An Admin Rant

[h4ym4n]

At the bottom of my page are a list of “OLD” related topics.

Maybe this is a contributing factor?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't think this thread was intended to make me feel like a douchebag. But that's what happened anyway.

.
Sorry for that. If it helps, you weren’t the one who triggered this thread.

Boru

[Spongebob]

Okay, I think this "discussion" is getting out of hand.

The simple fact is that there are rules in place that people will disagree with (hell, I disagree with some), but you can't please everyone and if we got rid of all the rules that people disagree with, we wouldn't have any.

And then the place would be chaos.  I saw it happen on the old Star Trek.com forums, and it wasn't pretty.  Page after page of nothing but spam


Yes, there are other forums that allow necroposting, and that's fine.  But those are other forums, not this one.

Many of the rules are in place from before most of the current staff were in place.  And we have changed rules, this one included.

So please, even if you disagree with them, abide by the rules.

#1  It was an admin who started this thread.
#2  I haven't seen a single post suggesting someone would flout the rules, only a few who questioned the reason for that particular rule given that it's not common in most forums as some rules are.  So I think describing this discussion as getting out of hand is an exaggeration.
#3  Referencing spam is not relevant, as necroposting isn't necessarily about spam.
#4  The very nature of this thread is anti-discussion, as in, "if you don't like the rules, get lost".  I think that's pretty unfortunate given that this is an atheist forum.  Yes, I understand that atheists can be just a rude and disruptive as anyone, but we are also commonly touting our "open-mindedness".  Well, conversations such as this one don't represent that very well.  I could get authoritarian treatment at any religious forum where the rules are the rules because god made them so.  In an atheist forum, I would expect some degree of intellectual discussion instead of "follow the rules or get out", as if I ever suggested I intended to ignore the rules.
#5  If you wanted to circumvent discussions such as this, admins could add some more explanation in the rules section.  I have not participated in a forum where "necroposting" was prohibited by rule, so this was something new to me and I was asking with honest curiosity, you know since an admin brought up the subject in the first place.

I understand that rules are put in place for a reason and generally they are reasonable and justified.  It just seems odd to me that a thread would be started by and admin to basically bash people who are abusing a rule, but then be unwilling to explain or discuss the reason for that particular rule.  It sort of goes against the nature of atheists to follow rules without understanding why they are there in the first place.

[pocaracas]

While no one is required to like AF rules (I object to some of them myself), we’re all required to follow them.

The simple fact is that there are rules in place that people will disagree with (hell, I disagree with some), but you can't please everyone and if we got rid of all the rules that people disagree with, we wouldn't have any.

That's two admins saying that they disagree with some of the rules on here. Why not start an internal discussion in order to change or eliminate those rules with which you guys disagree?


Also, a bit more on topic, why not create different categories of rules, where you have some that need a strict response (such as spamming, trolling, etc) and others that are mostly guidelines (like necroposting)? These two categories would then trigger different levels of response, of course.
As it is, you guys say "rules are there to be followed" and then exaggerate on some reactions. Like the OP suggesting warnings for people who do something that's not at all disruptive.

So the question becomes, Why is there a rule against necroposting at all?
1. The OP has left or has no interest in continuing the discussion. - fine, but others may want to continue it, so why not allow that?
2. The thread rises to the top and people who want to read the whole thread, will be confronted with some backlog. - Not exactly something that's disruptive to the forum, I think. Why not allow that?
3. Some obscure database related reason that hampers the forum's functionality when an old thread needs to be recovered from the depths of the archive. - fair enough, so why don't we just automatically lock these threads?
4. ... {fill your own} ...

Oh, but the rule isn't against necroposting at all, it's more like "Egregious or disruptive necroposting is not allowed."
So... why was this thread even made?
Have people been doing a lot of egregious or disruptive necroposting recently? Or have they been making some of this and some legitimate necroposting?
On a forum as old as this one, it's fair to find that there are a few subjects that have already been discussed, and some newer people may find it's easier to continue that discussion than start a new one. As I understand it, this would not be against the rules.
If they've been disruptive, then those who come here to disrupt will not read this thread and will not care about increasing the time until a thread becomes buried from 30 to 60 days.

[Secular Elf]

This is not about whether it’s good or bad. It’s about that it isn’t allowed.

Boru

Um, why not?  I think its a fair question.  What's the harm?  Why is it not allowed?

I participated on a forum for over a decade and what you call "necroposting" was not prohibited or even discouraged.  I never saw problems arise from this policy.  A few times people would do it and some old members would post a comment that this subject was dead and then ignore it, but sometimes it would revive an old debate.  I think there is one option that you could employ that would require zero argument, just close the thread.  Although, if someone comments on an old thread and others see the revival as irrelevant, won't they ignore it?

Closing and locking an old thread is a fair and reasonable solution I think. What is considered old in this Forum? The last post in a thread being 30 days or more? I would have no problem not being able to comment on any discussion that is months old. At least we would be able to read the discussion, and then move on.

[arewethereyet]

Um, why not?  I think its a fair question.  What's the harm?  Why is it not allowed?

I participated on a forum for over a decade and what you call "necroposting" was not prohibited or even discouraged.  I never saw problems arise from this policy.  A few times people would do it and some old members would post a comment that this subject was dead and then ignore it, but sometimes it would revive an old debate.  I think there is one option that you could employ that would require zero argument, just close the thread.  Although, if someone comments on an old thread and others see the revival as irrelevant, won't they ignore it?

Closing and locking an old thread is a fair and reasonable solution I think.  What is considered old in this Forum?  The last post in a thread being 30 days or more?  I would have no problem not being able to comment on any discussion that is months old.  At least we would be able to read the discussion, and then move on.

You may have missed the announcement that the rule against necroposting has been done away with.

[Secular Elf]

Closing and locking an old thread is a fair and reasonable solution I think.  What is considered old in this Forum?  The last post in a thread being 30 days or more?  I would have no problem not being able to comment on any discussion that is months old.  At least we would be able to read the discussion, and then move on.

You may have missed the announcement that the rule against necroposting has been done away with.

OK. Thanks. I see that now. I have fallen into a superfluous response. Oops.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

You may have missed the announcement that the rule against necroposting has been done away with.

OK. Thanks. I see that now. I have fallen into a superfluous response. Oops.

*Throws Secular Elf a rope to help them climb out of the superfluous they've fallen into.*

It's a bugger getting the stains out. Ten times harder to clean than normalfluous.