<!--QuoteBegin-Thansal+Sep 22 2004, 05:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Sep 22 2004, 05:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TychoCelchuuu+Sep 22 2004, 08:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TychoCelchuuu @ Sep 22 2004, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Windelkron+Aug 27 2004, 08:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Aug 27 2004, 08:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TychoCelchuuu+Aug 27 2004, 01:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TychoCelchuuu @ Aug 27 2004, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-version91x+Aug 20 2004, 09:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (version91x @ Aug 20 2004, 09:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A month or so back I somehow managed to post a reply to a thread that was extremely old and on some long lost page. It was weird, the thread got locked and I looked like an idiot. I almost always check date and time these days. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 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--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Another thing that gets annoying in the long run is when people start tunnel-quoting <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Marik_SteeleTo rule in hell...Join Date: 2002-11-20Member: 9466Members
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Oct 26 2004, 08:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Oct 26 2004, 08:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hey... when did CWAG get banned? What happened? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The last time I saw this question asked, I answered it <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82051' target='_blank'>here</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marik_Steele+Oct 26 2004, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marik_Steele @ Oct 26 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Oct 26 2004, 08:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Oct 26 2004, 08:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hey... when did CWAG get banned? What happened? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The last time I saw this question asked, I answered it <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82051' target='_blank'>here</a>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah. I was wondering if the warez rules had anything to do with it; now I know.
being a newer member, bumpage is a really important issue for me. Not really, but it's relevant, at least =]
I wasn't here when a lot of the forum's most classic nsf-gold occured, but I've sort of been assimilated into the culture by helpful links, my mate eediot and also bumped threads.
I mean, if someone hadn't bumped the chick tracts thread a little while after I joined, I would still be confused about wth eating for christ was. And although missing a thread may not kill me as someone pointed out, I still think missing the chick tracts thread would pretty much qualify me for a life only half lived.
Furthermore, if tycho hadn't so amusingly bumped this regularly, then I wouldn't have made this post.
<!--QuoteBegin-marce+Oct 26 2004, 05:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (marce @ Oct 26 2004, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> being a newer member, bumpage is a really important issue for me. Not really, but it's relevant, at least =]
I wasn't here when a lot of the forum's most classic nsf-gold occured, but I've sort of been assimilated into the culture by helpful links, my mate eediot and also bumped threads.
I mean, if someone hadn't bumped the chick tracts thread a little while after I joined, I would still be confused about wth eating for christ was. And although missing a thread may not kill me as someone pointed out, I still think missing the chick tracts thread would pretty much qualify me for a life only half lived.
Furthermore, if tycho hadn't so amusingly bumped this regularly, then I wouldn't have made this post. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Linking to an old thread doesn't bump it, and you can still link to locked threads.
Neither is eediot a bump, but he still helped me by telling me stuff about the forums. I was pointing out that besides being linked to things that were old, one of the ways I found things was because of them being bumped. I know you can link to locked threads, and that linking doesn't = bumping, I was merely pointing out the main reasons for my easy transition from forum-nub, which included really good threads being bumped.
Just kidding. I'm actually finding this too amusing to lock. And the point is well made. Each time the thread is bumped, it is at least bumped with a worthwhile post.
It's when people start bumping it to say "GORGE NIPPLES!" that its days will be numbered...
That and I agree that this one thread's occaional reappearance of this thread serves as a proper reminder that thread necromancy can be performed for valid reasons and we have already seen more threads being brought up from the depths without complaint so long as the post is worthwhile.
This has been a public service announcement and brownie point with BobTheJanaitor accumulator
I knew this day would come, I have been stalking up on the supplies and been brushing up on my Zombie Survival! Now when the hordes of the undead finally do walk I will be ready while the rest of you are zombie fodder! After the intial wave of fighting subsides I will mop up the remains and establish a new order based upon drinking and video games! LONG LIVE THE REGIME! FOLLOW ME OR DIE WITH THE UNWASHED MASSES!!
NEO_PhyteWe need shirtgons!Join Date: 2003-12-16Member: 24453Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Defiance+ Oct 27 2004, 12:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Defiance @ Oct 27 2004, 12:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it was a once popular thread, and you have something worthwhile to contribute to it to revive it, so be it, go ahead.
But doing so without good content is lame and shouldn't be done.
In before the TychoCelchuuu</span></span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree. If someone has a truely worthwhile and relevant addition to a thread, they should be able to post it, regardless of the age
While this thread is amusing, I don't think the resurrections are adding anything new to it (the most recent one, at least). They simply repeat the same message that was said before. That's just my opinion, though.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
heh I went back to find a release topic in customisation to see if a file could be rehosted. I bumped the topic thinking that if the file could be rehosted in the orgional post well there you have it (conisidering it was a file from a long time ago)
I figured you could ahve the file rehosted, a link to it for download as well as all the commentary and and pictures and descriptions for the file. All without having to do a whole re-release and thus allowing all the newer members to see the model etc.
Basically I figured that if it could be rehosted I might as well share the wealth and make sure not just i would be able to get the file.
So i politely asked to see in the thread if the file could be made availiable again and suddenly I get blasted by the OMG U SHOULD HAVE PMED THE AUTHOR POST NECRAMCNY ARRRG DIE!! attidude.
Wow, if it wasn't for all you thread necromancers out there, I would never have noticed this topic. Now, I have been greatly enlightened. [In both a sarcastic, and a non sarcastic way]
After reading this topic and seeing many examples of thread necromancy, I noticed a few things. For instance, if no one drew attention to the posting dates, it's kind of hard to tell that some of the posts are weeks apart (they have a sort of continuity between them). I also noticed that when people make posts weeks apart, they tend to repeat themselves a bit.
Now here's a question to think about: if it isn't acceptable to make one sentence long posts to revive a thread, then why is it acceptable (or accepted) to do that with threads that are already alive?
After all, you are essentially doing the same thing- keeping a thread alive without adding very much to it. Of course, in the first case, everyone has already forgotton about the thread and then have to go through the endless trouble of reading a few posts before they realize that they've already read it, but then again, you have an entire new audience to expose your ideas to. On the other hand, maybe people who don't have a lot to say should refrain from posting (or at least do so sparingly), but even that would take away a lot from the forums (even people who don't add a lot still add a little).
So I think that there probably isn' t a single definitive rule about this, but that the system that we have now (avoid reviving old threads unless you have something important to say that wouldn't fit the context of a new thread) works quite well.
NEO_PhyteWe need shirtgons!Join Date: 2003-12-16Member: 24453Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-i'm lost+Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (i'm lost @ Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It wasn't just to resurrect this thread? The only thing I found surprising is that someone other than TychoCelchuuu did it for once. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> look VERY closely at my post
I hope everyone realises that the only way to stop this thread, which is designed to constantly bump to the front page with new and unique insights, is to sticky it, thus defeating the purpose...
Maybe it was done to show why thread necromancy is bad, then? I said before that the post was simply repeating what was said before, and that it wasn't a good way to resurrect a topic. Maybe it was done intentionally.
<!--QuoteBegin-NEO_Phyte+Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NEO_Phyte @ Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-i'm lost+Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (i'm lost @ Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It wasn't just to resurrect this thread? The only thing I found surprising is that someone other than TychoCelchuuu did it for once. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> look VERY closely at my post <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If I stare at it for five minutes does a scary face pop out?
And it really wasn't that great of a bump. Didn't add much. Most just said 'yeah me too!' It's not quite as bad as bumping just to say 'lol bump' but it's still showing that this thread is circling the drain...
<!--QuoteBegin-BobTheJanitor+Nov 11 2004, 12:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BobTheJanitor @ Nov 11 2004, 12:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-NEO_Phyte+Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NEO_Phyte @ Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-i'm lost+Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (i'm lost @ Nov 10 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It wasn't just to resurrect this thread? The only thing I found surprising is that someone other than TychoCelchuuu did it for once. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> look VERY closely at my post <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I stare at it for five minutes does a scary face pop out?
And it really wasn't that great of a bump. Didn't add much. Most just said 'yeah me too!' It's not quite as bad as bumping just to say 'lol bump' but it's still showing that this thread is circling the drain... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That was his point, wasn't it? An example of a bad bump.
NEO_PhyteWe need shirtgons!Join Date: 2003-12-16Member: 24453Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-NEO_Phyte+Nov 10 2004, 04:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NEO_Phyte @ Nov 10 2004, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Defiance+ Oct 27 2004, 12:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Defiance @ Oct 27 2004, 12:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it was a once popular thread, and you have something worthwhile to contribute to it to revive it, so be it, go ahead.
But doing so without good content is lame and shouldn't be done.
In before the TychoCelchuuu</span></span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree. If someone has a truely worthwhile and relevant addition to a thread, they should be able to post it, regardless of the age<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> hilight the entire quote, and you will find the true meaning of my bump
/me wonders how all you guys didnt notice, even with some strong hints
<!--QuoteBegin-Burncycle+Nov 11 2004, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Nov 11 2004, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Windelkron+Aug 5 2004, 03:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Aug 5 2004, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thread was not locked in response to the cries of necromancy. The thread was locked because it broke rule #3. Redford bumped it with nothing to contribute or useful to add- of course another page and a half of necromancy cries didn't help much.
<!--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-->Rules for Threadcromancy:
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We frown on people screaming "OMG necromancy" for obvious reasons. It keeps the topic at the top, where more people inevitably spot it and post their "OMG necromancy" reply. A vicious cycle. In addition, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is therefore spam itself.
We keep saying Report it or PM a moderater and move on, yet there are still people who simply don't "get" it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> so why can't the mod delete all the "OMG THREADCROMANCY" posts instead of locking the whole thing?
anyway, I think the constant bumping of this thread shows something. Threadcromancy is a timeless subject (compared to "beta 1.1d sux!!"), so bumping the thread (so a new round of viewers can read it) doesn't detract from the vitality of the point.
Also, there's someting on these forums that I can proudly say I instigated... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
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--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another thing that gets annoying in the long run is when people start tunnel-quoting <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The last time I saw this question asked, I answered it <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82051' target='_blank'>here</a>.
The last time I saw this question asked, I answered it <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82051' target='_blank'>here</a>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah. I was wondering if the warez rules had anything to do with it; now I know.
I wasn't here when a lot of the forum's most classic nsf-gold occured, but I've sort of been assimilated into the culture by helpful links, my mate eediot and also bumped threads.
I mean, if someone hadn't bumped the chick tracts thread a little while after I joined, I would still be confused about wth eating for christ was. And although missing a thread may not kill me as someone pointed out, I still think missing the chick tracts thread would pretty much qualify me for a life only half lived.
Furthermore, if tycho hadn't so amusingly bumped this regularly, then I wouldn't have made this post.
I wasn't here when a lot of the forum's most classic nsf-gold occured, but I've sort of been assimilated into the culture by helpful links, my mate eediot and also bumped threads.
I mean, if someone hadn't bumped the chick tracts thread a little while after I joined, I would still be confused about wth eating for christ was. And although missing a thread may not kill me as someone pointed out, I still think missing the chick tracts thread would pretty much qualify me for a life only half lived.
Furthermore, if tycho hadn't so amusingly bumped this regularly, then I wouldn't have made this post. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Linking to an old thread doesn't bump it, and you can still link to locked threads.
I know you can link to locked threads, and that linking doesn't = bumping, I was merely pointing out the main reasons for my easy transition from forum-nub, which included really good threads being bumped.
Just kidding. I'm actually finding this too amusing to lock. And the point is well made. Each time the thread is bumped, it is at least bumped with a worthwhile post.
It's when people start bumping it to say "GORGE NIPPLES!" that its days will be numbered...
only I the almost non-spammer may do this.
That and I agree that this one thread's occaional reappearance of this thread serves as a proper reminder that thread necromancy can be performed for valid reasons and we have already seen more threads being brought up from the depths without complaint so long as the post is worthwhile.
This has been a public service announcement and brownie point with BobTheJanaitor accumulator
<span style='color:red'>LOCKED</span>
(man that would be cool)
But doing so without good content is lame and shouldn't be done.
I knew this day would come, I have been stalking up on the supplies and been brushing up on my Zombie Survival! Now when the hordes of the undead finally do walk I will be ready while the rest of you are zombie fodder! After the intial wave of fighting subsides I will mop up the remains and establish a new order based upon drinking and video games! LONG LIVE THE REGIME! FOLLOW ME OR DIE WITH THE UNWASHED MASSES!!
<--- Im sober and crazy!
But doing so without good content is lame and shouldn't be done.
<span style='color:black'><span style='font-size:0pt;line-height:100%'><_<
>_>
In before the TychoCelchuuu</span></span>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
If someone has a truely worthwhile and relevant addition to a thread, they should be able to post it, regardless of the age
I figured you could ahve the file rehosted, a link to it for download as well as all the commentary and and pictures and descriptions for the file. All without having to do a whole re-release and thus allowing all the newer members to see the model etc.
Basically I figured that if it could be rehosted I might as well share the wealth and make sure not just i would be able to get the file.
So i politely asked to see in the thread if the file could be made availiable again and suddenly I get blasted by the OMG U SHOULD HAVE PMED THE AUTHOR POST NECRAMCNY ARRRG DIE!! attidude.
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
After reading this topic and seeing many examples of thread necromancy, I noticed a few things. For instance, if no one drew attention to the posting dates, it's kind of hard to tell that some of the posts are weeks apart (they have a sort of continuity between them). I also noticed that when people make posts weeks apart, they tend to repeat themselves a bit.
Now here's a question to think about: if it isn't acceptable to make one sentence long posts to revive a thread, then why is it acceptable (or accepted) to do that with threads that are already alive?
After all, you are essentially doing the same thing- keeping a thread alive without adding very much to it. Of course, in the first case, everyone has already forgotton about the thread and then have to go through the endless trouble of reading a few posts before they realize that they've already read it, but then again, you have an entire new audience to expose your ideas to. On the other hand, maybe people who don't have a lot to say should refrain from posting (or at least do so sparingly), but even that would take away a lot from the forums (even people who don't add a lot still add a little).
So I think that there probably isn' t a single definitive rule about this, but that the system that we have now (avoid reviving old threads unless you have something important to say that wouldn't fit the context of a new thread) works quite well.
look VERY closely at my post
Aaaahh the delicious irony of stickies...
look VERY closely at my post <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I stare at it for five minutes does a scary face pop out?
And it really wasn't that great of a bump. Didn't add much. Most just said 'yeah me too!' It's not quite as bad as bumping just to say 'lol bump' but it's still showing that this thread is circling the drain...
look VERY closely at my post <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I stare at it for five minutes does a scary face pop out?
And it really wasn't that great of a bump. Didn't add much. Most just said 'yeah me too!' It's not quite as bad as bumping just to say 'lol bump' but it's still showing that this thread is circling the drain... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was his point, wasn't it? An example of a bad bump.
But doing so without good content is lame and shouldn't be done.
<span style='color:black'><span style='font-size:0pt;line-height:100%'><_<
>_>
In before the TychoCelchuuu</span></span>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
If someone has a truely worthwhile and relevant addition to a thread, they should be able to post it, regardless of the age<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hilight the entire quote, and you will find the true meaning of my bump
/me wonders how all you guys didnt notice, even with some strong hints
(Editing broken quote tag)
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thread was not locked in response to the cries of necromancy. The thread was locked because it broke rule #3. Redford bumped it with nothing to contribute or useful to add- of course another page and a half of necromancy cries didn't help much.
<!--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-->Rules for Threadcromancy:
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We frown on people screaming "OMG necromancy" for obvious reasons. It keeps the topic at the top, where more people inevitably spot it and post their "OMG necromancy" reply. A vicious cycle. In addition, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is therefore spam itself.
We keep saying Report it or PM a moderater and move on, yet there are still people who simply don't "get" it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
so why can't the mod delete all the "OMG THREADCROMANCY" posts instead of locking the whole thing?
anyway, I think the constant bumping of this thread shows something. Threadcromancy is a timeless subject (compared to "beta 1.1d sux!!"), so bumping the thread (so a new round of viewers can read it) doesn't detract from the vitality of the point.
Also, there's someting on these forums that I can proudly say I instigated... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->