Necroposting Rule

• Valkyrio wrote on 2013-06-29 04:56

  Quote from Hanna;1114225:

  i have been on many forums, forums who have no such rule, have been around much longer than this site, and have many more members and do not have a problem
  
  this rule seems to be one of those
  "just in case" rules that are 100% unnecessary
  
  i'm all for trashing this rule completely since all it leads to is unnecessary locking of threads

  
  
  Yep yep yep yep yep...this is one of those rules that is grandfathered into pretty much every big forum.
• Hanna wrote on 2013-06-29 04:58

  Quote from Hatsunechan;1114229:

  I dont see a problem with necroing as long as people are on topic or there isnt already another thread about the same topic. I dont think people are going to go and necro every single thread (but they might because it's a "loophole" if it's allowed) but if they do then you could just deal with that 1 specific person.

  
  exactly
  i dont think general forum goers will necro every thread they see
  typically if it has died people have nothing to contribute to it anymore and it is forgotten
  but if someone finds it via a search engine and create an account just to comment, they probably have something to contribute to it and may spark the conversation again
  
  if one person makes it a problem, the mods can deal with that specific person
  locking threads because they're old is just silly
• Lyrveil wrote on 2013-06-29 06:31
  I don't think the necroposting rule is useful really. Usually if a thread is necro posted with something useful most of us wouldn't even mind and would probably contribute to said thread again.
  
  If it's a spammer reviving an old thread it falls under the rules associated with spam anyway, so why would we need an additional rule that just restrict old thread that could still be useful from being revived? It's not like someone could just go in an old thread a "^this" or "+1" since they're considered spam according to the new rules on spam too.
• Taycat wrote on 2013-06-29 06:47
  I'd say look at a list of people who have been warned for necroposting and seriously think if it's a large enough problem that you must deal with it in such a way.
• Tarvos wrote on 2013-06-29 07:12
  I think the Necoposting thing is pointless.
  
  A forum I browse mainly today lacks the Necro rule, and nothing ever goes wrong, as a matter of fact there's less clutter on topics and things are all centralized and easy to find.
• Gensokyou wrote on 2013-06-29 11:47

  Quote from Baku;1114038:

  I hates it </3
  
  
  
  I felt bad closing this... I mean, what's the point?
  
  In this particular example we are dealing with an open-ended question, in this case, the question will always be valid if X member never answered it.
  And when X member sees thread, answers, other people that haven't answered previously, might bring the topic back to life, with proper discussion and answers!
  
  So what do?
  
  Necroposting is a tricky thing, if the reply that results in a necro is a reply that bring something of use the the topic, or that haves relevancy in an open-ended discussion, then what's the problem? How does it bother anyone that a perfectly fine discussion is brought back to "life" with the appearance of a perfectly fine reply?
  
  I mean, there's questions and discussions that will always be valid, other that will not (outdated content, question that has already been addressed/answered).
  
  I feel like by closing that thread I forbid discussion to ensue, which is the primary purpose of a discussion forum (duh!), any user is very unlikely to actually make a new thread with the same topic, but would have been most likely to simply reply to it.
  
  I think that necroing should be allowed if the reply stimulates the discussion to continue.
  
  
  Opinions, massages and licks are welcome.

  
  
  [S]that was a shitty thread imo[/S]
  
  Just make a new thread. There's no need to bring up old discussion, because people will quote the old posts eventually etc etc etc.
  
  

  any user is very unlikely to actually make a new thread with the same topic, but would have been most likely to simply reply to it.

  
  
  I don't see why.
  
  Necroposting is bad and they should just make a new thread.
• Baku wrote on 2013-06-29 13:31
  People that are "ok" with the rule are failing to elaborate on reasons! It seems to me like they just have an "aversion" against it, "just because", like it happens oh so many times - you know Herd Behavior.
• Gensokyou wrote on 2013-06-29 14:31

  Quote from Baku;1114408:

  People that are "ok" with the rule are failing to elaborate on reasons! It seems to me like they just have an "aversion" against it, "just because", like it happens oh so many times - you know Herd Behavior.

  
  
  It seems like you just want it to happen!
  
  

  Just make a new thread. There's no need to bring up old discussion, because people will quote the old posts eventually etc etc etc.
  

  
  
  If keeping things relevant is important, as per an infraction I recently received, then people interested in topics should make a new thread to avoid bringing up old information/feuds/etc. There's no need to bring up things from a million years ago. Dead threads are dead for a reason and should stay that way. Forget the past and move on - If there's a topic in the past discussing outfits that's like 50 years old, just make another topic. You don't care enough about it to make a new topic? You clearly can't be fucked to discuss it.
  
  The rule shuns laziness, promotes activity and actually thinking.
  
  Unless you think those are bad things. In which case, the rule is stupid.
  
  But it's fine as it is.
• Kendoza wrote on 2013-06-29 14:59
  The issue I see with making a new thread is that you will get people coming in and saying "Hey there was already a thread for this! Why didn't you search!? Why are you cluttering my thread space with this thread I clearly don't give two flips about but I'll post in anyways!' etc.
  
  I'm ok with people "necroposting" if its actual meaningful attempt at discussion, I don't see a problem. They probably searched for the thread anyways and attempted to add more to the discussion.
• Arsik wrote on 2013-06-29 15:43
  The problem with the rule is, is that after TA went through and rewrote all of the rules, he changed some of the ones that listed a bunch of exceptions and streamlined it to what it is today. Before, the necroposting rule used to state that with the exception of guides, open ended discussions that won't likely become outdated (for example threads about how underpowered magic/alchemy are would be considered outdated since we know of the renewal, but threads like "what kind of events would you like to see", where there will always be events going on would probably only be considered "outdated" once the game goes down for good, so there can't be any events for the game), anime/manga/TV shows/etc. discussions, buying/selling threads (and even then, only once a day) and Bean Rua.
  
  Other things, like questions (especially in the scenario someone brought up about a person asking a question and not having it answered, and likely doesn't browse this site anymore), recruitment threads where it's likely to be a one time thing, troubleshooting where the problem has clearly been fixed, and image discussion where the person made the thread to point out one specific thing instead of being a broad topic focusing on things similar to that first image.
  
  So basically, what I'm trying to say is, that before TA rewrote the rules, we already had given all of the exceptions that people pointed out so far in this thread, but since they were rewritten, people have forgotten about them, apparently even the only mod that was a mod when the original rules were up. D:
• Episkey wrote on 2013-06-29 17:54

  Quote from Baku;1114408:

  People that are "ok" with the rule are failing to elaborate on reasons! It seems to me like they just have an "aversion" against it, "just because", like it happens oh so many times - you know Herd Behavior.

  
  
  Someone seems very adamant about this rule-change to occur. Even to go as far as to accuse those who want to keep the rule the same exhibiting - "herd behavior".
  
  Such a statement could have been omitted, if all you wanted were more people explaining their position.
  Regardless, I hope you realize that making such a statement will not particularly convince anyone of your viewpoint nor entice further communication.
  I ask that conduct yourself more properly, Mr. Moderator.
  
  

  Quote from Arsik;1114461:

  So basically, what I'm trying to say is, that before TA rewrote the rules, we already had given all of the exceptions that people pointed out so far in this thread, but since they were rewritten, people have forgotten about them, apparently even the only mod that was a mod when the original rules were up. D:

  
  
  I believe this is the wording you were talking about, when TA changed the rules.
  
  

  Do not post in topics (effectively bumping it up to the top of the list) where the last reply is more than 30 days old. This is known as “necro posting”. You are more than welcome to create a new topic if your search results only turn up old threads. The only exception to this rule is for guides. Guides may be replied to at any time.

  
  
  Now - let us compare it to before TA changed the rules.
  
  

  Do not bump old topics, the limit is 2 months before the last post. Any threads older than that should be re-made. However, threads that are stickied, guides, and threads in the spam area are considered on-going regardless.

  
  
  
  Now then, to further expand on my viewpoint - I always thought that stickied threads and Bean Rua threads were never locked due to necroposting.
  Since they fall under the vague term "other exceptions" that is currently stated in the rules.
  
  I would agree with the addition of these exceptions to our current rules or at least have the Moderation Staff keep this in mind when locking threads (if indeed there were any cases of locking a sticky or Bean Rua thread for necroposting).
  
  I am personally of the opinion that such "hot topics" that the forums might have would definitely not be considered "hot" anymore if not even a single user has posted in that thread for 30 days. If you really can't say any on-topic content in 30 days, then the conversation is already dead.
  Thirty days is a loooong time, need I remind you.
  
  If you want to revive the conversation, make a new thread or simply ask a Moderator. It's not rocket science.
  
  
  Are you satisfied with my points now, Mr. Moderator?
• Lyrveil wrote on 2013-06-29 18:10

  Quote from Episkey;1114478:

  Someone seems very adamant about this rule-change to occur. Even to go as far as to accuse those who want to keep the rule the same exhibiting - "herd behavior".
  
  Such a statement could have been omitted, if all you wanted were more people explaining their position.
  Regardless, I hope you realize that making such a statement will not particularly convince anyone of your viewpoint nor entice further communication.
  I ask that conduct yourself more properly, Mr. Moderator.
  
  
  
  I believe this is the wording you were talking about, when TA changed the rules.
  
  
  
  Now - let us compare it to before TA changed the rules.
  
  
  
  
  Now then, to further expand on my viewpoint - I always thought that stickied threads and Bean Rua threads were never locked due to necroposting.
  Since they fall under the vague term "other exceptions" that is currently stated in the rules.
  
  I would agree with the addition of these exceptions to our current rules or at least have the Moderation Staff keep this in mind when locking threads (if indeed there were any cases of locking a sticky or Bean Rua thread for necroposting).
  
  I am personally of the opinion that such "hot topics" that the forums might have would definitely not be considered "hot" anymore if not even a single user has posted in that thread for 30 days. If you really can't say any on-topic content in 30 days, then the conversation is already dead.
  Thirty days is a loooong time, need I remind you.
  
  If you want to revive the conversation, make a new thread or simply ask a Moderator. It's not rocket science.
  
  
  Are you satisfied with my points now, Mr. Moderator?

  
  
  About what baku said: I think he didn't meant to insult you. It's just that before he said what you quoted everyone that was for the necroposting rules would only post thing like "It's fine like it is" and they pretty much all failed to provide any reasoning to why it is. I'd say his plan succeeded since after he posted that, two people who are against a change to the rule provided reasoning~
  
  Now on to your point. I do agree that if a thread wasn't posted on for more than 30 days it's not exactly a hot topic anymore. That said necroposting are usually done by new members who probably either found the thread by looking on google or by using the search function and thought to themselves "I want to take part in this discussion". There's nothing that say that an old thread cannot become active again with the contribution of this new member. Likely? Probably not, but then what is the harm? If the thread was going to be dead for good it'd go back to where it was in due time.
  
  Now said new member probably doesn't feel like making a new thread just to give his/her opinion is that important, therefore we might potentially be missing on a good occasion to spark new conversation about a subject.
• SKochiya wrote on 2013-06-29 18:24
  I believe you could handle it like...
  
  

  
  
  • If a thread gets "Necro'd" and it gets a lot of support/contributions after that, it can stay, unless it just gets completely derailed.
    
  • If it gets ignored for 24~72 hours (might be too long), it gets locked, as no one seems interested in continuing.
    
  • If it gets a lot of negative responses, people feel uneasy with the topic or gets too many "This is a (bad) Necro"-reports, it will also get locked.
    

  
  Of course, Necro's aren't always bad, they might contain useful information that people of 'earlier generations' may have missed, and the threads might be useful for them then.
  As long as the thread can be kept healthy, I see no real problem with it, but if necro-ing is just done to cause a stir, then nope.
  
  plsdon'tkillmecauseihatewriting.
• Episkey wrote on 2013-06-29 18:25

  Quote from Lyrveil;1114480:

  About what baku said: I think he didn't meant to insult you. It's just that before he said what you quoted everyone that was for the necroposting rules would only post thing like "It's fine like it is" and they pretty much all failed to provide any reasoning to why it is. I'd say his plan succeeded since after he posted that, two people who are against a change to the rule provided reasoning~

  
  
  I actually posted due to what Arsik said about the rules, since I figured I wanted to do a little back-tracking anyway. My statements towards Baku were written as an afterthought.
  
  I have no problem with enticing people to post reasoning to support their viewpoints, but saying a statement like this -
  
  

  Quote from Baku;1114408:

  It seems to me like they just have an "aversion" against it, "just because", like it happens oh so many times - you know Herd Behavior.

  
  
  Can only be interpreted as an insult (unless for whatever reason you choose to ignore what he said).
  
  Therefore, my further explanation was mainly to post what Arsik was referencing. Besides, he said all opinions were "welcome" is his first post. Now they are not, unless you adequately and verbosely support them?
  
  I hope you recognize the glaring problem I have here.
  
  EDIT: Furthermore, there were some people supporting their points. Look carefully and you will see them.
  
  

  Quote from Lyrveil;1114480:

  Now on to your point. I do agree that if a thread wasn't posted on for more than 30 days it's not exactly a hot topic anymore. That said necroposting are usually done by new members who probably either found the thread by looking on google or by using the search function and thought to themselves "I want to take part in this discussion". There's nothing that say that an old thread cannot become active again with the contribution of this new member. Likely? Probably not, but then what is the harm? If the thread was going to be dead for good it'd go back to where it was in due time.
  
  Now said new member probably doesn't feel like making a new thread just to give his/her opinion is that important, therefore we might potentially be missing on a good occasion to spark new conversation about a subject.

  
  
  I do not wish to hinder a new member trying to participate in any discussion.
  
  However, I've seen more instances of newer members necroposting with something nonsensical or just further stating their opinion on the topic. If the topic is concerning a hot-time event that occurred 4 months ago, there is clearly no reason why anyone should revive that topic.
  
  Therefore, you can't "fix" the issue with making blanket statements like - "Posting in a topic that has the last reply is more than 30 days old, is okay if it's in the Mabinogi or Vindictus section."
  
  I believe the current places where necroposting are allowed fine - Guides, Stickied threads, and Bean Rua.
  
  Again, I do not see why PMing a Moderator about posting in a thread is a big deal. You're going to eventually do it one day if you are an active member ... so it's not like it's impossible. I personally would rather get swarmed by a myriad of PMs to see if someone can post in a thread, rather than see a bunch of necro posts on the front page.
  
  EDIT:
  
  

  Quote from SKochiya;1114486:

  I believe you could handle it like...
  
  

  
  
  • If a thread gets "Necro'd" and it gets a lot of support/contributions after that, it can stay, unless it just gets completely derailed.
    
  • If it gets ignored for 24~72 hours (might be too long), it gets locked, as no one seems interested in continuing.
    
  • If it gets a lot of negative responses, people feel uneasy with the topic or gets too many "This is a (bad) Necro"-reports, it will also get locked.
    

  
  
  This is actually something that might work. Having a ... "grace period" of 24-72 hours. I would go for 24 hours myself, but that would show if participation is active enough to warrant the thread being revived.
  
  Rather than immediately closing said thread.
  
  (There's one problem with this - which Yukari (Gensokyou) brought up, so that's why I said it might work.)
• Lyrveil wrote on 2013-06-29 18:42

  Quote from Episkey;1114488:

  I actually posted due to what Arsik said about the rules, since I figured I wanted to do a little back-tracking anyway. My statements towards Baku were written as an afterthought.
  
  I have no problem with enticing people to post reasoning to support their viewpoints, but saying a statement like this -
  
  
  
  Can only be interpreted as an insult (unless for whatever reason you choose to ignore what he said).
  
  Therefore, my further explanation was mainly to post what Arsik was referencing. Besides, he said all opinions were "welcome" is his first post. Now they are not, unless you adequately and verbosely support them?
  
  I hope you recognize the glaring problem I have here.
  
  EDIT: Furthermore, there were some people supporting their points. Look carefully and you will see them.
  
  
  
  I do not wish to hinder a new member trying to participate in any discussion.
  
  However, I've seen more instances of newer members necroposting with something nonsensical or just further stating their opinion on the topic. If the topic is concerning a hot-time event that occurred 4 months ago, there is clearly no reason why anyone should revive that topic.
  
  Therefore, you can't "fix" the issue with making blanket statements like - "Posting in a topic that has the last reply is more than 30 days old, is okay if it's in the Mabinogi or Vindictus section."
  
  I believe the current places where necroposting are allowed fine - Guides, Stickied threads, and Bean Rua.
  
  Again, I do not see why PMing a Moderator about posting in a thread is a big deal. You're going to eventually do it one day if you are an active member ... so it's not like it's impossible. I personally would rather get swarmed by a myriad of PMs to see if someone can post in a thread, rather than see a bunch of necro posts on the front page.
  

  
  
  Oh yeah I do agree that he might not have chosen the best way to "push" people toward replying with more well thought reasoning. On that I can't debate with you because you're 100% right.
  
  Now back to the main point. You have a good point here. Some thread really should not be necroposted because there's nothing valid that can be added to them. Your example is probably the best one we could find actually.
  
  However when you say
  

  However, I've seen more instances of newer members necroposting with something nonsensical or just further stating their opinion on the topic. If the topic is concerning a hot-time event that occurred 4 months ago, there is clearly no reason why anyone should revive that topic.

  
  
  I believe if such thing were to happen it would count in other rules such as spam and would still warrant the thread to be closed/post deleted. The necroposting rules just feel slightly redundant to me on this point.
  
  Also when you said you'd prefer receiving tons of PM rather than seeing tons of necroposted thread, I'm mostly going on assumption here because I don't know how a new member think so bear with me. When the new member register to make the post in said thread they probably didn't read the rules (I know that's pretty bad in itself) else that necroposting wouldn't have happened in the first place.
  
  That said following this assumption we do see necroposting here and then but do we see it that often? I guess we'd need a moderator's response to this because we can't see what happen everyday. I don't think removing the rule would suddently make a huge influx of old thread pop back in the front page. That is unless regular members who know the rules, and know at the time of whatever change that it's now allowed so they decide to mass necropost for fun. But that is far fetched right?
  
  

  Quote from SKochiya;1114486:

  I believe you could handle it like...
  
  

  
  
  • If a thread gets "Necro'd" and it gets a lot of support/contributions after that, it can stay, unless it just gets completely derailed.
    
  • If it gets ignored for 24~72 hours (might be too long), it gets locked, as no one seems interested in continuing.
    
  • If it gets a lot of negative responses, people feel uneasy with the topic or gets too many "This is a (bad) Necro"-reports, it will also get locked.
    

  
  Of course, Necro's aren't always bad, they might contain useful information that people of 'earlier generations' may have missed, and the threads might be useful for them then.
  As long as the thread can be kept healthy, I see no real problem with it, but if necro-ing is just done to cause a stir, then nope.
  
  plsdon'tkillmecauseihatewriting.

  
  
  That is actually a pretty good alternative to completely removing the rule. 24 hour grace period to see if the thread can really be revived sounds good to me. The third point though might be problematic since we're used to not being allowed to necro post, so for the first few time it would happen I'd bet it will generate some negative response just because of the nature that it's necroposting.