PSA: Update to necroposting rule

[Pat Mustard]

I would say that a small number of predetermined threads should be immune to this rule. For example if somebody egregiously naughty gets permabanned, we shouldn't have to create a new commentary on bannings thread to point and laugh at them. But I'd say there'd be no more than 15 total threads deserving of this hallowed status.

[Jackalope]

Moderator Notice
Effective immediately, any threads resurrected after three months of inactivity will be closed by staff.

Warnings will not be issued.

Then my mission is clear.  I must save those poor threads on the verge of being lost forever!

Just so you know, there's a lot of leeway in how rule 4 could be applied, and I personally would consider bump / low content / shitposting for the purpose of keeping and old thread open to possibly fall under that rule, particularly if someone were to give advance notice that they might do such a thing.

That's just me though.

[Anomalocaris]

I still don’t see why necroposting offends so many people. What is the problem with resuscitating an old conversation if what was previously said and the manner these were said supports further discussion of the topic?

[LinuxGal]

I still don’t see why necroposting offends so many people.   What is the problem with resuscitating an old conversation if what was previously said and the manner these were said supports further discussion of the topic?

I've been on Twitter since 2009 and I've discovered that no one cares what you tweeted yesterday, let alone years ago.  If you reply to something from years ago the outrage is entirely artificial.

[arewethereyet]

This isn't Twitter.

[Nay_Sayer]

I still don’t see why necroposting offends so many people.   What is the problem with resuscitating an old conversation if what was previously said and the manner these were said supports further discussion of the topic?

What's the problem with making a new thread?

[Ranjr]

There's nothing wrong with making a new thread.  It's just that there's already a thread about that topic, and at one point, not so long ago, it had legs.  

It could walk again, if not declared arbitrarily dead.  This rule is unnecessary.  But, that's the thing about legs.

[Nay_Sayer]

There's nothing wrong with making a new thread.  It's just that there's already a thread about that topic, and at one point, not so long ago, it had legs.  

It could walk again, if not declared arbitrarily dead.  This rule is unnecessary.  But, that's the thing about legs.

You've got the anology backward. 

What you're asking for is the equivalent of not buying a new car because its gas/petrol reading says half full. But instead, going to an impound lot, finding the oldest possible car that hasn't been used in ages and jump-starting that because it's meter says full.

Also and hear me out, The next thread starter can just link to the old thread so anyone can catch up. If the old thread was that important and talk worthy it wouldn't have gone cold for 3 months.

[Anomalocaris]

I still don’t see why necroposting offends so many people.   What is the problem with resuscitating an old conversation if what was previously said and the manner these were said supports further discussion of the topic?

What's the problem with making a new thread?

If the previous entries are germane,  especially if the flow of the previous dialogue or discussion seem to naturally call for continuation, then it seems to me to make much more sense to continue the previous thread rather then force a new discussion to start awkwardly by citing the old thread.

[Anomalocaris]

There's nothing wrong with making a new thread.  It's just that there's already a thread about that topic, and at one point, not so long ago, it had legs.  

It could walk again, if not declared arbitrarily dead.  This rule is unnecessary.  But, that's the thing about legs.

You've got the anology backward. 

What you're asking for is the equivalent of not buying a new car because its gas/petrol reading says half full. But instead, going to an impound lot, finding the oldest possible car that hasn't been used in ages and jump-starting that because it's meter says full.

Also and hear me out, The next thread starter can just link to the old thread so anyone can catch up.  If the old thread was that important and talk worthy it wouldn't have gone cold for 3 months.

It may not be a hot topic except with a few people.   But hat does not change the fact that for those few people the conversation can continue at their own pace.

Do you think it is more important for a discussion forum to be a happenin’ place, or a free and fruitful place?