okay, it's still WoJ, summarized or otherwise. I guess what I was asking was your point in quoting Laura's post.

[Chiana]

It's as close to canon as we're going to get unless we get one of those newfangled thought transcribers and hook Jim up to it for a couple of weeks straight.

I would PAY MONEY for that!   

[Serack]

Okay, it's still WoJ, summarized or otherwise. I guess what I was asking was your point in quoting Laura's post.

I guess the point is, if the Summary is WoJ, than Laura's post should be treated as such (and thus preserved as such) too.

Edit:  To my knowledge untill today, all the WoJ topics preserved in that board (other than the twitter post, which still is, just in another forum), were litteral posts by the man himself.  Saving the Q&A as WoJ, I agree is viable, it just opens new ground, so I was pointing out Laura's post too.

[Shecky]

I guess the point is, if the Summary is WoJ, than Laura's post should be treated as such (and thus preserved as such) too.

Right, no disagreement there, so... how does that disagree with "it belongs with WoJ anyway, don't you think?"

[Serack]

Right, no disagreement there, so... how does that disagree with "it belongs with WoJ anyway, don't you think?"

lol I'm not even sure what is unclear anymore which may create a comunications paradox and disrupt the linguistic continuum or something.

I pointed out the quote just to point out the quote as another potential WoJ that clarified an earlier summarized WoJ.  No disagreement... I think.

[Shecky]

Ah.