Thread Necromancy

[Pechvarry]

What's the official policy on digging up old threads in the homebrew forum?

Due to the Age of Warriors (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134088) project, I'd like to see a lot of this old stuff refurbished before Mr. Elliot goes through the trouble of making a super-awesome compilation book project.

Following the advice of DragoonWraith...


I think that in terms of thread necromancy, the best thing to do would be to ask in the Site Issues forum about it. The moderators have explicitly stated that the necromancy rules in the Homebrew forums are laxer, but they have not (as far as I'm aware) delineated exactly what is and is not still bad, so the thing to do is to ask if it would be alright.

I thought I should at least post a heads up: I'm going to start (and I actually hope others follow) bringing some old stuff up. Stop me if this is terrifying!

Thanks

[Serpentine]

I think that generally it's a PM-to-ask case-by-case basis, with Homebrewers more likely to receive an affirmative answer.

[lesser_minion]

I asked the same question a while ago, and basically, the rules are the same no matter which board you're in - you need to PM Roland and ask for permission, no matter what.

The most likely cases where it will be given the all-clear are when adding something new to a homebrew, and when resurrecting a PbP.

The fact that you'll probably be approved doesn't give you carte blanche to go ahead until you actually have been, however, even though a lot of people do.

[Icewalker]

A PM (or this thread) is a good plan, but from what I understand the general case for old homebrew is to repost rather than necromancy it. Wait for a real response from our local sheriff.

[arguskos]

A PM (or this thread) is a good plan, but from what I understand the general case for old homebrew is to repost rather than necromancy it. Wait for a real response from our local sheriff.
Eh, I think that depends. I've seen year old threads get necro'd by the creator, since he has more content and didn't want to repost EVERYTHING in a new thread. I do like that the rules are somewhat more lax for homebrew, but agree that there need to be a few more solid ground rules about what is and is not acceptable for homebrew necros.

[Kobold-Bard]

Eh, I think that depends. I've seen year old threads get necro'd by the creator, since he has more content and didn't want to repost EVERYTHING in a new thread. I do like that the rules are somewhat more lax for homebrew, but agree that there need to be a few more solid ground rules about what is and is not acceptable for homebrew necros.

I think it's more allowed if the original poster is the necromancer, because you're building on your own project.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: The rule is clear. Don't resurrect old threads.

If you want an exception, you have to ask for it. This is the plain and simple rule in all cases. We're more likely to grant such requests where it makes sense, obviously. One category where it usually makes sense is someone adding to their own homebrew.

Please don't answer questions in Board Issues unless you are very certain that you are correct.

Here, Serpentine and lesser_minion have the right of it.


I asked the same question a while ago, and basically, the rules are the same no matter which board you're in - you need to PM Roland and ask for permission, no matter what.

The most likely cases where it will be given the all-clear are when adding something new to a homebrew, and when resurrecting a PbP.

The fact that you'll probably be approved doesn't give you carte blanche to go ahead until you actually have been, however, even though a lot of people do.

[Mystic Muse]

There's this fancomic thread I want to post in today, (My own little comic, which is finally coming off Hiatus because I'll finally have some time.) however, it goes past the six weeks rule. I seem to recall Roland saying somewhere that it has to both go past six weeks and be on page 3 for it to be considered dead. Is this correct or should I just make a new thread?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: The rule means what is says. If a thread is both on page three (or farther back) and older than a month and a half, then posting in it would be thread necromancy.* If you seek an exception from the rule, please PM a moderator/admin. We freely grant exceptions when it makes sense to do so. Your own homebrew, fan comic, etc., is more likely to receive an exception to the rule, but it isn't automatic, you still need to ask.



Thread Necromancy
Bringing a thread back from “the dead.” If a thread has fallen to page three and hasn’t been posted in for a month and a half, don’t post to it. Start a new topic if you want to discuss the subject.

And just to save myself a PM, Kyuubi - go ahead and add to your fan comic.

*Nowadays, most subforums have sufficient traffic that by the time something's six-weeks old it's way farther back than page three. Still it's a two-part test. In the rare case where it meets only one of them, it isn't thread necromancy.

[tcrudisi]

My wife was debating with me that thread necromancy should be allowed on forums (and not just this one). She could not see any reason why it would not be allowed when she thinks that bringing up an old discussion makes sense.

I really don't know why thread necromancy is not allowed. My best guess? The topic is dead and no one had any new information to give back then, so it died (to which she replied, if there is new information, bring it back to life). Also, I assumed that maybe it takes up more of the forums resources to bring an old thread back to life rather than creating a new one... but I would not even be sure what kind of resources it would take up.

tldr; What is so bad about thread necromancy?

[Jokasti]

Well, necromancy is inheritely Evil, so a Good aligned forum would naturally be repulsed by such a vile act, even if it is in textiles.

[PirateMonk]

The idea, as I recall, is that its better to start a new discussion without the months/years old baggage getting in the way.

[Temotei]

Because the rules say so.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142424) is a thread already dealing with this.

[tcrudisi]

Because the rules say so.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142424) is a thread already dealing with this.

Right. I'm not arguing against the rules and I am aware that they are against thread necromancy. I am not planning on resurrecting any old threads. I am just trying to learn why it is against the rules. The rules are there for some reason, obviously. I'm curious as to what it is so my wife and I can understand (she actually goes to a different forum and they have the same rule).

[Szilard]

Well, I think some people don't want to read through a few pages of old posts.

[druid91]

Because people don't like restarting long dead arguments, I actually ran afoul of this rule once when I first joined the boards and restarted an alignment debate thread.:smallredface: The general consensus was that dead arguments should stay dead. I do believe you can get an exception made if there is a legitimate reason for it.

[NerfTW]

The usual problem is that the people involved are sometimes no longer around, or might not even hold the same opinion anymore. So you're dredging up something they said six months ago that's long since changed.

There's also the issue of even long time posters having to go back and re-read the thread to remember what was being said.

And VERY often, the person isn't adding anything new or worthwhile to the thread. If it died naturally, it's because everyone had their say and it's over. You're not likely to add new information. And quite often, people post "clever" remarks about how obvious it is that "x is true, duh!" based on information that wasn't available when the thread was alive.

This also leads to more people commenting and arguing points that are no longer valid or relevant. For instance, on this forum, in regards to the comic. Like when someone brings up a "Will Miko survive the story?" or "When will Haley get her voice back?" post, and someone "helpfully" points out what everyone already knows.

[Roland St. Jude]

Here's a post that discusses some of the reasons (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5461942&postcount=3).

Actually, this whole thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5461942#post5461942) covers it pretty well.

[Serpentine]

Anyone know why there's such a big upsurge in threadomancy recently? :smallconfused: Usually there's only one or two a week, maybe. Lately there's been at least one every day. 'supwithat? I can't even give a sample "could it be this?", cuz I have no idea why it'd be suddenly happening so much... Oh, unless maybe there's an unusual number of newbies at the moment, for some reason? But that's pushing it...

[Mauve Shirt]

I've actually noticed and been puzzled by this too. :smallconfused: It's really strange. I don't even understand how people find threads as old as some that have been dragged up.

[ArlEammon]

Nah, not realy Serpy baby, because there's 42,000 posters, yah know.....

[Serpentine]

I know often it happens because people do a search for something and they have their settings on "sort from oldest to newest", but that still doesn't explain why it's happening so much more now.

[ArlEammon]

Maybe you guys just got lucky for years...

[Kobold-Bard]

It might just be me but I've noticed an increase in the number of new posters recently. I couple this with a load of new comics making people want to sign up to say something, and then sticking around.

If I'm right then perhaps this is part of the increase in necromancy (which I haven't noticed, but I rarely notice post dates), searching for stuff and posting without knowing that particular rule.

[Sleverin]

You're right about this, I do have to wonder what's going on. Being a forum goer for nigh upon 6 years now (jeez, it's wierd to think of it as being that long) I know that unless something is on the first page, it probably isn't worth bringing back to life. But then again, I've been doing this a while, not everyone is a constant forum-goer.

[Quincunx]

I asked one or two of the more eloquent thread-necromancers (more than a line's worth) and they said "because it was the first result in Google". Perhaps their search engine made another, updated pass over the site.

[Avilan the Grey]

I've actually noticed and been puzzled by this too. :smallconfused: It's really strange. I don't even understand how people find threads as old as some that have been dragged up.

Part of it, I think, is the opposite reaction: "Why are you starting a new thread about this? Go search / Use the old thread!"

I admit myself to be torn between the two occasionally: Am I waking up a month old thread, or am I starting a new one?

Edit: this does not explain the threads that are 6-12 months old though.

[Trixie]

You know, the only thing I find weird here is that strange obsession with thread necromancy. Practically everywhere else, if there's still discussion to be had, threads can continue for years and nobody cares. Here? For some obscure reason, making dozens of new threads is encouraged instead and I've seem more that a few threads with nice discussions here that got locked because (oh noes!) someone spot a four week gap between two posts and reported it.

It can't be caused by reasons of efficiency and limiting resources usage, as this approach is far more wasteful from what I know about database management.

[Fortuna]

You know, the only thing I find weird here is that strange obsession with thread necromancy. Practically everywhere else, if there's still discussion to be had, threads can continue for years and nobody cares. Here? For some obscure reason, making dozens of new threads is encouraged instead and I've seem more that a few threads with nice discussions here that got locked because (oh noes!) someone spot a four week gap between two posts and reported it.

It can't be caused by reasons of efficiency and limiting resources usage, as this approach is far more wasteful from what I know about database management.

On the very first page of this forum, this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148486) thread explains.

[Roland St. Jude]

On the very first page of this forum, this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148486) thread explains.

Sheriff: Indeed.

[Tytalus]

I am well aware of the rules of the board regarding thread necromancy. However, I think there are some aspects that are problematic and I'd like to offer some suggestions.

1.) The reasoning for this rule is apparently not transparent, especially whether there are exceptions. Since this appears to come (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148486) up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142424) a lot (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5461877#post5461877), I suggest adding a short explanation to the Forum Rules.

2.) Thread necromancy may make sense for the majority of threads, but there are exceptions where it seems less than prudent. For example, reference threads of compiled information, guides, or homebrew threads that see a revision after passing the 6 weeks / page 3 mark. Those threads represent (IMHO) some of the most valuable and interesting exchanges that come out of these boards. I'd love to see an exception for such threads so that I don't earn a warning/infraction for trying to contribute to a collaborative body of work.

3.) From the last two dozen (or so) instances of thread necromancy I've seen in the Roleplaying forum, not a single one appeared intentional. A simple solution to the entire issue would be to auto-lock threads that fulfill the requirements, which I hereby propose.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: While thoughtful, these comments are not new. I've merged several recent thread necromancy comment threads to consolidate these comments and the responses. Some also likely link to even older threads where this has been hashed out.

Let me respond very briefly though to each point.

1) If people don't read the rule that says "Don't do X," we have no reason to expect that an explanation about why not to do X will be read either. The rules are pretty straightforward and unequivocal on this point.

2) As has been stated her many times before, if someone wants an exception from the general rule, they can ask for it. But the rule still makes sense as a general prohibition, even in Homebrew. While they are in some sense a collective effort, often such a thread is one person's work with comments. If that person isn't around or monitoring that thread any longer your comments fall on deaf ears and sometimes resurrect something the OP would rather not have resurrected.

3) Resurrected threads get locked. Thread necromancy is a "please don't" category offense under the Forum Rules, so it's hard to get an Infraction for such an offense (but can be done if you acknowledge you're doing necromancy or you're doing it repeatedly), and often such threads get locked without issuing even a Warning, if it seems unintentional and like an easy mistake to have made. I cannot think of a single instance where thread necromancy resulting in anyone getting any points, let alone where it played even the tiniest issue in someone's banning.

P.S. Welcome to the Playground.