PSA: Update to necroposting rule

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, are we supposed to guess which threads won't be enforced.  Yes you should apologize for the stupid.  When Tibs ran the place, a part of his philosophy was to make rules triggered by specific actions rather than being subject to the judgement of the staff members specifically, as the latter leads to poor moderation, mistakes, and abuses.  Needless to say, you can't eliminate all judgment aspects, but where you can, it is desirable.  It seems staff wants us to be mind readers, or, at least, to open a thread in the questions subforum everytime we want to resurrect such a thread so staff can tell us what in their inscrutable wisdom should be done.  Again, you've used a mallet for a mosquito.  The members and behavior you speak of were few and far between.  I'm calling bullshit.

So, what would you suggest?

Boru

[Foxaèr]

I think it's common sense when ignoring the red banner that says the thread hasn't been posted in for more than thirty days.

The what are you reading now thread, for example. The forum isn't full of members who read all the time or post about what they are reading. It's silly to create a new thread in this instance, so just ignore the red banner.

[brewer]

[Anomalocaris]

I think necroposting rule does no good whatsoever while imposing a burden on worthwhile discussion that so happen to have undergone a hiatus.

[Nay_Sayer]

I think necroposting rule does no good whatsoever while imposing a burden on worthwhile discussion that so happen to have undergone a hiatus.

Personally, I don't think there is a need for someone to search out a thread that's bene inactive for 2 years and post a reply to someone who either quit the forum or was banned years ago

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've never cared for rules against necroposting, they've always struck me as busybody crap. If a thread comes back, alive, great. If it's being revived by someone with an agenda, okay, shoot him, but not the thread. If a n00b reignites something, good fresh convo. And if someone starts a new thread about an old topic, fold it in. This whole thing strikes me as silly.

Not just this but any forum, I've always thought that the necroposting stuff had a tinge of navel-gazing worry. Let the conversation roll, I say.

[Angrboda]

So, are we supposed to guess which threads won't be enforced.  Yes you should apologize for the stupid.  When Tibs ran the place, a part of his philosophy was to make rules triggered by specific actions rather than being subject to the judgement of the staff members specifically, as the latter leads to poor moderation, mistakes, and abuses.  Needless to say, you can't eliminate all judgment aspects, but where you can, it is desirable.  It seems staff wants us to be mind readers, or, at least, to open a thread in the questions subforum everytime we want to resurrect such a thread so staff can tell us what in their inscrutable wisdom should be done.  Again, you've used a mallet for a mosquito.  The members and behavior you speak of were few and far between.  I'm calling bullshit.

So, what would you suggest?

Boru

I'll give it some thought. At minimum would be to add that threads will be opened upon request at staff discretion. Though I don't think any rule is needed. How many problem postings have we seen?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, what would you suggest?

Boru

I'll give it some thought.  At minimum would be to add that threads will be opened upon request at staff discretion.  Though I don't think any rule is needed.  How many problem postings have we seen?

(Bold mine)

I like that part very much. For instance, if you want to respond to a closed thread, you can request that it be opened in Questions For Staff. Unless a thread was closed for some particularly heinous content, I don't imagine it would be an issue to re-open it.

Boru

[Angrboda]

Additionally, you might consider adding opening multiple dormant threads in a short time to the spamming rule.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Additionally, you might consider adding opening multiple dormant threads in a short time to the spamming rule.

It's not the worst idea, but I don't think the rule needs to be amended. That could probably be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Sincerely appreciate your input.

Boru