Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

And then we've got

(The above link points to a thread who's last post was 9 months old)

When we revive an old thread to post something, we're asked to make a new one. When we make a new thread, we get shot with an ABP'd. I'm seeing both of these more and more often, and it's come to a point where something needs to be done. We need to choose one, either necromancy or multiple threads, because the way the system is right now just doesn't work.

I personally think reviving old threads is better than starting new ones, we don't need a new thread for baseball each time the new season starts, and we don't need a new forum game when one travels down a few pages. It's simpler this way. I'm open to ideas, though; either choice is better than what we have now.

Well, forst off Ju Ju, I must point out the irony that we already have a tread about this. Nothing against you, but I couldn't resist pointing that out.


As for that thread, it seems that reviving an old thread, as long as you have something relevant and thoughtful to say, is preferable.

_________________

Heh. I think my favorite posts are "Something needs to be done!" posts like this.

How old does a thread have to be before it's "too old" to revive? Sure, we could say a thread is "dead" after, say, exactly four months without posts, but if someone comes along after four months and one week, should they really create a new thread? What if someone makes a new thread even though there's an old thread on the same topic that's only been quiet for fifteen weeks? Should it be locked? If we do away with necromancy, we'd have to come up with some lame arbitrary rule that nobody will agree with and newbies won't be able to figure out. Ugh.

There's no harm or disadvantage to reviving an old topic as long as you actually have something to add to the conversation.

_________________

Bones is right. In fact, I prefer posting in an old thread to making a new one, provided you've actually got something to add to it. Of course, if you've nothing to add to it, you really shouldn't be making a new thread, either.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I also Prefer necromancy, opposed to making a new thread.
To think about, unless someone revives a Strong Bad E-mail thread from, like, one or two years ago(or something along the lines of that), I really don't see what's the big deal.

I think the important thing is just that people be a little thicker-skinned. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with Necromancy when something valuable is added to the conversation. However, even if your input is perfectly valuable, someone is BOUND to say "lol, necromancy" or whatever.

I suppose a way to head it off is to say something like "Hey, I'm performing some necromancy, but I really wanted to say ..." so you nip it in the bud.

_________________

And even if somebody does revive an old two-year-old thread, what's the big deal? Nobody gets hurt. Those of us who read it lose about two seconds of their lives. Those who post "OMG NOOB NECROMANCY!" lose about thirty seconds of their lives, but they deserve to. Who cares?

_________________

I think we've already established that necromancy isn't always the best option, and occasionally people do bump threads when a new thread would be better, but is that a reason to do away with it altogether? I don't think so.

_________________

I'm just saying how would those threads be relevant now?
Feh, whatever.

It might be worth noting that anyone who posts something like "OMG NECROMANCY" is guilty of spam. That's a lot worse than bumping an old topic and posting something that adds to the thread (even something that really doesn't add to the thread). Spam is against the rules, necromancy, not so much, unless said necromancer happens to be a spammer as well. Then, they feel my wrath. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I prefer T3H EVIL NECROMANCY to making a new thread.

Necromancy is only bad when the person who resurrected the thread has absolutely nothing to add to the conversation.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

I guess at the risk of sounding redundant, I generally would prefer necromacy over a spanking new topic. While both of then I think should be generally frowned up ons, keeping the discussion limited to a single thread is much more ideal than, say, everyone racking their brains trying to find a quote that was in fact "in the other thread". It keeps the discussions running in one direction, even if the discussion was six feet under to begin with.

Still, necromacy for 'lol n3cr0m4cy's' sake is never a good thing. I guess we just need to work on common sense in deciding whether or not to necromasize or not.

_________________

But that's the initial problem. Since both are frowned upon, it's impossible to start or continue a discussion that's already began or taken place. I'm pretty sure if, a few days ago, if I made a new account and bumped a thread, I would be told to make a new one. If a few hours later I did make that new one, I would be told it had already been posted. If both options are frowned upon there's nothing you can do, you're stuck.

If you guys want my opinion (for what it's worth), the quoted post sums it up perfectly. If you want to create a thread about something that already has a thread, use the current thread. It's as simple as that.

I don't care how old the "old" topic is, that doesn't really matter. If we were concerned about old threads we would be deleting them after a certain amount of time.

Just realize that if you are "rezzing" an ancient thread, you had better have something useful to add to it. A post like "I totally agree with that" to a thread that was last edited in 2004 is probably a bad idea, and will probably get you a beating....

I don't see what's all that difficult about any of this. No offense to furykef or PianoMan. They have been around here for a while and they are both very smart when it comes to wiki/forum things. But they aren't mods. Don't take what they say as absolute truths.

I wouldn't even take what the real mods/admins say as absolute truth...

_________________

I feel I must defend myself here.

OF COURSE my post had something to do with the 2004 election. Kerry says that if he had been elected in '04, this whole Israel\Lebanon thing would have never happened.



You have an interesting view of how conversation topics work. Can you imagine this being played out in real life?

"So, how's the weather in your part of the country?"

"OMG NOOB! WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT! TOPIC OVER! YOU=VERY LOSE!!!!!"


Just because you think a topic has been discussed to the point of never needing to be referred to again, doesn't mean it is. As IJ said, what about people who join the forum after you declare the topic dead? Is their input irrelevant?

_________________