-
abc33kr wrote on 2011-05-31 23:37
Personally, I don't see much purpose in this rule. I acknowledge that necroing is bad because people will just necro old threads for post counts. However, whenever I see someone necroing a thread, I find an interesting thread that I would never have found on my own. For example, when I necroed my thread about nuadha with a friendly giant, many people were very interested.
Also, wouldn't creating many threads of the same topic clog up the search feature, making it harder for people to search for something?
-
Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-06-01 00:23
I've always kind of wondered that myself. I don't see anything wrong with it. Seeing how a necroed thread doesn't reappear in the thread bar.
-
Adelynn wrote on 2011-06-01 00:41
Personally, I'm kind of here, kind of there. Honestly, some of the people that necro threads only do it for the +1s, but on the other hand, if the thread is really as useless as the staff claim it is, then it will probably re-die on its own?
The one thing that annoys me about necro'd threads is (sometimes) the amount of people that say "don't necro dead threads, you're not contributing anything!" when they're not contributing anything either. The threads are usually pretty interesting, actually. Getting to discuss things again can be interesting. Again, if a thread is meant to die, it will probably do it naturally because people won't want to talk about it. I guess as long as a person isn't going out of their way to find every old thread just to necro it, it could be okay?
Sorry if this seems all jumbled. My brother keeps distracting me with videos. x.e
-
Osayidan wrote on 2011-06-01 00:45
I've always been 50/50 on necro. There's plenty of threads that can be good to bump after a while, but there's even more that shouldn't, plus people who bump for the wrong reasons.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2011-06-01 00:46
The way I see it, guides and important threads can never be "necro'ed," while threads that involve simple questions don't really need a restart when it comes to discussion, since they're just that; simple threads.
As for the more extensive discussions, I think disallowing necro'ing promotes newer discussions and newer threads, you know? It'd be kinda silly to be posting in a year old thread when you could make a much more interesting new thread about the same topic.
Maybe you found new information and you wanna make a separate thread (like you always do, ABC) or sometimes people just don't wanna read through all the pages of an old thread when that specific discussion isn't really relevant anymore.
I dunno. That's my take on it.
-
Arsik wrote on 2011-06-01 00:48
Quote from Adelynn;462034:
Personally, I'm kind of here, kind of there. Honestly, some of the people that necro threads only do it for the +1s, but on the other hand, if the thread is really as useless as the staff claim it is, then it will probably re-die on its own?
The one thing that annoys me about necro'd threads is (sometimes) the amount of people that say "don't necro dead threads, you're not contributing anything!" when they're not contributing anything either. The threads are usually pretty interesting, actually. Getting to discuss things again can be interesting. Again, if a thread is meant to die, it will probably do it naturally because people won't want to talk about it. I guess as long as a person isn't going out of their way to find every old thread just to necro it, it could be okay?
Sorry if this seems all jumbled. My brother keeps distracting me with videos. x.e
This is generally the reason as to why we lock threads. Even in our community, it doesn't stop people from getting on a person's case when they bump an old thread, careless mistake or nor, so to prevent any flame wars, we just lock any necroposted thread instead of ignoring them. Also because a majority of the time, the person that bumped the thread doesn't contribute anything in the first place, usually a "that's awesome", "lame" or "trololololo" makes up the majority of necroposted threads, which only leads to people getting on that person's case about it. So instead of just handling it case-by-case, we just say no to necroposting. And besides, we have a two month limit on necroposting, and that's pretty generous in it's own right, but if it's been more than 2 months since the last post, there's a good chance that the interest in that topic is extremely low, so there's also no point in reviving the thread in the first place.
-
abc33kr wrote on 2011-06-01 00:57
hmm then I should just pm a mod to check if bumping a thread is alright?
-
Mentosftw wrote on 2011-06-01 00:58
If it's written on the almighty rulelist, it must not be questioned!
-
Phunkie wrote on 2011-06-01 00:59
Quote from abc33kr;462071:
hmm then I should just pm a mod to check if bumping a thread is alright?
You can PM a mod for anything.
ABC: "Can I destroy Bean Rua with my super, destructive lazer of d00m?!?!"
Mod: "Sure, but just for today."
-
Mentosftw wrote on 2011-06-01 01:00
Quote from Arsik;462053:
This is generally the reason as to why we lock threads. Even in our community, it doesn't stop people from getting on a person's case when they bump an old thread, careless mistake or nor, so to prevent any flame wars, we just lock any necroposted thread instead of ignoring them. Also because a majority of the time, the person that bumped the thread doesn't contribute anything in the first place, usually a "that's awesome", "lame" or "trololololo" makes up the majority of necroposted threads, which only leads to people getting on that person's case about it. So instead of just handling it case-by-case, we just say no to necroposting. And besides, we have a two month limit on necroposting, and that's pretty generous in it's own right, but if it's been more than 2 months since the last post, there's a good chance that the interest in that topic is extremely low, so there's also no point in reviving the thread in the first place.
Wait. So the whole purpose of going against necro'd threads is because you don't want necro bashers? But what if there weren't any and the thread continued to be productive and on-topic?
Would the thread still be closed because it's "against the rules"?
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-06-01 03:03
Quote from Phigga;462044:
It'd be kinda silly to be posting in a year old thread when you could make a much more interesting new thread about the same topic.
You mean like it's silly to build up on the old car design instead of inventing something completely new from scratch every time you have an idea how to contribute to car development?
Quote from Arsik;462053:
This is generally the reason as to why we lock threads. ...big paragraph...
On the surface this might seem reasonable, but in the great scheme of things it rather appears to actually contribute to the problem it wants to prevent by creating an atmosphere of "necroing is not accepted" -which is the only part that sticks around in people's minds, since it's the only part visible-, which in turn might cause people to be stuck up about necros elsewhere too.
Quote from Arsik;462053:
there's a good chance that the interest in that topic is extremely low, so there's also no point in reviving the thread in the first place.
That one, however, is very silly. The necroposter will notice when no one actually cares to respond, in which case locking is
completely redundant, nothing would happen anyway. However, IF there is some interest in whatever aspect has been brought up by the necroposter, then locking the thread will surely not enable people to show it.
How often did necropost-bashing
actually occur when this rule wasn't enforced (
if there was such a time)? I find it strange that it would at all, but then again I do know what's possible with some humans...
Either way I see it as mostly nonsensical and above all generally ineffective red tape.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2011-06-01 17:39
Quote from Sumpfkraut;462379:
You mean like it's silly to build up on the old car design instead of inventing something completely new from scratch every time you have an idea how to contribute to car development?
Not at all.
But I personally tend to shy away from long threads with old dates, I would assume the same for normal users.
If you need to refer to an old thread, just add the link, no? Seems more organized that way, IMO.
Ex: "In this thread (link to said thread and perhaps the specific post), X and Y people said A and B. Well, I looked into it and I discovered that 1 and 2... etc, etc..."
BAM! New discussion, people don't have to read through 10 pages to figure out what you're trying to say and I dunno, seems much more interesting.
Of course, you're not gonna make a separate thread for something that happened 3 weeks ago, since the rule is indeed 2 months. And multiple threads about the same topic would get locked.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-06-01 23:03
Well I guess that's a reasonable alternative.
Still not sure why that means necros should be prohibited. Multiple-choice is superior! :thumb:
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2011-06-02 03:49
The section of the forums where the offending thread revival takes place should be taken into consideration. Pet Park, for example, is considered a cardinal forum for a Mabinogi discussion board, yet new topics are seldom created. So long as you exercise good judgement, I see no reason why said act would offend anyone.
That being said, I make sure to ask a moderator before necro'ing posts. If someone throws a fit, I can let a person that's better prepared take care of the situation.
-
Leopher wrote on 2011-06-03 18:16
If the purpose of not allowing the necro'ing of threads is to discourage flame wars between the necro'er and some person who doesn't like the thread being necro'd, couldn't complaining about people necro'ing threads just be banned instead?
And even if the post made on an old thread is just useless, can't people just ignore it? I don't understand why useless posts bother people.
I also don't quite understand why people are concerned about the necro'ing persons motives are either. It seems that post count, like reputation, is sort of just a way that the community can tell how active and reputible you are. If a person has a few extra posts because they necro'd a thread, I don't think it will really increase their standing with the community, especially if the community sees them making those useless posts. Should the Bean Rua be destroyed because people can spam it to get a higher post count from it?