Necromancy

[Nux]

When is it ok to necro' a thread?

If there's a definite limit to how far back you can pull it from, then is there something stopping those threads being locked?

[Rawr]

I would say about a 3 weeks, to a month is long enough.

[David]

I would say there is no fixed time.
Infomation has a variable shelf life, some things can be out of date within a week, other can still be relevant 6 months later.

[Lava Croft]

Like David said, with a bit common sense there has to be nothing wrong with necromancing a thread, only what has been going on these forums with necromancing threads by posting the most useless messages, followed by people who reply and help with necromancing, that is just plain stupid.
Among those people there are some who think that sending a PM to a mod with the information that not they but somebody else started the necro is a wise thing to do, even if they happily contributed to the necromancy by fueling it with their posts.
I think it's very simple; if you cannot be sensible enough to spot what is a useful necro and what is not, it's left to the mods to decide that for you.

[stalefries]

I'd say either a thread that either a "Guest" or Timbo replied to is too old.

[Warrior]

Last Timbo's post is from saturday (may 12)... not really old: http://tremulous.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=69634&highlight=#69634

[player1]

some of the same people who scream NECRO
also scream SEARCH
but if you've looked around a bit
and can't find enough info
or you really wanna reopen a can o' worms to throw your two cents in
two years too late
then by all means
raise the dead
mods will decide

[Nux]

Alrighty, but would you say moderators usually kill the zombie because it's not clever enough or because it's a zombie? I ask because their closing message is usually something like 'Don't Necro' rather than 'Your zombie needs brains'.

Maybe 'Necro' means something else to them, like "Gives life to a corpse for the fun of it (rather than for some interesting conver-zombi-sation)"

P.S. To those of you reading this from the DISTANT FUTURE- I for one welcome your input!

..Provided you have something intellegent to say...

[Stof]

Main rule is "Don't spam a thread" altough it has no direct relation to necroing. From that we derive the first rule of anti necroing : "Don't spam a thread that is so old everybody forgot about". Spam here is lously defined as anything that is of no use or is off topic in a thread.

Second rule of anti necroing, don't post in an old thread if there is another on the same subject that isn't considered "old".

And the third rule, although that one probably won't warrant a lock at all is : "Don't answer questions in an old thread". If the author of a thread has a problem with the game, getting an answer 4 years later will proabaly be of little use for him

This is just common sense. Some might want the rule to include a "don't ever post in an old thread" but I don't like it. Nor do I like the way some mods (in other forums mind you) lock threads that got answered correctly.

[Nux]

There does seem to be a recent flood of trolls that have the mods at their wits end. I might have missed the section that states the specific anti-necro'ing laws, but so long as we get it cleared up here that should do just as well.

Rules of Anti-Necro'ing queries and responses:

1. So the Anti-Spam rule covers that by extension.

2. This rule seems to conflict with the 'Anti-Thread-Redundancy' rule. Enforcing both, strictly, could mean never letting people make threads that are already covered by other threads, and yet only letting people post in the redundant threads that shouldn't exist anyway.

I realise that there is a happy mid-point where it's late enough to make a new thread and too late to post in the old one. I raise the point out of concern that blurry lines could spawn some nasty mod decisions.

3. The response might not be of any use to the original poster, but I'm sure the point of the forums is so that one person may ask a question that many people may want the answer to (or at least they'll get to discuss it).

It's all about the balance. I'm sure that the mods intend to (ideally) moderate fairly and without prejudice- but in practice it's a little too easy to assume that all necros are bad and lock them without hesitation. Habit can easily outweigh judgement.

In the end though, we all know it's the damn trolls that are to blame >.<

[Stof]

For the sake of communication, I'll now talk about old threads and current threads. A thread is either old, or current.

1. Yes, that's the point. Necroing here can just be considered an agravated offense

2. That rule of no duplication will only apply to the current threads. You do agree that we can hardly enforce a rule like "no thread duplication" for each new thread if it requires us to go look at all the old threads for duplication. So indeed, that "anti necro rule" isn't in contradiction of the no duplication rule but is a consequence too. Don't necro a thread if it'll create a duplicate in the current thread list.

3. Just wait for someone to reopen the thread if they really have the same problem before posting a solution there. Most of the time people don't go for old threads for an answer so bumping it now will only necro it and won't prevent the new thread on the exact same problem a few months later.

[treminator]

I've seen three week old threads get revived with a relevant reply, and some chap chimes in "Burn him!".  The real spammers and flamers of this board are the useless "Burn him!" and general necrophobists, wishing just to pump up their post count under the disguise of board ownership.

Common sense.  Use it, as others have already said...

[f0rqu3]

I hate necromancy you spend shit loads of mana just to rise 4 skeletons.
and ...
-no bone heads! dont walk into the firewall ... damn it

[Nux]

Common sense is funny. It's just another name for 'typical assumptions', which will no doubt differ in some way from person to person. We can all use our own judgement but that doesn't mean everyone will agree with it.

As for this whole necro'ing thing, it just interested me how it seemed to be frowned upon. If a thread survives, it's because people have things to say in it. If a zombie-thread wasn't locked so discriminately it might survive too. What's more, the zombie-thread could have interesting info in the older posts that might have been overlooked in a fresh thread with the same topic.

So what's wrong with it?

Maybe people don't like tampering with the ancient threads, as they've gained sacred status. If so, it's a shame hardily anyone would ever look at them again.

Perhaps people generally don't have clever things to say in them and it's become habit to lock anything zombified. In which case, that's nothing to do with necro'ing- That's a relevancy/redundancy issue.

Or maybe they're afraid of zombies.. I don't know.

Edit: Another reason for this thread was to see what other people saw as an 'old thread' (whether it can leave the first page before becoming old.. generally where the line is drawn for different people.)

By the way Stof, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions in full.

[Lava Croft]

Common sense is funny. It's just another name for 'typical assumptions', which will no doubt differ in some way from person to person. We can all use our own judgement but that doesn't mean everyone will agree with it.

Which is why there are mods if your common sense is not developed enough to see what is a useful necro and what is not.

[Nux]

Common sense is funny. It's just another name for 'typical assumptions', which will no doubt differ in some way from person to person. We can all use our own judgement but that doesn't mean everyone will agree with it.

Which is why there are mods if your common sense is not developed enough to see what is a useful necro and what is not.

I admit, my sense isn't very common, but I make up for it by being explicit and thorough. So when the mods have an out-ruling idea of what a 'useful necro' is, I'd like it drawing for me in large bold font so that I do things right. Isn't it better for the mods not to have to use their power?

Another possible answer to my question of "what's wrong with it?" has occured to me. Maybe it's to avoid having threads go on for too long. If this is the case, why have the threads list ordered by most recent post when you could just have them ordered by most recent thread? This would make it impossible to necro since the thread will still be far down the list. This doesn't mean I want the threads ordered like this, but I personally don't see the problem with necro'ing in a forum like this.

I must stress that when I talk about necro'ing, I mean only that. Not necro'ing + spamming. Or necro'ing + flame. It seems like people associate resurrection with useless comments. I'd like to emphasise that it's the useless/offending comments which are the problem, and the necromancy is merely coincidental.

[Survivor]

I admit, my sense isn't very common, but I make up for it by being explicit and thorough. So when the mods have an out-ruling idea of what a 'useful necro' is, I'd like it drawing for me in large bold font so that I do things right. Isn't it better for the mods not to have to use their power?

It would be best if mods were not needed at all. Sadly we all know they are.

Another possible answer to my question of "what's wrong with it?" has occured to me. Maybe it's to avoid having threads go on for too long. If this is the case, why have the threads list ordered by most recent post when you could just have them ordered by most recent thread? This would make it impossible to necro since the thread will still be far down the list. This doesn't mean I want the threads ordered like this, but I personally don't see the problem with necro'ing in a forum like this.

It's more to do with common sense as said then age. A 4 month year old thread may be worth bumping more than a 3 day old one.

I must stress that when I talk about necro'ing, I mean only that. Not necro'ing + spamming. Or necro'ing + flame. It seems like people associate resurrection with useless comments. I'd like to emphasise that it's the useless/offending comments which are the problem, and the necromancy is merely coincidental.

Generally the rule is if there is a newer topic about the same subject use that one since it should have the most up to date information and opinions.

[Nux]

It would be best if mods were not needed at all. Sadly we all know they are.

It's more to do with common sense as said then age. A 4 month year old thread may be worth bumping more than a 3 day old one.

Generally the rule is if there is a newer topic about the same subject use that one since it should have the most up to date information and opinions.

Yup. Mods are needed. Having guidelines to follow limits how much they are needed.

So a 4 year (or was that 4 month?) thread can be re-awakened so long as the input is useful? This would be alright if everyone had the same opinion, but it looks like some people differ, and would prefer a new thread to be made. I ask why? Any up-to-date information that can go into a new thread can just as easily go into an old one.

Could this be about clarity? Worried that people will be confused by the older posts?

Is it important whether or not the old threads survive? The fact that old threads are locked when revived gives me the impression it's quite important. I'd like to know why.

[Lava Croft]

You forgot to mention that the necromanced threads that are locked were are necromanced by posting useless crap. You make it seem like necromancing a thread equals locking it, which is incorrect.

[player1]

You forgot to mention that the necromanced threads that are locked were are necromanced by posting useless crap. You make it seem like necromancing a thread equals locking it, which is incorrect.

y: TY

[PIE]

Old threads are the best threads.. thats what i say. Someone will no doubt revive this particular thread in a few years.

[Nux]

You forgot to mention that the necromanced threads that are locked were are necromanced by posting useless crap. You make it seem like necromancing a thread equals locking it, which is incorrect.

So the issue is the 'useless crap' and not the fact that it was necro'd?

Stop fucking necromancing legacy threads. You bunch of respectless bastards.

[[LOCKED]]

Quit necroing please.

[[LOCKED]]

These are only two examples but they are the lastest. In both cases the reason given is not for posting crap but for the act of necro'ing.

[Survivor]

You forgot to mention that the necromanced threads that are locked were are necromanced by posting useless crap. You make it seem like necromancing a thread equals locking it, which is incorrect.

So the issue is the 'useless crap' and not the fact that it was necro'd?

Yes, reviving a thread is allowed when it actually is usefull to necro a thread because it contains information important to the discussion. This is why the newest topic should be necroed since the older ones most likely contain outdated information. But only if the old thread adds something to the discussion the new post is starting else we'll lock it.

Stop fucking necromancing legacy threads. You bunch of respectless bastards.

[[LOCKED]]

Necro post

this is a fucking great idea

After which a discussion about necroing followed. Not on topic. Of no use.

Quit necroing please.

[[LOCKED]]

Necro post

Yay! The forums are up!

Technically this is only a one year revival.. Damn.

Well anywho, I thought I'd have this as an appropriate setting for discussing what we think about all this time of Trem-Foruming. Complaints? Praise? Suggestions?

Why use an old topic for that? It isn't on topic. It isn't really related. The first topic adds nothing to the new discussion you want to start. You would have been better of making a new one.

These are only two examples but they are the lastest. In both cases the reason given is not for posting crap but for the act of necro'ing.

See all my above statements.

[Nux]

I agree that they weren't on topic, (my necro in particular was just a whimsical idea of reviving the thread as a setting for some sentimental discussion.. bad idea I guess =[). The only thing that led me to beleive their motives for locking the thread could be anything different to that is the reasons they actually gave. If they were in fact locked for the useless comments then that's fine by me. In that case it was a shame their reasons misled me.

[Steely Ann]

That is all.

[player1]

personally, if you want to see some classy thread-locking
check out Stof
dude knows how to provide the appropriate comment & linkage
hats off, bravo, well done, spot on & cheers

actually this will be a fun thread to necro
I look forward to see who will provide the lockable necro & which mod will do it
shall we start a poll?
hello, n00bs of 2008!!!

[f0rqu3]

That is all.

perv

[Plague Bringer]

That is all.

perv

perv

xD

[tuple]

Nux,
You are making this entirely too complicated, the thread you necroed was locked by me because it was obviously an intentional necro, and was for no other purpose.  

You use your common sense, mods will use their common sense, and together we will have a civil forum.  Sure, our uncommon senses will clash at times, but overall we will keep the spammers (and various other silly things) at bay.  You may get a threads locked at times, I may get scolded for doing something stupid with mod abilities as well (by forum users and/or devs!), such is the risk of living and thinking for yourself.

[Nux]

Nux,
You are making this entirely too complicated, the thread you necroed was locked by me because it was obviously an intentional necro, and was for no other purpose.

It's my nature to see the complicated side of things =) it's more interesting than assuming the typical.

It was an intentional necro, but that wasn't the sole reason for the post (the idea was similar to finding an out-dated book that predicted what today would be like, and adding to it an actual account of today). If you locked it because it wasn't on topic that's fine by me. The reason given misled me in that case (I'm repeating alot of what I've said before, but for clarity's sake it shouldn't hurt to reiterate).

You use your common sense, mods will use their common sense, and together we will have a civil forum.  Sure, our uncommon senses will clash at times, but overall we will keep the spammers (and various other silly things) at bay.  You may get a threads locked at times, I may get scolded for doing something stupid with mod abilities as well (by forum users and/or devs!), such is the risk of living and thinking for yourself.

Quite true. This wasn't actually a complaint (sorry if it came across as such). I just found it interesting is all =)

Edit: Something has recently occured to me: If someone revives an interesting/informative thread with an inane/off-topic reply, locking the thread would be unfair on anyone who wants to add something meaningful.

Some warning or notification might also be appreciated before threads are locked and posts are deleted/altered. I wouldn't expect this for threads that have fallen into a jumble of off-topic banter/flaming/spamming etc. since the reasons in the extreme case would be self-evident anyway.