Necromancy

[Kurald Galain]

Since this site is so strict about insta-locking threads that are necromancied... wouldn't it be simpler to change the PHP code so that threads older than 30 days can no longer be responded to? That would take only a few minutes to change for any halfway-decent programmer...

[thubby]

because there are threads that have been running longer than a month.

[Beholder1995]

because there are threads that have been running longer than a month.

I think he meant threads that haven't been posted in for more than 30 days.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I'd adamantly vote against that if I had a say. There are many threads in the Homebrew Forums that are risen up far after a month by someone who is wanting to use the creation but has questions about it.

Another thing is I went and recently made up a compendium of links to all my creatures. If said links were locked I'd not even be able to go and edit anything I'd done if I or another found something that needed adjusted after playtesting.

[Kurald Galain]

Another thing is I went and recently made up a compendium of links to all my creatures. If said links were locked I'd not even be able to go and edit anything

I said "RESPOND" to, not "edit".

Also, as BK correctly points out, INACTIVE threads. Because it's not necromancy otherwise.

[Neftren]

I'd adamantly vote against that if I had a say. There are many threads in the Homebrew Forums that are risen up far after a month by someone who is wanting to use the creation but has questions about it.

Another thing is I went and recently made up a compendium of links to all my creatures. If said links were locked I'd not even be able to go and edit anything I'd done if I or another found something that needed adjusted after playtesting.

I often have questions about homebrewed content. It'd be impractical for someone to open a new thread every time just to ask a question. I think the system works as it is. People don't gravedig all that often, so it should be okay.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I said "RESPOND" to, not "edit".

Also, as BK correctly points out, INACTIVE threads. Because it's not necromancy otherwise.
A locked thread cannot have posts editted. That'd be an additional bit of code to write for a distinction.

And what Neftren said.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You'd have to count the newer active threads, too (easily done, but it's another database query), as the rule specifies dead threads as being over a month and a half without response and beyond page three.

To tell the truth, I don't think necromancy really happens often enough to justify the extra processing required to run such a check every time a new response is posted. Reporting the necromancy only when it happens probably uses fewer server resources. (We may have a bit more server power to play with these days, but let's not squander it.)


A locked thread cannot have posts editted. That'd be an additional bit of code to write for a distinction.
I think the idea is not to lock it in the official normal sense. Do something to disallow posts but not edits. It would effectively be a new state between "active" and "locked."

[NerfTW]

Since this site is so strict about insta-locking threads that are necromancied... wouldn't it be simpler to change the PHP code so that threads older than 30 days can no longer be responded to? That would take only a few minutes to change for any halfway-decent programmer...

And any halfway decent programmer would tell you that is a stupid and complicated and bug prone way to do it when you could just lock the thread manually on the rare occasion it happens. It's not like you get an "OMG PERMABAN" when it happens.

Think of it this way. You can either have someone send a PM to a mod or have a mod see the necropost, or you can run a script every single time someone makes a post to check the date on the thread, which also blocks legitimate necros, and would run thousands of times a day.

[BlueWizard]

I believe the GMs can lock the threads at request of the mods.

[EagleWiz]

Ah yes. Thread Necromancy.

http://www.game-warden.com/starfox/Non_SF_related_stuff/JS47/Thread_Necromancy.jpg :smallbiggrin:

[Guildorn Tanaleth]

I believe the GMs can lock the threads at request of the mods.

I believe it's the other way around.

[AKA_Bait]

To tell the truth, I don't think necromancy really happens often enough to justify the extra processing required to run such a check every time a new response is posted. Reporting the necromancy only when it happens probably uses fewer server resources. (We may have a bit more server power to play with these days, but let's not squander it.)


I think the idea is not to lock it in the official normal sense. Do something to disallow posts but not edits. It would effectively be a new state between "active" and "locked."

I agree with this and with Vorpal Tribble's reasons. Creating an autolock after 30 days could cause some problems in homebrew as well as if a PbP game takes a small hiatus for whatever reason. Also, like Shhalahr, although we see a necro'd post once in a while I also don't think it really comes up enough to justify the other problems a 30 day autolock might cause.

[itsmeyouidiot]

I don't think thread necromancy is all that bad. What's wrong with responding to a topic that's already there? In my opinion, a thread isn't "dead" until locked or deleted.

Thread necromancy is far, far better than the alternative, anyway. That alternative being creating useless redundant threads.

Seriously, I don't think necromancy is anything bad. I'm referring to necromancy in general, here, not just the forum kind. Why does everyone associate "unnatural" with "evil" anyway? Are your computer or any of your modern comforts natural?

[Mando Knight]

I don't think thread necromancy is all that bad. What's wrong with responding to a topic that's already there? In my opinion, a thread isn't "dead" until locked or deleted.

Then your opinion is wrong as according to the rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1) enforced by the mods and posted where all can see.



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.

[AstralFire]

I don't think thread necromancy is all that bad. What's wrong with responding to a topic that's already there? In my opinion, a thread isn't "dead" until locked or deleted.

Thread necromancy is far, far better than the alternative, anyway. That alternative being creating useless redundant threads.

Seriously, I don't think necromancy is anything bad. I'm referring to necromancy in general, here, not just the forum kind. Why does everyone associate "unnatural" with "evil" anyway? Are your computer or any of your modern comforts natural?

Necromancy is traditionally associated with the trapping of souls to prevent them from reaching eternal rest. So yeah, that's evil.

Thread necromancy should best be handled on a case by case basis, which is what is currently being done. If someone had a thread on puppies which got 11 posts, 10 of which were about monster trucks, and 3 of the posters had been banned while 2 others had left, bumping that thread on puppies is probably less useful than making a new one.

OTOH, pumping a 100 post discussion thread about a homebrew thingy which you liked is probably a good idea since the previous ideas remain for others to see.


Then your opinion is wrong as according to the rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1) enforced by the mods and posted where all can see.

That makes his opinion non-standard, sure. But not 'wrong'.

[itsmeyouidiot]

...creating useless redundant threads.

The real irony is that this statement is also redundant.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

hread necromancy is far, far better than the alternative, anyway. That alternative being creating useless redundant threads.
If there's an active thread on a given topic, you are supposed to post in that thread. That is what prevents redundant threads.

What thread necromcancy prevents is people having to read 20 pages of year-old responses to figure out what the hell a new post is talking about. Especially useful for newbies who weren't around during the topic's previous iteration and old-timers that don't remember everything posted ever.

If you need to reference something in an ancient thread that no one remembers, it is much more convenient to simply summarize the important parts and provide a link to the old thread.

[Stormthorn]

Then your opinion is wrong as according to the rules enforced by the mods and posted where all can see.

Yes, that would make his opinion, and mine, wrong(necromancy saves servers by eleminating the need for a new thread everytime someone wants to reopen a subject) but i dont see how thats relevant to the topic of thread necromancy.

Just pretend those thought-saving rules dont exist and focus on the topic at hand. And no, i dont think the extra coding will be worth it because it causes problems for people who right big homebrew pieces and edit them. In addition, i support necromany. Man, i need to make that part of my sig.

[snoopy13a]

The real irony is that this statement is also redundant.

Redundancy isn't always useless. A skydiver's backup chute for instance.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Yes, that would make his opinion, and mine, wrong(necromancy saves servers by eleminating the need for a new thread everytime someone wants to reopen a subject)
No, it doesn't save the servers. In fact, long running threads are typically locked after they reach a certain length because long threads give the database trouble. See the Random Banter series in Friendly Banter, the guidelines for Play by Post games, and the Simple Q&A series in Gaming (d20 and General RPG) for some of the most high profile examples. So, a new thread works far better for topics no one remembers.

[kpenguin]

Since this site is so strict about insta-locking threads that are necromancied... wouldn't it be simpler to change the PHP code so that threads older than 30 days can no longer be responded to? That would take only a few minutes to change for any halfway-decent programmer...

Well, the rules state that to be "dead" a thread has to be one and a half month old and have fallen past page three.

The 1.5 month standard is there because some boards are so highly active that a thread can easily fall to page four in a few days. The PbP board, for example.

The other standard, the one about falling past page three, is there because some boards are so highly inactive that it wouldn't be worth much to start a new thread when a month old one is on the bottom of page one.

Your proposal doesn't work out because it only considers the first criteria. And even with that, it fails because 30 days is hardly 1.5 months. 45 days would be closer.

[Renegade Paladin]

The real irony is that this statement is also redundant.
No, it isn't. Redundancy is inefficient, but it isn't necessarily useless. Computer backups, for example, are redundant, since you already have the information.

[Rockphed]

If you want to see why Thread Necromancy hurts more than it helps, go look in the Tears of Blood subforum. Thread necromancy is not only legal, but highly encouraged, and project has suffered because of it. Trying to make sense of what threads accomplished is fiendishly hard, and only gets harder as more gets done.

On a board without a goal, such would quickly either drive away all new comers or drive everyone insane as the same 3 points got repeated every 2 or three pages.

[Zeta Kai]

In most fora, threadomancy is a no-no. But I believe there are a few fora, such as Homebrew, where such practices have implicit permission. And as an incorrigible threadomancer, I am against measures to restrict such behavior.

Arise, my fallen threads! Walk the forum again!

[Vonriel]

Threadomancy is sometimes nice, because it draws my attention to a good thread I may have missed before, but in the most part, it doesn't serve a purpose at all. What little is done could have been better handled by starting a new thread with a link at the top and asking for more discussion on the topic.


Arise, my fallen threads! Walk the forum again!

*uses sunpun domain power* Turn unthread!

[ericgrau]

And any halfway decent programmer would tell you that is a stupid and complicated and bug prone way to do it when you could just lock the thread manually on the rare occasion it happens. It's not like you get an "OMG PERMABAN" when it happens.

Think of it this way. You can either have someone send a PM to a mod or have a mod see the necropost, or you can run a script every single time someone makes a post to check the date on the thread, which also blocks legitimate necros, and would run thousands of times a day.

I dunno, it doesn't sound that complicated to implement, and it's probably worth it to give the mods one less thing to think about. Number of days without new posts and where the thread is on the queue are things that the server probably already tracks. When both exceed a certain amount, you have the code lock the thread. Sounds like a few lines of code and 30-45 minutes of work, if the existing code is well organized. Sadly I've seen horrible counter-examples before.

[NerfTW]

I dunno, it doesn't sound that complicated to implement, and it's probably worth it to give the mods one less thing to think about. Number of days without new posts and where the thread is on the queue are things that the server probably already tracks. When both exceed a certain amount, you have the code lock the thread. Sounds like a few lines of code and 30-45 minutes of work, if the existing code is well organized. Sadly I've seen horrible counter-examples before.

Yes, but the situation is

A) Code that has the potential to screw up and
a)Lock every post
b)run constantly
c)takes up processor cycles, even if it's just the one time
vs

B) Simply having the mods, who are already looking at all threads, lock them manually as they are informed of them, which eliminates code errors, excess time checks, and potential errors, given the extreme rarity of thier occurance.

Automated code is not the answer to everything. That should be something any programmer learns thier first year.

[Weiser_Cain]

If I start an art thread there will be wide gaps between posts as I don't post everything I do. Should I just make twenty threads about the same thing?

By the way I thought this was going to be about actual necromancy.

[Zeb The Troll]

A) Code that has the potential to screw up and

b)run constantly

Curious. For what it's worth, I'm on the side of not automating this task as it works just fine the way that it's currently implemented. However, I keep seeing these posts declaring thousands of database checks per day because the script would have to check each and every time a post is made. Why? Wouldn't it be easier (IF it were implemented) to make a script that runs once a day, maybe right before the backups when nobody can access the forums anyway, that checks for inactivity and then freezes the threads that would need it?

In any case, I still think it's better not to worry about automating a task that comes up rather infrequently.

[itsmeyouidiot]

Y'know, I kinda think "thread necromancy" is just a delusion.

There's no real reason that people should hate it, it's not rude, hateful, annoying, it doesn't cause lasting damage, and it greatly improves efficiency with forum posting.

Thanks to this unfair judgment, though, forums across the 'net are slogged with virtually identical topics, which put unnecessary strain on servers. (And given GITP's recent server problems, you'd figure that would be something the Admins would want to avoid. :smallconfused:)

Anyway, I think a lot of the problem is in the naming. "Necromancy," is usually associated with evil, (a concept I apparently fail to grasp,) which gives a lot of negative vibe to the concept. But is bringing something back from death necessarily evil? Most of you guys are roleplayers, and you probably know how often a raise/resurrection spell comes in handy, right? That's that's not evil at all!

Just call it "thread raising" from now on, and people will start to think differently about it. I actually managed to convince Aelfrhian, the admin of the Kingdom of Loathing Forums, that "necromancy" wasn't so bad, simply by using a somewhat witty inside joke.

Here's proof. (http://forums.kingdomofloathing.com:8080/vb/showthread.php?p=2608269#post2608269)

[NerfTW]

True, but I think the real issue is that old baggage is brought forward, people have to read the entire thread over again to join in, and many times new posters either respond to people who are no longer on the forums, or to opinions that have long since changed.

I remember one Miko thread that was raised after a year, and most of the new posts were telling the opening poster what an idiot he was for not knowing that she was dead, because nobody noticed the date difference. This is the major argument against thread raising, that the topics involved are often no longer relevent.

[Rawhide]

1) The posting population is inconstant and discussions loose momentum. Reviving an old discussion is typically counterproductive because the originators have likely moved on, having lost interest in the discussion or concluded that it has run it's course.

That being said, the policy is actually *helpful* in fostering an active community -- new people can start, engage and mold their own discussions that previous posters have lost interest in (typically because they've been discussed to death) without having to defer to the conclusions of previous conversations.

But mind you, a duplicate of a recent thread will likely be nixed by the mods. But a discussion about ... the TV show Scrubs that started two years ago has little bearing on the attitude of current posters.


Azrael's explanation of the thread necromancy rules is dead on. We'd rather have new discussions start than revive old threads where many of the original posters have moved on. That being said, we also recommend linking to old threads on similar discussions, as they can provide some insight to concepts that had been raised before.

Necromancy also brings with it problems when there were technical issues in the past (such as those from the old forum software) all of a sudden appearing on page one and confusing people.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

There's no real reason that people should hate it, it's not rude, hateful, annoying, it doesn't cause lasting damage, and it greatly improves efficiency with forum posting.
Having to read 140 posts to catch up on what went down before last year is more efficient than a new thread with a summary?

[itsmeyouidiot]

Having to read 140 posts to catch up on what went down before last year is more efficient than a new thread with a summary?

I meant easier to post a reply, rather than writing a one-and-a-half page recap.

[Stormthorn]

So, a new thread works far better for topics no one remembers.

I suppose that depends on if the old thread is still around (not auto-deleted yet or whatever) and how much each one strains the server. Reviving a 30 page thread might be a big load, but so would starting a new thread when somewhere in the files that 30 page one still exists. At least, thats my logic. Its probably wrong.

[Azrael]

Necromancy also brings with it problems when there were technical issues in the past (such as those from the old forum software) all of a sudden appearing on page one and confusing people.

Hey Raw, next time you quote me on this subject (for the ... 137th time, roughly speaking) could you fix the 'loose' typo for me? I corrected the original ages ago. :smalltongue:

Also: I apologize that it took 15 days for me to respond to your summon-the-deceased-by-quoting ritual. :smallbiggrin: