What's Wrong With Thread Necromancy?
Windelkron
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
in Off-Topic
More and more I have seen threads being bumped to the top from ages ago, followed by a few comments of "OMG THREADCROMANCY," and then a lock by a moderator. This is happening especially in Off-topic, where a lot of goldmine threads are resurfacing ('photoshop chick tracts' looks like it's going to be the next victim), but it's also happening in others like Customization and even S&I.
One of the cardinal rules of the S&I forum was to never create a new thread without first using Search, to see if that same idea had been brought up again. Supposedly it was better to look at an old thread about the same idea, read the responses that the old thread had gotten, and then bump that thread to the top with one's own input about the idea (thus making the discussion new).
What's obviously happening now is a complete perversion of this idea - make new threads at will, disregarding any previous discussion about the topic, continue clogging the boards with unnecessary topics.
What's even worse about this situation is that if somebody decides to create a new thread about an old topic, he's yelled at to refer to an old thread. (for example, imagine a new fanta shokata thread.) But what is he supposed to do? Bump the old one? It'll be locked within the blink of an eye.
Read the comments that moderators leave when locking "necromanced" threads. None of them offer legitimate reasons for lockage -- because <b>there are no legitimate reasons.</b> example: "Boom, cl-click" in "coil's new job."
also muse at <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28902&st=0' target='_blank'>this wonder of a thread</a>, which was locked for the cries of necromancy itself, but locked nevertheless.
If mods are going to lock threads after they've been bumped regardless, why not just add a board filter that auto-locks them after they've gotten more than 30 days old? It's not like people never check page 2 of the forums, right?
One of the cardinal rules of the S&I forum was to never create a new thread without first using Search, to see if that same idea had been brought up again. Supposedly it was better to look at an old thread about the same idea, read the responses that the old thread had gotten, and then bump that thread to the top with one's own input about the idea (thus making the discussion new).
What's obviously happening now is a complete perversion of this idea - make new threads at will, disregarding any previous discussion about the topic, continue clogging the boards with unnecessary topics.
What's even worse about this situation is that if somebody decides to create a new thread about an old topic, he's yelled at to refer to an old thread. (for example, imagine a new fanta shokata thread.) But what is he supposed to do? Bump the old one? It'll be locked within the blink of an eye.
Read the comments that moderators leave when locking "necromanced" threads. None of them offer legitimate reasons for lockage -- because <b>there are no legitimate reasons.</b> example: "Boom, cl-click" in "coil's new job."
also muse at <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28902&st=0' target='_blank'>this wonder of a thread</a>, which was locked for the cries of necromancy itself, but locked nevertheless.
If mods are going to lock threads after they've been bumped regardless, why not just add a board filter that auto-locks them after they've gotten more than 30 days old? It's not like people never check page 2 of the forums, right?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Usually threads die because people get bored with the subject and have generally said all that needs to be said. Most necromancy is just a sort of 'teehee BUMP' for no good reason. If you bump an old thread with an introduction like 'I know this is old, but I've got some things to add that I feel are important, etc. etc. etc.' then I think the chances of it getting locked would be a lot lower. Must threadomancy is just a bump for no reason, followed by a flood of spam, resulting in the usual lockage. Some mods probably just try to get the lock in before the spam even starts. So bump threads with good reason and with good input, and they might gain new life instead of a fast lock.
Exactly what I was thinking <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I agree with bob on all accounts. I have seen both nonmalicious and malicious bumping of old topics, and thus I feel it is important to keep up to mod discression what topics get bumped and what topics don't.
1) Use the Search.
2) Only revive a thread if you have something useful to add to it.
3) Threads brought back from the dead for no reason except to add "LOL" are quickly and usually painfully put down.
4) Some threads, like the Chick Tracts thread, are fairly resistant to anti-undead lockage. There's pretty much always someone willing to drag it back on-topic.
I am in agreement with Medhead here.
Often, in bumped threads I often miss that the comment I am replying to is sometimes a year old and the poster hasn't been active for nearly as long.
I would agree that proper form would be to post a new topic, link the old thread, and include your new and original material.
However a post like this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I saw this in an old thread here :linky:
.
.
I agree
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't qualify.
Just make sure you have something useful to add to the conversation. And that the conversation is relevant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I saw this in an old thread here :linky:
.
.
I agree
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't qualify.
Just make sure you have something useful to add to the conversation. And that the conversation is relevant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that that almost always leads to the old thread being shamelessly resurected within the next 5-10 minutes.
"Hey, I want a rocket launcher in NS!"
<i>wrong: <post new topic> GIMME RAWKET LAWNCHAIR!</i>
"Hmm. I should see if it's been posted before. Hey, it has!"
<i>wrong: <reply> OMG NS NEEDS RAWKET LAWNCHAIR!</i>
<i>better: <reply> Here's a thought: <insert new, undiscussed feature></i>
<i>better!: <reply> I realize this thread is old, but I have a new idea: <feature></i>
<i>your idea:</i> <new topic> I thought NS could benefit from a new weapon, a rocket launcher. I realize it's already been suggested; I ran a search and found <link>these <link>threads <link>on it. It's probably been discussed to death, but I wanted to offer a novel new idea for the weapon that might help to...
Yeeeeah. I can see it now. I'd never have to moderate again. ^^
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I saw this in an old thread here :linky:
.
.
I agree
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't qualify.
Just make sure you have something useful to add to the conversation. And that the conversation is relevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that that almost always leads to the old thread being shamelessly resurected within the next 5-10 minutes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats because some people just dont read they just see white text and they click ive made topics like that saying here is the old thread and the link name is DONT POST IN THIS THREAD and they still post...
Then any one who DOES want to discuss said thread can either ask for it to be ulocked (explaining that they have sometihng actualy ocnstructive to add) Or simply folow Med's idea.
and 2 things for coil:
sorry for being the cause of the threadomancy (it was just so apropos to the thread)
And that lock was classic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> (I sorta miss the old locks... /me ponders if you can search for locked threads)
It's not like it's someone's duty to continually bump every thread on the forum so everyone can read it. Missing a thread won't kill you, and there's no need to keep reviving old ones so new people can read them. If they're so essential you can just get someone to do a search for it or something, without having to clutter up the front page.
hehe.....
I just got back from vacation, so I guess you could say yess. But then you'd be mispelling it.
The problem is when someone posts to a really old topic and you don't notice it's really old, so you also post in it. Then the mods lock it, and you PM one of them and you're like "Double yoo tee eff mate?" and then they point out that the topic is 2 years old. It's kind of embarrasing.
/me gets out lynching equipment.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The problem is when someone posts to a really old topic and you don't notice it's really old, so you also post in it. Then the mods lock it, and you PM one of them and you're like "Double yoo tee eff mate?" and then they point out that the topic is 2 years old. It's kind of embarrasing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that if you can't tell that the topic is 2 years old when you're posting in it, it is completely viable for resurrection. I can tell if a topic is old when I read "Babblers are so cool," but if a thread isn't specific to any time (ie its subject matter applies at any time) there's nothing wrong with bumping it.
The problem is when someone posts to a really old topic and you don't notice it's really old, so you also post in it. Then the mods lock it, and you PM one of them and you're like "Double yoo tee eff mate?" and then they point out that the topic is 2 years old. It's kind of embarrasing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that if you can't tell that the topic is 2 years old when you're posting in it, it is completely viable for resurrection. I can tell if a topic is old when I read "Babblers are so cool," but if a thread isn't specific to any time (ie its subject matter applies at any time) there's nothing wrong with bumping it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what about mapping threads? Like, sometimes there has been no progress on a map forever, then the mapper bumps it with like "Still working" or someone makes a post like "This looks cool, is it still alive?" Technically it's still a viable post unless the guy has given up, but there's no way to know and usually the threads are locked in any case.
The problem is when someone posts to a really old topic and you don't notice it's really old, so you also post in it. Then the mods lock it, and you PM one of them and you're like "Double yoo tee eff mate?" and then they point out that the topic is 2 years old. It's kind of embarrasing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that if you can't tell that the topic is 2 years old when you're posting in it, it is completely viable for resurrection. I can tell if a topic is old when I read "Babblers are so cool," but if a thread isn't specific to any time (ie its subject matter applies at any time) there's nothing wrong with bumping it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what about mapping threads? Like, sometimes there has been no progress on a map forever, then the mapper bumps it with like "Still working" or someone makes a post like "This looks cool, is it still alive?" Technically it's still a viable post unless the guy has given up, but there's no way to know and usually the threads are locked in any case. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
oh the irony...
Indeed. Only one month, but still...
The problem is when someone posts to a really old topic and you don't notice it's really old, so you also post in it. Then the mods lock it, and you PM one of them and you're like "Double yoo tee eff mate?" and then they point out that the topic is 2 years old. It's kind of embarrasing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that if you can't tell that the topic is 2 years old when you're posting in it, it is completely viable for resurrection. I can tell if a topic is old when I read "Babblers are so cool," but if a thread isn't specific to any time (ie its subject matter applies at any time) there's nothing wrong with bumping it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what about mapping threads? Like, sometimes there has been no progress on a map forever, then the mapper bumps it with like "Still working" or someone makes a post like "This looks cool, is it still alive?" Technically it's still a viable post unless the guy has given up, but there's no way to know and usually the threads are locked in any case. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The scary thing is that tycho is managing to bump this thread with viable bumps every time <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And I say that if it is not clear if the map project is dead then the thread should stay open untill it is declared dead.
although I think that bumping your own map thread with nothing more then "still working" and no new screens or anything is stupid <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
heh that plus the fact that some people wont even read the origional topic anyways and then try to make uneducated input based off of the previous pages worth of replies, thus dragging it more and more off topic.
Then what do you close threads for? If someone bumps a year old map post, many times it's closed after a reply or two since there's really no point. That seems like closing threads for being dead to me.
It's not "doom" if it brings up an intelligent discussion each time. That's kind of the point of the whole thread :/