PSA: Update to necroposting rule

[LinuxGal]

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.

Not to mention the admin overhead of calculating the delta between any two posts, and closing the thread if the delta exceeds ninety days.  But tidy people gotta tidy.

[Nay_Sayer]

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?

Not if the discussion is needlessly picking up from 3 years ago.

EG: It's well known Argentina just won the world cup.  Would it make sense to comment about a current world cup [2026] score in a thread called [Argentina wins world cup 2022] while the semi of the current world cup [2026] are taking place and the match is between Germany and Brazil?

ETA: Also the hypothetical Argentina Wins World cup also has not been commented on in over 2 years

[Anomalocaris]

Obviously if it is picked up, then it is because someone felt the need.   So there is no use case called needlessly picked up.

[Nay_Sayer]

Obviously if it is picked up, then it is because someone felt the need.   So there is no use case called needlessly picked up.

Not what I asked. And for the record banned members have made socks just to resurrect threads they made that have laid dormant.

[Angrboda]

This presents a bit of a quandary. I went to resurrect the thread about "what you are reading now", only to realize that it would be closed according to the necropost rule and I also realize that the new necropost rule is, to my mind, unreasonable. Not only would an added post to that thread result in its closure, posting to this thread would according to rule result in its closure as well. So what are the alternatives? Start a new thread? For this thread and the what are you reading thread, that would be stupid. There's no reason to have multiple threads on the same subject simply because posts to a thread are sparse or intermittent. That's unreasonable. Not post anything that might pertain to said topic? I doubt shutting down conversation and forcing people to censor themselves on specific topics makes sense, either. The main problem is that the rule is indiscriminate in which kind of threads and necroposts the rule applies to. And it's an obvious case of lashing out by a few staff who can't deal with the occasional necropost. So instead you've used a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. The predictable result being the invocation of unintended consequences. I'd like to think staff can think up a better way to deal with this issue than the current practice because the current practice is stupid.

[Silver]

For certain threads, I think the rule is overlooked. I've resurrected some threads when it was against the rules to necro, and I never received a warning.

[arewethereyet]

We aren't closing all threads that are necroposted in, just as one about 'what are you reading'.

The purpose is to stop those people who come in and look to reopen threads simply for the purpose of shitposting. Many times those threads were started by people who have since been banned....that sort of says a lot about the content.

If we were, in fact, using a sledgehammer, we'd be imposing warnings.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This presents a bit of a quandary.  I went to resurrect the thread about "what you are reading now", only to realize that it would be closed according to the necropost rule and I also realize that the new necropost rule is, to my mind, unreasonable.  Not only would an added post to that thread result in its closure, posting to this thread would according to rule result in its closure as well.  So what are the alternatives?  Start a new thread?  For this thread and the what are you reading thread, that would be stupid.  There's no reason to have multiple threads on the same subject simply because posts to a thread are sparse or intermittent.  That's unreasonable.  Not post anything that might pertain to said topic?  I doubt shutting down conversation and forcing people to censor themselves on specific topics makes sense, either.  The main problem is that the rule is indiscriminate in which kind of threads and necroposts the rule applies to.  And it's an obvious case of lashing out by a few staff who can't deal with the occasional necropost.  So instead you've used a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.  The predictable result being the invocation of unintended consequences.  I'd like to think staff can think up a better way to deal with this issue than the current practice because the current practice is stupid.

There are exceptions to everything. The rule was amended because we had a few (not many) members that were resurrecting threads more than ten years old.

No one’s going to go all sledgehammery over ALL necroposts. As far as I’m concerned, you can feel free to bring back ‘What Are You Reading’.

In future if you’re not sure, you can always ask in Questions For Staff. If you have a better suggestion that what we’re doing now, we’d be happy to consider it.

Sorry for all the stupid.

Boru

[Angrboda]

How exactly does it stop that behavior? That seems a spam issue, which once the damage is done, closing threads is pointless.

[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.