The Thread Necromancy Policy

[icefractal]

This seemed like the most appropriate forum to put this, but my apologies if it should be elsewhere.

Recently, we lost an (IMO) great thread about a campaign, because of the strict anti-necromancy board policy. This policy has also caused some "handbook" threads (in the 3.x forum) to be buried and prevented updates to them.

Is preventing old threads from being posted in worth these downsides, and is this equally applicable to all forums?

For the 3.x forum, it's discussing mainly 3.5, which has been "complete" since 2008, and to a lesser extent PF1, which has been complete since 2019. The point being that a thread about, say, the Shadowcraft Mage prestige class from 2010 is not "out of date" compared to a thread from last week. People writing in 2010 had all the same info (about 3.5 content) that we do today. Nobody is being fooled by now-obsolete information.

Perhaps I'm missing some context - what problems is the policy preventing? Does the board have a dark past that must never be uncovered (joking)?

My request would be that the policy is applied a little more flexibly, with the acknowledgement that some threads (handbooks, campaign logs of long-running campaigns, "big" homebrew content like Gramarie) naturally last and remain relevant for an extended period of time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The rationale for the policy is described, amongst other places, here:

The posting population is inconstant and discussions lose 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.

and here:

Sheriff: This question has been answered before in this subforum. Among many other reasons, it prevents people from trying to carry on a conversation with posters who have left (the thread or even the forum); it promotes active discussion that is inviting to new posters and not weighed down by discussion of prior posters who have already abandoned it; it prevents the revival of threads that are old enough to have embedded errors caused by one of the board transitions; it prevents the need for posters to search or view older threads, lessening the use of forum resources.

As with all our Forum Rules, we're aware that there are alternatives, and costs and benefits, but we've chosen this particular policy judgment as best for this forum.

(Red text in the original)

I am no mod, but there is an exception to the necromancy rule for certain threads - please consult the forum rules for the details.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

On top of what Grey Wolf has said, if theres a specific thread you feel there is value in resurrecting, I suggest DMing a mod about getting permission to resurrect it. It does happen on occasion. The worst they can do is say no.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: That about covers it, thanks for the assist! As noted, there are some explicit exceptions spelled out in the Forum Rules. One of those is a catch-all provision that allows one to request permission to necro a thread rather than starting a new one.